X1800 XT or 7900 GT

[JPB]

Looks like the XT 256 version is $20 less than the 512 version. Is the extra 256 worth the extra $20 ?

 

[aniruddha23]

Originally posted by: x80064
Looks like the XT 256 version is $20 less than the 512 version. Is the extra 256 worth the extra $20 ?

I remember the Dell Deal lets u get the 1900XT for around 360 ish. Why dont u just get that.

 

[Stu L Tissimus]

There's a big difference between $20 and $80, mate.

 

[you2]

Is the dell deal still active ?

 

[Munky]

For $20 more, I'd take the 512mb version of the xt. You can see the benefits of the extra memory here:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/599-...800-gtx-512-mb-the-new-king-of-3d.html

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: munky
For $20 more, I'd take the 512mb version of the xt. You can see the benefits of the extra memory here:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/599-...800-gtx-512-mb-the-new-king-of-3d.html

Thanks for ther link munky. I've been wondering about that for awhile.

OP- Go for the 512MB X1800XT. At stock speeds it's easily the better card. Even with overclocking factored in the two cards are still very competitive and the better feature package of the X1800XT would make me lean towards that choice.

 

[Crashedout]

I was in the same dilema as you. For me I went with the 7900GT for the following reasons:

-its newer: historically both ATI and Nvidia tend to be able to pull out more performance over the course of a products lifetime, the 1800 is at the end where the 7900 is just starting
-it is much cooler and more efficient: does not have a massive cooler on the side and less pull on the psu
-I have an xbox 360: I wanted a different GPU in my pc to get the best of both worlds
-even without the volt-mod Nvidia's own divers will give you a good, healthy overclock.
-I could not find many reviews comparing 256vs512...I suspect when games need 512 both these cards would not be fast enough to be playable anyway. Much like 128vs256 was before.
-I don't like ati's drivers.

I think you will be happy with either. It was a close decsion for me and I don't regret it at all. Once I volt-mod I will be even happier.

 

[Canterwood]

Get the X1800XT over the 7900GT.

I've got a 7900GT, and tbh have been dissapointed with its performance and its very noisy cooler.

 

[Bull Dog]

X1800XT 512MB FTW

 

[Fraggable]

I have the 1800XT 256MB and am very happy with it. I've always had ATI cards though, not because I hate Nvidia, just because whenever I'm up for a new card ATI has a better deal. This time it was because the 7900's had just come out 2 days before and pushed the 256MB version of the 1800XT way down.

The IQ is incredible, BF2 frequently tops out at 90 FPS (I think the game limits it there) at full quality, 6XAA.

If you're thinking about SLI/CF, don't even consider ATI. Buying a CF version GPU seems to be a waste of money. SLI has huge advantages over CF right now and it's way cheaper.

 

[hclarkjr]

SAPPHIRE 100134L Radeon X1800XT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail $309 at newegg

 

[Jules]

x1800xt

 

[Jules]

x1800xt

 

[JPB]

I totally understand what you all mean when you say to go with the XT. But then a few of you say that SLI is better than Crossfire. I will be going dual cards within 3-4 months. If I get the XT now....I won't and will not upgrade again until DX10. If I get the 7900 GT now....I could send a little over a $100 with it to step up to the GTX in a month or two....and then not upgrade till DX10. So....that being said....is a XT better till DX10 ? Or get the Gt now.....in 1-2 months step to GTX and then wait till DX10. Extra money to step up isnt a problem. Which is the better choice to get me by till DX10 ? What would you do ?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: x80064
I totally understand what you all mean when you say to go with the XT. But then a few of you say that SLI is better than Crossfire. I will be going dual cards within 3-4 months. If I get the XT now....I won't and will not upgrade again until DX10. If I get the 7900 GT now....I could send a little over a $100 with it to step up to the GTX in a month or two....and then not upgrade till DX10. So....that being said....is a XT better till DX10 ? Or get the Gt now.....in 1-2 months step to GTX and then wait till DX10. Extra money to step up isnt a problem. Which is the better choice to get me by till DX10 ? What would you do ?

I'd still go for the X1800XT. The DX10 cards will be out in the fall if rumor is correct, so you'd be using the X1800XT for around six months. If you have the money and it's really burning a hole in your pocket, I'd go straight for the X1900XT. It's overall faster than the 7900GTX.

 

[Gamer X]

X1800XT if you aren't overclocking, 7900gt if you are.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
X1800XT if you aren't overclocking, 7900gt if you are.

why is that?

 

[Gamer X]

X1800 XT is faster at stock and has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance
besides the advantage of 512mb memory over 256mb. The 7900gt, however, can do massive overclocks which the X1800 XT cannot achieve.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
X1800 XT is faster at stock and has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance
besides the advantage of 512mb memory over 256mb. The 7900gt, however, can do massive overclocks which the X1800 XT cannot achieve.

and what clocks are you talking about? most ppl who volt mod the GT are only attaining core speeds in the 600's...

i can show you a review where a GT at 550mhz still is only comparable to a 625mhz x1800xt. are there some comparison which show, say a 600mhz or higher GT outperforming an 700mhz or higher 1800xt? and even then, as you say the XT still has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance, besided the advantage of 512mb memory over 256.

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: x80064
I totally understand what you all mean when you say to go with the XT. But then a few of you say that SLI is better than Crossfire. I will be going dual cards within 3-4 months. If I get the XT now....I won't and will not upgrade again until DX10. If I get the 7900 GT now....I could send a little over a $100 with it to step up to the GTX in a month or two....and then not upgrade till DX10. So....that being said....is a XT better till DX10 ? Or get the Gt now.....in 1-2 months step to GTX and then wait till DX10. Extra money to step up isnt a problem. Which is the better choice to get me by till DX10 ? What would you do ?

The X1800XT would still be a better choice, IMO.

 

[Gamer X]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Gamer X
X1800 XT is faster at stock and has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance
besides the advantage of 512mb memory over 256mb. The 7900gt, however, can do massive overclocks which the X1800 XT cannot achieve.

and what clocks are you talking about? most ppl who volt mod the GT are only attaining core speeds in the 600's...

i can show you a review where a GT at 550mhz still is only comparable to a 625mhz x1800xt. are there some comparison which show, say a 600mhz or higher GT outperforming an 700mhz or higher 1800xt? and even then, as you say the XT still has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance, besided the advantage of 512mb memory over 256.

I'm talking about what VR-Zone did here. They hit 745 MHz which increased the performance dramatically.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Gamer X

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Gamer X
X1800 XT is faster at stock and has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance
besides the advantage of 512mb memory over 256mb. The 7900gt, however, can do massive overclocks which the X1800 XT cannot achieve.

and what clocks are you talking about? most ppl who volt mod the GT are only attaining core speeds in the 600's...

i can show you a review where a GT at 550mhz still is only comparable to a 625mhz x1800xt. are there some comparison which show, say a 600mhz or higher GT outperforming an 700mhz or higher 1800xt? and even then, as you say the XT still has better image quality and superior AA/AF performance, besided the advantage of 512mb memory over 256.

I'm talking about what VR-Zone did here. They hit 745 MHz which increased the performance dramatically.

i know.. but the majority cannot duplicate that.... so either those trying for the most part aren't doing it right, or a 700+ Mhz overclock is the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

and what clocks are you talking about? most ppl who volt mod the GT are only attaining core speeds in the 600's...

wow, just wow... everytime i read one of your posts, it less and less credible...so volt moded GT's are in the "600s", does this mean it ranges from 601-699 then? I guess my 685 core is just "adequate" then, although it is higher than a 7900gtx stock clock. wait, does this mean then that a x1800xt will also outperform a 7900gtx now? next thing you'll know, even a 850xt will outperform any G70/G71 based cores.../rolleyes

 

[edub2006]

Go with the 7900gt ....dont listen to these ATI fan boys

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

and what clocks are you talking about? most ppl who volt mod the GT are only attaining core speeds in the 600's...

wow, just wow... everytime i read one of your posts, it less and less credible...so volt moded GT's are in the "600s", does this mean it ranges from 601-699 then? I guess my 685 core is just "adequate" then, although it is higher than a 7900gtx stock clock. wait, does this mean then that a x1800xt will also outperform a 7900gtx now? next thing you'll know, even a 850xt will outperform any G70/G71 based cores.../rolleyes

do you have a reading comprehension problem?

i stated 745mhz obtained in the article is an exception (your uber oc didn't get there, did it?), and oc's in the 600 range are the best ppl are reporting (yours falls into that range, doesn't it? and frankly you're getting better than most).

and why is it you ignore the fact that XT's can be overclocked as well? you ignore what's actually posted, and manipulate the context of your arguments to support your bias.

i never stated a GT @ 685mhz is slower than a XT @ 625, did i? so why are you making that comparison?

how would it compare to an XT @ 700mhz? 725mhz? higher? you don't have that info, and neither do i. i only stated i'd be interested in seeing that.

and you call me a fanboy? lol...