• 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.

X1950XT > X1900XTX ?

G

gorilla show

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
389
This was a quote from the X1950XT Que? thread...
arthur_tuxedo said:
An X1950 XTX is just an X1900 XTX with GDDR4 slapped on it (and a die shrink), yet it shows huge performance increases. It seems clear that the X1K series was seriously starved for memory bandwidth.

If this becomes widely available, it seems like as much of a steal as the 7900 GTO was. Near-X1950 XTX performance for $270.
Click to expand...


So is the X1950XT > X1900XTX ???????????????
Of course the vid memory is a factor, but up to what resolutions?
 
Well, naturally if the core is exactly the same (which it is basically) and you make the memory faster, yea it's going to be faster.

I'm pretty sure it matters at every resolution, and more so at higher ones.
 
the extra memory only comes in handy in texture intensive games, so it more depends on the game not the resolution.

The extra memory only comes in handy for texture intensive games but have a look at x1900xt 256mb vs x1900xt 512mb to get an idea of what the difference is going to be :)
 
tisb0b said:
the extra memory only comes in handy in texture intensive games, so it more depends on the game not the resolution.

The extra memory only comes in handy for texture intensive games but have a look at x1900xt 256mb vs x1900xt 512mb to get an idea of what the difference is going to be :)
Click to expand...

I have seen those benchmarks before, but I can't believe they will be the same this time around with the faster memory, or will they?

I game @ 1680 x 1050. Will I be able to play every single game to this point the same as (or better than) a 1900xtx with the x1950xt? The memory difference (256MB fatser GDDR4 memory vs. 512Mb slower GDDR3) is what confuses me.
 
My gut feeling is that the X1950 XT would show performance gains over the X1900 XTX at resolutions lower than 1920 x 1200 despite having less memory, but I can't back that up.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
My gut feeling is that the X1950 XT would show performance gains over the X1900 XTX at resolutions lower than 1920 x 1200 despite having less memory, but I can't back that up.
Click to expand...

yeah, I'm thinking the same thing, but I want a link or a good explanation from someone.
 
I'd think that they would have about the same performance, but the 1950xt, just a small step ahead..

on a side note..
From what I've seen, the X1950XT has the old X1900's cooler :(
 
Just get the darn XT if it is cheaper than the x1900xtx like I said before the extra memory only comes in handy in texture intensive games. My guess in non-texture intensive games the x1950xt will come out on top but in texture intensive games the x1900xtx should pull ahead in fps.
 
Well, thanks all :) Everyone guesses about the same way, but does anyone really know? The thing is, I can get a new x1950xt for the same price as a used x1900xtx.
 
go for the new card because with the used you just don't know what's been done to it.
 
gorilla show said:
Well, thanks all :) Everyone guesses about the same way, but does anyone really know? The thing is, I can get a new x1950xt for the same price as a used x1900xtx.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I make an educated guess based on 2 things:

1. The X1950 XTX showed huge gains over the X1900 XTX. Like 25%, and the only difference between the cards that had to do with performance was the memory. That means that the X1K series was so starved for memory bandwidth that increasing the memory speed gave a pretty much linear increase in performance. The X1950 XT's memory is 250 MHz faster than the X1900 XTX's, yet the core is only 25 MHz slower.

2. The performance difference between the 256 and 512 meg versions of the X1900 XT's were minimal.

Based on these two things, the X1950 XT should be noticeably faster in most games and at most settings than the X1900 XTX.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
I don't know, but I make an educated guess based on 2 things:

1. The X1950 XTX showed huge gains over the X1900 XTX. Like 25%, and the only difference between the cards that had to do with performance was the memory. That means that the X1K series was so starved for memory bandwidth that increasing the memory speed gave a pretty much linear increase in performance. The X1950 XT's memory is 250 MHz faster than the X1900 XTX's, yet the core is only 25 MHz slower.

2. The performance difference between the 256 and 512 meg versions of the X1900 XT's were minimal.

Based on these two things, the X1950 XT should be noticeably faster in most games and at most settings than the X1900 XTX.
Click to expand...

I second that.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
1. The X1950 XTX showed huge gains over the X1900 XTX. Like 25%, and the only difference between the cards that had to do with performance was the memory. That means that the X1K series was so starved for memory bandwidth that increasing the memory speed gave a pretty much linear increase in performance. The X1950 XT's memory is 250 MHz faster than the X1900 XTX's, yet the core is only 25 MHz slower.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting 25%?
 
Been looking to upgrade for a while and this X1950XT 256MB looks just the ticket. I'd prefer a 8800GTS but just can't afford to spend that kind of money atm, currently using a 6800GT which has served me very well. Anyone actually bought this X1950XT card yet and can say how it performs? So little information out there :(

Was thinking of getting a X1950 pro for £132 before I seen this card, nice to know what difference the extra £50 for the XT flavour would make.
 
I know w/ some games the difference between 256mb and 512mb X1900XTs was not small.
Is super fast 256mb better or worse than slower 512mb?

Like somebody said, I think it will come down to the individual game and textures.
At the res I play, 1440x900, the X1950XTX isn't much better than an OCd 512mb X1900XT.
I think upcoming 2007 games will easily consume 512mb of vram on high settings.
 
snowysnowcones said:
That's an X1950XTX
Topic is X1950XT

or did I miss something?
Click to expand...

just the post I was replying to
arthur_tuxedo said:
The X1950 XTX showed huge gains over the X1900 XTX. Like 25%, and the only difference between the cards that had to do with performance was the memory.
Click to expand...
 
k this is why ATI marketing sucks ass

i hate these crappy names. you know what it should be? XS, S, M, L and XL. no more of these retarded mix ups.

yeah.

there are 4 models out there. the X1900XT, X1900XTX, X1950XT, and X1950XTX.effectivly the X1950 is trying to phase out the X1900, just like the X1900 did with the X1800. its taken over most of the line.

so does an X1950XT out perform an X1900XTX. well it depends heavily on the game. while the 50 (as in X1950XT) has faster ram, it also has less of it and a lower core speed, compaired to the 00 (as in X1900XTX). so the 50 will outperform, i suspect, in lower resolutions. course pushing the r580 and R580+ (hey look another stoopid move, shoulda called it hthe R590). from 625, to 650 is easy.

dont worrie, im not some NV !!!!!!, NVs system is no better, infact its worse.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
k this is why ATI marketing sucks ass

i hate these crappy names. you know what it should be? XS, S, M, L and XL. no more of these retarded mix ups.

yeah.

there are 4 models out there. the X1900XT, X1900XTX, X1950XT, and X1950XTX.effectivly the X1950 is trying to phase out the X1900, just like the X1900 did with the X1800. its taken over most of the line.

so does an X1950XT out perform an X1900XTX. well it depends heavily on the game. while the 50 (as in X1950XT) has faster ram, it also has less of it and a lower core speed, compaired to the 00 (as in X1900XTX). so the 50 will outperform, i suspect, in lower resolutions. course pushing the r580 and R580+ (hey look another stoopid move, shoulda called it hthe R590). from 625, to 650 is easy.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I remember when I was first learning about video cards I just looked at nVidias because their numbering and ordering system was easier to understand. I have just recently learned the ATI order, but ATI should really consider names better. Maybe this will get better with the x2000 series.
 
but doesn't the 1950xt use gddr3 just like the 1900xt, the 1950xtx is the only one to use gddr4
 
Video cards should be named with a letter to indicate series and a number to indicate performance relative to the first top-end card.

For instance, let's say next generation NVidia drops their current naming system to avoid confusion with ATI's 9800 series. Their first 'GTX' card is the A100, with the 'GTS' version that has about 85% of the performance, so it's the A85. Later they come out with the 'GS' version and the mid-range and budget versions, and call them A70, A50, A30. Then 6 months later they refresh the cards, and the fastest one is 20% faster than the A100, so it's the B120. Then you might have the B120, B105, B90, B65, B40 representing the range of cards from high-end to budget. If you refresh or come out with a new architecture every 6 months, it will take 13 years before you get to Z, so there's plenty of room. Most importantly, anyone can tell at a glance how fast a card is, even compared to the older generations.
 
That's a great idea, but the marketing guys would never go for it. First off, different core/memory speed ratios equate to different performance gains in different games, so there's no "Standard" increase in speed. Secondly, nVidia and ATi don't WANT anyone to know exactly how much of an increase a new video card makes, they want you to think it's a huge difference so you'll spend all the money you make on it.

Computer marketing is based on impulse buying, not performance facts.
 
I just saw this X1950XT at Newegg. It is factory OC'd to 650/1800 so that would place it ahead of a X1900XTX and a little behind a X1950XTX, correct?

If it had 512MB of I would so buy it...
 
K, I'm still a bit confused here, as why ATI made a 1950XT...
Correct me if I'm wrong but..
It uses DDR3
Runs on a 90nm process
Has the "dongle" crossfire
Has the X1900's cooler
right? So what was the point really? Just to have a better price performance?
 
I just got the 1950, well i ordered it in my new computer. I tried to get the 1900 because then i could save money on the crad and the power supply but they were out of stock apparently.
 
snowysnowcones said:
Just to have a better price performance?
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing. :)

It's just a slight refresh of the X1900XT 256 with minimal extra work to try and boost sales a bit. Obviously, it's not a big of a change as X1900GT -> X1950 Pro, but it'll grab some buyers.
 
MH Knights said:
I think the X1900XT has been phased out now. I have not been able to find any X1900XTs for a while.
Click to expand...

The Egg still has X1900XT 512s for $320 (or $290 after MIB) as the CF edition, but that's pretty much it. The X1900XT is getting phased out. It was released something like 10 months ago.
 
The Goose said:
Yeah. I remember when I was first learning about video cards I just looked at nVidias because their numbering and ordering system was easier to understand. I have just recently learned the ATI order, but ATI should really consider names better. Maybe this will get better with the x2000 series.
Click to expand...

yeah, well, it was better. the X1k series was perfect for a while.

i split the X1k series into 3 chunks. chunk one showed up first, containing the X1800 and X1300, then number 2, containing the X1900 and X1600. everything so far sence, not perfect, because of differant architectures, but as the numbers went up so did performance.

but then the X1950 and the X1650. this messed everything up. the X1950 overlaps the X1900, and the X1650, well. the X1650 Pro should be named (or renamed) the X1600XTX, and the X1650 XT should be named the X1700. 50s are dumb

NV managed to do the same thing. three stages two the 7 series. but i got no time to explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top