backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by Ub3rn00b.. on Oct 20 at 12:37 AM


ATI Radeon X1950XTX, X1900XT 256MB, X1950 Pro

"RV570"

Radeon X1950 Pro with Internal CrossFire connector
ATI's new mainstream product gets a first look

DailyTech has managed to obtain an early sample of ATI’s upcoming Radeon X1950 Pro graphics card. The Radeon X1950 Pro was expected to arrive next week, however ATI has pushed the launch date back to the last week of October. Nevertheless, the Radeon X1950 Pro is based on ATI’s RV570 graphics core that is one of ATI’s first products manufactured on an 80nm fabrication process, and is completely separate in almost every way imaginable from the existing Radeon X1950 video cards released earlier this year.

ATI has equipped the Radeon X1950 Pro with 36 pixel shaders and 12 pipelines on a new core that is essentially a stripped down R580. Our early sample is clocked at 575 MHz core and 686 MHz GDDR3 memory, which is a tad shy of the previously reported 580 MHz core and 700 MHz memory of ATI reference boards. However, this is a retail vendor sample, and each vendor will clock according to its own specifications.

The Radeon X1950 Pro in our possession is a basic model with 256MB of graphics memory. It lacks HDCP support, unfortunately. Dual-DVI outputs are available, though neither output is dual-link capable. An ATI Rage Theater is integrated for VIVO capabilities similar to the higher end Radeon X1900XT/XTX and X1950XTX cards. As this is only a reference board, graphics card manufacturers are free to integrate dual-link DVI and HDCP support. The card  still requires a 6-pin PCI Express power connector.

*Update* The Radeon X1950 Pro has internal dual-link TMDS transmitters for both DVI outputs. HDCP is also supported on the reference board.

New to the Radeon X1950 Pro is the inclusion of an internal CrossFire connector. Gone is the need for a master and slave card configuration of higher end Radeon X1900XT/CrossFire and Radeon X1950XTX/CrossFire graphics cards. This time around ATI has integrated the CrossFire compositing engine into the graphics core itself. Communication between two graphics cards in CrossFire is performed via internal CrossFire connector. The internal CrossFire connector is expected to ship with the graphics card and be a ribbon type cable, similar to some SLI bridge connectors. Also new with the Radeon X1950 Pro is a new single-slot cooler. The new cooler is similar to the unit used on Radeon X1950XTX graphics cards, albeit half the width.

ATI Radeon X1000 Series

X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
Core Clock
650 MHz
625 MHz
575 MHz
Memory Clock
1000 MHz 725 MHz 686 MHz
Pixel Shaders
48 48 36
Texture Units
16 16 12

In addition to snapping a couple images of the upcoming Radeon X1950 Pro, DailyTech was able to run a few quick benchmarks. For reference purposes the Radeon X1950 Pro is compared to ATI’s current flagship Radeon X1950XTX and mid-range Powercolor Radeon X1900XT 256MB. The Radeon X1950 Pro is expected to slot right below the Radeon X1900XT 256MB where the Radeon X1900GT is currently positioned.

The test system was configured as follows:
  • Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800
  • Asus P5W DH Deluxe
  • Kingston HyperX DDR2-800
  • Silverstone ST60F

  • Windows XP Professional SP2
  • Futuremark 3DMark06
  • FarCry 1.33
  • Half Life 2:Lost Coast
  • Quake 4 1.2
  • Serious Sam II

Futuremark 3DMark06

X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
Score
6633
  5062
  5078

Synthetic performance in Futuremark’s 3DMark06 shows the Radeon X1950 Pro and X1900XT 256MB are very close; though there’s a slight favor towards the Radeon X1950 Pro.
 
FarCry 4xAA/16xAF Max Details - 1280x1024

X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
FPS
169.99
  114.27
  109.90

Half Life 2:Lost Coast 4xAA/16xAF 1280x1024

X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
FPS
80.72
58.6
53.64

Quake 4 4xAA 1280x1024

X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
FPS
57.6
39.67
37.87

Serious Sam II HighAA/16xAF 1280x1024

X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
FPS
52.33
24.03
26.63

Overall gaming performance with the Radeon X1950 Pro and Radeon X1900XT 256MB is very close. Although the Radeon X1900XT 256MB has a slight performance advantage in most games, it’s not as big of a jump as the Radeon X1950XTX over the Radeon X1950 Pro. A couple of factors can contribute to the close performance numbers of the Radeon X1950 Pro and Radeon X1900XT 256MB. Two possible reasons include the Radeon X1900XT’s 256MB of video memory isn’t enough or the 48 pixel-shaders are excessive for the selected games. Nevertheless the Radeon X1950 Pro performance is quite promising.

Power Consumption
Watts
X1950XTX X1900XT 256MB X1950 Pro
Idle
152
151
144
Load
285
279
225

Power consumption with the 80nm die shrink is quite impressive. Under load the Radeon X1950 Pro manages to consume a mere 225 watts—54 watts less than the Radeon X1900XT 256MB. While the Radeon X1900XT 256MB delivers more pixel shading power, the Radeon X1950 Pro offers slightly better performance-per-watt in gaming.

ATI’s upcoming Radeon X1950 Pro looks quite promising considering the lower power consumption and near Radeon X1900XT 256MB levels of performance. The use of a single-slot cooler also makes the Radeon X1950 Pro more attractive for users with limited slot expansion capabilities. There’s also the internal CrossFire connector that allows future upgrade to CrossFire slightly easier and less wasteful since it only needs another Radeon X1950 Pro instead of hunting down a Radeon X1900 CrossFire Edition.

Pricing for the upcoming Radeon X1950 Pro is unknown at the moment, unfortunately. Nevertheless with the Radeon X1900XT 256MB carrying a $279 MSRP, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see the Radeon X1950 Pro slotted below in the $229 or $249 price bracket.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Coming to AGP possibly
By Chadder007 on 10/9/2006 9:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ive heard a rumor that the 1950Pro is coming to AGP possibly in late Nov. I hope its true.




RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By KaiserCSS on 10/9/2006 9:45:08 AM , Rating: 3
Honestly, of you're still using AGP, you're going to have to cough up some dough and upgrade to a PCI-e system pretty darn soon. AGP is slowly but surely dying away to make room for new, more powerful cards that can use the extra bandwidth available with PCI-e. And it's been around for about 2 or more solid years now.

Look at it this way: Christmas is right around the corner. Induldge yourself ;)


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By Fenixgoon on 10/9/2006 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 1
AGP is a bit pointless, as long as you can get a PCI-E counterpart mobo. For example, the 7800GS is what - $400 for the agp version? The PCI-E is far less expensive - you could probably buy a solid PCI-E mobo + the PCI-E 7800GS for less than the AGP 7800GS (not to mention the PCI-E version SMOKES the AGP version)


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By johnsonx on 10/9/2006 1:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
$400? No.

A 7800GS is $259, and there are rebates on several of them. BFG's OC version is $229 after MIR.

The cheapest 7900GS (which I presume is what you mean by 'the PCI-e version' as the 7800GS is AGP only) is $199.00. That's only a $30 difference when you consider rebates, and only $60 even without a rebate.

Not hardly enough for 'a solid PCI-E mobo', neverminding all the additional work of a mobo swap. I don't know if the 7900GS SMOKES a 7800GS, but I will accept it as written that a 7900GS would indeed be faster.

This article is about the X1950Pro however, and if it becomes available in AGP form it will render this discussion moot. I'll go ahead and throw out the same hyperbole: the X1950Pro AGP would SMOKE a 7900GS.

Done.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By lemonadesoda on 10/9/2006 3:02:38 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think that's a good analysis for anyone on a socket 478 system. Maybe for a 775'er who already has DDR2, but for a 478 system:

To upgrade to PCIe, you need a total platform upgrade. Mainboard, CPU, memory as well as the GPU. You also need quite a few hours to reinstall OS and all apps.

Let's look at the numbers (note these estimates are approx, and I'll base it on a high end not top end GPU, and a high end not top end CPU, etc. I'll also cost time at $10 per hr):

Upgrade existing AGP system
GPU: Cost circa $250
Upgrade time: 30 mins MAX MAX = $5

Upgrade to NEW PCIe system
MB: $120
Memory: $100-$200 depending on current RAM
GPU: $250
CPU: $200
Upgrade time: 8 hrs, system build and complete reinstall of OS and all apps = $80

Cost to upgrade AGP = $255
Cost to build new platform = $750-850

Net difference $495-595. , which is 200% to 250% more than just a standalone GPU upgrade.

This issue becomes even more pronounced if there are more than one machine to upgrade. It's not uncommon for there to be 2 machines in a "household", 3 machines+ in a "SOHO" office, and 5+ machines in a SMALL business. It all adds up. Even for the small guys.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By xsilver on 10/9/2006 8:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
totall agree except for the labour time/cost
no way it takes 8 hours to do all that - I would put a high end estimate at 4 hours

also you forget to account for the residual cost of the old system if you're going to pci-e
your old mobo +ram +cpu +gpu could add up to $250, making the net difference to a less sensationalised $200-300 cost to upgrade to pci-e


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By JeffDM on 10/9/2006 9:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
Residual cost of the old system? In economics, I think you call that "sunk cost" and don't even count it at all in the analysis.

Or are you meaning residual value? It's been a long time since I've sold parts when they were reasonably new, so I don't know if there's $250 value in the removed parts. You still have the cost of the graphics board itself, that's $250-$300 vs. $500-$600. Generally, if I had to do that massive of an upgrade, I'd just sell off the system complete and get a new one, there's no point in hobbling the upgraded system with older drives and while you are at it, might as well swap out the case too.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By lemonadesoda on 10/10/2006 3:50:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I would put a high end estimate at 4 hours
Please do a complete reinstall of your system and use a clock. Rerport back. You will be surprised. 1) OS, 2) All drivers, incl video cards, 3) Antivirus, 4) Online windows update, 5) Office apps, 6) Acrobat, 7) 5 x games, maybe more, 8) All other apps and utilities, 9) multiple reboots in the process, 10) LAN and multiple User Logins, 11) Backup and restore of data...

I think doing it all in 8hrs is already pretty optimistic.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By NT78stonewobble on 10/10/2006 7:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
You keep an up to date unattended install on a harddrive.

So its harddrive to harddrive. Then it takes a max. of an hour.

I did do that but I was too lazy to keep it up2date soooo *ggg*. Seriously though 4 hours is enough to get a fully working system.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By lemonadesoda on 10/10/2006 5:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Care to tell us how much time you spend keeping that unattended install up to date? Or how long it takes to create a new OS install CD with all updates already slipstreamed?

Maybe you've done this. Good for you. So have I. (Or at least a slipstream SP1 into my Windows2003 install CD). But most people who are in the "upgrade" situation don't have such a disk. And creating a new install disk fully up-to-date is a very time consuming exercise. Add it to my numbers and you've blown the 8hrs already!


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By Korvon on 10/10/2006 1:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
I work in a tech shop and I can do up to 4 systems in an 8 hour day back to back. If you have a good high speed connection and autopatcher for your XP updates you can get a system done in 2 hours easy.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By lemonadesoda on 10/10/2006 5:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yer!? And exactly what data did you backup and reinstall? And what apps did you load?

It's easy to put an OS on an empty machine. It's much more time-consuming to upgrade your one and only system, including backing up and reinstalling all apps and data.

A System Admin working for a multinationalmegacorporation can probably stream-ghost install 100 machines simultaneously, and do a 1000 machines in a working day with a standardised corporate build. But THAT IS NOT THE ANALYSIS. We are looking at the situation for ONE person upgrading their machine. There aren't any slipstreamed CDs for the person to work from. They aren't system builders.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By andrep74 on 10/10/2006 6:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sheesh, assuming you had a previously-built system to Ghost from, you could do one system in under an hour. A properly-maintained RIS server could do dozens of systems at the same time or even staggered, with a very low per-system average.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By rushfan2006 on 10/12/2006 11:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
LOL...

You guys arguing that you can do a system at "your shop" in whatever time are completely missing the point of the original poster.

There is no "analysis" or "clocks" needed to be taken here its just good old fashion common friggin sense.....

A HOME PC, no less a GAMING PC, is a WORLD apart from your cookier cuter office PCs.

Unless you work in a very very unique environment, based on my years in IT and working at a few companies....95% of all the PCs in office are just basic clones of one another...which the exception of some positions might need an app or two that "normal" users don't. Using pre-configured images you knock out the office PC in 35 minutes.

But unless your "shop" is weird -- what corporation (outside of your business being a computer manufacturer of course)...has their IT staff order parts and build their PCs by "hand" on site, configure them, etc. etc. That's just not smart business efficiency and its expensive use of a trained IT professional's time.

Meanwhile at home, on your personal gaming box -- you ARE assembling everything yourself, normally taking special care to make a nice and neat cable job along the way, then since most people don't have sms/or ghost servers in their home..you manually install your software. Finally the guy said he is including the time to install GAMES.....a single game these days alone can easily take 25-30 minutes to install. Heck I just did a re-install of WoW like a month ago and it took 40 minutes...granted my PC is only a 3000+ XP, 1 gig Ram...but still...

All I'm saying is it DEFINITELY can take some serious time to build a PC from start to finish.

Of course the assumption is you are doing it RIGHT and not doing a messing cabling job, cutting corners, etc.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By Paratus on 10/12/2006 11:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention running memtest/P95 for at least 12 hours to guarentee stability


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By Ub3rn00b on 10/20/2006 12:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot the cost of possibly a new PSU.
I did actually go from 478 to 939 and PCI-E.
I did alot of research and I actually found a couple motherboards out there that are socket 478 and are PCI-E. They are rare, but they do exist however the only ones I could find for sale were around 200 shipped from New Zealand so I said F-Dat.
Here's what I did:
ASUS A8n Sli Premium OEM from newegg = 75 bux
OCZ GameXStream 600W from newegg = 90 bux
AMD 3500+ Newcastle core from a friend = 50 bux
Coolermaster HSF from newegg = 10 bux
I was able to use my pc 3200 ram from my 478 system
but I added another GIG for 40 bux for 1gb of
Corsair XMS pc3200 from a friend = 40 bux
Video card is a 7900 GTO from zipzoomfly = 250 bux
Made a slipstreamed XP SP2 disk so time to make hardware changes and install was around 2 hours mostly time to figure out how to get the case LED lights and everything set up right and get the cables organized.
Total Cost = $515 Bux

515 bux and that's with a decent motherboard. The Asus A8n SLI Premium and a great video card, the 7900 GTO.
Only 515 Bux. I think I did a great job bargain shopping on this. Hoorah to me. hehe


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By fxnick on 10/9/2006 9:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
there is almost no performance difference between the 2


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By thilde on 10/18/2006 9:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Here buy our reject graphics cores at a premium agp users"...

The really infuriating thing about the current agp versions is that the companies cripple the chip (7800GS perfect example) and then price it at a premium to the non crippled versons.

Gainwood made a 7900GT but still had to call it a 7800gs to satisfy nvidia "requirements" that there be nothing better than a 7800gs.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By johnsonx on 10/9/2006 1:07:36 PM , Rating: 3
Don't listen to the AGP bashers. Sure, PCI-e is the future. That doesn't mean AGP systems are obsolete. Many people have very nice AGP boxes that need nothing more than a video card upgrade to run with the best.

The argument about being able to exchange an AGP mainboard for a PCIe mainboard+PCIe video card for less than the cost of an AGP video card is usually B.S. In most cases the price delta between equivalent AGP and PCIe video cards is $30-$50, which isn't even enough for a budget PCIe mainboard. Anyone considering a mid- to high-end video card doesn't want a budget PCIe mainboard.

The supposed performance differences are a red-herring as well. As long as the AGP and PCIe versions of a card are otherwise equivalent, there won't be any significant performance difference.

Finally, don't dismiss the entire exercise of doing a mainboard swap as trivial. For various reasons I've done it many times on many systems, and it's a headache at best. The physical swap is time consuming, far moreso than simply installing a video card. XP often has to be 'repair-installed', and sometimes has to be clean installed. I've had some instances where a repair-install seemed to work ok after a mainboard swap, but the system never really ran right again until I gave in and did a clean install. (of course I don't dismiss the fact that doing a clean install of XP every now and again is indeed a good thing... a mainboard swap can be a good excuse to do so).

Some such swaps may be easier than others; many of the more troublesome swaps I've done have been fairly drastic (like SiS-755 to NForce3, SiS-735 to NForce3, or Intel 815 to GeForce-6100). But even some of the simplest have been troublesome, such as Intel 845 to 865, and NForce3 to NForce4 which both required repair re-installs that I really didn't expect.

So if there is to be a X1950Pro AGP, and it doesn't cost more than a $50 premium over the PCIe version, I say 'buy it!'.


RE: Coming to AGP possibly
By kennyb on 10/15/2006 12:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Who the hell does "repair" installs anyway? Only a total noob would even attempt that. Just do a clean install and be done with it. I know only one mainstream chipset that even advertised not having to reinstall XP after a mobo swap and it's NForce. The last time i did it was from a NF3 to NF4-based board. Just reinstall the drivers and you're done.

The current AGP "premium" is due to some of the higher end cards(all?) using bridge chips. This was done in the past and I don't know if this is still the case but it seems highly likely. No company wants to spend money on creating native AGP cards anymore.


new card
By pinkpanther6800 on 10/9/06, Rating: 0
RE: new card
By theprodigalrebel on 10/9/2006 7:11:21 AM , Rating: 3
One can sell almost any product - as long as the price is right.

G80 is speculated to arrive mid-November: but we are talking $450-$650 for the 8800GTS/GTX.

I have a feeling pricing will drop to around $200 or a little higher. This card targets people looking at the 7900GS or the X1900XT 256MB. DX10 games won't be arriving any time soon. This is also a decent stopgap for those who would like to wait until the first round of DX10-refresh cards from both GPU camps.


RE: new card
By Chillin1248 on 10/9/2006 9:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
The only game coming out in the following 6 months that I find on the radar that is WGF 2.0 exclusive is Halo 2, everything else will get patches to make it compatible (or start off compatible), i.e.- Crysis, FS-x, etc.

DX10 cards right now would be a nice tech showcase but pretty much useless for DX10 games for a while (say about a year and a half minimum judging from DX8-DX9).

-------
Chillin


RE: new card
By Griswold on 10/9/2006 10:09:21 AM , Rating: 3
Where are the games that put these new dx10 cards to good use? Right, you'll be playing mostly dx9 games on it for many moons to come once you can buy the hardware.


RE: new card
By Chillin1248 on 10/9/2006 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 3
Here's a good list:

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=200059

-------
Chillin


RE: new card
By lemonadesoda on 10/9/2006 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for the list and screenies.

Anyone notice how POOR Halo 2 looks compared to the other titles. All other titles are Windows XP and DX9 compatible. Halo 2 is DX10 only on Vista. And it aint looking good so far...


RE: new card
By BrentJ on 10/9/2006 1:19:28 PM , Rating: 1
How could you possibly make that assertion from 2 screenshots?


RE: new card
By lemonadesoda on 10/9/2006 3:37:40 PM , Rating: 3
Which assertion are you refering to:

quote:
Halo 2 is DX10 only on Vista
or
quote:
it aint looking good so far...

For the first quote, then I picked up that news elsewhere on this forum. Perhaps it will not be true in the final release...

For the second quote, well, I think it's pretty easy to compare the two screenshots from Halo 2 with the screenshots from the other titles. Can't you see any difference? May be you can't. If you can't then there's no amount of explaining that's going to help here.


RE: new card
By MonkeyPaw on 10/9/2006 4:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, from the looks of it, I think the old Xbox title is giving it a run for its money. If nothing else, the lighting looks pretty generic. Those wood floors look pretty cheap. Considering how the old Xbox can play the game just fine (well, okay, glitchy), DX10 is pretty much overkill. It has to be because of the MS-Halo relationship, and Bungee is just helping Vista take off. Considering how long Halo2 has been around now (and Halo 3 in the works), I wonder how appealing it's going to be? It better have a good multiplayer environment/interface, that's for sure.


RE: new card
By S3anister on 10/9/2006 11:13:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Perhaps it will not be true in the final release...


the way that DX10 works is streamlined into Vista and to have dx10 for instance on XP would require the Vista driver display model. < not worth the hassle.

"Additionally, Microsoft had to rethink its display driver model now that the entire desktop is going 3D. The video card isn't just for games anymore. When you have a 3D desktop and give each application its own 3D window, the display driver has to be flexible and stable enough to handle the video card's increased role in the system. Microsoft split up the display driver to increase stability, to ensure that the 3D desktop stays up in the event that a game or another application crashes due to a graphics error. This change also means that Microsoft will not release DirectX 10 for Windows XP, because many of the Direct3D10 improvements will need the new Windows Vista Display Driver Model."

read the whole article here http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html


RE: new card
By xsilver on 10/9/2006 8:23:57 PM , Rating: 1
how can u have screenshots of a dx10 game when dx10 itself and dx10 cards are not out yet?
isnt it all in dx9 compatability mode?
its just that microsoft are forcing the game to be vista only?


if stuff looks this good on dx9, will be hard to imagine how good it will look on dx10?


RE: new card
By Chillin1248 on 10/10/2006 6:04:04 AM , Rating: 3
Some of the screenshots are pre-rendered in what it will look like with DX10, like Flight Simulator X (FSX) on that page I listed, using Maya or 3dsmax.

-------
Chillin



RE: new card
By Chillin1248 on 10/10/2006 6:04:13 AM , Rating: 3
Some of the screenshots are pre-rendered in what it will look like with DX10, like Flight Simulator X (FSX) on that page I listed, using Maya or 3dsmax.

-------
Chillin



RE: new card
By Chillin1248 on 10/10/2006 6:06:45 AM , Rating: 3
Oops.... Double post?

-------
Chillin


RE: new card
By Korvon on 10/10/2006 1:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
If you are running Vista RC1 or later it is running DX10. Just do a dxdiag in the run command.


RE: new card
By Griswold on 10/11/2006 9:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
And what does that help if theres no dx10 hardware available yet? Dx10 in vista still only does dx9 functions on todays hardware.


RE: new card
By Ringold on 10/9/2006 11:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'm holding out for DX10 parts not for DX10 games at all. I'll be buying Halo 2, if it looks worthy, but not worth a video card over.

Judging from a post getting slammed to -1, am I the only one thinking that, oh, I dont know, a new generation (versus a refresh of an old one) might *possibly* have some nice performance gains? :)

If nothing else, does it hurt at this point to wait about a month to find out? And really, if a few months is not an issue, would it hurt to wait for lower-priced DX10 parts on the horizon rather than sink $$ in to last-generation parts today?

OP didnt say all that of course, but thats where I'm standing anyway. Of course, if I had a computer laid out in parts on my floor right now and I needed a vid card, DX10 is off the table, and I wouldnt lose much sleep either.


Promising card.
By Apprentic3 on 10/9/2006 10:31:07 AM , Rating: 3
One of the main reason why I avoided ATI's X series cards are that their power consumption are too high. But seems like the new 80nm X1950Pro did a pretty good job of reducing power inefficiency. Although DX10 cards will be unleashed soon, I do think that this so seem like a pretty good card for those that want a pretty decent gaming rig. The price also seem pretty reasonable and that I guess not alot of people will jump onto the Vista bandwagon so soon.




RE: Promising card.
By lemonadesoda on 10/9/2006 4:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
seems like the new 80nm X1950Pro did a pretty good job of reducing power inefficiency
I also would have hoped that moving to 80nm would have improved heat/power efficiency. But is seem NOT TO BE TRUE . Are we seeing the same problem that Intel had with its Prescott series?

Take a look at the Performance per Watt. I'm going to use the FarCry benchmark for this, just to keep things simple. (And I think it is a good example of the "performance" the user sees for his money).

X1950XTX = 170 fps / 285 watts = 0.596
X1950Pro = 110 fps / 225 watts = 0.489

i.e. You get less frames per watt on the new X1950Pro. The X1950XTX is 20% more efficient!!!

Seems that ATI need to look into the lessons Intel learned over the last 2 years.


RE: Promising card.
By coldpower27 on 10/9/2006 9:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
I also would like to see some power consumption numbers relative to the X1900 Pro, I assume this card should have better thermals then that one.

The X1950 XTX is a different animal as it uses GDDR4 to help lower it's power consumption as well. This is good though.

We shall see I hope.


RE: Promising card.
By Spoelie on 10/9/2006 11:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
You should compare the x1900xt with the x1950pro, as said previously, the gddr4 is what makes the x1950xtx look good in power benchmarks. it actually surprises me they didn't use it for the x1950pro, coz initial reports said there was an abundance of it and the yields were good.

bit disappointed in the clocks as well, was at least expecting it to match its brothers.


RE: Promising card.
By Janooo on 10/10/2006 10:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong.
Let's assume that the system without video card is 150W.
Then
X1950XTX = 170fps/135W=1.259 frame per watt
X1950Pro = 110fps/75W=1.467 frame per watt

X1950Pro is more efficient!!!


RE: Promising card.
By lemonadesoda on 10/10/2006 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
OK. Thanks for the correction. I based my analysis on the information provided in the article:
quote:
Under load the Radeon X1950 Pro manages to consume a mere 225 watts
I do wish DT writers would write more carefully, and use data with correct explanations!


RE: Promising card.
By ultimaone on 10/10/2006 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
thats the entire power of the system

not just the card

x1900 xtx uses 120 W
X1900 XT uses 109 W
X1900 GT uses 75 W

so..
by rough guess the x1950 XTX uses 136W
the X1950 Pro uses 54 W

you can go here :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/pow...

to read up on actual power use of just about
ever video card


RE: Promising card.
By lemonadesoda on 10/10/2006 5:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I followed the link. The info was interesting. It's a shame this info wasn't available to the article writer. These figures would have made his comments much more focused.


RE: Promising card.
By ultimaone on 10/10/2006 7:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
its actually hard to find info about the amount of power a system will draw or video card

especially when you're looking for your specific system, etc

i'm glad i found xbit site, it HAD narrowed down my search to a specific card for performance/power usage and a few other considerations, but with this new ati card, i'm just going to wait and purchase it

and probably be happy for at least a few years


RE: Promising card.
By Pete on 10/10/2006 10:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
The X1950XTX actually draws less power than the X1900XTX thanks to GDDR4.


Strange results
By maxsz on 10/9/2006 12:08:01 PM , Rating: 1
Are you sure that you have true 1900XT with 48/16?
How x1950 pro with 36/12 575mhz/686mhz can beat 1900XT with near the same architecture and 48/16 625/725Mhz.
Some days ago I have seen in prices fake X1900XT with 36/12 pipelines (like 1900GT).




RE: Strange results
By Anh Huynh on 10/9/2006 2:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
I assure you its a real Radeon X1900XT 256MB that was sent out by ATI for the product launch back in September.


RE: Strange results
By Pete on 10/10/2006 10:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, something is causing your XT 256 to score much lower than others on comparable C2D systems with recent drivers. 3DM06, which stands out b/c it's a standard run through, should be around 5700, not 5000. Even so, the XT should be much faster than the (GT nee) Pro in the other tests, if not for its extra shaders then at least for its extra bandwidth and texture units.


RE: Strange results
By maxsz on 10/11/2006 4:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. I'm think results for x1900xt 256mb are incorrect. I have reports from other testers, all they say that performance difference in 3DMark06 between 1950XT and 1900XT 256Mb is about 12-14%, NOT 32% as we can see in Dailytech article.


RE: Strange results
By maxsz on 10/11/2006 5:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, 1950XT should be read as 1950XTX.


Space in the case?
By Regs on 10/9/2006 7:34:44 AM , Rating: 3
My ATX won't fit that. My 7800GT is all ready half of an inch away from banging up against my hard drives.




RE: Space in the case?
By xsilver on 10/9/06, Rating: 0
RE: Space in the case?
By Goty on 10/9/06, Rating: 0
RE: Space in the case?
By xsilver on 10/9/2006 8:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
so what you're saying is that the 48 pixel shaders and 16 texture units are not filled in one pass, effectivly being wasted?

doesnt it then come down to software to make use of the extra horsepower available? eg. comes down to lazy/innefective programming?


RE: Space in the case?
By ultimaone on 10/10/2006 8:35:45 PM , Rating: 3
well the x1900 cards are the same length as a 7900 GT
which is 8 inchs, your 7800 GT is 7.9 inchs

sure you don't have .1 of an inch to spare ?


:D


dang!
By swatX on 10/9/2006 4:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
the cards are getting bigger and bigger and more expensive every 6 months!




RE: dang!
By Knish on 10/9/2006 4:43:37 AM , Rating: 3
That's what I love about these video cards man, man. I get older, they stay the same age.

Err wait...


RE: dang!
By Kromis on 10/9/2006 4:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
Say it ain't so, ho! (Just kidding about the "ho" part")


Internal Connector????
By ATiGuyTeamATi on 10/9/2006 1:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any internal connector. I see something that sort of looks like a power connector in the picture that has internal connector in the title.

Did you guys really have it long enough to benchmark it but couldn't take a decent picture? Is this really a leak or something that has just been "orchestrated"?




RE: Internal Connector????
By johnsonx on 10/9/2006 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're looking on the wrong end of the card bunky.

Try casting your eyes to where the focus of the picture is sharpest. I know, it seems like random coincidence that the feature they're pointing out is also in perfect focus, but there you go....


RE: Internal Connector????
By lemonadesoda on 10/9/2006 4:43:41 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, you gotta laugh. The connector is clear on each of the 3 pictures! LOL


RE: Internal Connector????
By skroh on 10/9/2006 5:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he made the same mistake I did--I didn't realize you could click on the images above for a full-size version. Until you do that, the Crossfire connector is all but invisible, at least to me.


Wrong results.
By st8ic on 10/11/2006 12:57:17 AM , Rating: 1
I’ve already seen the alternative results of X1950Pro testing and may assure everybody, that there is something wrong with DailyTech benchmarking. On the test system based on Athlon X2 5000+, the results for 3D Mark 2006 are:
X1950XTX 3265
X1900XT 256MB 2720
X1950 Pro 2500




RE: Wrong results.
By Knish on 10/11/2006 1:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you throw out a benchmark Dailytech actually did, so we can call bullshit on your frame of reference?


RE: Wrong results.
By ultimaone on 10/13/2006 8:56:01 PM , Rating: 1
yes but i think the x6800 is just a wee bit more powerful than the 5000+ x2

hence double the score

but i never put much faith in 3dmark anyways



By Heron Kusanagi on 10/9/2006 5:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
As above...could do with a silent rig.




Butt Ugly
By Jesse Taylor on 10/9/06, Rating: -1
RE: Butt Ugly
By wuZheng on 10/9/2006 12:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to have to inform you that "ugly" is a relative term, relative to your opinion of what is ugly... but in case you haven't noticed, your opinion doesn't mean much here. Therefore your comment being downvoted...

I dunno, I think the new crimson coolers are rather refreshing in ATI's lineup.


RE: Butt Ugly
By kilkennycat on 10/9/2006 12:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, for ATi, truth in marketing and cool looks are everything...


RE: Butt Ugly
By JeffDM on 10/9/2006 9:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't nVidia's cards large now too? The Pro is now a one-slot unit, which is nice. I don't think there are many passively cooled cards anymore, I do miss those.

I'm puzzled why the card has to look good. I mean, it's just circuit boards, ICs and a few other parts, nothing that ever really looks good. What you should be buying it for is what it pushes out to the screen.


RE: Butt Ugly
By Radeon117X on 10/15/2006 5:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know what youre smoking, but compared to the older X1800GTO/XL singleslot coolers, this one is way cooler....in terms of looks, with the red plastic, making it look as cool as the X1950XTX, and because i bet it's much quieter and cooler.

Also, when you say that the older cards were 'compact' and 'dam nice looking' what do you mean anyway? Most of the older cards, like the X700Pro and 9800pro barely have anything much to be called 'nice looking'. The heatsink is quite small. Plus, the X850 cooler may have been a bit smaller than current dual slot coolers, but that's because now we need much bigger ones to disspate the heat. Therefore, the way the coolers look is only half the story...or less than that. It's whether they COOL the card properly.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
More ATI RV570 Details Unveiled
September 13, 2006, 10:38 PM
ATI's Holiday GPU Lineup Unveiled
August 28, 2006, 3:05 PM
ATI CrossFire Bridge Sighted
June 11, 2006, 12:31 PM
Retail Radeon X1900GT Launched
May 9, 2006, 11:34 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki