X1950 Pro AGP is coming!

[swtethan]

but...... 512mb for $280 on amazon.....


you will have to wait til jan 15 to get it, preorders only


and its 600/1400 clock

 

[swtethan]

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/powercolor_radeon_x1950_pro_agp_review/page5.asp



I didnt read the whole thread yet, but if someone hasnt posted a review including the 1950pro vs 7800gs.... here it is

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: swtethan
but...... 512mb for $280 on amazon.....


you will have to wait til jan 15 to get it, preorders only


and its 600/1400 clock

(i am proud amazon affiliate....cough cough

 

[honestjohn]

First NewEgg sighting ....Diamond X1950 Pro 512MB AGP - in stock.....$289...ouch...same price as Amazon

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814103024

 

[Farmer]

I would jump on it, but it's listed for $250 on ZZF, no stock.

 

[getbush]

Do you guys think these will come down to $200 soon? Or may we might as well jump on at $250?

 

[postmortemIA]

$200 good luck with that for now.

Power Color X1950Pro AGP 256MB $250 in stock

Power Color X1950Pro AGP 256MB $260 in stock

 

[honestjohn]

Originally posted by: Farmer
I would jump on it, but it's listed for $250 on ZZF, no stock.

It's the Diamond X1950 Pro 256MB card which is on ZZF and is $238. The Sapphire 512MB card is the one for $249.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: getbush
Do you guys think these will come down to $200 soon? Or may we might as well jump on at $250?

yes ... but not the 512MB ver --look at the PCIe versions ... they still command a premium

... well ... depends on your definition of "soon" ...

next year is soon

they are just introduced ... give it a month or so for "competition"

and it "depends" ... if what you are using is so bad ... the "extra" $50 is worth it.

otoh, i had a x1950p ... and returned it and replaced my x850xt ...
no problem waiting another month or so for exactly what i want

 

[phatrabt]

I've checked around and can find some numbers, but can someone give me a good idea how this would stack up against my 6800 Ultra? The benchies from firingsquad make it appear that the x1950 AGP spanks the 6800 Ultra, and with me wanting to get the last gasps out of my AGP rig I'm considering it (but only if I get a decent performance boost). Machine specs (a little long in the tooth, I know):

P4 3.0 Socket 478 on an Asus P4P800SE
4x512 DDR PC3200 in Dual-Channel
Seagate 7200RPM 20GB HDD
GeForce 6800 Ultra outputting to two FP2100 LCDs

I usually play Oblivion, Doom3, HL2, and FEAR. So what do you think? Thanks!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: phatrabt
I've checked around and can find some numbers, but can someone give me a good idea how this would stack up against my 6800 Ultra? The benchies from firingsquad make it appear that the x1950 AGP spanks the 6800 Ultra, and with me wanting to get the last gasps out of my AGP rig I'm considering it (but only if I get a decent performance boost). Machine specs (a little long in the tooth, I know):

P4 3.0 Socket 478 on an Asus P4P800SE
4x512 DDR PC3200 in Dual-Channel
Seagate 7200RPM 20GB HDD
GeForce 6800 Ultra outputting to two FP2100 LCDs

I usually play Oblivion, Doom3, HL2, and FEAR. So what do you think? Thanks!

well, my x850xt is a bit faster than your ultra ...

and the x1950p/256MB is [by my estimation] ~1/3rd faster ...

so ... to me ... yes. it is 'significant' ... doing the math $250-$100{for your old AGP} is a decent $150 video upgrade for the x1950p/512MB ver.

 

[OJensen]

I went from a 6800GT clocked to Ultra to a Sapphire X1950 Pro 512MB (running at 620/1400 at the moment) , and it totally kicks my 6800s butt in Oblivion. With the 6800GT I had to run in 1024x768 with many details set to medium or low, the only things I had to max was view and tree distance. HDR was on as well.

Now, the X1950 Pro can run with almost everything maxed out + HDR on in 1280x1024. (I cut down on the shadows sliders a bit, and I don't care about AA with this game, looks good even without it).

When I ran the X1950 Pro with the settings that were optimal for my 6800GT, I noticed peak framerates had almost tripled (using Fraps). That says a little of the power of the card.

Oh, yeah, system specs. I have a P4 2.8 clocked to 3.5 , 2 gigs of RAM.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: OJensen
I went from a 6800GT clocked to Ultra to a Sapphire X1950 Pro 512MB (running at 620/1400 at the moment) , and it totally kicks my 6800s butt in Oblivion. With the 6800GT I had to run in 1024x768 with many details set to medium or low, the only things I had to max was view and tree distance. HDR was on as well.

Now, the X1950 Pro can run with almost everything maxed out + HDR on in 1280x1024. (I cut down on the shadows sliders a bit, and I don't care about AA with this game, looks good even without it).

When I ran the X1950 Pro with the settings that were optimal for my 6800GT, I noticed peak framerates had almost tripled (using Fraps). That says a little of the power of the card.

Oh, yeah, system specs. I have a P4 2.8 clocked to 3.5 , 2 gigs of RAM.

so ... how much faster? ... i got "triple peak" ... very occasionally [when my CPU ... 2.80c @ 3.1 Ghz wasn't bottlenecked. . . . i don't think 1 or 2GB system RAM makes much difference in most games --except G3]

but *generally* ... for me ... the x1950p - 256MB ver. --is ~1/3rd faster *overall* over myx850xt in my rig.

[and for us ati guys, the difference is "more" 'cause we now got SM3.0 and HDR capabilities]

 

[postmortemIA]

A 3+GHz P4 is not bottleneck in games. It is as fast as ~2.0GHz Athlon 64, regardless whether it is single or dual core (no advantage of dual core in most games). Yeah, there are some A64 and C2D clocked beyond that, but majority might not be.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
A 3+GHz P4 is not bottleneck in games. It is as fast as ~2.0GHz Athlon 64, regardless whether it is single or dual core (no advantage of dual core in most games). Yeah, there are some A64 and C2D clocked beyond that, but majority might not be.

not in FEAR but it most certainly is a real bottleneck in Oblivion
:Q

and the Core2 Duo CPUs are MUCH [much] faster than the old P4s ... beats AMD's current best in games ... single OR dual core.

yes, my 2.80c @ 3.31Ghz is as slow as an A64 3200+.
... and barely 'hanging on' for games ...

AMD is WAY beyond 3000+ processors [of 3 years ago] ... and Intel still trounces amd's very best --in GAME peformance! ...
... where have you been?
:shocked:

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: phatrabt
I've checked around and can find some numbers, but can someone give me a good idea how this would stack up against my 6800 Ultra? The benchies from firingsquad make it appear that the x1950 AGP spanks the 6800 Ultra, and with me wanting to get the last gasps out of my AGP rig I'm considering it (but only if I get a decent performance boost). Machine specs (a little long in the tooth, I know):

P4 3.0 Socket 478 on an Asus P4P800SE
4x512 DDR PC3200 in Dual-Channel
Seagate 7200RPM 20GB HDD
GeForce 6800 Ultra outputting to two FP2100 LCDs

I usually play Oblivion, Doom3, HL2, and FEAR. So what do you think? Thanks!

well, my x850xt is a bit faster than your ultra ...

and the x1950p/256MB is [by my estimation] ~1/3rd faster ...

so ... to me ... yes. it is 'significant' ... doing the math $250-$100{for your old AGP} is a decent $150 video upgrade for the x1950p/512MB ver.

Actually in newer games like F.E.A.R., Oblivion, Half Life 2: Episode 1, G.R.A.W. etc your X850XT performs way more faster than a 6800U (About 10%-40%), particularly in high resolutions with eye candy turned on. For some reason, the 6800 Ultra doesn't have the power to run the latest games in the way it supposed to be played. The X850XT is faster, and in some instances, much faster. But an upgrade to a X1950 PRO will be great anyway. http://firingsquad.com/hardware/powercolor_radeon_x1950_pro_agp_review/page5.asp

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
A 3+GHz P4 is not bottleneck in games. It is as fast as ~2.0GHz Athlon 64, regardless whether it is single or dual core (no advantage of dual core in most games). Yeah, there are some A64 and C2D clocked beyond that, but majority might not be.

not in FEAR but it most certainly is a real bottleneck in Oblivion
:Q

and the Core2 Duo CPUs are MUCH [much] faster than the old P4s ... beats AMD's current best in games ... single OR dual core.

yes, my 2.80c @ 3.31Ghz is as slow as an A64 3200+.
... and barely 'hanging on' for games ...

AMD is WAY beyond 3000+ processors [of 3 years ago] ... and Intel still trounces amd's very best --in GAME peformance! ...
... where have you been?
:shocked:

A P4 running faster than 3.2GHz will be enough for todays games, after all there's just too little games taking advantage of dual core CPU's. The main advantage of the C2D against the P4 is mainly of a better platform, architecture, probably better chipsets, faster DDR2 support and other goodies. In many benchmarks the biggest difference is in maximum FPS, but in the minimum FPS, is not something great. But most today's games are more GPU limited than CPU limited. But heck, an upgrade from a P4 to a C2D still a great upgrade, less power consumption, better application responsiveness, faster encoding, there's more advantage in general purpose applications than in gaming.

 

[OJensen]

Originally posted by: apoppin
so ... how much faster? ... i got "triple peak" ... very occasionally [when my CPU ... 2.80c @ 3.1 Ghz wasn't bottlenecked. . . . i don't think 1 or 2GB system RAM makes much difference in most games --except G3]

but *generally* ... for me ... the x1950p - 256MB ver. --is ~1/3rd faster *overall* over myx850xt in my rig.

[and for us ati guys, the difference is "more" 'cause we now got SM3.0 and HDR capabilities]

In F.E.A.R I got about a 50-55% increase in performance. At least I can turn on AA and soft shadows without having the framerates dip too low. Other games increased from everything between 30 to 70% depending on the game. All in all, I think it was a worthwile upgrade. I didn't bench Company of Heroes, but it didn't run well at all on my 68GT. On the 1950 it looks and runs a heck of a lot better.

 

[apoppin]

i didn't think the gap was that large between my x850xt and the ultra ... anyway, from look at your charts [at my mid/low resolutions of 12x9 and with a better CPU]
BF2142 64 vs 52/Q4 56 vs 46/FEAR 66 vs 50/CoH 95 vs 60/ and Cod2 46 vs 25

certainly it isn't twice as fast --but Significant :thumbsup:

and it DOES look better -- Oblivion is a real difference

i'd also say my CPU is holding back performance, overall ...

so let's say ~50% faster?


--in FEAR, my MAXimum went WAY up, but the MINimum increased only from 21 to 25 FPS [of course that dipped that low only for ~1% of the game with the x1950p ... 5% with the x850xt].
[10x7 with *everything* -- except SS]

 

[OJensen]

My average framerate in FEAR increased from 25 to 38. (This in 16x12 + 4xAA, just a test of how the cards perform in the higher resolutions)

3DMark06 increased from ~2500 to 4000 points.

I tested Doom3 but only saw a minor increase though. Went from 40 to 52 FPS (in 1600x1200 with 4xAA + textures set to "high" detail). But it does depend a bit more on the CPU and memory plus ATI still isn't as OpenGL friendly I guess.

 

[AgonxOC]

I get 2500 Marks in 06 with no SM 3.0 with my X850XT PE so I assume I will at least get 5000 marks with the new X1950Pro 512MB. I can play HL2 E1 at 1600 x 1200, 6x AA, 16x AF, and get about 30+ FPS with setting on max and all in high quality. I play it at a lower resolutions ofcourse and enjoy it at about 45+ FPS. I need this car for my M power.


Alex

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: AgonxOC
I get 2500 Marks in 06 with no SM 3.0 with my X850XT PE so I assume I will at least get 5000 marks with the new X1950Pro 512MB. I can play HL2 E1 at 1600 x 1200, 6x AA, 16x AF, and get about 30+ FPS with setting on max and all in high quality. I play it at a lower resolutions ofcourse and enjoy it at about 45+ FPS. I need this car for my M power.


Alex

The 3DMark06 score doesn't really reflects performance, since the X8X0 series cannot take the SM3.0 test and the OpenEX HDR, the final score is greatly reduced. Even a X1600PRO scores higher than the X850XT PE, when we all know that the X1600PRO cannot touch the X850XT PE in any game. Also I Play Half Life 2 at 1280x1024 @ 6xFSAA and 16x Aniso using Quality Adaptive Anti Aliasing and Triple Buffering and the lowest is around the 28 and the maximum is 60 (Refresh Rate Limit when using Vertical Sync cause Triple Buffering requires it) Most of the time is around the 50's. But playing at 60Hz on a CRT sucks, so I reduced the resolution at 1024x768 with the same quality settings and the lowest FPS is around 30fps and the maximum is 85 and the average is around the 65 to 70's. Upgrading to a X1950PRO in this game probably will give me a boost, not something great since I'm CPU limited in this game, unless if I played in on high resolutions with FSAA and AF, but in other games like F.E.A.R. and Oblivion sure the boost will be greater.

 

[AgonxOC]

Do you play HL2 or HL2 E1? In HL2 I average 100 FPS and the lowest is usually 40 in the cannals with the water reflections turned up at 1600 x 1200 the highest have been 200+. I use an IBM CRT 22 in with 85 Hz.


Alex

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: AgonxOC
Do you play HL2 or HL2 E1? In HL2 I average 100 FPS and the lowest is usually 40 in the cannals with the water reflections turned up at 1600 x 1200 the highest have been 200+. I use an IBM CRT 22 in with 85 Hz.


Alex

In Half Life 2, since I'm using Vertical Sync and Triple Buffering, the highest fps are limited to the refresh rate of the monitor, and my CRT is only 17inc and supports a max of 1280x1024@60hz which is eye straining, that's why I play with the resolution of 1024x768@85Hz. Without V-Sync the frame rate will go much higher, but I'd prefer smooth frame rate over highest frame rate because without V-Sync, will cause image tearing and is annoying, and with V-Sync On, the framerate is more consistent (Particularly if you use Triple Buffering).

 

[AgonxOC]

I KNOW V-Sync limits the FPS to the refresh rate. I dont use it because I never really seen a difference with or without it. When I had a Pentium 4 @ 3.6 GHz my FPS in HL2 were similar to yours at your resolutions. Once I went to a Pentium M I got much better FPS and I could play at 1600 x 1200 with no issues.



Alex