X1950 Pro AGP is coming!

[CrystalBay]

Good Question benwood, Anandtech tried to give us an answer but did not include the arguably hottest selling cards this season.

 

[apoppin]

7876-BLISS 7800GS+ AGP 512MB GS SFX

How does this beast compare to the x1950p?

7800GS, 512MB 1,4ns DDR-3, AGP


GPU: GeForce 7800GS
GPU Clockspeed: 450+ MHz
Memory: 512MB 1,4ns DDR3
Memory Clockspeed: 1300+ MHz
Pixels per clock (peak) : 24
Bandwidth: 40+ GB/s
Ramdac: 400 MHz
Bus: AGP-8X
Cooling: Fan (Two-slot)
Video-Features: Component, S-Video & Composite Out
Connectivity: Dvi + Dvi + Video-Out

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30502

The greatest thing about this card is that it actually has 512 MB memory and this is probably the fastest card with the most of memory that your money can buy. It has eight memory chips working at 1200 MHz but they could be clocked even more. The card has 425MHz core but it worked just as fine at 460MHz.

This card's magic is that it actually has G71, Geforce 7800 GT PCIe core bridged down to AGP. It has G70 core with full 20 pipelines that worked at 425 MHz and famous BR2 chip managed to bridge the card down to AGP. It finally made perfect sense as 20 pipelines has to be faster than the 16 that you get with EVGA card. EVGA 7800 GS card works at 460 MHz 1350Mhz core and we managed to reproduce the same clocks with the Gainward card. Gainward uses Arctic cooling for this card and we can tell that it does the job. It is very silent and it will keep the card cool and even let you overclock a lot.

probably a LOT more expensive than the x1950p ...

It should roughly cost ?400

but the benchs look good

 

[Paratus]

That card is essentially a 7900GT. The X1950 PRO should be the same or faster. The 7800GS + OC'd starts to look more like a 7950 GT which might put it ahead.

 

[Paratus]

BTW HIS has announced an AGP X1950PRO at 620/1500+ 512MB with the same AC cooling solution as the 7800GS+.

 

[apoppin]

i am SO glad i returned my x1950p

i can wait a bit longer for a sale on a faster card
[i really don't feel like i am "suffering" with my x850xt ... yet]




btw, do you have a link to the HIS 1950p?

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: apoppin
7876-BLISS 7800GS+ AGP 512MB GS SFX

How does this beast compare to the x1950p?

7800GS, 512MB 1,4ns DDR-3, AGP

GPU: GeForce 7800GS
GPU Clockspeed: 450+ MHz
Memory: 512MB 1,4ns DDR3
Memory Clockspeed: 1300+ MHz
Pixels per clock (peak) : 24
Bandwidth: 40+ GB/s
Ramdac: 400 MHz
Bus: AGP-8X
Cooling: Fan (Two-slot)
Video-Features: Component, S-Video & Composite Out
Connectivity: Dvi + Dvi + Video-Out

probably a LOT more expensive than the x1950p ...

It should roughly cost ?400

but the benchs look good

Its a nice card but extremely overpriced and expensive and isn't that much better than the X1950 Pro.

Originally posted by: Paratus
BTW HIS has announced an AGP X1950PRO at 620/1500+ 512MB with the same AC cooling solution as the 7800GS+.

You mean this one.

 

[apoppin]

ETA: 04/01/07

that's January 4th, right?
:Q

i guess a lot of DAAMiT's partners will be o/cing their Pros ...

pick and choose ... i love choice

i guess i need'nt think of anything faster ... even O/C'd at 3.31Ghz, my P4 will be barely able to keep up

i can't think of a more cost-effective upgrade for "endlife" of a much-beloved and long-lasting rig.
:heart:

 

[honestjohn]

Review of Sapphire X1950 Pro 512MB AGP .....

Pretty much confirms what we know. Average Cooler and not designed for overclocking. Still get Editor's Choice.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Sapphire%20X1950Pro%20AGP/index.php

Have a Merry Christmas Guys!

 

[Assimilator1]

Originally posted by: apoppin

nor are you bothering to read what i wrote ... you asked me twice? just reread my earlier posts ... i have NO idea what you are picking on .... where did you fixiate on "resolutions" ... my ENTIRE point is that if your CPU is a "reasonable match" - although "slow" by the Ideal - you CAN increase the overall experience [details/eyecandy/HDR/AA/AF] to the maximum that your CPU can handle at it's highest resolution that you can find playable.

i don't think every single post of mine needs to be nitpicked to death because you have some [other] point to prove.
:roll:

Rubbish ,I've read everything you said but its obvious you haven't read mine,nor did you replie to earlier questions ,also your earlier posts were misleading (re 'offloading') hence I was trying clarify or correct (nitpicking if you prefer) what you were saying.
Your above paragraph is totally correct but it is definatly not what you were saying earlier!:roll:.
Anyway it would seem that we are now agreeing with each other on the technical points,so maybe we can end it their? ,I can only guess that English isn't your 1st language.

*******************************************************************************************************

Is it me or are the scores for Quake 4 in the firingsquad review bizzare?

Even allowing for the fact that Nvidia is usually better at OpenGL, the 1950 scores are barely any better than the 850 scores ,whereas in other benchmarks the 1950 is in the area of 50-100% faster!
Driver problems ? or messed up testing?

The driverheaven.net review is almost useless ,deosn't compare to other cards:roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1

Originally posted by: apoppin

nor are you bothering to read what i wrote ... you asked me twice? just reread my earlier posts ... i have NO idea what you are picking on .... where did you fixiate on "resolutions" ... my ENTIRE point is that if your CPU is a "reasonable match" - although "slow" by the Ideal - you CAN increase the overall experience [details/eyecandy/HDR/AA/AF] to the maximum that your CPU can handle at it's highest resolution that you can find playable.

i don't think every single post of mine needs to be nitpicked to death because you have some [other] point to prove.
:roll:

Rubbish ,I've read everything you said but its obvious you haven't read mine,nor did you replie to earlier questions ,also your earlier posts were misleading (re 'offloading') hence I was trying clarify or correct (nitpicking if you prefer) what you were saying.
Your above paragraph is totally correct but it is definatly not what you were saying earlier!:roll:.
Anyway it would seem that we are now agreeing with each other on the technical points,so maybe we can end it their? ,I can only guess that English isn't your 1st language.

WHICH of my posts were misleading? ... i haven't edited anything?
:Q

"Offloading" ... the GPU 's purpose IS to 'offload' work from the CPU ... my suggestions re: increasing "details/etc." were accurate in pairing a "mismatched" CPU-GPU for getting the 'most' out of games.

you have made a half-dozen posts criticizing *something* i said but you can't be specific.

:thumbsdown:

 

[Assimilator1]

I have been specific about everything I've said ,you just heavn't read it properly ,if at all,what's the matter can't you read english???

the GPU 's purpose IS to 'offload' work from the CPU

Yes correct ,but it does no more or less with a different CPU or resolution/details setting.
Once again I'll clearly point out what was blatantly wrong about your earlier post.You said:-

generally you can crank the resolution, details and/or the AA/AF to offload more work to your videocard thus eliminating the "bottleneck"

This is pure rubbish ,it does not 'offload' >>>>more<<<< work from the CPU & it does NOT eliminate the bottleneck.
If the CPU is not fast enough at low res it won't be at high res either ,if it IS fast enough (even if only just) then yes you can whack up the res/details with no real loss in performance (within limits of the card).The 'CPU' bottleneck is not eliminated ,it is either hidden (the FPS drops below the CPUs max capable FPS) &/or it is irrelevant.

For example if you do a miniumium FPS test on a game & you get 50FPS @ 800x600 & @ 1280x1024, & then test it at 1600x1200 & get 45FPS ,the CPU is limiting (aka bottleneck) the FPS at lower res but at the top res the card is limiting the FPS a little ,thus hiding the CPU bottleneck ,but the CPU bottleneck is irrelevant as its fast enough anyway.
Bottlenecking doesn't nessacarily mean its unplayable, just that the FPS score is limited by the CPU or GPU.

Frankly I'm getting sick of trying to explain the same thing to you over & over again & I'm sure other people are getting sick of this arguement too, so I hope you now finally understand what I meant.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Assimilator1

Originally posted by: apoppin

nor are you bothering to read what i wrote ... you asked me twice? just reread my earlier posts ... i have NO idea what you are picking on .... where did you fixiate on "resolutions" ... my ENTIRE point is that if your CPU is a "reasonable match" - although "slow" by the Ideal - you CAN increase the overall experience [details/eyecandy/HDR/AA/AF] to the maximum that your CPU can handle at it's highest resolution that you can find playable.

i don't think every single post of mine needs to be nitpicked to death because you have some [other] point to prove.
:roll:

Rubbish ,I've read everything you said but its obvious you haven't read mine,nor did you replie to earlier questions ,also your earlier posts were misleading (re 'offloading') hence I was trying clarify or correct (nitpicking if you prefer) what you were saying.
Your above paragraph is totally correct but it is definatly not what you were saying earlier!:roll:.
Anyway it would seem that we are now agreeing with each other on the technical points,so maybe we can end it their? ,I can only guess that English isn't your 1st language.

WHICH of my posts were misleading? ... i haven't edited anything?
:Q

"Offloading" ... the GPU 's purpose IS to 'offload' work from the CPU ... my suggestions re: increasing "details/etc." were accurate in pairing a "mismatched" CPU-GPU for getting the 'most' out of games.

you have made a half-dozen posts criticizing *something* i said but you can't be specific.

:thumbsdown:

The purpose of the GPU is to accelerate 3D Graphics applications, run them and try to unload from CPU as many tasks as possible, not to unload a CPU completely. It can be used to encode video, run physics, accelerate video etc. A GPU is just too parallel to process general purpose calculations, it would require so many optimizations that simply will not justify the effort at all and will reduce greatly the overall flexibility, it may worth it in some other types of applications which require huge math power like Folding@Home. The GPU still have the need to depend from the CPU greatly. Cause the GPU is a huge parallel engine who doesn't like jumps and changes in the code. it is straightforward and is prepared to process as much as data as posible in a parallel way. So a more general purpose CPU will be far more flexible using data branching, prefetching, conditionals etc, but less powerful. The GPU can't do collision detection and without the proper hardware and software support cannot do physics either. IN a game, the CPU calculates character A.I., Collision Detection, scripts etc while the GPU is capable only of processing the graphics which requires a great and powerful straighforward hardware. So a "good CPU for a card" is just not right since are so many variables that an ideal CPU is simply not feasible. Just get the best CPU you can afford doing research, and be happy of it. I can admit that my P4 in older DX9 games (2004-2005), DX8 or older graphics I tend to be limited by CPU, but in newer games released from 2005 and now I tend to be far more GPU bound than CPU bound. I'm still able to play any game at 1024x768 with 4xFSAA and 16x AF. So a X1950PRO will increase my gaming performance, sometimes by a little, sometimes by much.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Assimilator1

Originally posted by: apoppin

nor are you bothering to read what i wrote ... you asked me twice? just reread my earlier posts ... i have NO idea what you are picking on .... where did you fixiate on "resolutions" ... my ENTIRE point is that if your CPU is a "reasonable match" - although "slow" by the Ideal - you CAN increase the overall experience [details/eyecandy/HDR/AA/AF] to the maximum that your CPU can handle at it's highest resolution that you can find playable.

i don't think every single post of mine needs to be nitpicked to death because you have some [other] point to prove.
:roll:

Rubbish ,I've read everything you said but its obvious you haven't read mine,nor did you replie to earlier questions ,also your earlier posts were misleading (re 'offloading') hence I was trying clarify or correct (nitpicking if you prefer) what you were saying.
Your above paragraph is totally correct but it is definatly not what you were saying earlier!:roll:.
Anyway it would seem that we are now agreeing with each other on the technical points,so maybe we can end it their? ,I can only guess that English isn't your 1st language.

WHICH of my posts were misleading? ... i haven't edited anything?
:Q

"Offloading" ... the GPU 's purpose IS to 'offload' work from the CPU ... my suggestions re: increasing "details/etc." were accurate in pairing a "mismatched" CPU-GPU for getting the 'most' out of games.

you have made a half-dozen posts criticizing *something* i said but you can't be specific.

:thumbsdown:

The purpose of the GPU is to accelerate 3D Graphics applications, run them and try to unload from CPU as many tasks as possible, not to unload a CPU completely. It can be used to encode video, run physics, accelerate video etc. A GPU is just too parallel to process general purpose calculations, it would require so many optimizations that simply will not justify the effort at all and will reduce greatly the overall flexibility, it may worth it in some other types of applications which require huge math power like Folding@Home. The GPU still have the need to depend from the CPU greatly. Cause the GPU is a huge parallel engine who doesn't like jumps and changes in the code. it is straightforward and is prepared to process as much as data as posible in a parallel way. So a more general purpose CPU will be far more flexible using data branching, prefetching, conditionals etc, but less powerful. The GPU can't do collision detection and without the proper hardware and software support cannot do physics either. IN a game, the CPU calculates character A.I., Collision Detection, scripts etc while the GPU is capable only of processing the graphics which requires a great and powerful straighforward hardware. So a "good CPU for a card" is just not right since are so many variables that an ideal CPU is simply not feasible. Just get the best CPU you can afford doing research, and be happy of it. I can admit that my P4 in older DX9 games (2004-2005), DX8 or older graphics I tend to be limited by CPU, but in newer games released from 2005 and now I tend to be far more GPU bound than CPU bound. I'm still able to play any game at 1024x768 with 4xFSAA and 16x AF. So a X1950PRO will increase my gaming performance, sometimes by a little, sometimes by much.

i know how the cpu-gpu work together.

so [i guess] you are just expanding on what i said ... mine being the most rudimentary non-technical explanation with generalizations ... while yours tend to be more technical and detailed.

your experience with your x1900p parallels mine and i was expressing *my version* of *my experience* ... with an old slow P4 at 3.31Ghz [a64 3200+ equivalent, more-or-less]

... my x1950p upgrade is my last gasp at a chance at keeping my rig with its ancient but well o/c'd CPU at or near the *recommended* specs for modern games ... and have succeeded at the Beginning of '07 ... so far.

my suggestion of a *good CPU* for a x1950p was an attempt at helping someone else with a similar rig experience *better gaming* without completely upgrading the rig ...

we are talking about someone "stuck" with the best CPU he was able to afford and now there is no CPU upgrade without gutting the rig
:Q

So i suggested and still suggest: run at the highest resolution you can and offload as much *work* as possible to the GPU by cranking UP the details,eyecandy, AA/AF, using HDR if possible
... i.e. try for as "much" eyecandy as possible [for that IS part of the reason for upgrading] without suffering with FPS dropping below your level of tolerance.


i stand by what i wrote



so .. . wonderful

keep those details coming

 

[evolucion8]

Well, activating FSAA and AF doesn't really takes more load from the CPU to the GPU, what does that means is that if you are CPU limited, like for example, hitting a wall at 68fps without FSAA and AF, (And if you are not GPU bound of course). You should be able to increase the image quality and having the same frame rate, since you are CPU limited, increasing the load to your GPU will not decrease your performance in that particular case. But for real, higher image quality (FSAA and AF) doesn't have nothing to do with CPU performance since the GPU is the one who's pushing pixel power doing those image quality enhancers. Since the CPU is giving it's maximum and the GPU is not even sweating, why not putting more load to the GPU increasing image quality? You know what I mean. Is not to contradict you, is just to redefine your definition of performance.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Well, activating FSAA and AF doesn't really takes more load from the CPU to the GPU, what does that means is that if you are CPU limited, like for example, hitting a wall at 68fps without FSAA and AF, (And if you are not GPU bound of course). You should be able to increase the image quality and having the same frame rate, since you are CPU limited, increasing the load to your GPU will not decrease your performance in that particular case. But for real, higher image quality (FSAA and AF) doesn't have nothing to do with CPU performance since the GPU is the one who's pushing pixel power doing those image quality enhancers. Since the CPU is giving it's maximum and the GPU is not even sweating, why not putting more load to the GPU increasing image quality? You know what I mean. Is not to contradict you, is just to redefine your definition of performance.

exactly ... you are not taking the calculations that the CPU performs away from it ... you are simply increasing the *load* on the GPU by maxing the 'details' [iq] ... hopefully, your CPU is already maxed.

1) find the highest resolution you can run at --tolerably for you - without killing FPS
[which as you point out in the case of "older CPUs" will be mostly the limiting factor (along with the monitor)]
2) increase the IQ as far as you can [again noting performance drops] for that was the whole *purpose* of the upgrade

in an ideal world i would have the fastest core 2 Duo system to match my 8800gtx with at least 2 GB of superfast RAM.

next year

 

[Farmer]

When are these cards supposed to come to market? Mid-December has come and gone, and I don't see a single big American retailer that has stock of the 512MB version (ZZF stocked the Sapphire, which sold out in a matter of hours), and only one stocking the 256MB version.

Do such things usually become readily available in the UK before they do in the US?

 

[GimpyFuzznut]

Check NCIX. They have the Sapphire.

 

[flexy]

mine (cough) are to be expected january, 15th. (diamond vipers)

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: GimpyFuzznut
Check NCIX. They have the Sapphire.

Uhm..NCIX always say "they have".....

 

[Severe]

I know there's been a ton of discussion around the net on the AGP 3.0/.8v vs. 1.5v thing but I haven't found a straight answer.

Will this card work in, or be compatible with the 4x/1.5v motherboards. I've got a 845PE chipset and would like to extend it's life a little. For what it's worth, I found this on the Intel 845PE chipset overview:

AGP 4X: Interface High-bandwidth interface delivers high-quality 2D, 3D, and video streams and is compatible with universal AGP8X graphics cards.

If anyone has heard or knows definitive, some info would be greatly appreciated.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Severe
I know there's been a ton of discussion around the net on the AGP 3.0/.8v vs. 1.5v thing but I haven't found a straight answer.

Will this card work in, or be compatible with the 4x/1.5v motherboards. I've got a 845PE chipset and would like to extend it's life a little. For what it's worth, I found this on the Intel 845PE chipset overview:

AGP 4X: Interface High-bandwidth interface delivers high-quality 2D, 3D, and video streams and is compatible with universal AGP8X graphics cards.

If anyone has heard or knows definitive, some info would be greatly appreciated.

Yeah, there's no AGP8X only cards. Any AGP8X card will work under any AGP4X slot with little or no difference in performance. The only difference between both is the protocol and the volts, and they're backward compatible. You just have to make sure that you has a good power supply and good memory. While bad memory sometimes would not reflect in issues using applications, but it does happen in some games and benchmarks and that will look like your card is incompatible with your system, that happened to me till I tweaked the RAM enough to make it fast and stable. It would only freeze on 3DMark03 and 3DMark01 and Prince of Persia the Warrior Within. In heavyer games like F.E.A.R and Half Life 2 nothing would happen. You should test your RAM with windiag or memtest if you haven't done it yet, otherwise, good to go

 

[swtethan]

http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Viper-X19...-5846484-2702327?ie=UTF8&s=electronics


amazon has a diamond 1950pro 512mb available for preorder!!! coming jan 15th

 

[rickV10]

Hi Guys.

I have a question about the X1950 Pro video card, particularly the HIS 512 MB version of it, and whether or not it will suit my needs.

About a couple weeks ago I purchased Medieval II Total War. At installation I only had 512 MB of memory and an Nvidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB card. Sure enough, the game did not play that well and was very laggy. Thus, I believed it was time for a memory and video card upgrade. I then ordered a 1 GB DDR 333 stick from Crucial, a BFG Nvidia 7600 GS video card and a 500 Watt Apevia PS to power all of it.

Everything installed nicely without a hiccup. But, while playing Medieval II, I still noticed sluggish performance. Anything near 4000 soldiers, which is a small to medium battle, results in an "exceeded settings limit which may result in reduced performance" message (i.e., lag). The game definitely played better with the new card, but not as well as I would like. I contacted BFG a few times to fix this and they had me install the latest drivers, get the card on its own power dongle, and confirm if the PS had enough juice for the card (my PS has two 12V rails, one at 18A and one at 16A, and the tech said that this is enough). The last tech I spoke with told me that he doesn't really think any AGP card can play this game rather well, even the more expensive 7800 (which, as he said, would only be a baby step from the 7600).

Thus, I reach my question. Would the HIS X1950 512 MB card give me any significant performance improvement over the 7600 GS I have now? I only need about 1000 or so more soldiers to play most battles (they all seem to fall within 5000-6000 units). This card looks more substantial then the one I have now, but I am not entirely sure. To RMA the BFG to Newegg would cost me a 15% restocking fee plus shipping, so I just want to make sure that I will able to suit if needs if I was to RMA it and get the HIS X1950 Pro.

Here are my system specs:

Gateway PC
P4 3.06 with Hyperthreading
Intel D845GERG2 Motherboard AGP 4X
1.5 GB DDR 333
250 GB Hard drive
500 Watt PS with 12V1 @ 18 amps and 12V2 @ 16 amps

Thanks in advance. Also, a couple other quick questions. The only other gripe I have with the 7600 GS is that its fan is rather noisy. The fan on the HIS seems larger but they claim it is "silent." I am not sure if this is just marketing, but could I expect less fan noise from the HIS X1950 Pro than the 7600 GS? Is excessive fan noise a common problem with the 7600 GS? Thanks again!

 

[Assimilator1]

Welcome to the forums rickV10

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to many of your questions ,but 1 thing's for certain it doesn't sound like that tech you spoke to has heard of the AGP 1950 card ,no way would that card not be able to play any modern games out.
Check out the various reviews at Anandtech & other sites of the PCI-E 1950 card to get any idea.Btw I'd be very surprised if the 7800GS was not able to play Med II at a decent resolution ,though I don't have any specific info on that.Maybe others can help here?
Oh & a 7800GS would be quite a big step up from the 7600GS ,though not so much a 7600 GT ,though the 1950 will be far better value for money ,if you can get it

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Well, activating FSAA and AF doesn't really takes more load from the CPU to the GPU, what does that means is that if you are CPU limited, like for example, hitting a wall at 68fps without FSAA and AF, (And if you are not GPU bound of course). You should be able to increase the image quality and having the same frame rate, since you are CPU limited, increasing the load to your GPU will not decrease your performance in that particular case. But for real, higher image quality (FSAA and AF) doesn't have nothing to do with CPU performance since the GPU is the one who's pushing pixel power doing those image quality enhancers. Since the CPU is giving it's maximum and the GPU is not even sweating, why not putting more load to the GPU increasing image quality? You know what I mean. Is not to contradict you, is just to redefine your definition of performance.

And that is exactly what I was saying ,just said a different way around:thumbsup: .

Apoppin
Yes we finally agree! :thumbsup: (maybe the problem was merely the word 'offload' which implies shifting the load from one to other ,perhaps something like 'optimising load' would be better )
I also agree its a good upgrade for a decent AGP rig like your own ,did you say you'd RMA'd your 1950 because it was too noisey? (or was that someone else?)

Anyway ,Happy new year!

Farmer
No usually we lag behind the US ,but not always! ,I've no idea why though
You know I'm sure the ebuyer has a US branch ,don't they have any?

**********************************************************************
Just in case this got buried

Is it me or are the scores for Quake 4 in the firingsquad review bizzare?

Even allowing for the fact that Nvidia is usually better at OpenGL, the 1950 scores are very low ,barely any better than the 850 scores ,whereas in other benchmarks the 1950 is in the area of 50-100% faster!
Driver problems ? or messed up testing?

The driverheaven.net review is almost useless ,deosn't compare to other cards:roll:

 

[honestjohn]

Looks like the reviewers were a little off in the retail pricing. $249 isn't bad though. Anyone up for a Powercolor X1950 Pro AGP - IN STOCK....

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/skusearch.hmx?SCriteria=AA65470

Don't know if this is going to bother any of you, but I was just reading some NewEgg user reviews of the PCI-E Powercolor and apparently the Accelero 2 exhausts it's air across the Motherboard and users have reported an increase in motherboard temperatures from 5c-8c. It does work very well on the Graphics Card however. Just thought I'd mention it.