Connect3D & Sapphire Radeon X1900GT

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/05/09/connect3d_sapphire_radeon_x1900gt/1.html

 

Well, that's screwed up my decision on what to buy. I thought the competitor to the 7900gt was the x1900xt?

 

X1900XT is ~£310, whereas 7900 GT is £260 at most if you shop around.

 

If there's a way to unlock the extra pipelines then I might just get this card along with a Conroe in the summer

 

Aggreed! If these unlock it will so sweet, I'm guessing these will clock nicely too .

Great Review Guys,

-Fr4nk

 

I'd imagine that the extra pipes are laser cut?

 

I don't know... Radeon X1800GTO's disabled pipes were sometimes just defected and often the cores were actually fully functional, just not capable of X1800XT clock speeds. I have a feeling that this will be the case with the Radeon X1900GT too.

 

why would a crt gamer use 1280x1024? it would be squished

 

Its a resolution that caters for both CRT and LCD gamers - I know that it is squished, but then many people I know used to run 1280x1024 on their Windows desktop, despite my attempts to tell them that it was not the correct ratio for their screen. Anyway, I guess that with the increased number of 1280x1024 panels, it makes sense to cater for more people with the one stone.

 

Not to mention that if the card can handle 1280x1024, it can definitely handle the 4:3 1280x960.

 

We've just added a slight addendum to page 1.

 

bigz, firehed, it was more of a nitpick than anything. just like, why specifically say CRT and 1280x1024, when a crt user shouldnt use 1280x1024 at all? just seems it would only serve to confuse less knowledgeable crt users into using an incorrect res.

 

The trouble is that if you use 1280x960 then you alienate the growing masses of people gaming on 19" LCD monitors at 1280x1024, so at least the latter covers both better than the former.

And if we didn't mention CRTs at all we would cop flack for appearing to only test on LCD monitors. I agree we could present it more clearly but we're in a bit of a lose-lose situation without having to add 400 words of Disclaimer

 

My only complaint with this review is the X1800XT itself was not even tested yet is referred to in the conclusion

How can we draw proper conclusions about X1900GT when its replacement isn't there to compare? I am especially interested to see if the Sapphire X1800XT 512mb would have come out on top.

 

We have tried to get hold of a Radeon X1800XT 256MB card since February and finally gave up the goat a week before we published our 7900 GT head-to-head at the end of April - that article had already been delayed by a good amount of time since we got those cards at the start of March.

The last time we had an X1800XT was back in November, so we're limited by what we can say. I would certainly have loved to have an X1800XT included in the comparison because the £170 asking price is a killer.

However, the driver performance certainly hasn't gone backwards, and we feel that the Radeon X1800XT is faster in texture heavy or fillrate limited games. In games that make extensive use of shaders (like F.E.A.R., Oblivion, Call Of Duty 2), I feel that the X1800XT is a slower card. Looking forwards, the X1900GT would be a better purchase, but older games will run slower on it, IMO.

 

I've been scouring every forum and review site for a couple weeks and this seems to be the number #1 question on the minds of those upgrading "X1800XT or 7900GT". Now that the X1900GT is out this makes it even more difficult and the results in this review don't really seem to paint ATI's GT as a winner.

These are the very same games that the X1800XT 512mb surpasses Nvidia in I don't see how you can come to that conclusion when in your tests the X1900GT is slower than Nvidia in these games.

If its that slow in CoD2 then I wonder how it could possibly beat the X1800XT in the rest of the benchmarks.

 

The XFX 7900 GT XXX is a higher clocked GeForce 7900 GT - BFG Tech's 7900 GT OC is closer to the default 7900 GT clock speeds. Hence why I said that the 7900 GT is slower in Call of Duty 2.

 

ATI should've kept their X1800 XT and just fixed the fan speeds for it.

Now they try and replace it with the X1900 GT which should at least have a consistent advantasge over the card its replacing, instead the X1800 XT is cheaper, faster in most situations, has a cooler that shoots the hot air out of the case, and comes in 256 or 512mb versions.

If they had kept up production, prices would continue to drop (currently under $280 and $320 for the 2 versions) and they'd continue to be better value then the 7900 GT.

 

Ugh, this ones messed me up. Not sure if I should go for a 7900GT, x1800XT or the new X1900GT. I was just about to make my decision aswell but now ive seen that the x1900gt will be hitting eBuyer next week.

What would you guys recommend?

 

X1800XT is a card that I don't think you can go wrong with now if you don't mind having a dual-slot cooler. That's simply because of its price.

GeForce 7900 GT is a more consistent performer than Radeon X1900GT across the board and it's very overclockable. On the other hand, the Radeon X1900GT is likely to fare better in newer games that are coming out, because shaders are getting more and more complex in new games. Shader instruction processing is where Radeon X1900GT does really well.