• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Reasonable Upgrade.

Deception

Deception

Deception

Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2006
Posts
6,500
Location
Nottingham
Hello there,

I currently have an His X1600XT 256mb and I was wondering, would I see a reasonable difference if I got my hands on an:

Connect3D ATI Radeon X1800 XT 256MB GDDR3 AVIVO TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - Retail (GX-044-CO)

From ocuk.

Also, Ive heard a few.. Well lot of people say how crap the X1600XT is.. I was just wondering what exactly is wrong with it as im a newb when it comes to these kind of things lol.

Oh yea, the rest of my rig is as follows: AMD 3700+ @ 2.6ghz, 1 gig ram.
 
The X1800XT will be a huge boost over your current X1600XT. The problem with the X1600XT is that it doesn't offer the performance it was meant to for the price you have to pay for it, it has a similar spec to the 7600GT but is nowhere near as good.
 
Deception said:
{snip}Also, Ive heard a few.. Well lot of people say how crap the X1600XT is.. I was just wondering what exactly is wrong with it as im a newb when it comes to these kind of things lol.{snip}.
Click to expand...
Lack of 256-bit Memory Interface is just one of the X1600XT's major bottleneck... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520. But it all comes down to what games you play & at what res you want or can (depends also on monitor) play at :)

X1600XT scores (roughly) 5284, while the X1800XT scores 8975 in 3DMark05 (for more, see here) :cool:
 
The X1600XT gets a bad wrap by being associated with the X1600pro. Its targeted against the 7600GS & 6600GT cards against which it does very well (its quicker than both of these cards).

The X1600pro on the other hand is not as quick as any of these cards & because it is priced about the same is labelled poor. However if you buy the card at a cheaper price then it will serve you well if you are after a lower end card.

The X1800XT is approx 3-4 times as fast as the X1600XT in real world games.
Its an awesome card for the price.
 
hp7909 said:
Lack of 256-bit Memory Interface is just one of the X1600XT's major bottleneck... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520. But it all comes down to what games you play & at what res you want or can (depends also on monitor) play at :)

X1600XT scores (roughly) 5284, while the X1800XT scores 8975 in 3DMark05 (for more, see here) :cool:
Click to expand...

Well I currently have a 17" monitor and play at max resolution. I was going to get, maybe an 19" widescreen one next. I mostly play any game, that looks good(graphic wise) and can get my hands on :p
 
I recently came across a
512MB Connect 3D RADEON X1800XT DVI + AVIVO

It is abit more than than the 256mb, not not much, but i was wondering is it worth it. I dont know if im allowed to put the price at all, so I didnt. :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah if you can get the 512mb one then go for it, will allow you a lot more eye candy like AA/AF etc..., be a staggering boost in performance from an x1600 XT, will blow it away. :)
 
Before I make my decision, are there any cards on the nvidia cards, that can compete with an X1800XT 512mb for less than £200?
 
*Update* Seems the card I was going to get is now "end of lfe" as they told me, so they wont be stocking it again :mad: I guess i'll get the 256mb version heh.
 
I wouldn't worry.. Whoever says the 512MB version will give you a big boost if you run at a higher resolution/with more eye candy obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. :o
 
naffa said:
I wouldn't worry.. Whoever says the 512MB version will give you a big boost if you run at a higher resolution/with more eye candy obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. :o
Click to expand...


If thats so, then what is the 512mb version.. good for?
either is get the 256mb version on this week only or pay an extra £50 for the 512mb version, which some people say isnt worth is as it doesnt provide much of a boost from the 256mb version. I guess I just answered my own question lol..
 
Last edited:
High resolutions WITH high levels of AA/AF. Cards like that can be slower at normal resolutions though (probably increased latencies).
512MB is really designed for those who will be using 1600x1200 or higher with AA/AF (Like I do). The performance difference isnt amazing, but I've heard in some circumstances can be about 20%, which at top resolutions with filtering can make the difference between playable and not.

HOWEVER, that may not hold true for the 1800XT. Its a top card, but its not quite in the same league as the 1900XT, which is about 10-15% faster.

On the x1600xt, thats actually not a bad card at all, just the x1600 and x1600pro let the line down. For the price, the x1600xt is a pretty solid card, although these days its been superseeded a bit by the 7600GT, which has slightly faster performance, but if you see the x1600xt for about £100, its an excellent buy, beating the 7300, 6600, x700 and 9800xt chipsets
 
Last edited:
Alexrose1uk said:
High resolutions WITH high levels of AA/AF. Cards like that can be slower at normal resolutions though (probably increased latencies).
512MB is really designed for those who will be using 1600x1200 or higher with AA/AF (Like I do). The performance difference isnt amazing, but I've heard in some circumstances can be about 20%, which at top resolutions with filtering can make the difference between playable and not.
Click to expand...

Ah.. Well I dont do anything like that.. Thats good to know, thanks. I guess i'll get the 256mb version one, while its still on this week only :D

I "was" going to get an 19" widescreen monitor with my order. Thats why I was so confused in which type of card to get hehe. Sorry for the trouble.
 
Last edited:
lol...good please dont. Having got a huge monitor I've become addicted to higher resolutions in games and I really hate it lol. I've become so used to playing at 1600x1200 with some AA/AF that the lowest I will really go nowadays is 1280x1024 if I can help it and I HATE going lower.

Get a fast card/get used to a high res, and it kinda spoils you. FarCry at 2048 x 1536 with AA/AF looks godly, but the problem is, being able to play games at 1600x1200+ with AA and AF can almost spoil it for you as you have to move back to a lower res.
 
Nice find Naffa. Admittedly Half Life 2 isnt the most taxing game these days, but it does show the trend. You only benefit from 512 if you play high res with filtering really. AFAIK other games have been known to demonstate it better than Half Life 2 though, as Half Life 2 is designed to run nicely on most systems, so its textures dont really go high enough to use more than 256MB. With all the high resolution packs it may do though. Quake 4 and Doom3 on Ultra are also good examples of where 512MB comes in handy, and I have a sneaking suspicion X3 patched and high res may do as well, although that games wierd...you get godly perf increases by patching it....hmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom