Rage3D ATI Radeon X1650 XT Crossfire Review

[Ratchet]

We've just published our review of ATI's new RV560 based X1650 XT graphics card, set to be officially announced later today.

ATI is still chugging along and adding further refinements to their lineup. Today they are announcing yet another new graphics card, another of the X1600-family, but this time one that moves performance and features forward. The X1650 XT, based on a new 80nm RV560 core that features native Crossfire support, has finally arrived and fills in the $149 price gap in ATI's lineup.

Rage3D ATI Radeon X1650 XT Crossfire Review

[metroidfox]

Excellent - am going to read now.

[Arno]

I admit that I went straight to the page with 'Conclusions', but I couldn't help noticing this part:

Originally Posted by Ratchet

Yeah it’s probably not going to be enough to get by with when you’re running around in Crysis in a couple weeks

I don't think we're going to run around in Crysis in a couple of weeks, since the game is scheduled for a 2007 release. Unless I'm missing something?

[AMD_G@y]

Seeing as there has been no mention of IMO the RV535s BEST feature I'm going to assume ATI decided against carrying over the Double-Z and instead decided to go with a simple x-1-3-1 instead of the R530's x-1-3-2 configuration. Such a decision may save die space however the question remains, why then does the RV560 equal the same size of a similiar chip with twice the memory bandwidth and 50% more pixel shaders and ROPs..

Just doesn't add up..

[Ratchet]

Originally Posted by Arno

I admit that I went straight to the page with 'Conclusions', but I couldn't help noticing this part:

I don't think we're going to run around in Crysis in a couple of weeks, since the game is scheduled for a 2007 release. Unless I'm missing something?

Hrm, you maybe right. I guess I had been assuming that it would be released in time for the holidays. I've not really been following it all that closely, to be perfectly honest.

Originally Posted by AMD_G@y

Seeing as there has been no mention of IMO the RV535s BEST feature I'm going to assume ATI decided against carrying over the Double-Z and instead decided to go with a simple x-1-3-1 instead of the R530's x-1-3-2 configuration. Such a decision may save die space however the question remains, why then does the RV560 equal the same size of a similiar chip with twice the memory bandwidth and 50% more pixel shaders and ROPs..

Just doesn't add up..

There are still questions I have that are unanswered about the RV560 too.

[Ratchet]

I just got confirmation that the RV560 found on the X1650XT is the same chip as the RV570 found on the X1950 Pro, as I speculated in the article. Lower specs, of course.

In reality it's no big deal and doesn't actually change anything, of course. Not sure why they just didn't say "Here's a RV570 based card with lower specs! $149! Enjoy!" instead of apparently trying to pass it off as a completely new core, though.

[AMD_G@y]

Originally Posted by Ratchet

I just got confirmation that the RV560 found on the X1650XT is the same chip as the RV570 found on the X1950 Pro, as I speculated in the article. Lower specs, of course.

In reality it's no big deal and doesn't actually change anything, of course. Not sure why they just didn't say "Here's a RV570 based card with lower specs! $149! Enjoy!" instead of apparently trying to pass it off as a completely new core, though.

!?!

WTF is up at ATI ?

If the RV560 IS the exact same GPU as the RV570 why then designate a "new" gpu name ?? If this is a precursor of things to come from AmATId then consumers as a whole have lost. Selling "defective" parts as entirely "New" all the while as each product launch is returns to the paper status that only ATI seems best
at practicing, is a sad and rather gloomy trend if it continues.

I was hoping that the AMD-ATI merger/buyout would empower ATI however the fact they (AMD-ATI) can't even meet demand when their entire GPU business centers around THREE products. !!! ATI's presence in the mobile market is decreasing thanks in large to their inability to counter nVidia's offerings (in both performance and power). Fewer and fewer OEMs are offering models with ATI graphics (Dell, HP, Gateway, Apple etc), an area were ATI was truly a giant. Lastly ATI still hasn't made a convincing "Hard Launch" outside of the initial X1900XT announcements. From the sub $100 x1300-1350 up to the $200-$250 X1950-X1900GT, prices are higher than what ATI had targeted them. Again it seems to bear light on their inability to deliver in substansial numbers, or maybe as Nvidia would put it "demand has outstripped our ability to meet record customer request, .. "

[Ratchet]

Like I said, what does it matter if they gave it a new name? As end-consumers it means nothing, so maybe it's just to help their AIB partners and to avoid confusion on the OEM level.

[nomore]

awesome review as always Ratchet.
I just don't understand why you didn't include x1950 pro crossfire scores in the review.
you did review x1950 pro crossfire after all.
it would have been nice to compare it with x1650 xt crossfire as well.
I hope I amn't asking to much.

[Ratchet]

I always choose competing cards based on price. X1950 Pro Crossfire costs $400 and X1650XT Crossfire costs $300. The $100 difference is significant in this market.

[nomore]

Originally Posted by Ratchet

I always choose competing cards based on price. X1950 Pro Crossfire costs $400 and X1650XT Crossfire costs $300. The $100 difference is significant in this market.

I knew that. It wouldn't make sense to include x1950 pro crossfire results at the same review with x1650 pro crossfire.

I just thought you can do something nice for us to compare results of all the cards that you used in the same system setup.
if I remember correctly you used the same system setup for x1650 xt crossfire and x1950 pro crossfire.

for example; something like this http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/
where we can pick which cards we want to compare, and we can see your review results for those cards.

probably you are going to say, that will take a lot of time.
but it was just a suggestion.

[Ratchet]

I know what you are saying, and it is a good idea.
The only problem is that I usually set some games up so that they perform reasonable on whatever graphics card I am testing, and I usually choose different resolutions too.

[nomore]

Originally Posted by Ratchet

I know what you are saying, and it is a good idea.
The only problem is that I usually set some games up so that they perform reasonable on whatever graphics card I am testing, and I usually choose different resolutions too.

cool, thanx for the explanation.

btw, I thought if you haven't seen this before, you might like it;
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=547&chart=215

since it is close to what I was talking about.

[snookums]

I wonder if this is too late to ask... but your conclusion of the x1650xt is less than stellar.

from switching back and forth between this review and the x1950pro review, the x1650xt keeps pace (within 10%) with the x1950pro (surpases it sometimes... only by a few fps) in all games except FarCry (and sorta in Splinter Cell).

............. x1650xt | x1950pro
Prey ......... 72.1 | 78.1 (92%)
HL2:Ep1 .. 106.1 | 102.1 (104%)
BF2 .......... 90.2 | 95.4 (95%)
Quake4 ... 93.3 | 95.8 (97%)
HL2:LC ... 81.5 | 77.9 (107%)
SC:CT ... 67.2 | 75.3 (89%)
FarCry ... 99.3 | 132.7 (75%)

from my point of view, thats one hell of a better bang-for-buck card than the x1950pro! for a card thats 75% of the x1950pro, you get 90% of its power!

now for the tough part, do you think you are CPU-limited, RAM-limited, something-else-limited? or is the x1650xt a really good deal?

[Ratchet]

Take a closer look at those charts, skipper. The X1650XT game benchmarks were run with different settings.

[snookums]

i feel dumb.