7950GT vs. 7900GT

Jsy said:
x1900xt is a waste of time you want the x1900xtx because you get the ddr4 memory off the video card. x1900xt is the same as the 7900gt. So if those are the cards you want then grab the 7950 or the ati x1900xtx.

I think you're thinking of the X1950XT, which is way over his budget. X1900XTX's don't have GDDR4 memory, just the X1950XTX's. Even the X1900XTX is over his budget, and it's not all that much better than the X1900XT. A small overclock could make it just as good. Of course I would recommend him an X1950XT, but they're so expensive. I tried to find him a card in the same price range as the 7900GT and the 7950GT that would outperform them.


As for which one's the best out of the X1900XTs...The reason those 3 on Newegg are so cheap is that they are the 256MB versions of the card and they're cheaper to make than the 512MB cards. And I've heard that Sapphire is a really good company for ATI cards. I don't see any problem with that card; the specs are the same as all the others for the most part. Just a few MHz on the core and the memory are a little down, but first off not enough to make a noticeable difference, and second you can easily make up for it with a mild overclock. Once again, you might want to wait for some opinions about the manufacturer, but Sapphire should be just fine.
 
The question is, will that particular 256MB x1900xt outperform the 512MB 7950GT? That benchmark I posted is kind of cryptic as to what version of the x1900xt is... 256 or 512. Thanks again for the constructive statements.
 
legionhardware.com said:
Each graphics card features its own unique advantages and while both can come fitted with 512MB of onboard GDDR3 memory, the similarities stop there.

Yeah, it looks like they're comparing it with the 512MB version of the X1900XT. But honestly, I don't think it will matter. I've heard from many, many sources that the size of the memory doesn't matter nearly as much as the speed of the memory. I know the speeds are about the same, but still, the size isn't a direct indicator of performance. I think that even the 256MB version of the X1900XT would be better than the 7950GT.

For example, EVGA makes a 512MB version of NVIDIA's 7300GT. Even though it has 512MB of memory, it gets smeared by NVIDIA's 7600GT. Why? Because of the differences in the memory speeds, as well as the enormous difference in core speeds and pipelines.

If you insist on doing so, I'm not against the idea of you getting a 7950GT. Don't get me wrong, it's a magnificent card. It's just that I think that the X1900XT would be a better card, and it's great that it's cheaper.
 
Yes, the card does look great... I'm going to be getting a new card to accompany my 24" in the later months of this year, and I want the following games to work at maximum resolutions:
-Halo
-Rise of Legends
-Civilization IV

And I'm hoping that it will handle Crysis, Battlefield 2142, Splinter Cell 4, and Halo 2 with ease. The two middle games are coming out this October, so we can see what happens there. What do you think will happen?

I need benchmarks comparing the 512MB 7950GT against the 256MB x1900xt.
 
7900GS in my opinion. It offers exceptional performance and it's much cheaper. That and DX10 comes out in what...4 months?
 
Sytheious said:
7900GS in my opinion. It offers exceptional performance and it's much cheaper. That and DX10 comes out in what...4 months?
Yes, they're within the $200 range... but will it survive the next gen games? I'm pretty sure it can do the current games I listed, at max resolutions. DirectX 10 comes out in 4 months... in that case, should I wait for its release?
 
With everything said, ill probably just say it again.

But anyways...

Those cards are so powerfull you need a fairly large resolution to justify having the card at all!
 
ArrizX said:
With everything said, ill probably just say it again.

But anyways...

Those cards are so powerfull you need a fairly large resolution to justify having the card at all!

A 24" panel running in the 2560's is enough to justify the card, no?

The first question I believe now is that should I wait for DX10's release? My current card, as a workstation card, supports extremely high resolutions, but gaming will be quite skimpy.
 
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/nvidia7950gt/index.php?p=4

That shows a few comparisons, not necessarily benchmarks, of the two cards. It shows that the X1900XT is clearly better at Anti-aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering than the 7950GT. You have to click the buttons to switch between the two. I couldn't find a 3DMark comparison of the two anywhere. I'm sure there's one out there, it's just my Google skills are not up to par :p .

And it might be wise to get a relatively cheap card, such as the 7900GS, so you can upgrade to DX10 in the near future. The 7900GS isn't a bad card at all, just it's not much compared to those other cards. The problem is, I've heard that only Vista will support DX10; Windows XP will run the cards, just in DX9 mode. Not sure if it's true or not though. So you'll probably have to get Vista too, which will probably be at the very least $200.
 
I plan to own this card for quite a long time... I'm not sure what you mean by upgrading, but it sounds like you mean for me to buy a new card when DX10 rols around. I don't want to spend $200 on a card that will last me only 4 months. Should or should I not wait?
 
Back
Top Bottom