Ati X1600 Pro

[papubhai]

CURRENTLY I M USING A X1600 PRO FROM MSI I DONT KNOW Y PEOPLE R SAYING THAT

6800GS IS A BETTER CARD .......X1600 PRO GIVE ME AN AVG OF 10 FPS MORE IN ALMOST ALL GAMES EXCEPT THOSE MADE FOR NVIDIA CARDS ONLY(DOOM 3 CHORONICLES OF RIDDICK FEAR )

EVEN ATI X1600 IMAGE QUALITY IS OUTSTANDING SMOOTHNESS IS NOT EVERYTHING QUALITY IS ANOTHER FACTOR SO ATI X1600 PRO AND X1300 PRO SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED WAITING 4 REPLIES

PC:

AMD ATHLON 64 3000+ @2310 MHZ
MSI K8N NEO3 (NFORCE 4 -4X)
1GB KINGSTON DDR 400
80GB SATA WD
350 W ORIGINAL SUPPLY

 

[Jarska333]

MINE SHOULD ARRIVE SHORTLY, I'LL RESERVE THIS SPACE FOR COMMENT.

FOR NOW, THE APPARENT PARITY WITH 6600GT AND THE ADVANCED IMAGE-BETTERING ABILITIES DID SWAY ME TOWARDS THIS CARD.

Ahem...

 

[CjStaal]

How did you guys write in caps...

 

[infrared]

why is more to the point!

 

[bruins004]

I think the 7600GT or X1800GTO has a better bang for the buck.

 

[yogurt_21]

you know what i'll bet that the gs he ran wouldn't run on his 350 watt properly and the x1600pro does. lol the 6800gs has a 256-bit memory interface and on all newer computers with enough power the gs simply stomps the x1600, that's because the gto's and gto2's were meant to go against the gs, not the x1600's. lol

 

[bruins004]

Lol I am suprised I missed that. Good eye yogurt. I am just curious, out of all of the mid-range priced cards, which is the best bang for the buck (x1600xt, x850xt, x1800gto, 7600GT, 7600GS, etc.). I know that the x850xt was the best bang for the buck before the 7600s and the x1800gto came out. So does the 7600s and x1800gto now beat it?

 

[yogurt_21]

well...
on a higher end the ati bang for the buck is now the sapphire x1800xt 512 for 340$
nvidia on the higher end has the 7900gt.
for around 300$

for the lower end the x1800gto simply didn't impress me and it's set to be out at 250$, 50$ short of the 7900gt which will severly stomp it lol.

so that ones a no.

the 7800's are still over priced, even after the 7900gt took the 300$ spot the 7800gt take up the same price and the 7800gtx 256mb is more expensive! lol

the 7600gt stomps the x1600 but is still rather expensive for it's performance. (ranging from 180-220$)

the x1600xt is a decent cad at 160$ but it's still too close to the 7600gt range to make it worth it.

i'd say it has to go to the sapphire x1600pro for the lower end, not the best performer, but at 110$ you really can't beat it.

i haven't seen any reviews yet on the 7600gs, but if that does beat the x1600xt. then that'd become the best bang for your buck being at 140$ (the xfx 143$ one at 500/900 being better than the evga 400/800 for 139$)

 

[trog100]

"x1800xt 512".. i recon the 256 one is a better bang for buck.. all depends on whether u feel the need for the extra memory..

trog

 

[yogurt_21]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102698
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102663

while the 256mb one may look better here, it's not, there's not enough bios' out for it (the sapphire xtpe bios is a nice one for the 512's). the extra memory does help on these cards, as ou wouldn' buy this card to do anything less than 1280x1024 with full aa and af, where the memory helps quite a bit. not to mention doom 3 and quake 4 where running on ultra actually requires a highend 512mb card and the source engine has always loved extra memory. bf2, cod2, all of these titles love the extra memory on the 512mb cards. now that the 512 has come down in price, the extra money is worth it.

 

[Jarska333]

Bang for the buck is subjective.... A card costing 1000$ could well have the most bang, but I ain't got the buck.

But, the x1600pro seems to work well. Civ4 looks very nice. But Silent Storm still wheezes under full details. Never mind Fear, SS really takes oomph.

 

[tparker66]

X1300,x1600,x1800,x1900

All of the enclosed Videocards are excellent.The X1600 is better than 1300 I am using two of the X1300's in Crossfire at a cost of 200.00 for the Videocards.

Circuit City had them for 99.00 apiece.

I have the excellent Asus Crossfire Board which is da bomb.Model # is Asus P5WD2-E Premium LGA775/975X/DDR2/CrossFire Motherboard [P5WD2-E PREMIUM]

Cpu is the Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 965 3.73 GHz
Front Side Bus Speed 1066 MHz

CORSAIR TWIN2X2048-5400C4 2GB KIT (1GB x 2) PC25400 675MHZ MATCHED PAIR 240-PIN DDR2

Silverstone TJ07 ATX Case , ENERMAX EG851AX-VH 660W W/20-24 PIN CONNECTOR UL & FCC POWER SUPPLY

Plextor PX-760A DVD±R/RW CD-R/RW internal E-IDE (ATAPI) drive.

The Audiophile 192 M-Audio Soundcard 24 bit 192 khz sampling rate Soundcard(Excellent)

3 pairs of KLIPSCH RB-75 Bookshelf Loudspeakers for 6 channel sound.

Onkyo TXNR901 7.1 Channel Surround Receiver with Net Tune

M.I.T. MyHD MDP-130 with USB IR remote control

I use the Sony KDL-V26XBR126" BRAVIA XBR high-definition LCD Monitor for TV and Computer use.


This System rocks on everything from Audio to Video plus Gaming all I need is a new Cpu Merom when they come out though this 3.73 Pentium Extreme really smokes.

 

[trog100]

"not to mention doom 3 and quake 4 where running on ultra actually requires a highend 512mb card"

####

i read that somewhere but it isnt true.. all the reviews i have read also say as yet there is no noticable benifit from the 512 factor over the 256..

my x850 type card with 256 memory runs fear maximum textures okay and quake 4s ultra textures...

an x1800xt 256 card will handle both the example us quote.. u will need 2 gigs of system memory thow.. niether game will run those tetures without it.. but u certainly dont need 512 memory on the card..

they do need a high end card those games but not the 512 factor.. a high end 256 card manages perfectly well..

if i thought the 512 was really needed i wouldnt quote the 256 version as being the best bang for buck.. there is quite a big price difference..

the bottom line here is that if a x1880xt machine wont handle those uncompressed textures its system memory its lacking not 512 of card memory..

trog

 

[tparker66]

X1300,x1600,x1800,x1900

I still like a 512 meg Videocard it is better to have too much than not enough.I wait till there is a sale or rebate before buying.

I remember when everyone was saying 32 megs on a Videocard would nevber be used.

There will come a time when 512 will come in handy.

I believe the Reviewers are wrong about 512megs.

We are going to need 4 Gb's of Memory for the Motherboard soon as Vista comes out it takes 800 megs just to idle.

I am keeping a eye on this new Technology Dell is using on their 10,000 dollar PC called AGELIA PhysX Processor anew Technology for new Games that will take them to a whole new level of Gaming.Link below.

http://physx.ageia.com/index.html

 

[zekrahminator]

I think the 7600GT or X1800GTO has a better bang for the buck.

thing is with X1800GTO, there might not be the buck to bang

 

[trog100]

there will come a time when 512 memory is usefull but that time isnt here yet.. i have feeling that when that time comes the cards we have now wont be powerfull enough to run the games that need it or make use of it..

512 memory at the moment is just a device to extract more money from the punter.. especially when its fitted to midirange cards that dont have the grunt to shift that amount of textures..

selling cards with twice the memory thats needed is par for the course.. its part of the pricing policy.. and when those guys said 32 meg would never be needed.. in one sense they were correct.. it never was with the technology they had at the time the comment was made.. it had to wait till the next generation of hardware and more power before it was really needed.. by then higher end cards came with 64 meg which again wasnt needed.. thats the way it goes with pc hardware..

as for needing 4 megs for vista.. just scaremongering.. in fact its total rubbish..

out of interest has anybody wondered just whats gonna happen to memory prices when vista is released.. at double memory needs its gonna rocket.. 1 gig will be the minimum for oems i think.. double the current 512 on cheaper systems which make up the bulk of the market..

trog

 

[tparker66]

Memory

The Inquirer snapped a picture at CES and it was using 800 megs so 1 GB will not be enough especially since Dual Core is here and Quadcore will be here prety soon.

If you have four Apps open doing nothing that is going to be 3.2 GB of Ram if each use 800 megs .When they get here we will need 8Gb of memory to run Cad,play Games,Video editing.

I sure hope the prices drop some.

 

[Azn Tr14dZ]

BTW, since we're talking about video cards(or at least was) does anyone know if there are any mods you can do with an X1800GTO. Can you unlock 4 extra pipes, use an X1800XL BIOS, or anything else?

 

[trog100]

"The Inquirer snapped a picture at CES and it was using 800 megs so 1 GB will not be enough especially since Dual Core is here and Quadcore will be here prety soon.

If you have four Apps open doing nothing that is going to be 3.2 GB of Ram if each use 800 megs .When they get here we will need 8Gb of memory to run Cad,play Games,Video editing.

I sure hope the prices drop some."

###

thankfully it dosnt work that way dude...he he

dont forget they are rewriting 60% of the vista code.. i would guess excessive memory usage plays a big part in that probably..

as for hoping it goes down.. it wont.. memory price is a supply and demand thing.. more demand means it goes up.. which is why no way on this earth will microsoft launch a new operating system that needs anywhere near the amount of memory that some folks are thinking/saying ..

trog

 

[tparker66]

Memory for Vista OS

I was just guessing that is all anyone can do at this time.I realize it won't take that much memory to run quadcore was being fecisious .

I don't see a lot of People buying Vista right away noone I know intends to anyway.

The main reason I wanted the OS was a new file system and that is not going to happen only thing I see going for it is HDTV.The Picture quality is supposed to be better under Vista than XP.Why would one want to upgrade to a OS that takes more memory,more harddrive space,no new file structure.

Explorer 7 isn't that good I have ran the Beta version .It may run the multicore processors better but they will have to have software that takes advantage of multicore.The Games will be the same it has been stated by Gaming Companies that they are not looking forward to code the games where they use the dualcore or quadcore for the fact it hasn't been done before.It took a long long time before Unreal Tournamet or Doom III was ready so this will add more problems and hurdles to overcome.

It is going to take a while before Vista is used by desktop/workstations.The Memory Companies are going to be elated when instead of 1 Gb sticks it will be 2 GB.

I think 4 GB should be enough for Quadcore.I use Adobe Premiere to render video so add Blu-Ray to the mix also.

 

[trog100]

i was running 98se with a socket A barton 3000+.. 512 system memory.. 9700pro 128mb grfx card untill six months ago.. it coped with all the games the grfx card could handle.. Farcry.. Painikiller.. pretty much every thing that was around back then.. i did have xp as part of a dual operating system.. but 98se was the one i used as my main system..

doom 3 wouldnt install on 98se but the basic system handled it with low quality textures in a reasonable fashion in xp..

running vista wont be high on my priorites thow.. he he he

talkng about grfx card memory.. my laptop with 1 gig of system memory but only a 128 memory grfx card handles doom 3 and fear at medium quality texures settings perfectly okay.. that is a geforce go 6600 ultra clocked at 450/700.. which tends to suggest 128 card memory is enough for everything except the real high end games at max settings.. they need more than i gig of system memory so i cant try em just to see how 128 meg of card memory would cope.. plus the card dont have enough grunt to give acceptable frame rates on the higher settings..

trog

 

[tparker66]

The new Laptops are going to be a big step up i performance without spending 3,000.00.

HDMI and Vista is next which will make things interesting .Now is not a great time to build with so much undecided.I am ready for better picture quality on streaming video.What we have now is pathetic.Video is next for big improvements though more bandwidth will be needed plus Movies from Studio's are supposed to be sold to us in the near future so they have a lot of work to do.I will buy the Movies especially if they let you make one copy of the Movie for Library.That last part is wishful thinking.

 

[-=CrAnSwIcK=-]

Well i got my x1600xt for $199 CAD (aroung the same price as 6600gt), when the 6800gs was still $270, and the 7600gt hadn't been released...so when i bought it, it was good for the money...It's sole purpose is to play CS:S and nothing but, and it does so on full detail, 4xAA and 8xAF at 50FPS outside, and 70-90 FPS inside...and that's in office...some other maps it hits 120 FPS...not bad for $200 canadian...and i only run 512mb RAM...Also i beat most 6600gt's in 3Dmark03 as well...and i can beat some 6800gt's in '05 and '06

my scores...

'03 - 10,153
'05 - 5,780
'06 - 2,537