Rage3D Radeon X1950 Review

[Ratchet]

We've just published our review of ATI's Radeon X1950 XTX and Radeon X1950 Crossfire Edition. We've also included the X1900 XT 256MB, and threw them all up against a slew of graphics cards from both ATI and NVIDIA. Here's a quote:

Powering these two new SKUs is a new graphics core from ATI known to most as the R580+. Very much like the R580 before it, the “plus” brings in a few tweaks to the memory controller which lets ATI be the first on the block with a graphics card that feature high-speed GDDR4 memory modules. That, and a new, more efficient and much quieter cooler, are what the new X1950s are all about.

Rage3D Radeon X1950 Review

[Ratchet]

I spent so much time on a SuperAA vs SLIAA comparison app that it's a bit depressing to me not seeing it used (it didn't really fit in with the article).

If you're interested, you can check it out here: http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/atix1950/aa.php

[cvearl]

You been busy!!!

Top notch review.

X1900XT 256 looks to be the best bang for the buck out there right now!

Can you comment on the X1900XT256 cooler and noise levels. Same as a standard X1900XT?

C.

[Ratchet]

same cooler, but I never really listened to the noise to see if it's any different than the X1900 XTX cooler. I'd assume it's the same.

[cvearl]

Originally Posted by Ratchet

same cooler, but I never really listened to the noise to see if it's any different than the X1900 XTX cooler. I'd assume it's the same.

k thx!

[nomore]

awesome review Ratchet.!!!!

that is one hell of a conclusion. it has to be the best conclusion I read in years.
I gave you a rep for it.

and x1900xt 256mb looks very sweet.

[noko]

Great review, as always Ratchet. Like testing with Nvidia quality set to High, makes it more closer to ATI's (but still less quality far as I am concern). For me the Radeon 1900 XT seems best bang for buck except I would need a new cooler which would bring price up so then the Radeon 1950 XTX starts looking much better. I am way past due for upgrade.

[cvearl]

Originally Posted by noko

Great review, as always Ratchet. Like testing with Nvidia quality set to High, makes it more closer to ATI's (but still less quality far as I am concern). For me the Radeon 1900 XT seems best bang for buck except I would need a new cooler which would bring price up so then the Radeon 1950 XTX starts looking much better. I am way past due for upgrade.

Ditto and +1 rep!!!!

[SIrPauly]

Nice Job!

I have question for you that's a bit off topic, sorry! Noticed your post at Beyond3d with the Super-AA/SLi-AA comparison. How are you able to take screenshots of Super-AA? Does Half-life2 have the ability to take in-game screenshots? Thanks!

[SIrPauly]

Silly me, hehe! You have the Sli-aa/CrossFire AA comparisons here, too. Sorry! Edit: Nice work on the Sli-AA/Super-AA comparisons! Thank you!

[nomore]

this is going to be off-topic little bit.

but why isn't there anything between $279 and $449 in the new ATi line up??????


are they planning a x1950gt or a x1950xt around $350??

and it looks like the new line up can use a x1700 xt around $150 as well.

[cvearl]

Originally Posted by nomore

this is going to be off-topic little bit.

but why isn't there anything between $279 and $449 in the new ATi line up??????


are they planning a x1950gt or a x1950xt around $350??

and it looks like the new line up can use a x1700 xt around $150 as well.

You bring up a great point. One that Ratchet touched on briefley.

Based on this "real?" chart or roadmap of ATI's new line up and Rathcets chart of the current structure...

Everything from X1950Pro (X1900GT's October replacement) down seems pretty logical and with correct pricing structure. Very complete. It shows that X1650XT Ratchet meantioned.

But that HUGE hold between the X1950XTX and X1900XT256MB (which I have felt is a placeholder only) you point out is most interresting indeed. X1950GT or X1950XT or whatever at $350 sounds right to me.

My guess is it's a $300 to $350 wildcard being held by ATI to see how nVidia reacts to thier new lineup. It's like a game of chess. One that nVidia has been a little better at the last coupla years.

I am dieing to know what will fill that hole though.

[Ratchet]

Originally Posted by SIrPauly

Nice Job!

I have question for you that's a bit off topic, sorry! Noticed your post at Beyond3d with the Super-AA/SLi-AA comparison. How are you able to take screenshots of Super-AA? Does Half-life2 have the ability to take in-game screenshots? Thanks!

Yeah Half-Life2 has F5 as the screenshot key. However, by default it takes JPG which is less than ideal for doing image comparisons. To get it to take lossless TGAs instead you have to rebind it to "screenshot"

bind f5 screenshot

[SIrPauly]

Thank you very much!

[SIrPauly]

Wouldn't the X1900XT 512 meg card fit that price target range and also very competitive to the 7950 based card offerings?

[snookums]

excellent as always Rachet. I was about to complain about the lack of IQ comparisions until I read the second post in this thread

now im just going to bitch about the lack of AdaptiveAA/TransparentAA comparisons

[Ratchet]

Originally Posted by snookums

excellent as always Rachet. I was about to complain about the lack of IQ comparisions until I read the second post in this thread

now im just going to bitch about the lack of AdaptiveAA/TransparentAA comparisons

I did AAA/TAA comparisons and AF comparisons in past articles. Maybe things have changed slightly with the newer drivers, but it seems redundant to do those again.

[snookums]

im more concerned about new bugs or changes to their methods. both companies have put out new drivers, and ATi especially recoded a bunch of stuff for performance increases. I just want to make sure they didnt "pull an nvidia" and drop the IQ to gain a few FPS.

[Ratchet]

I'm not going to say I know what the R600 or G80 looks like, but I think that both ATI and NVIDIA have realized that IQ is getting more and more important for users now and they are both going to react accordingly with their new products. Not everything will be enabled by default, but I think there are going to be some nice things to play with on both sides.

[cvearl]

Originally Posted by Ratchet

I'm not going to say I know what the R600 or G80 looks like, but I think that both ATI and NVIDIA have realized that IQ is getting more and more important for users now and they are both going to react accordingly with their new products. Not everything will be enabled by default, but I think there are going to be some nice things to play with on both sides.

That will be a welcome thing.

C.

[Emilee]

I must say I am very glad you used HQ for NV cards. FS has done this in the 1950 review as well. Its a welcome step, and I also appreciate the Super/SLI AA comparison.

[nomore]

Originally Posted by cvearl

You bring up a great point. One that Ratchet touched on briefley.

Based on this "real?" chart or roadmap of ATI's new line up and Rathcets chart of the current structure...

Everything from X1950Pro (X1900GT's October replacement) down seems pretty logical and with correct pricing structure. Very complete. It shows that X1650XT Ratchet meantioned.

But that HUGE hold between the X1950XTX and X1900XT256MB (which I have felt is a placeholder only) you point out is most interresting indeed. X1950GT or X1950XT or whatever at $350 sounds right to me.

My guess is it's a $300 to $350 wildcard being held by ATI to see how nVidia reacts to thier new lineup. It's like a game of chess. One that nVidia has been a little better at the last coupla years.

I am dieing to know what will fill that hole though.

I asked that question because Ratchet's line up is little bit different than yours.
but still there is a huge gap around $300-400.

I wish someone had more info about the future ATi lineup so I can make a decision about getting a directx 9 or a directx 10 card before vista comes around.

I am starting to dislike this whole rumor thing.

if there would have been something official about the release date of R600 and Vista, I would spend my money wisely.

[whismerhill]

Originally Posted by nomore

I would spend my money wisely.

the fact is : they don't want you to spend your money wisely...
they want you to spend more than you intended

[psikoticsilver]

Hi... I have a couple questions about those results..
The 1900gt in Crossfire seems ridiculously underpowered. I know it's no 1900XT but the numbers seem to be off.

For the first page of benchmarks (I'm too lazy to do the second page, I looked and it's more or less the same), the percent gained from putting two GT's in Crossfire is staggeringly low. From 8%-25% at the lowest resolution, and 17-35% at the highest resolution.

Now I know expecting too much is a great way to shatter your hopes, but is 50% too much to expect from putting this card in crossfire? It just seems way too low.

Now to the questions.
1) Could the driver be to blame for this? The setup said you had problems with the OTHER driver for these cards.
2) Could the Crossfire Rendering method be to blame? If you change it to forced Alternate Frame Rendering do you think it would perform betteR?
3) Or is the card just that slow?

I'm very interested in that card, thanks for any answers

[whismerhill]

Originally Posted by psikoticsilver

Hi... I have a couple questions about those results..
The 1900gt in Crossfire seems ridiculously underpowered. I know it's no 1900XT but the numbers seem to be off.

For the first page of benchmarks (I'm too lazy to do the second page, I looked and it's more or less the same), the percent gained from putting two GT's in Crossfire is staggeringly low. From 8%-25% at the lowest resolution, and 17-35% at the highest resolution.

Now I know expecting too much is a great way to shatter your hopes, but is 50% too much to expect from putting this card in crossfire? It just seems way too low.

Now to the questions.
1) Could the driver be to blame for this? The setup said you had problems with the OTHER driver for these cards.
2) Could the Crossfire Rendering method be to blame? If you change it to forced Alternate Frame Rendering do you think it would perform betteR?
3) Or is the card just that slow?

I'm very interested in that card, thanks for any answers

X1900GT in crossfire has no master card and no dongle which means that everything goes through the motherboard (PCI-E), and that there's no compositing chip

[cvearl]

Originally Posted by psikoticsilver

Hi... I have a couple questions about those results..
The 1900gt in Crossfire seems ridiculously underpowered. I know it's no 1900XT but the numbers seem to be off.

For the first page of benchmarks (I'm too lazy to do the second page, I looked and it's more or less the same), the percent gained from putting two GT's in Crossfire is staggeringly low. From 8%-25% at the lowest resolution, and 17-35% at the highest resolution.

Now I know expecting too much is a great way to shatter your hopes, but is 50% too much to expect from putting this card in crossfire? It just seems way too low.

Now to the questions.
1) Could the driver be to blame for this? The setup said you had problems with the OTHER driver for these cards.
2) Could the Crossfire Rendering method be to blame? If you change it to forced Alternate Frame Rendering do you think it would perform betteR?
3) Or is the card just that slow?

I'm very interested in that card, thanks for any answers

I don't know about in Crossfire.

But as a single card it is the equivalent to 7900GT. It's faster than 7900GS. So for whatever that's worth.

Some day I will try CF. But not until it is friendly with almost all titles. It does not appear that way yet to me. But I have no personal experience in that area.

C.

[psikoticsilver]

Originally Posted by whismerhill

X1900GT in crossfire has no master card and no dongle which means that everything goes through the motherboard (PCI-E), and that there's no compositing chip

I appreciate the response, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote

[whismerhill]

Originally Posted by psikoticsilver

I appreciate the response, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote

well... if I'm not misunderstood you wondered why the performance was so low with X1900GT in crossfire

so I answered (it's due to the absence of dongle/compositing chip)

or if you prefer my answer to your original post is :
1) no (although perhaps drivers improvement could increase perf as always but I don't expect any huge improvement any time soon)
2) no
3) yes (because X1900GT crossfire was built for "easy crossfire" and not "powerful crossfire")

of course I didn't conclude, I thought it was obvious, sorry if I was unclear

[psikoticsilver]

Ohh Ok man I understand now.
Well would overclocking the PCI-Express work to alleiviate the problem?

I saw a comparison between the dongle and the masterless versions, it was anywhere from 0-10% difference in speed at most.

neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/powercolorx1900gtcf/4.html
(sorry It won't let me paste the http)
Thank you for that information btw. I like helpful people.

[whismerhill]

well both reviews don't have much in common but I found this :
splinter cell chaos theory @ 1280x1024 4xAA 16xAF

[email protected]
[email protected]

I think if neoseeker did have a config as powerful as rage3d the % increase from Crossfire without cable/master card to full crossfire would be greater

Crossfire is for powerful computers

I'm not saying their review is bad though it just shows that if you don't have a super high end computer, you gain less with higher/better gfx products


finally I did miss something about your first post :
you're talking about a 8-25% improvement between X1900GT & X1900GT CF
yet, with splinter cell chaos theory @ 1280x1024 4xAA 16xAF
we go from 59.6 up to 114.6 which is around 92% increase ...