Review of one of the first video cards based on the Radeon X1650 Pro. Review of one of the first video cards on the Radeon X1650 Pro Game tests: Hitman: Blood Money

If today an overclocker when choosing a video card set the upper limit of $ 180-200, 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 fail to attract the attention of potential buyers of this video card.

ATI, of course, could not easily observe this "disgrace" and quickly tried to oppose the GeForce 7600 GT with the Radeon X1800 GTO, but it was never destined to become a rival to the GeForce 7600 GT. And the point here is not in performance, but in the fact that the Radeon X1800 GTO was (and is now) in a different price range. ATI's attempt to temporarily "close the gap" in the price segment up to $ 200 by reducing the cost of X1800 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. Already according to the announcement, it is clear that ATI did not repeat its mistakes with the release of the Radeon X1600 XT, when the recommended cost was 249 (!) US dollars (though later it was sharply reduced to 199, and today such video cards with a memory capacity of 256 Mb cannot be purchased more than $ 150). The recommended cost of the Radeon X1650 XT is only $ 149, and, most likely, the barrier of $ 200, even taking into account the "appetites" of the sellers and the novelty of the video card, the RadeonX1650 XT is unlikely to step over.

advertising

How successful was the new graphics solution? Will the Radeon X1650 XT be able to compete on equal terms with the GeForce 7600 GT, which is firmly entrenched in this sector of the market? Is the heat dissipation high? You will find answers to these and some other questions in today's material.

1. Specifications ATI Radeon X1650 XT and NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT

Let's look at the characteristics of the new product from ATI in the table below in comparison with its direct competitor - NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT:

Name of technical characteristics	ATI Radeon X1650 XT	NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT
GPU name	RV560	G73 (TSMC)
Technological process, microns	0.08	0.09
Core area, mm2	270	127
Number of transistors, mln.	n / a	177
Working Frequencies GPUs, MHz	600	560
Operating frequencies of video memory, MHz	1400
Memory size, Mb	256, 512
Memory type	GDDR3
Memory bus width	128 bit
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 operating mode, W	n / a
Power supply requirements, W	~350	~ 350 (400 for SLI)
Dimensions of the reference design video card, mm. (L x B x T)	130 x 100 x 25	170 x 100 x 15
Outputs	2 x DVI (Dual-Link), TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support
Additionally	CrossFire support	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 \|

A reader who has been closely following our materials lately thinks that we are writing something about products from NVIDIA, but nothing from a competitor in the person of AMD. Of course there is, just the whole November was devoted to the new products of the Californian company, that's why so much attention was paid to the GeForce 8800 series. But ordinary everyday life began, and life becomes the same as it was: some products from AMD / ATI, some from NVIDIA.

Not so long ago new mid-range products from AMD / ATI came out, namely RADEON X1650 XT, X1950 PRO. And also the renaming of the former X1600 XT and X1600 PRO into X1650 PRO and X1300 XT, respectively.

Today we will study some representatives of these families. Almost all of them are very interesting and have their own flavor.


GPU: RADEON X1650 PRO (ex.X1600 XT) (RV530) Interface: PCI-Express x16 590/590 MHz (nominal - 590/590 MHz) 690 (1380) MHz (nominal - 690 (1380) MHz) 128bit Number of vertex processors: 5 ROPs: 4 Dimensions: 170x100x35 mm (the last figure is the maximum thickness of a video card). PCB color: blue. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2xDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. CrossFire (Software).

GPU: RADEON X1950 PRO (RV570) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU frequencies (ROPs / Shaders): 575/575 MHz (nominal - 580/580 MHz) Memory frequencies (physical (effective)): 680 (1360) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Pixel Processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Texture processors: 12 ROPs: 12 Dimensions: PCB color: Red. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2xDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. Multiprocessor support: CrossFire (Hardware).

GPU: RADEON X1650 XT (RV560) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU frequencies (ROPs / Shaders): 630/630 MHz (nominal - 600/600 MHz) Memory frequencies (physical (effective)): 760 (1520) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 128bit Number of vertex processors: 6 Pixel Processors: 24 Number of universal processors: - Texture processors: 8 ROPs: 8 Dimensions: 160x100x32 mm (the last figure is the maximum thickness of a video card). PCB color: Red. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2хDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. Multiprocessor support: CrossFire (Hardware).

GPU: RADEON X1950 PRO (RV570) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU frequencies (ROPs / Shaders): 650/650 MHz (nominal - 580/580 MHz) Memory frequencies (physical (effective)): 740 (1480) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Pixel Processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Texture processors: 12 ROPs: 12 Dimensions: 220x100x37 mm (the last figure is the maximum thickness of a video card). PCB color: Red. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2xDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. Multiprocessor support: CrossFire (Hardware).

GPU: RADEON X1650 XT (RV560) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU frequencies (ROPs / Shaders): 600/600 MHz (nominal - 600/600 MHz) Memory frequencies (physical (effective)): Memory bus width: 128bit Number of vertex processors: 6 Pixel Processors: 24 Number of universal processors: - Texture processors: 8 ROPs: 8 Dimensions: 160x100x15 mm (the last figure is the maximum thickness of a video card). PCB color: blue. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2хDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. Multiprocessor support: CrossFire (Hardware).

GPU: RADEON X1950 PRO (RV570) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU frequencies (ROPs / Shaders): Memory frequencies (physical (effective)): 700 (1400) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Pixel Processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Texture processors: 12 ROPs: 12 Dimensions: 220x100x15 mm (the last figure is the maximum thickness of a video card). PCB color: blue. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2xDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. Multiprocessor support: CrossFire (Hardware).

GPU: RADEON X1950 PRO (RV570) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU frequencies (ROPs / Shaders): 580/580 MHz (nominal - 580/580 MHz) Memory frequencies (physical (effective)): 700 (1400) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Pixel Processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Texture processors: 12 ROPs: 12 Dimensions: 220x100x40 mm (the last figure is the maximum thickness of a video card). PCB color: blue. RAMDACs / TMDS: integrated into the GPU. Output jacks: 2xDVI (Dual-Link), TV-out. VIVO: No TV-out: integrated into the GPU. Multiprocessor support: CrossFire (Hardware).

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E; HIS IceQ III RADEON X1650 XT Turbo 256MB PCI-E;
The card has 256 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM located in 4 microcircuits on the front side of the PCB. Infineon memory chips (GDDR3). The access time for the memory chips is 1.4 ns, which corresponds to the operating frequency of 700 (1400) MHz.
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E; Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E; HIS IceQ III RADEON X1950 PRO Turbo 256MB PCI-E
The card has 256 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM located in 8 chips on the front side of the PCB.
GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E
The card has 512 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM located in 8 chips on the front side of the PCB. Samsung memory chips (GDDR3). The access time of the memory chips is 1.2ns, which corresponds to the operating frequency of 800 (1600) MHz.
Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E
The card has 256 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM located in 4 microcircuits on the front side of the PCB. Infineon memory chips (GDDR3). The access time for the memory chips is 1.3 ns, which corresponds to the operating frequency of 750 (1500) MHz.

Comparison with reference design, front view
Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E

HIS IceQ III RADEON X1650 XT Turbo 256MB PCI-E

Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E


Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E


Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E

HIS IceQ III RADEON X1950 PRO Turbo 256MB PCI-E

GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E

Comparison with reference design, rear view
Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E	Reference card ATI RADEON X1600 XT

HIS IceQ III RADEON X1650 XT Turbo 256MB PCI-E

Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E

Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E	Reference card ATI RADEON X1950 PRO

Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E

HIS IceQ III RADEON X1950 PRO Turbo 256MB PCI-E

GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E

If video cards based on 1950 PRO from HIS and Sapphire are copies of the reference design, then the product from Gecube is made on a PCB of its own design. This is immediately apparent from the upwardly displaced connector. external power supply when, as a reference design, it is installed in the middle of the card, of course, in the tail of the PCB. However, we do not know if the reference design has been redesigned. And it is possible that we have before us a copy of a new reference card. But the most important thing about this card is its cooler, and we'll talk about it later. I must say that the frequencies of this card are slightly lowered relative to the nominal, but the presence of 512 MB of memory in high resolutions, where the playability has not reached the minimum, nevertheless allowed this card to perform not only no worse, but sometimes even better than the 256 MB counterparts. ...

Similar accelerators based on 1950 PRO from HIS / Sapphire differ from each other in PCB color, cooling systems, and frequencies. It should be emphasized that from now on, HIS, naming its cards Turbo, does not rely only on the iTurbo utility supplied with the motherboards, which raises the operating frequencies, but initially increases the operating frequencies through the BIOS. Therefore, both X1950 PRO and X1650 XT operate at higher frequencies relative to the nominal.

A stand-alone product from Gigabyte based on the former X1600 XT, and now the X1650 PRO, in its PCB design hardly differs from the reference one. Again, the highlight is in the cooler.

The cards have TV-out sockets, which are unique in terms of the connector, and to output images to TV both via S-Video and RCA, you need special adapter adapters supplied with the cards. You can read more about TV-out.

Connection to analog monitors with d-Sub (VGA) is made through special adapters-adapters DVI-to-d-Sub. Maximum resolutions and frequencies:

240 Hz Max Refresh Rate
2048 × 1536 × 32bit x85Hz Max - analog interface
2560 × 1600 @ 60Hz Max - digital interface

As for the capabilities of video cards for playing MPEG2 (DVD-Video), back in 2002 we studied this issue, since then little has changed. Depending on the movie, the CPU load during playback on all modern video cards does not rise above 25%.

Now about the cooling systems. There is no need to study in detail the coolers with which the cards from HIS are equipped, because these are all the same devices from Arctic Cooling, which we have already written many times.

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E
Passive cooling device, that is, without a fan. It consists of two heatsinks, one of which is located on the front side of the card and adjoins the card bracket, facilitating heat removal from the system unit due to flows inside the case. The second radiator is located at the back. Both of them take heat from the core of the card using heat pipes with a low-boiling liquid inside. The device works reliably, there were no problems with overheating, the temperature is normal. But noiselessness is guaranteed. This is very good decision for this kind of cards. And overclocking is possible up to 640/1500 MHz



Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E
A nicely shaped flat cooler working according to the usual scheme of air flow along the radiator with the help of a fan. A plastic shroud covers the entire heatsink, which is for the best, so there is almost no noise. The memory chips are also cooled by the same cooler, which can help overclockers in overclocking memory. The maximum possible overclocking for this instance is 640/1580 MHz

Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E
The device is similar to the previous one in principle of operation, but despite its beauty, this long plastic casing, coupled with the radiator fins arranged along a curve, makes a very unpleasant noise from the cooling system. Sadly, it’s true. Despite all the efforts of the developers to somehow improve efficiency, they sacrificed silence. And this is the wrong approach for today. Overclocking the card showed that it lives at 630/1750 MHz.

Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E
V this case the installation of a special cooler from Zalman is the main part of this card, which gives the right to the Ultimate suffix. And this is very justified! The video card could be overclocked from 580 to 690 (!) MHz in the core! This is very, very impressive. And at the same time, the silence of the cooler is guaranteed! The cooler itself is a round funnel made of copper plates, the edges of which are formed from thermal copper tubes carrying heat from the base of the funnel - where the base of the cooler is located. A low-speed fan is installed in the center of the funnel, rotating at a speed of 1500 rpm.

GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E
The developers from GeCube decided to equip the card not only with a larger memory capacity than is usual for the 1950 PRO, but also to install a kind of monster cooler on the core, which takes up not two, but three slots in the system unit. As we can see, the system is two-fan with a huge radiator. Of course, heat pipes were also used, but where without them now ... In general, I think the disadvantage of this cooling system is that the memory chips are not cooled in any way, and for effective heat dissipation from such a core as the X1950 PRO, something very monstrous is not required. This is not the X1950 XTX. Is it just a joy to overclockers. By the way, the cooler played its role here - the core was able to work at 695 MHz without any problems.

We have studied the monitoring of the GeCube map using the well-known RivaTuner (by A. Nikolaychuk AKA Unwinder):

Equipment.

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E
User manual, CD with drivers, Civilization-4 game, DVI-to-d-Sub and S-Video-to-RCA adapters, composite output adapter.
GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E
User manual, CD with drivers, DVI-to-d-Sub and S-Video-to-RCA adapters, composite output adapter, bracket for bracket, external power adapter.
HIS IceQ III RADEON X1650 XT Turbo 256MB PCI-E; HIS IceQ III RADEON X1950 PRO Turbo 256MB PCI-E
User manual, CD with drivers, CD with game, DVI-to-d-Sub and S-Video-to-RCA adapters, composite output adapter, bracket for bracket, external power adapter (1950 PRO only), connection adapter two cards in CrossFire mode.
Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E; Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E
The previous set added TV-out cables, plus the game was replaced with the "Da Vinci Code".
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E
A similar kit, but again the game is replaced.

Packaging.

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E
Large glossy box with a box of thick cardboard inside. The card and the whole set are rigidly fixed, so the chatter is excluded.
GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E
Likewise. Large bright glossy box in the traditional GeCube style, but with a window on the front side, through which the card is clearly visible. The entire set is carefully arranged in compartments, and the video card is reliably protected from dangling inside the package.
HIS IceQ III RADEON X1650 XT Turbo 256MB PCI-E
The traditional packaging that we used to meet: a blue and white design, an oval window through which you can see the card, inside the box everything is housed in plastic compartments. Packing for five!
HIS IceQ III RADEON X1950 PRO Turbo 256MB PCI-E
This is a new style of HIS, we started to meet such boxes with the advent of the X1900 series. I personally like this option even more, and all the advantages of the previous packaging remain - the cards are just as securely packed in plastic.

Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E
At Sapphire, after a couple of years of updated design of their packaging (when we could contemplate bright boxes with windows through which cards are visible, and the whole set is packed in plastic, like in HIS), the time has come for the packaging designers to be depressed. We changed the appearance a little, the design became white with black drawings, but at the same time the plastic was gone from the inside, and all these cardboard partitions are not worth a dime.
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E
And therefore, all cards, except for very thick ones, which are simply squeezed inside by their forms, hang out in boxes. Not progress, but regression. Alas.
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E
In this case, the designers went to the other extreme: how do you hang a map in the middle of a huge box so that it looks like it is in zero gravity? It's very simple: Make a huge box of expensive plastic, put an unmeasured fastener made of transparent plastic inside, and put the card inside. As a result, it looks, of course, awesome, but distributors look at it no less awesome, counting how much air they will carry when buying such cards.

Installation and drivers

Test bench configuration:

Computer on Intel Core2 Duo (775 Socket)
- Intel Core2 Duo Extreme X6800 processor (2930 MHz) (L2 = 4096K);
- EVGA nForce 680i SLI motherboard on NVIDIA chipset nForce 680i;
- RAM 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM Corsair 1142MHz (CAS (tCL) = 5; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) = 5; Row Precharge (tRP) = 5; tRAS = 15);
- hard drive WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA.
operating room Windows system XP SP2; DirectX 9.0c;
monitor Dell 3007WFP (30 ") (and Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb (21")).
ATI drivers CATALYST 6.11; NVIDIA version 96.94.

VSync is disabled.

Test results: performance comparison

As a toolkit, we used:

Splinter Cell Chaos of Theory v.1.04 (Ubisoft) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, test settings - maximum, shaders 3.0 (for NVIDIA cards) / shaders 2.0 (for ATI cards); HDR OFF!
Half-Life2 (Valve / Sierra) - DirectX 9.0, demo (ixbt01 Testing was carried out at maximum quality, option -dxlevel 90, presets for map types are removed in the dxsupport.cfg file.
FarCry 1.4beta (Crytek / UbiSoft), DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, demo from Research level (start the game with the -DEVMODE option), test settings are all Very High. The beta version of the patch is because it has HDR + AA support, which is not in the release.
DOOM III (id Software / Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, testing settings - High Quality (ANIS8x). There is an example of starting automation with an increase in speed and a decrease in the number of jerks (precaching). (DO NOT BE AFRAID of the black screen after the first menu, it should be so! It will be 5-10 seconds, and then the demo should go)
3DMark05 1.20 (FutureMark) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, test settings - trilinear,
The Chronicles Of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay 1.10 (Starbreeze / Vivendi) - OpenGL, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum texture quality, Shader 2.0.
I express my gratitude Rinat Dosayev (AKA 4uckall) and Alexei Ostrovsky (AKA Ducce) for writing a demo for this game, and also many thanks Alexey Berillo AKA Somebody Else for help
F.E.A.R. v.1.05 (Multiplayer) (Monolith / Sierra) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum, Soft shadows off.
Call Of Duty 2 DEMO (Ubisoft) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum, shaders 2.0, testing with Benchemall, demo and a script to launch, readme contains instructions

Graphics card performance

Those who wish to download all the results in Excel format (Office 2003 format) can take an archive in RAR 3.0 or ZIP format.

1. Far Cry, Research (No HDR)
2. Far Cry, Research (HDR)
- All permissions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
3. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (No HDR)
- All permissions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (HDR)
- All permissions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
5. Half Life2, ixbt01
- All permissions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
6. DOOM III
- All permissions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
7. 3DMark05 MARKS
- All permissions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
8. Chronicles of Riddick, demo 44

Review of one of the first video cards on the Radeon X1650 Pro

Alexey Sadovsky

ATI recently updated its GPU lineup. The GPUs presented were the Radeon X1950 XTX, X1650 Pro and X1300 XT. A video card based on an "average" came to our laboratory. According to ATI's plan, this chip should replace the Radeon X1600 XT. But, it seems, not everything is as cloudless as it might seem at first glance. There are two versions of the Radeon X1650 Pro. Moreover, the second one was not officially mentioned anywhere before ...

Updating a line of mainstream accelerators is usually quite slow. Most often, performance leadership is determined by the fastest members of the family. After all, today for ATI and NVIDIA to be at the top is a matter of prestige. But the fact is that these companies derive their main profits from sales of mainstream and low-end chips. It is not surprising - not everyone needs a video card with several dozen pixel pipelines and a gigahertz chip and memory at the price of half a thousand dollars.

Not long ago, ATI slightly updated its line of mid-range GPUs. This event coincided with the release of the next flagship - http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1950+XTX%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1950 XTX... While video cards based on it received a new type of GDDR4 memory, updated mainstream solutions based on GPU http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1650+Pro%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1650 Pro, were slightly overclocked in chip / memory frequencies. In this article, we will try to figure out how this will affect performance in modern gaming tests and applications. But first, let's turn to the characteristics of the new graphics chips.

Radeon X1650 Pro

By the way, along with the Radeon X1950 XTX and Radeon X1650 Pro, http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1300+XT%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1300 XT was presented... If the first two were simply overclocked a little, then the latter received 12 pixel pipelines instead of four. In fact, this is just a renamed http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1600+Pro%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1600 Pro.

Chip	Radeon X1650 Pro	Radeon X1600 XT	GeForce 7600 GT	GeForce 7600 GS

Technical process
Chip clock frequencies, MHz
Memory clock frequencies, MHz / DDR
Vertex processors
Pixel processors
Textures per clock
Memory bus width
Memory size, MB
Memory type

As you can see, the differences between the Radeon X1650 Pro and Radeon X1600 XT are minimal. Video cards based on them will differ only in chip and memory frequencies. And there would be something different - in the updated version they are raised by only some 10 MHz. Somehow undignified, completely undignified.

If we compare the “new” GPU with modern mainstream solutions from NVIDIA, then the more efficient GeForce 7600 GT looks a little more impressive. Although its memory is only slightly faster, the chip has a frequency of 100 MHz higher. In addition, due to the peculiarities of the architecture of the Radeon X1650 Pro, the number of textures processed per clock cycle is only 4, while its main competitor has this figure three times higher and amounts to 12 textures per clock cycle.

As for the GeForce 7600 GS, it will be lagging behind. Despite the same number of pixel and vertex pipelines as with the GT modification, its chip / memory clock speeds are more likely to match the Radeon X1600 Pro (recently reborn in the Radeon X1300 XT).

GeCube RX165PG2-D3

GeCube is one of the most well-known and respected brands in the graphics card market. Its solutions are of high-quality performance, good equipment, as well as a wonderful appearance. The latter is not particularly important when choosing a graphics accelerator, but it's still nice when the manufacturer takes care of this too.

Another "feature" of GeCube is the efficiency with which it introduces new video cards. Sometimes they are announced several hours (and sometimes days) before the GPU itself is presented! Video card http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=RX165PG2-D3%20 "jbsctx =" "> RX165PG2-D3 was also presented quite promptly. This, however, is not surprising - there was no shortage of Radeon X1650 Pro chips, so they arrived to the manufacturers on time. Let's consider the characteristics of the video card that came to us in more detail.

http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98145.jpg ">

GeCube Card SpecificationsRX165PG2-D3
Card manufacturer
GPU	Radeon X1650 Pro (RV530)
Chip frequency
	DDR2, 256 MB
Memory frequency	400 (800) MHz
Memory bus width
Interface

Number of vertex conveyors
Number of pixel pipelines
	DirectX 9.0c, OpenGL 1.5
Cooling system monitoring
Additional food
Monitor connectors

Well, the characteristics are standard, but there is one "but". For some unknown reason GeCube installed memory with specifications far from those recommended by ATI. Whereas in the original the memory should operate at 695 MHz, the used DDR2 chips (again, the question: why not GDDR3?) Work at 400 MHz, that is, almost 300 MHz below the nominal! And if you translate all this "into DDR", then the difference is as much as 600 MHz!

It turned out to be a kind of Radeon X1600 Pro (Radeon X1300 XT) with a graphics processor from Radeon X1650 Pro. However, it is understandable - I want to reduce the cost. But not by such methods. This also misleads the potential buyer. Because when he comes home with a new thing, he will be surprised why he was given a video card with a solution performance for a good $ 40-50 cheaper for that kind of money. After all, you can't explain to him later that the money was given for the quality guaranteed by the manufacturer, and the rest of the "buns"? In general, it is not good to do this, it is not good.

The video card came to us in the OEM configuration, so we will not describe the delivery set, but go straight to the design.

The design of the RX165PG2-D3 PCB differs from the reference for the "original" Radeon X1650 Pro. It is much simpler. Apparently, two modifications of the Radeon X1650 Pro were unofficially presented. The graphics processor is the same for them, but the memory is different. GeCube has another version of the video card based on the Radeon X1650 Pro. Its design is the same as that of the reference, and the memory is GDDR3. Of course, its frequency is set at 1390 MHz. A natural question arises: who is misleading potential buyers: ATI or video card manufacturers?

The cooling system installed on the RX165PG2-D3 is quite efficient. The copper heatsink has a fairly massive size and fairly dense fins. At the same time, it makes very little noise. For this, thanks to the fan, the speed of which during operation is not very high.

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98146.jpg">

It should be noted that in addition to the GPU, the heatsink also cools the memory chips. They come into contact with it using fibrous pads soaked in thermal paste. True, this is unlikely to have a successful effect on overclocking. After all, the four chips located on the other side are not cooled by anything.

The cooler is connected to the video card with two wires, which means that there is no support for speed control. In general, this is not so critical, however, the fan is small, and its noise can still be heard. It has long been proven that it is more efficient to install a massive fan and run it at low speeds. But such solutions are extremely rare on video cards in this price range.

RX165PG2-D3 is equipped with standard set connectors, which includes two DVI-I and S-Video. To connect a CRT monitor to one of the two DVIs, you will have to use the adapter that is included in the package.

As noted above, the video card in question is equipped with DDR2 memory chips, while ATI recommends installing GDDR3 memory. The chips used are manufactured by Hynix, and their markings are as follows: HY5PS561621AFP-25. The last figures show that the access time is 2.5 ms, which corresponds to 400 MHz (800 DDR). So the specs don't lie. The capacity of the chips is 256 Mbit. As a result, 8 such chips on a video card give a total of 256 MB. The memory bus is 128-bit standard for this family of GPUs.

Testing

The following components took part in testing:

Motherboard:
- Intel 975XBX
CPU:
- Intel Pentium D 955 3.4 GHz (Dual Core)
Memory:
- 2х512 MB Kingston DDR 533
HDD:
- Western Digital 80 GB

The operating system was installed on the test bench Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2, as well as benchmarks and real game applications.

Drivers:
- Driver for video cards NVIDIA: ForceWare 84.63
- Driver for ATI video cards: CATALYST 6.5

The main parameters in the drivers for NVIDIA and ATI video cards were set as follows:

NVIDIA ForceWare:
- Image Settings: Quality
- Trilinear optimization: On
- Anisotropic mip filter optimization: Off
- Anisotropic sample optimization: On
- Vertical sync: Off
ATI CATALYST:
- Mipmap Detail Level: Quality
- Adaptive antialiasing: Off
- Temporal antialiasing: Off
- Quality AF: Off
- CATALYST A.I .: Standard
- Wait for vertical refresh: Always off
- Other settings: default

2D quality

Today, the quality of a 2D image is increasingly dependent on the monitor used, as well as the cable (which can be damaged and then negatively affect the picture). For several years now, high-quality RAMDACs have been built into all GPUs. In our case, the quality was excellent. In any case, no problems were observed even at 1600x1200x85 Hz.

Test results

3DMark 2001SE

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98135.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98136.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98113.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98114.jpg">

In the old 3DMark 2001SE GeCube test http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=RX165PG2-D3%20 "jbsctx =" "> RX165PG2-D3 is expected to lag behind the Radeon X1600 XT, although it should be ahead. The point here, of course, is the much slower memory. In the Nature benchmark, the gap grows even more, since it uses shaders (both pixel and vertex), albeit the first version.

With antialiasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, the situation repeats itself. Although the slight overclocking of the video card in question allows it to at least slightly align with other members of the family.

The GeForce 7600 GT remains the leader. This chip is better optimized for the previous generation of games and tests, so it comes out the winner here.

3DMark 2005

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98119.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98118.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98117.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98116.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98097.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98096.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98095.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98094.jpg">

Almost the same situation is observed in 3DMark 2005. Despite the relative novelty of the test, the GeForce 7600 GT is ahead of all, and it is rather significantly ahead of the rest.

As for the main participant in our review, he shows the same results (in relative terms, of course). http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1650+Pro%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1650 Pro performed by GeCube lags behind Radeon X1600 XT operating at nominal frequencies, and slightly ahead of http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1600+Pro%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1600 Pro, the frequencies of which are even lower. Overclocking helps to smooth out the lag a little, but with an increase in resolution and load, the gained advantage is practically nullified.

3DMark 2006

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98121.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98099.jpg">

3DMark 2006 also brings no surprises. The RX165PG2-D3 is expected to be in the penultimate place, and the GeForce 7600 GT is again ahead. Moreover, the gap between the latter is very significant and amounts to almost 100%, especially in comparison with the Radeon X1650 Pro from GeCube. This is helped by the ability to process 12 textures per clock (versus 4 for the entire Radeon X16x0 family), as well as the high clock speed of the chip.

Aquamark

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98123.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98101.jpg">

As mentioned above, the architecture of modern NVIDIA GPUs is more efficient in older applications, to which Aquamark belongs. Moreover, when you enable antialiasing and anisotropy, the gap increases.

The hero of our review is in the penultimate place here. There is no need to expect anything else.

CodeCult CodeCreatures

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98111.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98133.jpg">

Although the CodeCult CodeCreatures test more or less actively uses shaders (albeit the first versions), it still refers to the times of 3DMark 2001SE and Aquamark. It is not surprising that the GeForce 7600 GT is also ahead here.

GeCube RX165PG2-D3 shows rather low results compared to other test participants. The reason is the same - understated memory frequencies.

FarCry

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98122.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98100.jpg">

At low resolutions without "heavy" filtering and anti-aliasing modes, video cards based on the Radeon X1600 XT almost equalize with the GeForce 7600 GT. GeCube http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=RX165PG2-D3%20 "jbsctx =" "> RX165PG2-D3 lags behind quite insignificantly. But as the load increases, the gap increases. This is especially noticeable after enabling antialiasing and anisotropy.

Doom iii

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98130.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98108.jpg">

As the saying goes, miracles do happen - this time RX165PG2-D3 outperformed its rivals in the 640x480 game "Doom III" in the form of Radeon X1600 XT, despite significantly reduced memory frequencies. The reason for this is the slightly increased frequency of the chip - at the lowest settings, the dependence on memory is significantly reduced. With increasing load, the video card in question turns out to be an outsider.

The Doom III engine has always been "partial" to NVIDIA graphics cards... That is why the GeForce 7600 GT is the absolute winner here as well.

Quake 4

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98131.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98109.jpg">

The results in Quake 4 confirm the aforementioned about Doom III's special love for NVIDIA GPUs. This game is made on the same engine. As for the RX165PG2-D3, at 640x480 it repeats its "feat" again, just slightly behind the Radeon X1600 XT. In more high resolutions it takes the expected penultimate place.

Half-life 2

Good old "Quake 3" is popular to this day. Many people today will prefer it to the newfangled and more "heavy" "Quake 4". Indeed, for the "troika" you do not need to update the processor, video card, and so on - it works great on an average computer five years ago. And "rubber" beauty in Deathmatch is still very few people need. But we are distracted.

GeCube RX165PG2-D3 shows a stable penultimate result here as well. And the GeForce 7600 GT is stable in the first place. Moreover, the higher the load, the greater the separation.

Serious sam

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98107.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98129.jpg">

Another "old man". The first "Serious Sam" is still alive. As has been said more than once, NVIDIA graphics chips are better at handling older games. RX165PG2-D3 is again in the penultimate place. Even overclocking does not help him to come out ahead, which, however, is quite insignificant - after all, the memory is already working at the limit of its capabilities.

Serious sam 2

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98128.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98106.jpg">

Serious Sam 2, almost like a twin brother, repeats the situation with its first version. The video card in question is behind (if we do not take into account the Radeon X1600 Pro), and the GeForce 7600 GT, with antialiasing and anisotropy enabled, is much ahead.

Call of duty 2

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98132.jpg">

Width = "450" border = "1" ilo-full-src = "http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98110.jpg">

The game "Call of Duty 2" is more demanding on resources, so the gap between all the participants in the testing is more or less smoothed out. True, this statement applies only to the most "light" modes. If ATI video cards at 1600x1200 without antialiasing and anisotropy generally maintain relative parity, the GeForce 7600 GT comes out ahead. And after turning on the latter, the gap almost doubles!

By the way, antialiasing and anisotropic filtering allow the overclocked RX165PG2-D3 to emerge victorious over the Radeon X1600 XT in this game. Apparently, the frequency of the chip is of particular importance in this game. This is confirmed by such a serious advantage of the GeForce 7600 GT, whose GPU frequency is higher than that of the rest.

Http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98098.jpg "width =" 450 "border =" 1 "ilo-full-src =" http://img.ferra.ru/pubimages/98098.jpg ">

In the professional OpenGL test SPECviewperf 8, comparative parity is observed. In most tests, the GeForce 7600 GT is ahead, except for ugs-04 - it is behind everyone there. Apparently, this benchmark uses algorithms and scenes that are less "digestible" for this video card. "jbsctx =" "> GeCube's Radeon X1650 Pro is again in the penultimate place relative to other ATI video cards.

Output

The release of the Radeon X1650 Pro was just a "cosmetic" update to bring more attention to the company's products. Nevertheless, due to the confusion created either by ATI itself or by video card manufacturers, you may not buy what you are counting on. The GeCube RX165PG2-D3 video card that came to us for testing is an excellent example of this. Almost twice as low as the memory frequencies bring it to a level between http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1600+Pro%20 "jbsctx =" "> Radeon X1600 Pro and Radeon X1600 XT, although according to the specifications the Radeon X1650 Pro should be ATI's fastest mainstream solution.

But in any case, we advise you to opt for a video card based on the GeForce 7600 GT, or wait for the release of the Radeon X1650 XT, which should contain 24 pixel pipelines. Although such solutions will be more expensive, they will be insignificant. But you will get great performance.


Recommend page	Discuss material	Write to editor
Print page		Date of publication: 15.06.2006

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 intended for the middle price segment, the "oldies" based on the RV530 naturally gave way to them and moved to the lower border of the middle class. Moreover, this shift is even accompanied by the crossing of the conditional boundary between the low- and middle-end segments. Video cards based on RV530 have also penetrated into the lower price segment, but acquired a name that formally belongs to the X1300 series - with the XT suffix. The confusion is significant. The characteristics of 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 senior 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 exacerbate the confusion that has arisen. Traditionally, first we will 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, for example, there will be surprises! But first things first.

Sapphire X1650Pro

The packaging is traditional for Sapphire video cards. The package bundle is also quite familiar:

DVI to D-SUB adapter
HDTV-out adapter
cable "tulip" - "tulip"
S-Video / tulip adapter
user guide
driver disk
CD with CyberLink PowerDVD6
The Da Vinci Code game DVD (in English)

Do you feel like you've seen such a video card from Sapphire somewhere? Everything is correct. This is exactly the same Sapphire X1600XT, only with a different picture on the cooler. The reverse side of the PCB is also no different from that seen earlier in Sapphire X1600XT. Only the sticker says X1650 Pro, and everything else is unchanged. For those who still have doubts. There are no differences. It is understandable why the wheel should be reinvented, if everything has long been invented and tested.

But in the GPU marking, we no longer find the RV530 symbols, as before, but the essence remains the same. The operating frequency has remained virtually unchanged. If earlier the monitoring reported a frequency of 581 MHz, now the frequency is 594 MHz. In general, the recommended GPU frequency for the X1600XT is 590 MHz, and for the X1650Pro it is 600 MHz. The discrepancy with the real frequencies is due to the frequency of the master oscillator and the discreteness of the multiplier.

The video memory installed on the Sapphire X1650Pro is a little more interesting. The total volume of 256 MB is collected by four DDR3 chips manufactured by Infineon, with an access time of 1.3 ns, which corresponds to the nominal frequency of 1500 MHz. For some reason, we could not find such microcircuits on the Infineon website, in the lists of manufactured types of memory. Anyway, the nominal video memory frequency is 1377 MHz DDR. Again, this is slightly higher than the 1368 MHz that we saw on the Sapphire X1600XT. Again, the discreteness in setting the frequencies and the difference in the recommended frequency values for these video cards (1380 and 1390 MHz, respectively). We saw practically nothing new on the Sapphire X1650 Pro video card. What other manufacturers have prepared?

There is less and less time left until the release of cards based on the R600 chip. Potential buyers are anxiously awaiting this significant event, and regulars of Internet resources who test new products in the field of computer components are also 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 and lower tier ...

How often surrounded by a motley crowd ...
M.Yu. Lermontov

We have already mentioned more than once that the so-called Middle-End is the most demanded price niche. 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 less than $ 250. On their part, this is a perfectly 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 of today's games.

So, we realized for ourselves that it is more reasonable for a thrifty user to buy cards from the Middle-End category. But if you look at the price list, your eyes immediately "run up" from the abundance of different positions. Where can the poor peasant go? 🙂 The question, though rhetorical, is quite applicable in relation to today's problem.

So, we have conditionally divided the market into several price niches. To the first, called Low-End, we include solutions with a cost of 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 at the time of this writing was worth $ 134, has this. On the other hand, the minimum cost for cards of this series is just below $ 100 for the Palit variant. In this case, we tend to rely on the average cost of the cards in the aggregate of different manufacturers.

Thus, we can safely attribute the Geforce 7600 GS series cards to the middle price range. However, this state of affairs will not last forever, and in the near future, as new solutions are released, the Geforce 7600 GS may well become a lower-tier product, if it is not abolished at all.

We have decided on the lower edge of the middle price segment. What about the upper limit? Here, too, not everything is clear. The maximum cost for Middle-End solutions is $ 250. Thus, in this niche, the most advanced solution from NVIDIA is the Geforce 7900 GS, while AMD is presenting the Radeon X1950 PRO here. In the case of AMD, the products differentiate quite easily, but in the case of NVIDIA, everything is a little more complicated.

Let's take a look at the 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. But we can also meet another hypostasis of this solution, namely the version with 256 MB. In this case, the cost is noticeably less and is at around 260-270 US dollars, which is in close proximity to the upper Middle-End bar. 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 can stimulate the release of competing solutions from NVIDIA, which to some extent may lead to lower prices and a change in the approach to differentiating the hierarchy of video cards.

Thus, we were able to quite clearly define the boundaries of the Middle-End. What is left untouched by us in this price niche? As it turned out, there are many different solutions on the market that have a similar cost, but at the same time radically differ in design and capabilities. Let's take a look at their characteristics:

Characteristics of video adapters	NVIDIA Geforce 7600 GT	AMD Radeon X1650 XT	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, mln	177	330	321
GPU frequency, MHz	560	575	500
Video memory frequency, MHz	1400	1350	1000
Memory size, MB	256
Memory type used	GDDR3
The width of the memory 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 units, pcs.	5	8	12
The 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 operating mode, W	35	55	48
Power supply requirements, W	350
Dimensions of the reference design video card, mm. (L x B x T)	130 x 100 x 25	170 x 100 x 15	205 x 100 x 16
Outputs	2 x DVI, TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support
Interface	PCI-Express x16
Retail value in Moscow, USD	132	150	192

These video cards have appeared on the market for a long time. To date, their production has been discontinued, but they can still be found on store shelves.

Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO is packaged in a compact package. This conservative approach is traditional for Sapphire.

However, the package bundle is surprisingly 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 the dimensions. When testing mid-range products, it is hard to find such a long card. When you install it in the case, you immediately notice that it stretches almost over the entire area of the motherboard.

However, despite the size of the printed circuit board, a single-slot cooling system is used to cool the chip. The main advantage of the cooler is its visual effect. The image of Ruby, ATI's symbol, is pleasing to the eye, highlighting the elegance of the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO.

Contact with the chip occurs through a copper base. In addition, memory chips were not left without cooling. The cooler contacts them through thermal spacers.

Practical research has shown that this cooling system copes with the task quite adequately. When using the maximum speed, the temperature reached 62 degrees, which was the maximum. While the temperature of the board itself has risen to 41 degrees.

Note that the cooler is quite quiet in the automatic rotation mode. Its noise does not stand out from other system components.

Having set the speed to 100%, we noticed that the noise level increased significantly. Now the cooler could not be called quiet. However, its effectiveness has also increased greatly.

The chip temperature now only reached 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 performing its work quite quietly in the automatic rotation mode.

At first glance, the design of the board is surprising. This applies to both the wiring and the power supply system. “It was clearly meant for a top-end card,” you say. And, to some extent, you will be right. Indeed, the design is quite expensive, which is not surprising, since this solution is only 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 elaboration of the printed circuit board leads to a significantly higher cost price.

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 mid-market segment. As it was expected, the haste of release led to the fact that the new product did not become a competitor to the card from NVIDIA, due to the obviously higher price. However, to this day the Radeon X1800 GTO is positioned as a rival to the Geforce 7600 GT.

However, this is not the first time ATI has resorted to creating solutions in the middle price range by cutting back on older models. This tradition began in 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 issue was not so wide, and today it has been completely curtailed.

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 a series of 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 in comparison with conventional samples.

Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO is equipped with eight Samsung chips with a total capacity of 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 runs on a 256-bit bus.

The most notable feature of AMD / ATI boards is the software volt mod capability. And, of course, while testing this video adapter, we could not ignore such an important function.

Using the ATITool utility, it was found that in the nominal mode the chip operates at 1.075 V, while the memory operates at 1.889 V. Practical studies have shown that the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO has a very efficient cooling system, which at maximum speed with a large margin copes 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 was able to function only at 553 MHz, and the memory at 1300 MHz, while the nominal values are 500/1000, respectively.

Experimenting with the voltage values, analyzing the temperature and overclocking readings in parallel, 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 gain turned out to be quite small. The final result is the frequencies of 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. Pay particular attention to the temperature of the voltage regulator. Its temperature after the volt mod increased by 11 degrees and was 74 degrees during acceleration. Thus, if you decide to significantly increase the level of performance of your card by voltmod and the 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 mid-market product 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 available 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 relative to the standard mode. Thus, the buyer can choose the product he is interested in, guided by his needs. If he is a connoisseur of silence, then by the way there will be options with a passive cooling system, of which there are a great many, due to the fact that the G73 chip has a very low heat emission. If a potential buyer is an enthusiast who prefers overclocking to the nominal mode, then he will probably be interested in options with an effective cooling system, such as those that we can find in MSI. In short, today there is plenty to choose from, even if you limit your gaze 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. There is a transparent cutout in the central part.

The nice thing is that the CD with the software, the manual for use and other additional components of the complete set 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 on various game servers on which the owners of these cards can arrange network battles.

BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is made on a blue PCB. The card itself is extremely compact. In our opinion, this is especially important. Like most solutions from NVIDIA, the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC has SLI support. Thus, if you have two such cards, you can combine them into an array, which will significantly increase the level of performance of your system. However, this manipulation would hardly have been fully justified if the Geforce 7600 series had not been distinguished by a modest level of heat dissipation, power consumption, and amazing compactness. Otherwise, you would get two flaming cards, which once again only warmed up each other.

The cooler is similar to what we can find on the reference Geforce 7900 GT. The main disadvantage of this cooling system is the very high level noise. With the system turned on, only the noise of the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC cooler stood out against the background of all other components.

However, the cooling system copes with its task. Under load, the temperature did not cross the 60-degree barrier, which can be called a quite decent result.

The BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC design is traditional for all motherboards in this series. The wiring is pretty simple. The power supply system is formed by massive capacitors. All memory chips are located on the front side.

The back is replete with various kinds of labels and stickers.

Under the cooling system is a G73 chip made in Taiwan. Unfortunately, the core 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 revision B1 chip. The main advantage of this innovation is the use of a thinner 0.08 nm manufacturing process. This could indirectly affect the overclocking potential of the chip, as well as to some extent on the level of power consumption, which is already quite low.

It should be noted that, unlike most similar video adapters, the frequency of the chip 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, in the very name of the board, the OC index means Overclocked, i.e. "Overclocked".

The 256 MB memory is filled with four Samsung chips with a 1.4 ns access time. Its frequency is 50 MHz higher than the standard one and is 1450 MHz.

However, despite the high-quality workmanship, a sufficiently effective cooling system and already slightly raised frequencies, the Geforce 7600 GT OC could not add significantly to overclocking the BFG. 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 easily solved by setting a certain delta between the geometry and shader units. For memory, especially with a 1.4 ns access time, 1735 MHz is a very good result.

Finally, we got to the very novelty that should change the situation for AMD / ATI in the middle price range. It is noteworthy that in its name the Radeon X1650 XT gravitates towards the Radeon X1600 XT or the Radeon X1650 PRO, while its predecessor, intended to compete with the Geforce 7600 GT, had the name Radeon X1800 GTO, which makes it akin to top-end solutions.

With such a slight hint, I would like to direct the reader's thought to the fact that one should not expect a revolution from the novelty, but rather an evolution, a logical continuation of the traditions of AMD / ATI solutions in the middle price range.

The MSI Radeon X1650 XT settles down to bright, colorful packaging. On the front side there is an image of a certain fantastic creature, vaguely reminiscent of the symbiosis of a man and a robot.

Despite the size of the package, the package bundle is rather modest. However, in it we can find all the necessary accessories.

The size of the MSI Radeon X1650 XT is comparable to the Geforce 7600 GT. It is also lightweight and compact. The color of the PCB is red, which is traditional for MSI products.

The cooling system is a radiator, which in turn is cooled by a small fan. The stylish image on the front side of the cooler pleases the eye. This image magically came off the packaging. 🙂

An important point is contact not only with memory chips, but also with batteries. Consequently, despite the simplicity of the design of the cooling system, the manufacturer has 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 motherboard. However, the 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.

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 take a look at the board design. It is almost completely identical to what we can see on the boards. Radeon series X1650 PRO (Radeon X1600XT). This applies to both the wiring and the power supply system.

The rear side of the board is similar.

However, the RV560 chip found in the MSI Radeon X1650 XT is a very interesting innovation. Compared to the RV530, it has undergone a number of changes. At first glance, this is a more subtle technological process and a chip area. In reality, there are many more changes. Previously, the main weak point of the RV530 was the small number of texture units. In the RV560, their number has doubled to 8 pieces. However, the solution from AMD is still inferior to the counterparts from NVIDIA in this parameter. However, this lag is more than compensated by pixel processors, of which this time there are 24! Thus, the novelty can theoretically gain an advantage in tasks where complex calculations with many branches are required. Now the solution from AMD is not inferior in terms of the number of raster blocks. The chip's frequency is still high. In our case, it is 575 MHz.

Therefore, despite the outdated board design, ease 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 volume of 256 MB is collected by four Qimonda chips with a 1.4 ns access time. The memory frequency is 1350 MHz. Memory bandwidth has not changed since the days of the Radeon X1600 XT. In our opinion, this may become a weak point in the card's operation, which will not allow the chip to fully reveal its capabilities.

Some of our assumptions appeared in practice pretty soon. Study overclocking potential led to the conclusion that the Radeon X1650 XT does not have some kind of frequency reserve. If the frequency of the chip was raised to 627 MHz, then any change in the memory frequency caused the system to freeze. Thus, a weak power supply system does not allow the potential of not only the core, but also the memory to be fully revealed.

Test stand

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.

The tests were carried out in three resolutions - 1024 x 768, 1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200. The modes were used with enabled anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing filters and without their use.

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- Results of Shader Model 2.0 and Shader Model 3.0 tests.
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 switched on... 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 on Extra Quality;
Need For Speed Most Wanted, Build 1.3- testing in the game itself. FPS measurement using FRAPS. Demo run three times;
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 exposed using the driver panel.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, Build 1.1.511- Testing in the game by means of FRAPS. Run three times and calculate the average. Bloom disabled.

Testing

The 3D Mark 2006 results clearly show that the Geforce 7600 GT performs equally in Shader Model 2.0 and Shader Model 3.0, while the Radeon X1800 GTO and Radeon X1650 XT dominate when using Shader Model 3.0. This proves once again that AMD cards are aimed at new games using this graphics model.

In Doom 3, the situation is ambiguous. On the one hand, the 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 preferable. In many respects, this is due to the presence of 12 raster blocks at once in the latter. In addition, the 256-bit memory bus has a beneficial effect on performance, which results in much higher bandwidth.

In Prey, the results are repeated. Once again, without filters enabled, the Geforce 7600 GT turns out to be the leader, but as soon as you enable anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the Radeon X1800 GTO takes the lead. However, this time the Radeon X1650 XT looks much better. Its lag is not great, and somewhere the novelty manages to outrun 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, outperforms not only the Radeon X1650 XT, but even the Geforce 7900 GS. Thus, there is a clear tendency for the R520-based solution to dominate in modes with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

In F.E.A.R. the situation is similar to that of Prey. Geforce 7600 GT is in the lead, albeit with a minimal advantage. Radeon X1800 GTO is behind everyone in light modes, but again in heavy modes it takes the lead.

Another victory for the Radeon X1800 GTO, not only over its direct rivals, but also over the Geforce 7900 GS in some places. The Geforce 7600 GT looks rather weak. However, in heavy modes, the results of all cards are approximately the same.

In this simulator from Electronic Arts, video adapters from NVIDIA traditionally look stronger than their counterparts from AMD. This time was no exception. Geforce 7600 GT leads regardless of the mode, while Radeon X1800 GTO has a minimal advantage over Radeon X1650 XT.

Need For Speed Carbon is the only game where the number of pixel processors is critical. 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 enormous, reaching over 90% in some places.

In Toca Race Driver 2, however, the picture is reversed. Geforce 7600 GT not only takes revenge over its direct rivals, but in some places even outstrips the Radeon X1950 PRO. The Radeon X1650 XT looks like a clear outsider. Only this card failed to demonstrate comfortable FPS in the most difficult mode.

In Oblivion, the Radeon X1650 XT and Radeon X1800 GTO show roughly similar performance levels. They outperform not only the Geforce 7600 GT, but also the Geforce 7900 GS, in the case of using 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 the Radeon X1800 GTO first shrinks, and then turns into an advantage for 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 play comfortably 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 unambiguous in the confrontation between Geforce 7600 GT and Radeon X1650 XT. Both video adapters offer similar performance levels. 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 your video adapter.

Despite the fact that the Radeon X1800 GTO was declared the winner of today's testing, this product cannot be called the best. Unfortunately, the initially high prime 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. They are currently priced in the $ 130-160 range, while the Radeon X1800 GTO is still rarely found under $ 200. Thus, even all the advantages of this product do not allow recommending it for purchase. However, if you can find this solution on 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 geographic location and social conditions of a particular region, then feel free to purchase this product.

Testing has been completed, the results have been received, and the conclusions have been 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.