The video card market is once again the calm before the storm. NVIDIA and ATI are getting ready for the next round of struggle for the wallets of 3D game lovers. Should come out any day now Windows Vista, and along with it - an updated set of tools for DirectX 10 game developers. The capabilities of existing 3D accelerators will no longer be enough to fully support games based on DirectX 10. This means that users will have a new incentive to upgrade their video card, which cannot but to please video card manufacturers.
Now NVIDIA and ATI are working on 3D accelerators with a new architecture. According to formal signs, NVIDIA has pulled ahead, as its first models of the new, 8th generation GeForce have already gone on sale. New ATI video cards based on the R600 chip are still delayed; most likely, we will see them no earlier than February. However, this doesn't mean that ATI has lost the fight and let its competitor go ahead. The two companies just have different tactics.
The fact that NVIDIA is already selling the 8th generation does not mean that its graphics cards will be the most popular. Most users definitely can't afford to buy a $500 graphics card. And so far NVIDIA does not offer other options based on the G80 chip. ATI, on the other hand, has made it a rule to form a lineup of several video cards of various prices at once. When the new Radeon family is introduced and the existing GeForce family is expanded, then the real war for buyers will begin.
In the meantime, ATI can only once again remind of itself by releasing two new Radeon series - 1650 and 1950.
New xx50 series
Actually, these video cards cannot be called truly new. Rather, this is ATI's attempt to revise prices for the most popular models and refresh the lineup by adding a few new names. A successful upgrade of mid-range video cards will allow ATI to hold out until a new series arrives.
However, two new models can still be called truly new, as they are based on a new 3D accelerator. The main difference between the RV570/560 chip and its predecessors is the use of a new 80 nm technology. A more "thin" process technology allows the formation of smaller transistors and communication lines between them on a chip. This reduces the overall power consumption and increases the speed of operation, as well as reducing the size of the chip, which leads to a decrease in the reject rate. Thus, the new chip turns out to be more productive and less expensive to manufacture, which means that the useful qualities of video cards based on it (price / performance ratio) are improved.
The differences between RV570 and RV560 lie in the number of active blocks, but otherwise they are based on the architecture used in the 3D accelerator R520 (Radeon X1800):
- RV570: 9 pixel processors capable of processing 4 pixels simultaneously (i.e. 36 pixel pipelines), 12 texture processors and 12 ROPs, and 8 vertex processors. This chip is installed on the Radeon X1950 Pro.
- RV560: 6 pixel processors, 8 texture processing modules and 8 post-processing modules, the number of vertex processors is also 8. The memory bus has been halved and is only 128 MB. This chip is installed on relatively inexpensive video cards Radeon X1650 XT.
To complete the 1650 line, ATI decided to add the Radeon X1650 Pro to it. However, for this video card it was decided to use the old chip, RV530, on which the previous line of Radeon X1600 is built.
What was before the Radeon X1650 Pro
Usually ATI adheres to a clear naming scheme for video card models. According to it, the differences between models based on the same chips, but with different frequencies and memory sizes, are indicated by suffixes. So:
- LE - an inexpensive and maximally stripped-down version;
- Pro- base model, similar to NVIDIA's "GS" series;
- XT - characterized by increased frequencies or the use of a different type of memory, an analogue of the "GT" series;
- XTX is the most expensive option, similar to GTX.
In the case of the 1650 series, the rule was broken. First, two video cards from different series, X1650 Pro and X1300 XT, are based on the same chip - RV530. Secondly, the X1650 XT, as mentioned above, is based on the RV560 - a much more powerful graphics controller than the RV530. In addition, the old X1300 series video cards are not removed from production, but they are based on the RV515, which is the most stripped down among the entire R5 line.
The confusion with the models is exacerbated by the actions of video card manufacturers, who release different cards under the "Radeon X1650 Pro" brand.
At one time, they did the same with the Radeon X1600. ATI has specifically formulated the differences between the Pro and XT versions: the X1600 XT is equipped with GDDR3 memory with a frequency of 690 MHz, while the X1600 Pro is equipped with DDR2 memory with a frequency of 390 MHz. This is what should have determined the difference in cost and performance of two video cards of the same family. But many manufacturers produced video cards with GDDR3 memory, calling them "X1600 Pro". At the same time, they claimed: "Our X1600 Pro is faster than its analogues", although in fact they actually offered the XT version. So, in the struggle for a buyer, the meaning of the ATI marking was lost; video cards had to be compared by their characteristics.
With Radeon X1650 Pro the situation is similar. One company has a video card with DDR2 memory, and the other puts GDDR3 memory. Naturally, these cards differ significantly in performance, because with a bus cut to 128 bits, the memory frequency is the factor that determines performance.
The Micro-Star video card (RX1650PRO-T2D256E) is exactly the first version of the Radeon X1650 Pro, that is, a complete analog of the Radeon X1600 Pro. The frequency of the graphics chip is 594 MHz, the memory frequency is 391 MHz (782 DDR), the memory capacity is 256 MB in 8 chips. According to the marking, the installed Hynix memory chips are designed for a clock frequency of 400 MHz. In view of the rather high frequency, a radiator with a small fan is used for cooling, located above the center of the graphics chip. The shape of the heatsink is such that it also covers four memory chips. With the help of rather thick thermal pads, at the very least, contact between the memory and the heatsink is ensured. But four more microcircuits are on the reverse side, and they are not cooled by anything.
According to the latest fashion, the video card has two DVI-D connectors of the "Dual Link" type, which use both digital signal transmission lines provided by the DVI interface. Thus, the bandwidth of the interface is effectively doubled, and the video card can output a high-resolution signal to both connected monitors or digital TVs. For standard VGA monitors, two adapters are included. The TV output supports high definition (HDTV) and progressive scan, a suitable adapter is included.
It is interesting to note that the Radeon X1650 Pro video card uses a hybrid memory controller that can work both with the "on-board" video memory and with a buffer located in the system memory. In the first case, access goes through the local video memory, in the second - through PCI bus Express and a system memory controller located in the chipset or in the processor, which requires additional delays. This technology, called HyperMemory, helps somewhat compensate for the lack of video memory, and therefore is mainly used in the cheapest 3D accelerators. But ATI decided to use it in the middle class models as well. In particular, the MSI graphics card automatically adds another 256 MB to 256 MB of video memory if there is at least 1 GB of system memory. We were unable to detect the possibility of changing this rule, so we cannot assess the effectiveness of this approach.
Thus, the Radeon X1650 Pro from Micro-Star is just a modified version of the X1600 Pro.
Main competitor
The GeForce 7600GS video card is an analog of the Radeon X1650 Pro in the line of NVIDIA video cards, since the 7600 series is intermediate between the productive 7900 and the cheap 7300. Both video cards under consideration are very similar in their characteristics:
- the memory bus in both cases is 128-bit;
- memory type and frequency match;
- The formal characteristics of the RV530 and the G73 chip used in the GeForce 7600 are the same: 5 vertex and 12 pixel pipelines.
However, in terms of their architecture, the two graphics controllers are seriously different. Without being distracted by technical details, we note that RV530 is more focused on complex calculations of shader programs than on quickly filling triangles with pixels. The architecture of the ATI chip is technically more complex and progressive, it uses a large number of new techniques and technologies. For example, it fully supports floating-point textures and 32-bit precision, efficiently performs early culling of invisible surfaces, stores color and depth data in compressed form in caches, implements anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering and other enhancement techniques in a more sophisticated way. quality. However, it has only 4 modules for working with textures and the same number for writing results, the number of which is not symmetrical to the number of pixel pipelines. The G73 chip, on which the GeForce 7600 is based, has a somewhat simpler architecture, it is more focused on current than future games. And it has the same number of texturing modules as pixel pipelines - 12. If not too complex shader programs are used in the game, the NVIDIA video card, other things being equal, will be more efficient in reading textures, which means that its speed will be higher.
To compensate for the lack of some blocks, ATI had to increase the frequency of the graphics chip to almost 600 MHz. A video card NVIDIA is enough and 400 MHz. As a result, most GeForce 7600GS are equipped with passive cooling. The Micro-Star NX7600GS-T2D256EH model is no exception: the front side of the board is covered with a large heatsink with a small heatpipe built in to ensure its uniform heating (this is important, since the heatsink is not symmetrical). And if the video card Radeon X1650 Pro not only makes noise itself, but also makes other fans in the system make noise (due to an increase in temperature in the case), then the GeForce 7600GS heats up slightly. The memory chips are located only on one side - under the heatsink, which, however, does not come into contact with them and does not help cool them. However, there should be no reason for concern (until you are about to overclock the video card - then it will have to be finalized).
Like the ATI-based Micro-Star model mentioned above, the NX7600GS video card is equipped with two DVI outputs; however, only one of them has two digital channels. There is also a TV output, also with support for HDTV and progressive scan. In terms of configuration, both video cards are the same.
| Name | GeForce 7600GS | Radeon X1650 PRO |
| Manufacturer | Micro Star | Micro Star |
| Model | NX7600GS-T2D256EH | RX1650PRO-T2D256E |
| 3D accelerator | G73 | RV530 |
| - transistors | 178 million | 157 million |
| - technical process | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| - frequency | 400 MHz | 594 MHz |
| - vertex shaders | 5 | 5 |
| - pixel shaders | 12 | 12 |
| - TMU | 12 | 4 |
| -ROP | 8 | 4 |
| Memory | DDR2 | DDR2 |
| - volume | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| - frequency | 400 (800) MHz | 391 (782) MHz |
| - tire | 128 bits (64 x 2) | 128 bit |
| Cooling | passive | active |
| Interface | PCI Express x16 | PCI Express x16 |
| exits | DVI x 2, mini-DIN | DVI x 2, mini-DIN |
| - Dual Link DVI | 1 | 2 |
| -D-Sub | - | - |
| - TV out | + | + |
| - TV-in | - | - |
| - Progressive | + | + |
| Price* | 125-140 | 120-130 |
| * - at the time of preparation of the article | ||
Testing
A simple analysis of the parameters of the two video cards described above suggests that a video card based on an NVIDIA chip will work faster. The exception is games that use complex shader special effects. But even here everything will depend on which architecture the shaders were optimized for. We tested both graphics cards in seven highly technological and demanding 3D games of the current generation and received quite expected results.
| 1024x768, without AA and AF | GeForce 7600GS | Radeon X1650 Pro | Difference |
| Call of Duty 2 | 38.3 | 32 | 18% |
| Doom 3 | 93.6 | 53.1 | 55% |
| Far Cry | 81.5 | 66.5 | 20% |
| FEAR | 56 | 46 | 20% |
| Half Life 2: Lost Cost | 60 | 48.7 | 21% |
| Quake4 | 85.4 | 49.7 | 53% |
| Chronicles of Riddick | 80.5 | 44.7 | 57% |
| Serious Sam 2 | 32 | 28.2 | 13% |
| 1024x768, AA 4x, AF 8x | GeForce 7600GS | Radeon X1650 Pro | Difference |
| Call of Duty 2 | 18.5 | 15.4 | 18% |
| Doom 3 | 44.7 | 27.1 | 49% |
| Far Cry | 43.8 | 34.3 | 24% |
| FEAR | 27 | 22 | 20% |
| Half Life 2: Lost Cost | 28.4 | 21.6 | 27% |
| Quake4 | 41.6 | 26.8 | 43% |
| Chronicles of Riddick | 29.3 | 21.8 | 29% |
| Serious Sam 2 | 15.9 | 12.4 | 25% |
| 1600x1200, without AA and AF | GeForce 7600GS | Radeon X1650 Pro | Difference |
| Call of Duty 2 | 24.7 | 24.3 | 2% |
| Doom 3 | 42.9 | 32.7 | 27% |
| Far Cry | 35.4 | 54.6 | -43% |
| FEAR | 25 | 25 | 0% |
| Half Life 2: Lost Cost | 38.5 | 29.3 | 27% |
| Quake4 | 39.1 | 31.6 | 21% |
| Chronicles of Riddick | 32.3 | 23 | 34% |
| Serious Sam 2 | 18.6 | 25 | -29% |
| 1600x1200, AA 4x, AF 8x | GeForce 7600GS | Radeon X1650 Pro | Difference |
| Call of Duty 2 | 11.7 | 10.2 | 14% |
| Doom 3 | 20.1 | 14.7 | 31% |
| Far Cry | 16.5 | 30.1 | -58% |
| FEAR | 12 | 11 | 9% |
| Half Life 2: Lost Cost | 16.5 | 12.5 | 28% |
| Quake4 | 19.6 | 14.5 | 30% |
| Chronicles of Riddick | 14.9 | 9.8 | 41% |
| Serious Sam 2 | 7.9 | 9.2 | -15% |
If you do not enable quality enhancement modes, namely anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing (they load texturing and post-processing modules, as well as pixel pipelines), then the difference in performance between video cards will depend on the resolution. The higher it is, the more the video memory with its low frequency and narrow bus will act as a limiting factor. Accordingly, the advantage of GeForce will be less and less. So, in the game Serious Sam 2 at 1600x1200, Radeon already wins, and in FEAR and Call of Duty 2 video cards are equal. However, Doom3, Quake 4 games traditionally "love" GeForce and a good NVIDIA OpenGL driver.
If you turn on more complex filtering and add anti-aliasing, both video cards will lose half of their performance, and the ratio will hardly change. At 1600x1200 the difference will be in favor of NVIDIA in all games except Serious Sam 2.
We regret to note that at the resolution of 1600x1200 at maximum settings on the Radeon X1650 Pro, most demanding games cannot be played normally - the average fps does not exceed 30. On the GeForce 7600GS, you can try Quake4, Doom3, Half-Life 2 in this mode. Alas, anti-aliasing ( anti-aliasing) can only be enabled in old or undemanding games, otherwise the power of the 3D accelerator will not be enough to maintain acceptable fps. This is true for both Radeon and GeForce.
And about other aspects of testing. We used the test platform with the following configuration: Athlon 64 X2 4200+ processor, 1 GB DDR2-800 memory, Gigabyte board M59SLI-S5 based on nForce 590 SLI chipset, Windows XP 32-bit SP2. In the driver settings, either the maximum speed mode was selected (without AF and AA), or maximum quality(AF=8x, AA=4x), additional optimizations, hidden settings, etc. were not applied.
The NVIDIA-based video card with ForceWare 91.47 drivers worked reliably and stably, no problems were noticed. The temperature of the chip, according to monitoring data, did not exceed 75 degrees under load and 51 degrees in 2D mode. By default, the frequencies of GeForce 7600GS are unchanged in all modes, the special "2D" mode is not provided. Overclocking for a video card with passive cooling is risky, we did not carry it out.
Alas, the video card based on the ATI chip did not behave so confidently. The Catalyst 6.10 control panel reset the settings to default several times, I had to additionally use the popular "ATI Tray Tool" utility. Several games crashed while loading. The temperature control on the Radeon X1650 Pro did not work, however, judging by the increase in noise in the case, this video card is quite "hot". An attempt to overclock the video memory was not successful - upon reaching a frequency of 435 MHz, the system began to crash. Of course, you can try to replace the cooler, etc., but in this case it will probably be easier to choose a more expensive video card.
conclusions
Despite the approximate price equality, the video card based on the NVIDIA chip turned out to be much more productive in almost all the tests. The NX7600GS model also turned out to be less noisy and "hot". The advantage of the Radeon x1650 Pro from Micro-Star is the presence of two Dual-Link DVI outputs.
However, not all manufacturers have chosen the path of MSI. Some offer a Radeon X1650 Pro with GDDR3 memory for the same price. It is quite possible that this variant will be no less productive than the GeForce 7600GS.
Thank you online storewww.event-pc.com for the provided video card MSI RX1650PRO
Thanks to "NTTs" company for providing MSI NX7600GS graphics card
The release of new products is very often accompanied by price shifts in the respective segments. With the release of the new AMD/ATI RV560/570 video processors, which are designed for the middle price segment, the "oldies" based on the RV530 naturally gave way to them and shifted to the lower middle class. Moreover, this shift is even accompanied by the crossing of the conditional border between the low- and middle-end segments. Video cards based on the RV530 also penetrated the lower price segment, but acquired the name that formally belongs to the X1300 series - with the XT suffix. The confusion has been significant. The characteristics of the video cards are very similar, and not without surprises, as we will see later, but they belong to a different class. If the division of classes continues in terms of price, then the older representatives of the low-end segment may turn out to be much more attractive than the “weakest” representatives of the middle-end segment. And overclocking video cards can further aggravate the confusion that has arisen. As usual, we will first introduce you to appearance video cards that took part in today's testing, and then we will check the overclocking potential and test the performance. Looking ahead, let's say there will be surprises! But first things first.Sapphire X1650Pro
Packaging design is traditional for video cards produced by Sapphire. The package is also quite familiar:- DVI/D-SUB adapter
- HDTV out adapter
- cable "tulip" - "tulip"
- adapter S-Video/tulip
- user's manual
- driver disk
- disc with CyberLink PowerDVD6
- The Da Vinci Code DVD (English)
But in the GPU marking, we will no longer find the symbols RV530, as before, but the essence remains the same. The operating frequency has not changed much. If earlier monitoring reported a frequency of 581 MHz, now the frequency is 594 MHz. In general, the recommended GPU frequency for X1600XT is 590 MHz, and for X1650Pro - 600 MHz. The discrepancy with real frequencies is due to the frequency of the master oscillator and the discreteness of the multiplier.
With the video memory installed on the Sapphire X1650Pro card, things get a little more interesting. The total volume of 256 MB is provided by four Infineon DDR3 chips with an access time of 1.3 ns, which corresponds to a nominal frequency of 1500 MHz. For some reason, we could not find such chips on the Infineon website, in the lists of manufactured memory types. Be that as it may, the nominal frequency of the video memory is 1377 MHz DDR. And this is again slightly higher than 1368 MHz, which we saw on Sapphire X1600XT. Again - discreteness in setting frequencies and the difference in recommended frequencies for these video cards (1380 and 1390 MHz, respectively). On the Sapphire X1650 Pro video card, we practically did not see anything new. And what have other manufacturers prepared?
Less and less time remains before the release of cards based on the R600 chip. Potential buyers are anxiously awaiting this momentous event, and the regulars of Internet resources that test new products in the field of computer components are expecting it with no less interest. We look at the situation a little more broadly, so we are interested not only in top-end solutions, but also in solutions of the middle, as well as the lower level ...
How often surrounded by a motley crowd ...
M.Yu. Lermontov
We have already mentioned more than once that the most demanded price niche is the so-called Middle-End. Indeed, if you look at the situation that has developed today, it becomes clear that the majority of users prefer solutions with a cost of no more than $ 250. From their side, this is a completely justified choice. Products belonging to this price segment have the best combination of cost and performance. In addition, these solutions allow you to enjoy most modern games.
So, for ourselves, we figured out that it is more reasonable for an economical user to buy cards from the Middle-End category. But it is worth looking at the price list, as the eyes immediately “run up” from the abundance of various positions. Where can the poor peasant go? 🙂 Although the question is rhetorical, it is quite applicable to today's problem.
So, we have already conditionally divided the market into several price niches. The first, called Low-End, we will include solutions costing up to $100. While testing cards based on Geforce 7600 GS and Radeon X1650 PRO, we faced the problem of market differentiation. The first card, at first glance, should belong to the category of the average price niche. For example, the cost of the tested Leadtek Geforce 7600 GS, which cost $134 at the time of writing this material, favors this. On the other hand, the minimum price for the cards of this series is just under $100 for the variant from Palit. In this case, we tend to base on the average cost of cards in the aggregate of different manufacturers.
Thus, the cards of the Geforce 7600 GS series can be safely attributed to the middle price range. However, this state of affairs is not eternal, and in the near future, as new solutions are released, the GeForce 7600 GS may well become a low-end product, if it is not abolished at all.
We have decided on the lower limit of the middle price segment. What about the upper bound? Here, too, not everything is clear. The maximum cost for Middle-End solutions is $250. Thus, in this niche NVIDIA's most advanced solution is the Geforce 7900 GS, while here AMD presents the Radeon X1950 PRO. In the case of AMD, products differentiate quite easily, but in the case of NVIDIA, things are a bit more complicated.
Let's take a look at Geforce 7950 GT. If we take into account only the 512 MB version, then this product quite definitely belongs to the High-End segment with a cost in the region of 290-300 US dollars. But we can also meet another incarnation of this solution, namely the variant with 256 MB. In this case, the cost is noticeably lower and is at around 260-270 US dollars, which is close proximity to the upper bar of the Middle-End. So where do you put this card?
In our opinion, even despite such a small difference in cost, this solution still belongs to the High-End segment. This situation will continue until March, when the release of cards based on the R600 chip may stimulate the release of competing solutions from NVIDIA, which to some extent may lead to price cuts and a change in the approach to differentiating the video card hierarchy.
Thus, we were able to quite clearly define the boundaries of the Middle-End. What remains untouched by us in this price niche? As it turns out, there are many various solutions, having a similar cost, but at the same time radically different in design and capabilities. Let's take a look at their characteristics:
| Video adapter specifications | NVIDIA Geforce 7600 GT | AMD Radeon X1650XT | AMD Radeon X1800 GTO |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPU | G73 | RV560 | R520 |
| Those. process, µm | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| Chip area, sq. mm | 127 | 270 | 288 |
| Number of transistors, Million | 177 | 330 | 321 |
| GPU frequency, MHz | 560 | 575 | 500 |
| Video memory frequency, MHz | 1400 | 1350 | 1000 |
| Memory size, Mb | 256 | ||
| Type of memory used | GDDR3 | ||
| Bit width of the memory exchange bus, Bit | 128 | 256 | |
| Bandwidth memory, Gb/s | 22.4 | 21.7 | 32 |
| Number of shader pixel processors, pcs. | 12 | 24 | 12 |
| Number of shader vertex processors, pcs. | 12 | 8 | 6 |
| Number of texture blocks, pcs. | 5 | 8 | 12 |
| Number of rasterization blocks (ROP's), pcs. | 8 | 8 | 12 |
| Pixel Shaders / Vertex Shaders version support | 3.0/3.0 | ||
| Peak power consumption in 3D mode, W | 35 | 55 | 48 |
| Power supply requirements, W | 350 | ||
| Reference design video card dimensions, mm. (L x H x T) | 130x100x25 | 170x100x15 | 205x100x16 |
| exits | 2 x DVI, TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support | ||
| Interface | PCI Express x16 | ||
| Retail price in Moscow, USD | 132 | 150 | 192 |
These video cards have been on the market for a long time. To date, their release has been discontinued, but they can still be found on store shelves.
Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO is located in a compact package. Such a conservative approach is traditional for Sapphire.
However, the equipment, surprisingly, is quite complete. It includes not only a CD with the necessary software, but also a whole list of cords and cables for using the VIVO function.
The first thing that catches your eye when examining this video adapter is its dimensions. When testing mid-priced products, it's hard to find such a long card. When installed in the case, you immediately pay attention to the fact that it extends almost over the entire area of \u200b\u200bthe motherboard.
However, despite the size printed circuit board, a single-slot cooling system is used to cool the chip. The main advantage of the cooler is its external showiness. The image of Ruby, the ATI symbol, pleases the eye, emphasizing the elegance of the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO.
Contact with the chip occurs through a copper sole. In addition, memory chips were not left without cooling. The cooler also contacts them through thermal pads.
Practical studies have shown that this cooling system copes with the task quite adequately. When using the maximum speed, the temperature reached 62 degrees, which became the maximum. While the temperature of the board itself rose to 41 degrees.
Note that the cooler is quite quiet in the automatic speed mode. Its noise does not stand out against the background of other components of the system.
By setting the speed to 100%, we noticed that the noise level increased significantly. Now the work of the cooler could not be called quiet. However, its effectiveness has also increased greatly.
The temperature of the chip now reached only 52 degrees. At the same time, the temperature of the board itself dropped to 37 degrees.
Thus, the stock cooling of the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO has a decent level of efficiency, while doing its job quite quietly in the automatic speed mode.
At first glance, the design of the board is surprising. This applies to both soldering and the power system. “It was clearly intended for a top card,” you say. And, to some extent, you will be right. Indeed, the design is quite expensive, which is not surprising, since this decision is just a slightly stripped-down Radeon X1800 XL, which at one time belonged to the cohort of top video adapters until it was abolished. Of course, such a elaboration of the printed circuit board leads to a significantly higher cost.
Let me remind you that initially the Radeon X1800 GTO was planned as a quick response to the GeForce 7600 GT, while AMD/ATI was developing a new chip for the middle market segment. As expected, the haste of the release meant that the new product did not become a competitor to the NVIDIA card as such, due to the obviously higher price. However, to this day the Radeon X1800 GTO is positioned as a competitor to the Geforce 7600 GT.
However, this is not the first time ATI has resorted to creating mid-range solutions by cutting down older models. This tradition has been carried on since the days of the Radeon 9800 SE, and was fully embodied in the days of the Radeon X800 GTO.
However, the Radeon X1800 GTO had a slightly different fate. The card was not initially profitable enough in production, so the release was not so wide, and today it has been curtailed altogether.
Further inspection showed that another surprise awaits us under the cooling system. As it turned out, the R520 chip installed on the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO belongs to the Mobility series, i.e. to the series mobile solutions. Based on the test results, and in particular the temperature regime, we can conclude that the use of a mobile chip leads to a significantly lower level of heat dissipation and power consumption compared to conventional instances.
Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO is equipped with eight production chips samsung general 256 MB, which are located on the front side. The memory access time is 1.4 ns. Unlike the other two boards tested today, the memory on the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO operates via a 256-bit bus.
The most notable feature of AMD/ATI boards is the software volt mod capability. And, of course, when testing this video adapter, we could not ignore such a significant function.
Using the ATITool utility, it was found that in the nominal mode the chip operates at a voltage of 1.075 V, while the memory operates at 1.889 V. Practical studies have shown that the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO cope with heat dissipation on the R520 chip. At the same time, we found that the board has a complex wiring and a high-quality power supply system. Thus, it was possible to proceed with the voltmod procedure without much risk. Moreover, we were prompted to carry out this manipulation by very weak overclocking results. Without raising the voltage, the chip could only function at 553 MHz, and the memory at 1300 MHz, while the nominal values are 500/1000, respectively.
Experimenting with voltage values, simultaneously analyzing the temperature and overclocking readings, it was decided to stop at 1.35 V for the chip and 2.1 V for the memory. However, if raising the voltage on the chip stimulated an excellent increase in frequency, then for the memory the increase turned out to be quite small. The final result was 688 MHz for the chip and 1332 MHz for the memory.
Such manipulations affected the temperature regime. The temperature of the chip in load mode was now almost 70 degrees. Particular attention should be paid to the temperature of the voltage regulator. Its temperature after the voltmod increased by 11 degrees and amounted to 74 degrees during acceleration. Thus, if you decide to significantly increase the performance level of your card by voltmod and subsequent increase in frequencies, do not forget to take care of cooling not only the core and memory, but also the power circuits. Otherwise, you risk losing the performance of the video adapter.
An amazing thing. Each new NVIDIA product aimed at the mid-market segment becomes a top seller. The tradition began with the release of the GeForce 6600 series, and continued with the GeForce 7600 series. Low price, excellent overclocking potential, decent performance - these are the qualities that allowed these solutions to win the lion's share of the market. Today it is hard to find a store where these cards are not presented in assortment from a number of manufacturers. Moreover, each product has its own characteristic properties, such as an alternative cooling system or rich equipment, innovative design or increased frequencies compared to the standard mode. Thus, the buyer can choose the product of interest to him, guided by his needs. If he is a connoisseur of silence, then by the way, options with passive system cooling, of which there are a great many, due to the fact that the G73 chip has a very low heat dissipation. If the potential buyer is an enthusiast who prefers overclocking to the nominal mode, then in this case, he will certainly be interested in options with an efficient cooling system, like those that we can meet in the performance of MSI. In a word, today there is plenty to choose from, even if you limit your eyes only to solutions from NVIDIA.
Today, we got a board from BFG, a manufacturer that is probably known to many, and especially to those who prefer to buy computer components abroad.
The packaging is made in white, gray and green colors. In the central part there is a transparent cutout.
A pleasant moment is that the software CD, user manual and other additional components of the package are folded into a separate stylish envelope. The so-called "additional components" deserve special attention. In addition to the video adapter, BFG has carefully placed forms with information about various game servers, where the owners of these cards can arrange online battles.
BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is made on blue textolite. The card itself is unusually compact. In our opinion, this is especially important. Like most solutions from NVIDIA, BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC supports SLI technology. Thus, if you have two such cards, you can combine them into an array, which will greatly improve the performance level of your system. However, this manipulation would hardly have been fully justified if the Geforce 7600 series hadn't been distinguished by a modest level of heat dissipation, power consumption, and amazing compactness. Otherwise, you would have received two flaming cards, which once again only warmed up each other.
The cooler is similar to what we can find on the reference version of Geforce 7900 GT. The main disadvantage of this cooling system is the very high noise level. With the system turned on, only the noise of the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC cooler stood out against the background of the work of all other components.
However, the cooling system copes with its task. In load, the temperature did not cross the barrier of 60 degrees, which can be called quite a worthy result.
The design of the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is traditional for all boards in this series. The desoldering is pretty simple. The power supply system is formed by massive capacitors. All memory chips are located on the front side.
The back part is replete with various kinds of labels and stickers.
Under the cooling system is a G73 chip made in Taiwan. Unfortunately, the kernel revision is A2. Let me remind you that not so long ago NVIDIA launched the release of Geforce 7600 series cards based on the G73 chip, revision B1. The main advantage of this innovation is the use of a thinner 0.08 nm process technology. Indirectly, this could affect the overclocking potential of the chip, as well as, to some extent, the level of power consumption, which is already quite low.
It is worth noting that, unlike most similar video adapters, the chip frequency on the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is 580 MHz. Thus, we have an increase of 20 MHz relative to the usual version. In addition, the OC index already in the name of the board means Overclocked, i.e. "overclocked".
The memory with a total capacity of 256 MB is made up of four Samsung chips with an access time of 1.4 ns. Its frequency is 50 MHz higher than the standard one and is 1450 MHz.
However, despite the sound quality of performance, it is enough effective system cooling and already slightly raised frequencies, the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC could not add much more to the overclocking. Without changing the delta, the chip managed to reach 620 MHz, while the memory overclocked to 1735 MHz. Therefore, we have a weak result for the core, which can be solved by setting a certain delta between the geometry and shader block. For memory, especially with an access time of 1.4 ns, 1735 MHz is a very good result.
Finally, we got to the very new product that should change the situation for AMD/ATI in the middle price range. It is noteworthy that in its name Radeon X1650 XT gravitates towards Radeon X1600 XT or Radeon X1650 PRO, while its predecessor, designed to compete with GeForce 7600 GT, was called Radeon X1800 GTO, which makes it similar to top solutions.
With such a light hint, I would like to direct the reader's mind to the fact that one should not expect a revolution from the new product, but rather an evolution, a logical continuation of the traditions of AMD/ATI solutions in the middle price range.
The MSI Radeon X1650 XT is set for a bright, colorful package. On the front side there is an image of some fantastic creature, remotely resembling a symbiosis of a human and a robot.
Despite the size of the package, the equipment is quite modest. However, in it we can find all the necessary accessories.
MSI Radeon X1650 XT is comparable in size to Geforce 7600 GT. It is also lightweight and compact. Textolite color - red, traditional for MSI products.
The cooling system is a radiator, which in turn is cooled by a small fan. The presence of a stylish image on the front side of the cooler pleases the eye. This image magically vanished from the packaging. 🙂
An important point is contact not only with memory chips, but also with batteries. Therefore, despite the simplicity of the design of the cooling system, the manufacturer endowed it with excellent versatility.
However, under load, the chip temperature rose to 67 degrees. Moreover, this testifies not so much to the low efficiency of the cooler, but to the decent heat dissipation of the board. However, MSI Radeon X1650 XT is a very quiet solution. Despite the significantly increased temperature, the fan speed remained minimal. This means that values within 70 degrees are the norm for cards in this series.
Even at the beginning of the description of the MSI Radeon X1650 XT, we drew the reader's attention to the fact that the new product is, perhaps, an evolution rather than a revolution. First, let's look at the design of the board. It is almost identical to what we can see on Radeon X1650 PRO (Radeon X1600XT) series boards. This applies to both soldering and the power system.
The back side of the board is similar.
However, the RV560 chip installed on the MSI Radeon X1650 XT is a very interesting innovation. Compared with RV530, it has undergone whole line changes. At first glance, this is a more subtle technological process and chip area. In reality, there are many more changes. Previously, the main weak point of the RV530 was a small number of texture units. In RV560, their number has doubled to 8 pieces. However, AMD's solution is still inferior to NVIDIA's counterparts in this parameter. However, this lag is more than compensated by pixel processors, which this time are 24! Thus, the novelty could theoretically gain an advantage in tasks that require complex calculations with many branches. Now the solution from AMD is not inferior in terms of the number of raster blocks. The chip frequency is still high. In our case, it is 575 MHz.
Therefore, despite the outdated design of the board, the simplicity of wiring and a modest power system, the Radeon X1650 XT has a really efficient chip. We have a kind of emerald in a cheap wrapper.
The memory with a total capacity of 256 MB is made up of four Qimonda chips with an access time of 1.4 ns. The memory frequency is 1350 MHz. Memory bandwidth hasn't changed since the Radeon X1600 XT. This, in our opinion, can become a weak point in the operation of the card, which will not allow the chip's capabilities to be fully revealed.
Some of our assumptions showed up in practice pretty soon. The study of the overclocking potential led to the conclusion that the Radeon X1650 XT does not have any frequency headroom. If the chip frequency was raised to 627 MHz, then any change in the memory frequency would cause the system to freeze. In this way, weak system power supply does not allow to properly reveal the potential of not only the core, but also the memory.
test bench
Test bench configuration
- Processor - Core 2 Duo E6300 (266 x 7, L2=2048 Kb) @ (456 x 7 = 3192 MHz);
- Cooling system - Scythe Infinity (120 mm Fan, 1200 rpm);
- RAM - Corsair TWIN2X6400-2048;
- Motherboard - Asus P5B-Deluxe> (Bios 0804);
- Power supply - Thermaltake Tough Power 550 W;
- Hard drive - Serial-ATA Hitachi 250 Gb, 7200 rpm;
- Operating system - Windows XP service pack 2;
- Video driver - Forceware 93.81 and Catalyst 6.12;
- Monitor - Samsung SyncMaster 959NF.
Testing took place in three resolutions - 1024 x 768, 1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200. We used modes with and without anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing filters.
Driver settings:
ATI Catalyst:
- Catalyst A.I.: Enabled;
- MipMap Detail Level: High Quality;
- Wait for vertical refresh: Always off;
- Adaptive antialiasing: Off;
- Temporal antialiasing: Off
- High Quality AF: On;
NVIDIA ForceWare:
- Texture Filtering: High quality;
- Anisotropic sample optimization: Off;
- Trilinear optimization: Off;
- Threaded optimization: Off;
- Gamma correct antialiasing: On;
- Transparency antialiasing: Off
- Vertical sync: Force off;
- Other settings: default.
Used programs and games:
- 3DMark 2006, Build 1.1.0— Shader Model 2.0 and Shader Model 3.0 test results.
- Doom 3 Build 1.1- Testing through the BenchemAll program. Anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering were set through the driver panel. Image quality Maximum Details;
- Prey, Build 1.2- testing through HOC Benchmark, demo HWzone. Boost Graphics included. Image quality Highest. Double demo run;
- Serious Sam 2, Build 2.070— testing through HOC Benchmark, Greendale demo. Direct 3D. HDR disabled;
- F.E.A.R., Build 1.0.1— Testing through the built-in benchmark. The resolution of 1280x1024 is set through the configuration file. Soft Shadows included;
- Call Of Duty 2, Build 1.3- testing in the game itself, through the Timedemo command at the Fortress Stalingrad level. The quality is set to Extra Quality;
- need For Speed Most Wanted, Build 1.3— testing in the game itself. Measuring FPS with FRAPS. Triple demo run;
- Need For Speed Carbon Build 1.3- Testing was carried out using the FRAPS utility, through two runs.
- TOCA Race Driver 3— testing through FRAPS. Filters were set using the driver panel.
- The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, Build 1.1.511- Testing in the game through FRAPS. Triple run and average calculation. Bloom disabled.
Testing
The 3D Mark 2006 results clearly show that the GeForce 7600 GT performs equally well in both Shader Model 2.0 and Shader Model 3.0, while Radeon X1800 GTO and Radeon X1650 XT dominate when Shader Model 3.0 is used. This once again proves that AMD cards are focused on new games that use this graphics model.
In Doom 3, the situation is ambiguous. On the one hand, GeForce 7600 GT is clearly faster than its rivals in all modes. On the other hand, when using anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing, the Radeon X1800 GTO looks more preferable. In many ways, this is due to the presence of 12 raster blocks at once in the latter. In addition, the presence of a 256-bit memory bus has a favorable effect on performance, which leads to much higher bandwidth.
In Prey, the results are repeated. Once again, without filters turned on, the GeForce 7600 GT turns out to be the leader, but as soon as anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are activated, the Radeon X1800 GTO takes the lead. However, this time the Radeon X1650 XT looks much better. Its lag is small, and somewhere the new product even manages to get ahead of its predecessor on the R520.
In Serious Sam 2, the situation changes dramatically. GeForce 7600 GT is an outsider regardless of the mode used. The Radeon x1800 GTO, in turn, is ahead of not only the Radeon x1650 XT, but even the GeForce 7900 GS. Thus, there is a clear tendency for the R520 solution to dominate in modes with smoothing and anisotropic filtering.
In F.E.A.R. the state of affairs is similar to Prey. GeForce 7600 GT is in the lead, albeit with a minimal advantage. The Radeon X1800 GTO is behind everyone in light modes, but again takes the lead in heavy modes.
Another victory for Radeon X1800 GTO, not only over its direct rivals, but also over Geforce 7900 GS. GeForce 7600 GT looks rather weak. However, in heavy modes, the results of all cards are about the same.
In this simulator, Electronic Arts video adapters from NVIDIA traditionally look stronger than analogs from AMD. Was no exception this time. The GeForce 7600 GT leads regardless of the mode, while the Radeon x1800 GTO has a minimal advantage over the Radeon x1650 XT.
Need For Speed Carbon is the only game where the number of pixel processors plays a decisive role. Thus, the Radeon X1650 XT is ahead of the GeForce 7900 GS in this parameter, and is inferior only to the Radeon X1950 PRO. The advantage over the Geforce 7600 GT is huge and reaches more than 90% in some places.
However, in Toca Race Driver 2, the picture is reversed. The GeForce 7600 GT not only takes revenge on its direct rivals, but even outperforms the Radeon X1950 PRO in places. Radeon x1650 XT looks like an obvious outsider. Only this card could not demonstrate a comfortable FPS in the hardest mode.
In Oblivion, the Radeon x1650 XT and Radeon x1800 GTO show roughly the same level of performance. They outperform not only the GeForce 7600 GT, but also the GeForce 7900 GS in case of full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
The situation is similar in the case of using HDR. Moreover, we can clearly see that as the resolution increases, the gap between the GeForce 7900 GS and Radeon X1800 GTO first narrows, and then completely passes into the advantage of the latter.
Testing was able to quite clearly identify the leader among the reviewed boards. It is the Radeon X1800 GTO. This solution allows you to comfortably play not only in light modes, but also in high-quality modes, using anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing.
On the other hand, not everything is so simple in the confrontation between GeForce 7600 GT and Radeon X1650 XT. Both video adapters have a similar level of performance. Moreover, depending on the game used, the positive features of a particular card may appear. Thus, guided by your gaming preferences, as well as the price, you can choose a video adapter for yourself.
Despite the fact that the Radeon X1800 GTO was recognized as the winner of today's testing, this product cannot be called the best by far. Unfortunately, the initially high cost of the card leads to a significant final price, which does not allow this solution to directly compete with the GeForce 7600 GT and Radeon X1650 XT. Their price for this moment is in the $130-$160 range, while the Radeon X1800 GTO is still rarely found below $200. Thus, even all the advantages of this product do not allow us to recommend it for purchase. However, if you can find this solution for sale at a price not much higher than the GeForce 7600 GT, which is quite likely, because the market is quite wide, and the situation on it is different depending on the geographical location and social conditions of a particular region, then feel free to purchase this product.
Testing completed, results obtained, conclusions drawn. The reader, as a potential buyer, only has to make a choice from this "motley crowd" of such different solutions, each of which has its own characteristic features, strong and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages.
Results
- Appearance - 8/10 ;
- Equipment - 7/10 ;
- Performance - 7/10 ;
- Overclocking potential - 7/10 ;
- Noise level - 7/10 ;
- Price - 1/10 ;
- Overall rating - 37/60 ;
- The minimum cost in Moscow is $212.
- Appearance - 5/10 ;
- Equipment - 6/10 ;
- Performance - 6/10 ;
- Overclocking potential - 6/10 ;
- Noise level - 2/10 ;
- Price - 6/10 ;
- Overall rating - 31/60 ;
- The minimum cost in Moscow is $184.
- Appearance - 7/10 ;
- Equipment - 6/10 ;
- Performance - 5/10 ;
- Overclocking potential - 2/10 ;
- Noise level - 7/10 ;
- Price - 10/10 ;
- Overall rating - 37/60 ;
- The minimum cost in Moscow is $154.
If today an overclocker sets an upper limit of $180-200 when choosing a video card, then I think that most of us will choose a GeForce 7600 GT video card with a memory capacity of 256 Mb. A huge assortment of such video cards on the retail market, versions with standard and increased frequencies, various configurations and cooling systems, excellent overclocking potential and a fairly easy-to-implement "pencil" volt mod - all this cannot but attract the attention of potential buyers of this video card.
Of course, ATI couldn't watch this "disgrace" so easily and rather quickly tried to oppose the GeForce 7600 GT to the Radeon X1800 GTO video card, but it was never destined to become a rival to the GeForce 7600 GT. And the point here is not performance, but the fact that the Radeon X1800 GTO was (and is now) in a different price range. ATI's attempt to temporarily "plug the gap" in price segment to $200 by reducing the price of X1800 series video cards, in my opinion, failed.
Finally, after the quite successful announcement of the RV570 (Radeon X1950 Pro), the time has come for the release of the new RV560 graphics chip and video cards based on it, called the Radeon X1650 XT. The announcement already shows that ATI did not repeat its mistakes with the release of the Radeon x1600 XT, when the recommended price was 249(!) over $150). The recommended price for the Radeon X1650 XT is only $149, and, most likely, the barrier of $200, even taking into account the "appetite" of sellers and the novelty of the video card, RadeonX1650 XT is unlikely to cross.
advertising
How successful was the new graphic solution? Will the Radeon x1650 XT be able to compete on equal terms with the GeForce 7600 GT, which is firmly established in this sector of the market? Is there a lot of heat dissipation? You will find answers to these and some other questions in today's material.1. Technical ATI specifications Radeon X1650XT and NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT
Let's look at the characteristics of the novelty from ATI in the table below in comparison with its direct competitor - NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT:
| Name of technical characteristics | ATI Radeon X1650XT | NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT |
| GPU name | RV560 | G73 (TSMC) |
| Technical process, microns | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| Core area, sq. mm | 270 | 127 |
| Number of transistors, mln. | n/a | 177 |
| Operating frequencies GPUs.MHz | 600 | 560 |
| Video memory operating frequencies, MHz | 1400 | |
| Memory size, Mb | 256, 512 | |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | |
| Bit width of the memory exchange bus | 128bit | |
| Interface | PCI-Express x16 / AGP | |
| Number of shader pixel pipelines, pcs. | 24 | 12 |
| Number of texture processors, pcs. | 8 | 12 |
| Number of shader vertex pipelines, pcs. | 8 | 5 |
| Pixel Shaders / Vertex Shaders version support | 3.0 / 3.0 | |
| Theoretical texture sampling rate, Mtex./s | ~7130 | ~6720 |
| Memory bandwidth, Gb/s | ~ 21.7 | ~22.4 |
| Peak power consumption in 3D mode, W | n/a | |
| Power supply requirements, W | ~350 | ~350 (400 for SLI) |
| Reference design video card dimensions, mm. (L x H x T) | 130 x 100 x 25 | 170x100x15 |
| exits | 2 x DVI (Dual-Link), TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support | |
| Additionally | support for CrossFire technology | support for SLI mode |
| Recommended | retail price of the video card at the time of publication of the article, US dollars | 149 | n/a | 139 | |