Which is better? Radeon X1650 PRO AGP or GeForce 7800 GS

[Xazax310]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102057R

This has my win for the AGP bus, 70$ X1650PRO GDDR3(most Pro's are GDDR2 which is what you want to avoid)

X1950XT This card is what you want if your Really planning on keeping that Computer alive. The best card for AGP to date. 200$ is alot of money but that card will run every current game at the highest detail.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814241049R&Tpk=X1950XT%2bAGP

Personally the 2600XT as shown by it far better PCI-E brethren, absolutely sucks, limited by ROPs and Texture units that card cannot scale well with game demanding such, 120 Stream processors are pretty impressive and i do agree kick ass in shader intensive environments, but when you massacre a card with such a limited bandwidth, ROPS, etc. it will not show what card potential it can have say, if it was 256bit with a 256MB and 8 ROPs, 8-12 texture units.

 

[lakedude]

So the big question is how much do you want to spend?

1950xt > 1950pro > 2600xt-512 > 2600xt-256 > 2600pros > 1650pro-ddr3 > 1650pro-ddr2

Prices are all pretty much in line except the 2600pro-512 is more expensive and not as fast as the 2600xt-256.

The 1950xt is the fastest card you can get for agp. It is hard to find new. Notice that the cards xazax linked to are OPEN BOX. Still if you wanted to spend $200 the 1950xt is as fast as it gets for AGP.

If your budget is closer to $120 get the 2600xt-256 and if your budget is more like $70 then look at the 1650.

Also no card you can get including the 1950xt will be able to play the very latest games at highest detail. Games like Crysis are system killers and can't be played on highest detail at all by any reasonably priced system. World in Conflict is another one that will bring a system to its knees. The good news is that such games always have lower settings that still look pretty darn good.

 

[pauldh]

HD2600XT gets my vote for sure as best high end agp bang for buck. It's one of the few AGP cards not overpriced. Look at newer games and without fsaa it is totally smoking the other AGP cards in it's price range. (7800GS/7600GT/X1650GT or XT) With fsaa the X1950 pro is better, but otherwise not worth the $$$ premium over the 2600XT.

 

[lakedude]

Yep

 

[doubletake33]

i cueently have a 7900gs agp card and am wondering if the hd2600xt is an improvement over my 7900gs.

also i've read here on tom's that the hd3850 is coming to agp. should i wait for that and how would that compare to my 7900gs?

also, is nvidia bringing anything new to agp as well?

 

[singingigo]

The HD2600XT is NOT an upgrade to your current card (check out Tom's VGA benchmarks list...the 7900gs at stock is 30% faster than the 2600XT.). The 7900gs, which I own, overclocks easily and safely, which can widen the gap further. The 3850 eats the 7900gs's lunch...don't bother with a ATI 2000 series card...

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Actually in more recent shader intensive games the HD2600XT and GF8600 beat the GF7900GS which is very texture heavy but doesn't have the shader power of even an X1950Pro.

I agree it's not worth upgrading, but when buying new the GF7900 series would be a bad choice because it only outperforms in older games.

 

[generalnotsew]

I was told to check this card out as an good cheap upgrade. 2600xt. I asked what would be an improvement for me to play oblivion with since I am stuck on 640 x 800 resolution. I got my computer like 2 months before the pci express was announced. Bad timing but I don't play graphics heavy games besides oblivion. Current card is about 5 years old
Geforce xf 5950 ultra. So can I expect a pretty good upgrade? Other thing that worries me is the 2 reviews on Newegg that say there are 0 drivers for this card.

 

[cleeve]

2600 XT is an awesome upgrade from a 5950 ultra. ESPECIALLY in newer, shader heavy titles.

 

[Marktime]

Here it is:

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=9354

The hd2600xt draws only 49 watts!!!

Actually it says much more than 49 watts, though at first glance on the graphics of xbitlabs it does seem that 49 watts is max under load... But looking closer it is 49 + watts. In fact, it shows all the strange text before the #'s have a specific meaning. Below is the legend that gives their values quoted.

First the graph values were as follows.

Graph Legend
-------------------
' = 1 Watt
| = 2 Watts
} = 4 Watts
# = 8 Watts
¦) = 8 Watts (min draw mark)
¦] = 8 Watts (max 2D draw mark)

Then followed a list under

ATI Single Card

scrolling down some more you find

HD 2600 XT_______##¦)¦]##' 21W-28W-49W ²


While these cards are very economical being 65nm, this card has up to 390 million transistors. I don't believe it runs at only 49 watts. In fact the vendors site specifically states "400 Watt (550 Watt for CrossFire™) or greater power supply recommended"
http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd2600/radeonhd2600xt/specs.html

This falls more in line with the values I list below.

If each card only drew 49 watts they would say only 500 watt for crossfire and not the full 150 watts more ATi themselves suggest as a minimal. Also also depends on manufacturing as they all use the ATi chipset, but have all used many have a different cooling options, some better and more efficient than others. Also some are clocked higher out of the box with higher core frequencies, some are 256 vs 512... other variables such as passive cooling as opposed to a turbo fan like the HIS IceQ series. Obviously some fans are better at this then others, and so it is left to you to decide on each manufacturer who is the best.

Here for instance are a few sites that supports the higher values that or probably more in line with the actual power of that card.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2600_XT/17.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/powercolor_hd_2600_xt_review/8.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../1778-ati-hd2600xt-performance-preview-7.html

As the vendor themself say you need a full 150 watts more for a second card. The link is below if you want to look at their pretty graphics.

that is
idle it runs about 126 watts
average load at around 168 watts and under
heavier load can pull more than 179 watts.

Also websites having pretty graphics is no proof their information or actual values are correct, as I have found often that some sites just copy the information, repackage it and publish it as their own. Then people thinking that the information must be correct make poor decisions based on the information which was incorrect to begin with. I am not saying that this has happened here or that xbitlabs.com who made the initial calculations are more or less correct than the 2 links above, but this is why I think it is always better to search on the vendors site to find specific information or at least look at more than one source.

Though usually meant well dont always believe what people quote in a forum. Best to simply google the specs from the vendor and to prevent a conflict say like what has happened here... One site claims 49 watts under full load and others are at the 120 to 195 watts, I would be cautious and make a PSU purchase based on the higher #'s to be on the safe side...

I realize this is an older thread but perhaps someone reads this and makes a choice thinking a2600 is only going to use 49 watss.. I hope this is help to someone