bruins004Completely agreed.
At the beginning the 7600 series (esp. the 7600GT) was a great bargain.
Yes it was crippled down to a 128mb bus, but the high clocks made up for it.

Um... since when was it a bargain? I could get a X1650XT for a cheaper price. The clocks weren't high at all. Nvidia's last generation of x6 series GPUs; i.e 6600, had a 256 or 128bit configuration.

8600 with 128 bit would be seriously crippled, as it would not outperform something from the last generation.

i hope the 8600ultra has a 256bit bus,otherwise it will be a r600 for me.

In the US the 7600GT was either equal to or lower than the price of an X1600XT.
Plus the 7600GT performed better than that card.

The X1600XT was a disappointment in my eyes.

I'm not sure about this, but I think I can own an X1600XT easy :D

tkpenaltyUm... since when was it a bargain? I could get a X1650XT for a cheaper price. The clocks weren't high at all. Nvidia's last generation of x6 series GPUs; i.e 6600, had a 256 or 128bit configuration.

8600 with 128 bit would be seriously crippled, as it would not outperform something from the last generation.

The X1650XT was also a much weaker card than the 7600GT, which is why it was cheaper. However, the performance difference between the two really didn't show in the price difference.

I bought a Sapphire X1650XT, which on newegg currently goes for $150, it overclocked like complete ass. There was litterally no memory headroom for overclocking, what it came clocked at was as high as it would go without artifacting like crazy. The core overclocked a tiny 25MHz, but granted the card was slightly pre-overclocked, so in the end the speeds were 625/1400. What did it get in 3DMark06? 3700

I sold that card and picked up a XFX 7600GT. It was also overclocked from the factory, it came at 590/1600, however I was able to get it up to 690/1780 completely artifact free after 2 hours of ATITool scanning. What did it get in 3Dmark06? 4100 And the kicker, the 7600GT was only $115 after rebate $145 before. Not only does the 7600GT outperform the x1650XT, it out overclocked it too, AND was cheaper.

I am sorry, but anyone that thinks anything from the x1600 series is better for the money than a 7600GT has got to be a fanboy.

Also, since when do the Mid-Range cards have to outperform the last generation to be good? I could see if we were talking about the high end cards not outperforming the last generation, but not mid-range cards, the mid-range cards rarely outperform the kings from the previous generation.

the x1600series sucks ass compared to the gt/gs, even some good brand 7600gt beated a x1800gto

ati's mid range cards are always crap (apart from the 9500pro) this is why you'll always see them release lesser versions of their high end cards to compete with nvidia in that price bracket (x800gt/gto, x1800gto, x1900gt etc vs nvidia's 6/7600 series)

however this must cost them in manufacturing, as these models arent always say chips with faulty pipelines or ones that wont run at the default speed, as proven by the MANY people that can unlock their card higher than the original high end cards spec

considering this, maybe this time around they might actually release a card that can compete with the equivalent nvidia for a change, it would make sense, as surely those cards they keep making(gt/o's) cost the same to make as the full on versions(and more than x6/700/x16/1650's)

Edit: yes i know the 9500 was basically a lesser 9700pro, but it wasnt released because they couldnt compete with nvidia

I guess people need to realize that the X1650XT and X1600XT is not the same thing :banghead:
The 2 cards have completely different cores. (And the X1600XT = X1650Pro)

And pt, you know that there aren't much difference between X1800GTO and 7600GT right?
They are both 12pipes and 12 ps cards. (So I bet they won't differ much in performance)

ZubasaI guess people need to realize that the X1650XT and X1600XT is not the same thing :banghead:
The 2 cards have completely different cores. (And the X1600XT = X1650Pro)

And pt, you know that there aren't much difference between X1800GTO and 7600GT right?
They are both 12pipes and 12 ps cards. (So I bet they won't differ much in performance)

and you need to realise that ati and nvidia use completely different architechture, hell the X1900 has 48 pipelines, the 7900 has 24, is it twice as fast???

newtekie1The X1650XT was also a much weaker card than the 7600GT, which is why it was cheaper. However, the performance difference between the two really didn't show in the price difference.

I bought a Sapphire X1650XT, which on newegg currently goes for $150, it overclocked like complete ass. There was litterally no memory headroom for overclocking, what it came clocked at was as high as it would go without artifacting like crazy. The core overclocked a tiny 25MHz, but granted the card was slightly pre-overclocked, so in the end the speeds were 625/1400. What did it get in 3DMark06? 3700

I sold that card and picked up a XFX 7600GT. It was also overclocked from the factory, it came at 590/1600, however I was able to get it up to 690/1780 completely artifact free after 2 hours of ATITool scanning. What did it get in 3Dmark06? 4100 And the kicker, the 7600GT was only $115 after rebate $145 before. Not only does the 7600GT outperform the x1650XT, it out overclocked it too, AND was cheaper.

I am sorry, but anyone that thinks anything from the x1600 series is better for the money than a 7600GT has got to be a fanboy.

Also, since when do the Mid-Range cards have to outperform the last generation to be good? I could see if we were talking about the high end cards not outperforming the last generation, but not mid-range cards, the mid-range cards rarely outperform the kings from the previous generation.

please get your facts right before you go soputing drivel about fanboys the x1650xt beats the 7600gt in most games and tests hands down and is based on the same core as the x1950 pro with fewer shaders and pipelines afaik you must be talking about a x1650pro if not you must of had a duff card cause the 7600gt cant keep up in benches or games FACT even more so with higer res and with aa/af which is what ati is good at

www.techspot.com/review/31-radeon-x1650xt-vs-geforce-7600gt/page2.html

while this seems weak, these are specs, and who knows how they will affect performance in the end. i don't think it will benefit performance, it will prolly reduce it, but that's speculation. you guys must have made that guy from office space millions of dollars with all of those jump to conclusion mats you bought



lol

i'm totally jk, that's what the forums are there for! discussion and speculation!

well i think if they do bring out a budget/mid 128bit card then thats good news is it not :confused: , just means it will be more affordable for budget gamers to have a half decent dx10 card?:ohwell:

xman2007please get your facts right before you go soputing drivel about fanboys the x1650xt beats the 7600gt in most games and tests hands down and is based on the same core as the x1950 pro with fewer shaders and pipelines afaik you must be talking about a x1650pro if not you must of had a duff card cause the 7600gt cant keep up in benches or games FACT even more so with higer res and with aa/af which is what ati is good at

www.techspot.com/review/31-radeon-x1650xt-vs-geforce-7600gt/page2.html

I guess your fanboyism just made you block out the MASSIVE CLOCK SPEED DIFFERENCE I was very clear about. The benches you posted use a stock 7600GT, both my cards were overcocked, though granted the x1650XT didn't overclock worth a damn so it wasn't to much higher than stock.

Big surprise though, I said the x1650XT gets 3700 in 3Dmark06, the site you provided has the stock one getting 3500 using the same settings, so I guess my overclock netted me 200 points, to bad my 7600GT overclock netted me about 600. But yeah, I am sure I just got a bad card...:nutkick:

And now that the 7600GT is available for a very low $90, it's value can't really be matched.

So how about you get your facts straight before you start trying to argue a point.