X1900XTX vs 7900 GTX

**Shaun** · July 15, 2006, 01:43 PM

Now what is generally the better card to get atm? Looking at the specs of the X1900XTX it seems better, especialy since it has practically 48 Pixel piplines(each of the X1900XTXs pipelines boast 3 shaders instead of the standard 1), whilst the 7900GTX only has 24 i think.

But it seems that the 7900 GTX is slightly faster than the X1900XTX, 665MHz and 1.63GHz compared to 650Mhz and 1.55 GHz.

So what is better?

**Mikael** · July 15, 2006, 03:03 PM

Just try to read as many reviews as possible, there are literally thousands out there, here are just a few that I prefer.

X1900XTX:
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2737
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/d...ax1900xtx.html
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/d...-x1900xtx.html

7900GTX:
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2717
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/d...ce7900gtx.html

Both benching with Oblivion:
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746

It is also interesting to look at Geforce 7950 GX2:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/d...gf7950gx2.html
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2769

**Incinerate_IV** · July 16, 2006, 01:36 AM

Clock speeds don't mean anything, especially this is 2 VERY different graphics cards from 2 separate companies. Generally the X1900XTX is better, and also more expensive.

**sunsmountain** · July 17, 2006, 10:43 AM

European prices, in euro's:

x1900 xt: 350
gf7900 gtx: 430
x1900 xtx: 460
gf7950 gx2: 500

If you're spending this much on a card, the gf7950 gx2 is best, it's also HDCP compliant, which is good. The X1900XT is also a very good card, the one i would get. Primarily because of better technology, AA + HDR, better filtering, better shader branching support, etc. But then I like ATi's approach, and buy for the long term. nVidia is probably better for your "quick fix"

**Shaun** · July 17, 2006, 07:21 PM

Thanks for the advice.

I think i will go for the X1900XT, i seen it for £250(a whole £100 cheaper than the X1900XTX), and its only marginally slower, which dosent really matter, it still has all the important features that the X1900XTX hhas, and im sure a slight overclock can bring it up to the X1900XTXs speeds, if needed that is. And its a long term solution that I am in need of really, as I cant see my self upgrading untill the X1900XT wont play the current generation of games at all(which my horrid 5200FX is like now) so that will be many years.

**Proximus** · July 17, 2006, 08:13 PM

Good choice mate, IMO it's insanity to spend your money on a X1900XTX since they are so much more expensive then the XT, for a very slight performance increase.

**Trajan** · July 18, 2006, 04:07 PM

These video card makers really know how to make money uh. You really have to be an extreme PC gamer to buy a VC costing $500 - 600. I spent about $400 plus change on my GF 7900 GT and I thought I was crazy at the time. Damn games and their need for more power.

**Frost, colonel** · July 20, 2006, 10:10 AM

I am stuck myself trying to decide which of these two cards to go for, ready for Med 2(at the last minute incase the price drops). I am not sure if the 7950 GX2 is abit of a waste in terms of if you don't have the CPU to push it. The review I read said that an overclocked to 2.8 gig(4.0 gig pentium equivalent) FX62 was bottle necking the monstrous GPU.

The X1900XTX is noisy, but hopefully a replacement cooler from Artic will reduce the DB's? because I do like a quiet system.

In Custom PC magazine they had an article comparing the display of the GTX7900 vs the X1900XTX using Halo. The difference was fairly substantial, with the magazine staff going for the X1900XTX.
The 7900 GTX gave a much better background and the X1900XTX gave richer detail and lighting to the figure in the foreground.
I wonder if this will be typical of all games or it will vary alot depending on the game? because it was hard to choose between the two if this was a good example, maybe for Med 2, I want the troops to look their best rather than better back ground?