x1900xt 256 v. 1900xtx 512

[lawschooljunkie]

I'm currently running a slightly older midrange system: P4 530J (3.0ghz ) 2 Gb Kingston value ram PC2 4200, Abit AA8-DuraMAX, X700Pro. I NEED to upgrade my video card and I'm looking at the x1900xt 256mb ($260), but I was also looking at the 1900xtx or x1950xtx 512mb ($355/$400), and I was wondering at what point I would CPU bound in gaming, and the increase in memory would/wouldn't be beneficial. I probably won't be doing any major upgrading (CPU, mobo, RAM) any time soon so I need this to hold out for a while. What would be the better performance choice? Is the 512mb of GDDR3/4 really make a noticible differenc e on my machine. Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Elfear]

What resolution do you play at and what games do you play?

 

[Saku]

 

[jiffylube1024]

For those prices, get the X1900XT 256 all the way. Especially if you game at 1600X1200 or below.

 

[akshayt]

That is not true. If you see the benchmarks for the latest games, you will be benefited from a 512MB 1900XT even at 1024x768 with eye candy or at 1280x1024 without much eyecandy. Games like GRAW, Oblivion, Serious Sam2. maybe even Tomb Raider Legend and Hitman Blood Money will surely use te hardware.

As for your CPU, try to overclock it as high as possible, preferably 4GHz+ to remove some of the bottleneck. Else wait a while and do a major upgrade in mid 2007.

 

[lawschooljunkie]

I mostly play HL2, Oblivion, Halo, FarCry, and BF2. As far as resolution I can't really run much eye candy and I usuallykep resolution low to keep frame rates high. I also just switched over to a widescreen monitor so I'm trying to find which look best on my current setup. I understand that I won't be running a top of the line system, but as far as I'm seeing it seems like the 512 is really worth it. How about the 1900xtx v. the 1950xtx in single card mode most of the reviews put them pretty close, is one more likely to be DX10 compliant? I think I will probably do a new build sometime August/September '07 (system will be almost 3 years old). Keeping that in mind is it worth upgrading to the nearly $400 car if its going to be replaced in less than a year? As far as overclocking I have a bit of a heat issue, I'm using a thermaltake tower with twin 90mm fans, and it sits around 50-55c under load. Ambient case temps are low 21-24c depending on room temp, I used artic silver 5 and I tightened it down pretty hard (I was actualyl afraid of breaking the mobo) and it still runs a little hot, so I doubt I'll be able to overclock a ton. However, I was wondering what the best overclock utility is? I've been using Abit's uGuru, but I feel like there might be a better one out there. Thanks.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Here is a review showing the 256mb vs 512mb versions of the XT across several resolutions on a few different games.

As you can see, they're awfully close in performance. Even in Oblivion, regardless of what akshayt says.

The $260 XT looks like a good deal, IMO. Might want to see what nV's 8800 does when it arrives next month. It might be worth a look for you, or at least help drive the prices of these other cards down for you.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Originally posted by: lawschooljunkie
How about the 1900xtx v. the 1950xtx in single card mode most of the reviews put them pretty close, is one more likely to be DX10 compliant?

neither is "dx10 compliant". both are dx9 cards; the first cards to be released for dx10 are the nvidia 8800gts/gtx and ati's r600 core.

 

[w00t]

I'd get the X1900XT 512MB instead of the X1900XTX 256MB

and the X1950XTX isn't significantly better.

I bought a X1900XT 512MB for 289.99 after mail-in rebate.

 

[n7]

7900 GTO is another excellent option in that price range (& it has 512 MB)

 

[akshayt]

The thing is with 256MB VRAM you will need to play games like GRAW at medium and serious sam 2 won't run maxed out either. Some new games will probably be similar as well. But with your current CPU, why don't you get a 512MB 1900xt?
If you have the money get a 512MB 1900xtx that should be around 20-30% faster than a 256MB 1900xt plus it will be smooth and the extra 256MB will be of huge help in some current games and most near future games like UT07, Crysis etc.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: akshayt
The thing is with 256MB VRAM you will need to play games like GRAW at medium and serious sam 2 won't run maxed out either. Some new games will probably be similar as well. But with your current CPU, why don't you get a 512MB 1900xt?
If you have the money get a 512MB 1900xtx that should be around 20-30% faster than a 256MB 1900xt plus it will be smooth and the extra 256MB will be of huge help in some current games and most near future games like UT07, Crysis etc.

No effing way...

I do believe 512 MB RAM doesn't hurt to have for future stuff (hence why i mentioned the 7900 GTO), but let's not spread that kinda FUD

 

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: akshayt
The thing is with 256MB VRAM you will need to play games like GRAW at medium and serious sam 2 won't run maxed out either. Some new games will probably be similar as well. But with your current CPU, why don't you get a 512MB 1900xt?
If you have the money get a 512MB 1900xtx that should be around 20-30% faster than a 256MB 1900xt plus it will be smooth and the extra 256MB will be of huge help in some current games and most near future games like UT07, Crysis etc.

No effing way...

I do believe 512 MB RAM doesn't hurt to have for future stuff (hence why i mentioned the 7900 GTO), but let's not spread that kinda FUD

haha, where the **** do people come up with these numbers. I swear some people just make fantasy benchmarks in their mind.

Deadsquirrell has already posted a benchmark article, that should be enough.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: akshayt
The thing is with 256MB VRAM you will need to play games like GRAW at medium and serious sam 2 won't run maxed out either. Some new games will probably be similar as well. But with your current CPU, why don't you get a 512MB 1900xt?
If you have the money get a 512MB 1900xtx that should be around 20-30% faster than a 256MB 1900xt plus it will be smooth and the extra 256MB will be of huge help in some current games and most near future games like UT07, Crysis etc.

No effing way...

I do believe 512 MB RAM doesn't hurt to have for future stuff (hence why i mentioned the 7900 GTO), but let's not spread that kinda FUD

I agree with n7 as he said 512MB isn't going to hurt for future games.

 

[Kango2020]

20%-30% higher may be a bit of an exageration but depending on the game it could be close. With the latest price breaks for this equipment, ATI has brought the X1900XTX to within $25 of the X1900XT (for the 512MB versions). That makes the decision to get the XTX a no brainer.

My recommendation is get the X1900XTX w/512MB of memory and you will be a very happy camper.

I have an SLI setup of BFG 7900GT OC 256MB and it runs very well. But I had to return one of the cards before I got a pair that worked right. Other people are having problems in this area. NVIDIA still doesn't have the kinks worked out of the G71.

On the other hand, with the lowered prices, I got the X1900XTX 512MB and the X1900 CF and I could not be happier. I will probably return the 7900GT OC cards before the end of the month.

One final note, please do yourself a favor and get 512MB of memory no matter what cards you buy. Games today are very texture memory and frame buffer hungry. If you want to run above 1280x1024 you'll be happy you did.

 

[akshayt]

xtx is on average 5-15% faster over the xt 512 and xt 512 is on average 10-15% faster over the 256mb. So xtx is on average around 30% faster than a 256 1900xt. Also, that extra RAM may help a lot in terms of smoothness especially for the near future.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: akshayt
xtx is on average 5-15% faster over the xt 512 and xt 512 is on average 10-15% faster over the 256mb. So xtx is on average around 30% faster than a 256 1900xt. Also, that extra RAM may help a lot in terms of smoothness especially for the near future.

One question. Is that calculator you're using brown and smelly?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: akshayt
xtx is on average 5-15% faster over the xt 512 and xt 512 is on average 10-15% faster over the 256mb. So xtx is on average around 30% faster than a 256 1900xt. Also, that extra RAM may help a lot in terms of smoothness especially for the near future.

And your the same troll that states that the "X1900XTX is crap"

 

[lawschooljunkie]

Thanks everyone, I just ordered a Sapphire x1900xtx 512 from newegg...pretty pumped to get it.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: lawschooljunkie
Thanks everyone, I just ordered a Sapphire x1900xtx 512 from newegg...pretty pumped to get it.

nice, still I would of went with the X1900XT 512MB

 

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: akshayt
xtx is on average 5-15% faster over the xt 512 and xt 512 is on average 10-15% faster over the 256mb. So xtx is on average around 30% faster than a 256 1900xt. Also, that extra RAM may help a lot in terms of smoothness especially for the near future.

Stop making stuff up.

 

[lawschooljunkie]

unfortunately newegg stopped carrying a reasonably priced xt 512, all the rest were more expensie than the xtx I purchased so thats the route I went...