Sapphire X1600 Pro 512MB

Nikumba · 27 Mar 2006 at 19:27

What are people opinions of this card Sapphire X1600 Pro 512MB.

- Powered by ATI Radeon X1600 Pro - 500MHz
- 512MB-128bit 4 channel DDR2 memory - 800MHz
- 12 Pixel shader processor
- 5 Vertex shader processor
- 8 Geometry Pipelines
- Ultra-threaded SM 3.0 Engine
- 256-bit Ring-bus
- ATI Avivo™ (Video-In Cables not supplied)

I know I can get the 7800GS but thats £200 ish whereas this card is only £100

So its either get the 7800GS and no extra ram or get the card above and add an extra gig of ram

What everyone think?

Cheers

Shiz · 27 Mar 2006 at 19:29

The 512 ram is wasted on that x1600. 512 ram on a gpu only comes into its own with heavy AA and AF or at high resolutions (ie. 1600*1200 +).

TechnoCorruption · 27 Mar 2006 at 20:21

For £100 I would rather have a Powercolour X800GTO16, only real tech difference is the X1600 has SM3 where as the X800 has SM2, but the X800 has more pipelines, better memory interface (256 compared to 128) and will probly do the same speeds with some overclocking.

Edit: The X800 actually has faster memory and most I have seen with earlier cores have manged to get 500+ on the core.

bbreezeuk · 27 Mar 2006 at 22:39

is it for AGP or PCI-E

Nikumba · 27 Mar 2006 at 23:14

For AGP and i run my games at 16*12

Agr3sive, the x1600 does have a 256bit mem interface its based on 2 bi-directional 128bit paths

Nikumba

ACESHIGH · 28 Mar 2006 at 02:30

the X1600 Pro is close to 6600GT speeds.

If getting the Sapphire X1600 Pro, get the 256MB one as extra ram would be wasted, and for under £100 thats a better buy

Nikumba · 28 Mar 2006 at 11:28

ACESHIGH said:
the X1600 Pro is close to 6600GT speeds.

If getting the Sapphire X1600 Pro, get the 256MB one as extra ram would be wasted, and for under £100 thats a better buy

True but the 512Mb ver is on this week only for only a fiver more than the 256mb version

Nikumba

LoadsaMoney · 28 Mar 2006 at 11:56

Its rubbish, the 6600 GT whoops it, the x1600 XT is the 6600 GT beater.

If you can stretch to an extra £11, then you can get the OcUK 6600 GT, which is much better than the x1600 pro, wallops it.

ACESHIGH · 28 Mar 2006 at 12:09

In most cases its as quick as the X800GT & 6600GT (except Doom3, Quake 4)
It also has SM3 unlike the older ATI cards.

See here....
http://www.digital-daily.com/video/x1600_x800_6600gt/index05.htm

TechnoCorruption · 28 Mar 2006 at 14:21

Nikumba said:
For AGP and i run my games at 16*12

Agr3sive, the x1600 does have a 256bit mem interface its based on 2 bi-directional 128bit paths

Nikumba

Well you learn something new everyday

LoadsaMoney · 28 Mar 2006 at 15:04

Id stay away from the x1600 pro, even Gibbo will you tell that, its a rubbish card, don't know what that reviews on about as it doesn't compete with the 6600 GT, only the x1600 XT is the one worth getting as thats the 6600 GT beater, check out this review here

Do a search for x1600pro, and you'll find the same, terrible cards.

Nikumba · 28 Mar 2006 at 15:16

ACESHIGH said:
In most cases its as quick as the X800GT & 6600GT (except Doom3, Quake 4)
It also has SM3 unlike the older ATI cards.

See here....
http://www.digital-daily.com/video/x1600_x800_6600gt/index05.htm

Thanks for the link but the results they have are pretty useless for me since they were all done at 1024 x 768 when i run my games at 1600 x 1200

Cheers

amdnv · 28 Mar 2006 at 15:29

You wont really see much diff from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 apart from lower FPS, best use 1280x1024 and max all eyecandy, esp on nice CRT where refresh rate will be lower at 1600x1200 than 1280x1024.

Its a game not a HD movie for time being I think 1280x1024 + max all settings is suffice.

Indy500 · 28 Mar 2006 at 15:33

amdnv said:
You wont really see much diff from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 apart from lower FPS, best use 1280x1024 and max all eyecandy, esp on nice CRT where refresh rate will be lower at 1600x1200 than 1280x1024.

Its a game not a HD movie for time being I think 1280x1024 + max all settings is suffice.

I happen to have an inexpensive 19inch monitor that does 1600x1200@75hz, and I like to play games at this resolution.

For £100 I'd consider whether performance is really worth giving up for SM3.0, especially as midrange cards tend to struggle at 1600x1200.

amdnv · 28 Mar 2006 at 16:37

Just to let you know 75hz at that res is the min spec by some USA medical boards tests, and 85hz is min recommended at that res, your eyes (depends on you as a individual) may or may not see 60hz flickering but your brain does see it and you end up feeling sick and have sore head if you game long enough at 60hz on CRT.

I cant say if 75hz is ok long term but its min spec that passed not recommended.

Indy500 · 28 Mar 2006 at 16:40

I know what you're saying, and that is why my desktop is at 1280x1024. I also turn the brightness down to mitigate any ill-effects.

Nikumba · 28 Mar 2006 at 18:32

I use a Dell 2001FP and i dont like how games look at 1280 x 1024 since its not a proper 4:3 screen res

Nikumba

Indy500 · 28 Mar 2006 at 18:35

Nikumba said:
I use a Dell 2001FP and i dont like how games look at 1280 x 1024 since its not a proper 4:3 screen res

Nikumba

Most games let you choose 1280x960..

amdnv · 28 Mar 2006 at 22:18

1280x1024 is not really corret 4:3 as it is said but some games do let you set it then choose aspect 4:3 or 16:9, simply set to 1280x960

neil27 · 28 Aug 2006 at 16:40

AHHHHHHHH why didnt i see this thread befor....

I just bought a saphire x1600pro 512mb for £95 posted...I thought I was getting a good deal :confused:

Do I cancel it befor they post it?? and try to find a 6600GT?

Im upgrading from a 9800xt...just want something to give me a little more zip.

neil