Holiday 2006 Shopping Guide: GPUs
by Jarred Walton on December 13, 2006 5:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Midrange GPUs
With Midrange GPUs, we're looking to keep the price under about $225, although there are a couple cards in this group that are there more because of performance than because of price. With a budget of over $200, it also becomes feasible to begin discussing SLI and CrossFire as potential solutions. Let's put that discussion to rest really quickly: don't bother! Sure, a few people might like the idea of getting one GPU now and adding a second GPU later, and that is certainly a viable path to take. If you already have one graphics card and you're looking to add a second one midrange multi-GPU configurations are also feasible. However, if you are looking at spending less than about $400, there's really no reason to consider getting two GPUs instead of one faster GPU. There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, in many instances, a single high-end GPU will actually be faster than two midrange GPUs working together - not always, but it will be close enough that we would call it a draw. The bigger problem is that CrossFire and SLI still don't work properly with all titles, especially newer titles where it might take a game patch or an updated graphics driver before multi-GPU support functions correctly. It is possible that renaming executables or scouring the web for tweaks that will enable SLI/CrossFire support can help you to avoid such problems, but most users would just as soon steer clear of such tasks, and we agree: ideally, all of the potential performance in your system will be utilized without the need to jump through any hoops. All you have to do is look at a couple relatively high-profile games that have been released in the last month to see the problem: Neverwinter Nights 2 and Splinter Cell: Double Agent both have issues if you try to run them on multiple graphics cards, and there are probably many other games that get released with similar initial difficulties. When you also factor in the typically higher power costs associated with running two graphics cards, we would strongly recommend running a single fast GPU over two slower GPUs - and that includes solutions like the GeForce 7950 GX2. If you want maximum performance, by all means look at investing in a couple of graphics cards, but for everything short of Extreme Performance configurations you are best off avoiding the hassles associated with SLI/CrossFire. (You get to save money on the motherboard as well, as an added bonus.)
Having taken care of the multi-GPU issue, what midrange GPUs become available with our new budget? Near the bottom of the price range, we have the GeForce 7600 GT that straddles the line between Entry Level and Midrange with a price of around $130 and a $20 mail-in rebate. These cards definitely offer a lot of bang for the buck, and they can overclock pretty well for added performance. Still, you will never manage to overclock a 7600 GT to the point where you get 7900 GT performance. Priced slightly higher than the 7600 GT but with slightly higher performance, ATI's new Radeon X1650 XT is the midrange card that we wish ATI could have launched in place of the original X1600 cards. It is interesting to note that ATI needed a lot more pixel shaders in order to match the performance of the 7600 GT, indicating that each shader is less powerful than the GeForce 7 series shader, but they are also less complex allowing ATI to fit more of them within a similarly sized package.
We should also take a moment here to talk about where previous high-end graphics cards fit into the mix. ATI's X800/X850 line matched up pretty well against NVIDIA's GeForce 6800 cards, although the ATI chips lack SM3.0 support so we would give the edge to GeForce 6800 chips now. The fastest of these offerings is going to be roughly equal to the 7600 GT/X1650 XT, so if you are one of the many people still running a 6800 GT, X800 XT, or a similar GPU, you probably won't see much of a performance increase unless you spend closer to $300 or more. Most games are still very playable on 6800 GT level hardware, but the latest titles definitely require turning down some of the advanced effects and/or resolution in order to get acceptable frame rates. Our best advice in regards to upgrading from one of these older graphics cards is that you should do so only when you find you are unhappy with the level of detail/performance you are able to get.
Looking at the more expensive Midrange GPUs, we included some of the more powerful discontinued products from ATI and NVIDIA in our list below. The GeForce 7800 GT/GTX line competed pretty well with ATI's X1800 line, and the NVIDIA cards definitely had the edge in multi-GPU setups. They also came out several months ahead of ATI's cards, helping them to sell much better. GeForce 7800 parts are basically the same in terms of performance as equivalently clocked GeForce 7900 parts, with the primary difference being that the 7900 series uses a 90 nm process. ATI's X1800 line on the other hand is quite different from the X1900 parts, with the latter parts having far more pixel shaders, although in terms of performance each pixel shader on an X1900 chip appears to be less powerful than an X1800 pixel shader.
Out of the currently shipping upper-midrange GPUs, the X1900 GT and X1950 Pro are both reasonable options, as are the 7900 GS and 7950 GT. If you are interested in getting an X1900 GT card, you would be better off getting the earlier version with higher clock speeds. If you can't find that, we would recommend going with the X1950 Pro instead; it costs a bit more but it performs better, and the use of an 80 nm process does help to reduce heat and power requirements slightly. The GeForce 7900/7950 GT are really priced more in the high-end market, but in terms of performance they are closer to the upper-midrange cards. While these cards still perform pretty well, they could use a price update for us to truly recommend them. With its lower price, 7900 GS is probably the best of the upper NVIDIA offerings here, and it can typically achieve good overclocks for additional performance.
For AGP users, the Midrange GPUs are basically as fast as you can get these days. You might be able to find a 7900 GS or 7900 GT for AGP if you look around hard enough, but the prices on such cards tend to be too high to warrant such a purchase. The 7800 GS AGP is readily available, but with only 16 pixel shaders and lower clock speeds than the PCI-E 7800 GT/GTX parts, they are only moderately faster than 6800 GT/X850 XT cards. Some of the overclocked models do better, though, and there's always end-user overclocking. For around $225, the BFG Tech BFGR78256GSOC GeForce 7800 GS AGP is probably the best price/performance high-end AGP card on the market.
Hopefully, ATI's recent launch of the X1950 Pro will help out, as it offers similar performance to the 7900 GT and it is available for both AGP and PCI-E platforms. Unfortunately, the AGP models currently carry a price premium of a round $75 ($300 total) and they are in limited supply, but they are the fastest stock AGP cards on the market - and they may also be the last higher-end AGP models that we will see, as most of the manufacturers are ready to abandon AGP for good.
With Midrange GPUs, we're looking to keep the price under about $225, although there are a couple cards in this group that are there more because of performance than because of price. With a budget of over $200, it also becomes feasible to begin discussing SLI and CrossFire as potential solutions. Let's put that discussion to rest really quickly: don't bother! Sure, a few people might like the idea of getting one GPU now and adding a second GPU later, and that is certainly a viable path to take. If you already have one graphics card and you're looking to add a second one midrange multi-GPU configurations are also feasible. However, if you are looking at spending less than about $400, there's really no reason to consider getting two GPUs instead of one faster GPU. There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, in many instances, a single high-end GPU will actually be faster than two midrange GPUs working together - not always, but it will be close enough that we would call it a draw. The bigger problem is that CrossFire and SLI still don't work properly with all titles, especially newer titles where it might take a game patch or an updated graphics driver before multi-GPU support functions correctly. It is possible that renaming executables or scouring the web for tweaks that will enable SLI/CrossFire support can help you to avoid such problems, but most users would just as soon steer clear of such tasks, and we agree: ideally, all of the potential performance in your system will be utilized without the need to jump through any hoops. All you have to do is look at a couple relatively high-profile games that have been released in the last month to see the problem: Neverwinter Nights 2 and Splinter Cell: Double Agent both have issues if you try to run them on multiple graphics cards, and there are probably many other games that get released with similar initial difficulties. When you also factor in the typically higher power costs associated with running two graphics cards, we would strongly recommend running a single fast GPU over two slower GPUs - and that includes solutions like the GeForce 7950 GX2. If you want maximum performance, by all means look at investing in a couple of graphics cards, but for everything short of Extreme Performance configurations you are best off avoiding the hassles associated with SLI/CrossFire. (You get to save money on the motherboard as well, as an added bonus.)
Having taken care of the multi-GPU issue, what midrange GPUs become available with our new budget? Near the bottom of the price range, we have the GeForce 7600 GT that straddles the line between Entry Level and Midrange with a price of around $130 and a $20 mail-in rebate. These cards definitely offer a lot of bang for the buck, and they can overclock pretty well for added performance. Still, you will never manage to overclock a 7600 GT to the point where you get 7900 GT performance. Priced slightly higher than the 7600 GT but with slightly higher performance, ATI's new Radeon X1650 XT is the midrange card that we wish ATI could have launched in place of the original X1600 cards. It is interesting to note that ATI needed a lot more pixel shaders in order to match the performance of the 7600 GT, indicating that each shader is less powerful than the GeForce 7 series shader, but they are also less complex allowing ATI to fit more of them within a similarly sized package.
We should also take a moment here to talk about where previous high-end graphics cards fit into the mix. ATI's X800/X850 line matched up pretty well against NVIDIA's GeForce 6800 cards, although the ATI chips lack SM3.0 support so we would give the edge to GeForce 6800 chips now. The fastest of these offerings is going to be roughly equal to the 7600 GT/X1650 XT, so if you are one of the many people still running a 6800 GT, X800 XT, or a similar GPU, you probably won't see much of a performance increase unless you spend closer to $300 or more. Most games are still very playable on 6800 GT level hardware, but the latest titles definitely require turning down some of the advanced effects and/or resolution in order to get acceptable frame rates. Our best advice in regards to upgrading from one of these older graphics cards is that you should do so only when you find you are unhappy with the level of detail/performance you are able to get.
Looking at the more expensive Midrange GPUs, we included some of the more powerful discontinued products from ATI and NVIDIA in our list below. The GeForce 7800 GT/GTX line competed pretty well with ATI's X1800 line, and the NVIDIA cards definitely had the edge in multi-GPU setups. They also came out several months ahead of ATI's cards, helping them to sell much better. GeForce 7800 parts are basically the same in terms of performance as equivalently clocked GeForce 7900 parts, with the primary difference being that the 7900 series uses a 90 nm process. ATI's X1800 line on the other hand is quite different from the X1900 parts, with the latter parts having far more pixel shaders, although in terms of performance each pixel shader on an X1900 chip appears to be less powerful than an X1800 pixel shader.
Out of the currently shipping upper-midrange GPUs, the X1900 GT and X1950 Pro are both reasonable options, as are the 7900 GS and 7950 GT. If you are interested in getting an X1900 GT card, you would be better off getting the earlier version with higher clock speeds. If you can't find that, we would recommend going with the X1950 Pro instead; it costs a bit more but it performs better, and the use of an 80 nm process does help to reduce heat and power requirements slightly. The GeForce 7900/7950 GT are really priced more in the high-end market, but in terms of performance they are closer to the upper-midrange cards. While these cards still perform pretty well, they could use a price update for us to truly recommend them. With its lower price, 7900 GS is probably the best of the upper NVIDIA offerings here, and it can typically achieve good overclocks for additional performance.
For AGP users, the Midrange GPUs are basically as fast as you can get these days. You might be able to find a 7900 GS or 7900 GT for AGP if you look around hard enough, but the prices on such cards tend to be too high to warrant such a purchase. The 7800 GS AGP is readily available, but with only 16 pixel shaders and lower clock speeds than the PCI-E 7800 GT/GTX parts, they are only moderately faster than 6800 GT/X850 XT cards. Some of the overclocked models do better, though, and there's always end-user overclocking. For around $225, the BFG Tech BFGR78256GSOC GeForce 7800 GS AGP is probably the best price/performance high-end AGP card on the market.
Hopefully, ATI's recent launch of the X1950 Pro will help out, as it offers similar performance to the 7900 GT and it is available for both AGP and PCI-E platforms. Unfortunately, the AGP models currently carry a price premium of a round $75 ($300 total) and they are in limited supply, but they are the fastest stock AGP cards on the market - and they may also be the last higher-end AGP models that we will see, as most of the manufacturers are ready to abandon AGP for good.
Midrange GPUs | |||||||
GPU | Pixel Shaders |
Vertex Shaders |
ROPs | Core Speed |
RAM Speed |
Memory Interface |
Price |
7600 GT | 12 | 5 | 8 | 560 | 1400 | 128bit | $135 |
X1650 XT | 24 | 8 | 8 | 575 | 1400 | 128bit | $156 |
7800 GS | 16 | 6 | 8 | 375 | 1200 | 256bit | $230 |
X1800 GTO | 12 | 8 | 12 | 500 | 1000 | 256bit | $145 |
X1800 XL | 16 | 8 | 16 | 500 | 1000 | 256bit | $240* |
X1900 AIW | 48 | 8 | 16 | 500 | 960 | 256bit | $220 |
7800 GT | 20 | 7 | 16 | 400 | 1000 | 256bit | $185* |
7900 GS | 20 | 7 | 16 | 450 | 1320 | 256bit | $186 |
7800 GTX | 24 | 8 | 16 | 430 | 1200 | 256bit | $250* |
X1800 XT | 16 | 8 | 16 | 625 | 1500 | 256bit | $300* |
X1900 GT v2.0 | 36 | 8 | 12 | 512 | 1320 | 256bit | $176 |
7900 GT | 24 | 8 | 16 | 450 | 1320 | 256bit | $246 |
X1900 GT | 36 | 8 | 12 | 575 | 1200 | 256bit | $176 |
X1950 Pro | 36 | 8 | 12 | 575 | 1380 | 256bit | $206 |
* - Prices for these parts are prone to fluctuation, as these are discontinued products.
51 Comments
View All Comments
Jodiuh - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
The FR bought release day from Fry's had a 39C transistor and hit 660/1000. The AR ordered online last week has a 40C transistor and hits 630/1000. It may not be quite as fast, but I'll be keeping the newer AR w/ the 40C transistor...comforts me at night. :DJodiuh - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
Reply from EVGA!Jod,
AR= Etail/Retail RoHS compliant
FR= Frys Retail RoHS compliant
All of our cards had the correct transistor value when shipped out.
Regards,
munky - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
Again, this is completely wrong. The major difference between the x1800 and x1900 cards is that the x1900's have 3 pixel shaders per "pipe", whereas the x1800's only have one. If anything, the x1900 pipes are more powerful.
evonitzer - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
Akin to my comment above, quads are the thing these days, so the 1900 series has 4 pixel shaders per pipe. And if you go back to the original article when the 1900 was released, you'll see that the whole architecture is closer to 4 x1600's than 3 x1800's, either of which would result in the 48 shaders that we see. I recommend you read the first few pages of the debut article, but I think we can agree that the shaders in the x1800 were probably more potent than the ones in the 1600, so the 1900 is probably a little wimpier per shader than the 1800. However, it has 3 times as many, so it's better.Also the comment was probably intended to dissuade people from assuming that the 1900 would be 3 times better than the 1800, and that there is a difference of architectures going on here.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
Ding! That was a main point of talking about the changes in architecture. In the case of the X1650 XT, however, double the number of pixel shaders really does end up being almost twice as fast as the X1600 XT.
I also added a note on the page talking about the G80 mentioning that they have apparently taken a similar route, using many more "less complex" shader units in order to provide better overall performance. I am quite sure that a single G80 pixel shader (which of course is a unified shader, but that's beside the point) is not anywhere near as powerful as a single G70 pixel shader. When you have 96/128 of them compared to 24, however, more definitely ends up being better. :-)
munky - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
The 7600gt is 12 pipes. The x1650xt is 8 pipes with 3 pixel shaders each. You may want to rethink the statement quoted above.
evonitzer - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
What he meant were "pixel shaders", which seem to be interchanged with pipelines quite often. If you look on the table you'll see that the x1650xt is listed as having 24 pixel pipelines, and the 7600gt has 12 pixel pipelines, when they should read shaders instead.Also quads seem to be the thing, so the 7600 gt probably has 3 quads of shaders, and the 1650 has twice that with 6 quads. Pixel shaders, to be more exact.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
I have changed references from "pixel pipelines" to "pixel shaders". While it may have been a slight error in semantics to call them pipelines before, the basic summary still stands. ATI needed more pixel shaders in order to keep up with the performance and video was offering, indicating that each pixel shader from ATI is less powerful (overall -- I'm sure there are instances where ATI performs much better). This goes for your comment about X1800 below as well.Spoelie - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
why does nvidia always gets replaced to "and video" in your texts? here and in the article :)JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - link
Speech recognition does odd things. I don't proof posts as well as I should. :)