Test Settings

We are continuing to use the same Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 that has given us success with testing in the past for this article. The drivers we are using are the same as with the X1950 Pro article, but we've added a few more resolutions for some of the games: 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1600x1200.

Performance Test Configuration
CPU: Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4MB)
Motherboard: Intel D975XBX (LGA-775)
ASUS P5NSLI
Chipset: Intel 975X
NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI
Chipset Drivers: Intel 7.2.2.1007 (Intel)
NVIDIA nForce 8.22
Hard Disk: Seagate 7200.7 160GB SATA
Memory: Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2)
Video Card: Various
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 6.9
ATI Catalyst Beta (X1650 XT only)
NVIDIA ForceWare 91.47
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1440 - 32-bit @ 60Hz
OS: Windows XP Professional SP2

The cards we want to pay special attention to here are of course the X1650 XT and particularly how it compares with the NVIDIA 7600 GT. Given current prices, we should expect to see these cards being fairly well-matched, with one card or the other doing better at certain games and with certain resolutions.

We also added a number of other cards into the performance mix for comparison to get a general idea of where the X1650 XT stands. On ATI's side, we included the X1600 XT, X1800 GTO, X1950 Pro, and X1900 XT 256MB. From NVIDIA, we included the 6600 GT, 7600 GT and the 7900 GS. These cards offer a broad picture of performance for the current generation of midrange and mainstream graphics cards. Some cards, like the 6600 GT and the X1800 GTO, are a bit older than the others, but we included them as a reference for those looking at potential upgrades.

The Card Battlefield 2 Performance
Comments Locked

33 Comments

View All Comments

  • LuxFestinus - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    One nice thing about the X1650 XT is that is doesn't require an external power connection. The second "is" should be "it" please. Thank you.
  • Josh Venning - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    It's been fixed. Thanks
  • trabpukcip - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    quote:

    One nice thing about the X1650 XT is that is doesn't require an external power connection. This makes it a good choice for those with limited connections on their power supplies. However, the 7900 GS also doesn't need an external power connection, so our data might persuade those who are very concerned about power consumption to look into this card instead of the X1650 XT.


    I think they meant the 7600GT doesn't require an external power connector.

    I sure remember hooking up the power connector for my little brother's 7900GS less than five metres from me, being derived from a crippled 7900GT and all.

    And as for you you American dotted underline spellchecker. I spell it metres NOT meters where I come from ;). (It even underlined "spellchecker", the irony).

  • bldckstark - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    What colour was the underline?
  • DerekWilson - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    lol
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    Back to the original comment, this has been corrected. Unless Josh knows something I don't, all of the 7900 GS cards I can find require a PCIe power connector. 7600 GT does not, however. Odd, considering power draws are about the same.
  • BigLan - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    What's the avivo performance of the x1650xt? Can it handle acceleration of 1080i/p stuff, or is it limited to 720p like it's predecessor? If it can only do 720p it's taking a huge hit against the 7600gt which has full purevideo compatibility (and is the current darling of the htpc crowd.)

    Also, I haven't heard anything about gpu accelerated transcoding in a while. Any chance of getting an anandtech article about it using non-beta versions?
  • blckgrffn - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    An incomplete specifications table, assertions like "it has twice the pixel pipelines, 12 to 24 which will fix the performance issues" when really the x16xx family was plagued by a fill rate comparable to a 9600XT.

    Don't take this personal Josh - but Anandtech is supposed to have the definitive review, not simply an adequate one.

    Nat
  • DerekWilson - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    We had trouble tracking down the # of vertex and color/z pipes -- we didn't want to comment on any fill rate differences until we could confirm our suspicions -- raster pipes have doubled, and this definitely helps at higher resolutions and with AA or stencil shadows, etc...

    But doubling the pixel pipes does allow them to get a big boost in performance without upping the clock speed in more modern games (like oblivion) where fill rate wasnt as large an issue.

    Sorry for the gap in the article -- it has been updated and a paragraph has been added after our charts to explain the impact of raster pipes. In the future, we'll be sure to get ahold of the data we need in a more timely fashion.

    Derek Wilson
  • blckgrffn - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link

    Thanks!

    Anandtech is my homepage, and will continue to be for some time. Really, I think we all just want to see this site be the best that it can be.

    Nat

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now