![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
7950GX2 vs X1950XTX
- Thread starter Viramor
- Start date
-=Antimatter=-
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 3,343
Wait for the real reviews and benchmarks, nobody knows for sure until then. Even if it was twice as fast as a GX2, if the cooler sounds like a Harrier jet on liftoff I wouldn't buy it.
apcor said:I'm sure GX2 will be beaten, then NV will answer back with something shortly... and so on
I'm pretty sure It wont get beat, I run my X1900XTX's memory at 850(1700) and that doesnt make any noticable difference in games so I just can't see the X1950XTX even getting close to be honest.
It already is close at 675/1.6ghz. via the saphire toxic xtx review.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEyMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
"It was quite shocking in some cases to see the Sapphire TOXIC X1900 XTX actually perform faster than the BFGTech GeForce 7950 GX2. At first we thought maybe we made a mistake and went back to re-test and re-evaluate several times to make sure what we were seeing wasnt a mistake of ours. It wasnt, there were some situations where the Sapphire TOXIC X1900 XTX was indeed faster. "
I have always been NV but I trust [H]. May seem like just gdr4, but I suspect they'll beef up 1950 some how and manage to beat GX2. No big deal though. I am sure the back and forth crown battle will continue.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEyMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
"It was quite shocking in some cases to see the Sapphire TOXIC X1900 XTX actually perform faster than the BFGTech GeForce 7950 GX2. At first we thought maybe we made a mistake and went back to re-test and re-evaluate several times to make sure what we were seeing wasnt a mistake of ours. It wasnt, there were some situations where the Sapphire TOXIC X1900 XTX was indeed faster. "
I have always been NV but I trust [H]. May seem like just gdr4, but I suspect they'll beef up 1950 some how and manage to beat GX2. No big deal though. I am sure the back and forth crown battle will continue.
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,486
nobody knows.. its not out yet.
Whats faster? A 2006 BMW M3 or a 2008 S4?
Whats faster? A 2006 BMW M3 or a 2008 S4?
I have both and I really don't understand reviews showing both performing on equal terms... Going from X1900XTX to a GX2 is a huge performance increase in most games... Except the odd few... Oblivion and Tomb Raider Legends.. although TRL runs crap on both, it just runs a bit worse on nvidia cards.
I do game at 1920*1200 4xAA/16xAF though.
I don't really like the way H does its gfx reviews either, both cards should be benchmarked using the same setings and use the brand only settings as seperate results to show what the cards can do... These "best playable settings" crap has never made much sence to me...
e.g., I play Prey 1920*1200 4xAA/8xAA HQ Filtering and though the whole game it only dropped lower then 60fps once and thats during the first level... Can a X1900XTX do that with simalar settings.... Of course not.. Nowhere near.. Now why can't they show results at those settings? or at least standard 4xAA/16xAF.. Now a decent In depth review would do this.. every user has a different idea of a playable framerate and the H's idea of a playable framerate to me is a joke as I would never accept drops like that.
I do game at 1920*1200 4xAA/16xAF though.
I don't really like the way H does its gfx reviews either, both cards should be benchmarked using the same setings and use the brand only settings as seperate results to show what the cards can do... These "best playable settings" crap has never made much sence to me...
e.g., I play Prey 1920*1200 4xAA/8xAA HQ Filtering and though the whole game it only dropped lower then 60fps once and thats during the first level... Can a X1900XTX do that with simalar settings.... Of course not.. Nowhere near.. Now why can't they show results at those settings? or at least standard 4xAA/16xAF.. Now a decent In depth review would do this.. every user has a different idea of a playable framerate and the H's idea of a playable framerate to me is a joke as I would never accept drops like that.
In defense of the [H] team, what they are doing does make lots of sense. I do however agree that I would like both apples to apples AND the best playable settings. At one time, I seem to remember them doing both. I suppose they may have stopped due to economics. It would be twice the work. You can get the benchmarks with same settings at every other site on the web.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, where else you gonna get "best playable settings" benchmarks at. Isn't that what you really care about when buying the card anyway? How well will it run which game and at which settings? I would think that most buyers care about that more than raw FPS. I want both because I like lots of information and don't mind a certain amount of research before buying. I have my tolerance to information overload, don't get me wrong. But in this case, more is better.
Kyle, please consider adding the more standard benchmarks back to the video card reviews. That way I don't have to look at other sites to get that information. But most importantly, please do keep doing the "best playable settings" and that creative thinking that keeps this kind of industry leading information coming to the public.
Big thanks to the whole [H] team for setting a new standard.
I do think that the review should be updated with the newer 91.45 drivers though. The first release of any new feature set driver has always got plenty of room for growth and comparing the more mature catalyst's to the newer SLI one card is not really a level playing field IMO. The information, as is, is still quite empowering though.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, where else you gonna get "best playable settings" benchmarks at. Isn't that what you really care about when buying the card anyway? How well will it run which game and at which settings? I would think that most buyers care about that more than raw FPS. I want both because I like lots of information and don't mind a certain amount of research before buying. I have my tolerance to information overload, don't get me wrong. But in this case, more is better.
Kyle, please consider adding the more standard benchmarks back to the video card reviews. That way I don't have to look at other sites to get that information. But most importantly, please do keep doing the "best playable settings" and that creative thinking that keeps this kind of industry leading information coming to the public.
Big thanks to the whole [H] team for setting a new standard.
I do think that the review should be updated with the newer 91.45 drivers though. The first release of any new feature set driver has always got plenty of room for growth and comparing the more mature catalyst's to the newer SLI one card is not really a level playing field IMO. The information, as is, is still quite empowering though.
The point is H's results are pretty meaningless, I don't play at setting like that, I want minimum 50-60fps... I would never enabled SSAA or tranparency AA..I use standard settings only as they provide the best gameplay + IQ combination...
I've had my X1900XTX for over 6 months and not once have I enabled HQAF, simply because it makes bugger all difference.. And HQAF should not be enabled when doing comparisions with nv hardware..
Imo if they don't have time to do a decent in depth review then don't bother doing one.
Now this is a decen review.. still not perfect but allot better..
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/nvidia-gf7950gx2.html
Anyway, commenting on performance of an unreleased product we know little about is pretty pointless... I'll wait for xbit's review...
I've had my X1900XTX for over 6 months and not once have I enabled HQAF, simply because it makes bugger all difference.. And HQAF should not be enabled when doing comparisions with nv hardware..
Imo if they don't have time to do a decent in depth review then don't bother doing one.
Now this is a decen review.. still not perfect but allot better..
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/nvidia-gf7950gx2.html
Anyway, commenting on performance of an unreleased product we know little about is pretty pointless... I'll wait for xbit's review...
Apallohadas
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,795
They're too busy ragging on [H]ardOCP to read, bro. Don't pop their bubbles.Symon14 said:
Assuming I'm running 1280x1024, which one is better? All the becnchmarks and framerate comparisons and such are always at some outrageous resolution like 1600x1200 or 2524x1600 or whatever. My monitor can't exactly take those p), but I do want to be a bit future-proof. So, which one would be the better bang for my buck, assuming as well that I'll have it for at least a year.
p), but I do want to be a bit future-proof. So, which one would be the better bang for my buck, assuming as well that I'll have it for at least a year.djBon2112 said:Assuming I'm running 1280x1024, which one is better? All the becnchmarks and framerate comparisons and such are always at some outrageous resolution like 1600x1200 or 2524x1600 or whatever. My monitor can't exactly take those
We have absolutely no way of knowing for certain which will be better since the x1950xtx has never been properly tested. I will say this though.. Both will be such overkill for that resolution that it doesn't really matter which is better.