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

Alexey Sadovsky

ATI recently updated its GPU lineup. The Radeon X1950 XTX, X1650 Pro and X1300 XT GPUs were introduced. We received a video card based on the “average” one in our laboratory. According to ATI's plan, this chip should replace the Radeon X1600 XT. But it seems that not everything is as rosy as it might seem at first glance. There are two versions of the Radeon X1650 Pro. Moreover, the second one had not been officially mentioned anywhere before...

Updating the line of mainstream accelerators usually occurs rather slowly. Most often, leadership in terms of performance is determined by the fastest representatives 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 receive their main profits from sales of mainstream and low-end chips. This is not surprising - not everyone needs a video card with several dozen pixel pipelines and a gigahertz chip and memory that costs 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 have at their disposal 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 terms of 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 look at 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 also presented. If the first two were simply overclocked a little, then the latter got 12 pixel pipelines at its disposal 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 X1600XT	GeForce 7600 GT	GeForce 7600GS
Technical process
Chip clock speeds, MHz
Memory clock speeds, MHz/DDR
Vertex processors
Pixel processors
Textures per beat
Memory bus width
Memory capacity, 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. Yes, and there would be something different - in the updated version they are raised by only some 10 MHz. It’s somehow undignified, completely undignified.

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

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

GeCube RX165PG2-D3

GeCube is one of the most well-known and respected brands in the video card market. Its solutions are of high quality, well-equipped, and have 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 speed with which it introduces new video cards. Sometimes they are announced several hours (and sometimes days) before the GPU itself is revealed! 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 manufacturers on time. Let's look at the characteristics of the video card we received 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 pipelines
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. While the original memory should operate at a frequency of 695 MHz, the used DDR2 chips (again, the question is: why not GDDR3?) operate at a speed of 400 MHz, that is, almost 300 MHz below the nominal! And if we translate all this “to DDR”, then the difference is as much as 600 MHz!

The result is a sort of Radeon X1600 Pro (Radeon X1300 XT) with a graphics processor from the Radeon X1650 Pro. It is, however, understandable - I want to reduce the cost. But not using these methods. This also misleads the potential buyer. Because when he comes home with a new thing, he will be surprised why, for that kind of money, they gave him a video card with the performance of a solution a good $40-50 cheaper. After all, you can’t explain to him later that the money was given for the quality guaranteed by the manufacturer and other “goodies”? In general, it’s not good to do this, it’s not good.

The video card came to us in OEM configuration, so we will not describe the delivery package, but will immediately move on to the design.

Design printed circuit board RX165PG2-D3 differs from the reference one for the “original” Radeon X1650 Pro. It's much simpler. Apparently, two modifications of the Radeon X1650 Pro were unofficially presented. The GPU 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 the reference one, and the memory is GDDR3. Of course, its frequency is the required 1390 MHz. A logical question arises: who is misleading potential buyers: ATI or video card manufacturers?

The cooling system installed on the RX165PG2-D3 is quite effective. The copper radiator has quite massive dimensions and fairly dense fins. It makes quite a bit of noise. Thanks to the fan for this, the speed of which is not very high during operation.

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

It is worth noting that in addition to the graphics processor, the radiator also cools the memory chips. They contact it with the help of 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 indicates that there is no support for speed control. In general, this is not so critical, but the fan is small in size and its noise is still audible. 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.

The RX165PG2-D3 is equipped with a standard set of 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 has DDR2 memory chips, while ATI recommends installing GDDR3 memory. The chips used are manufactured by Hynix, and their markings are as follows: HY5PS561621AFP-25. Based on the latest figures, you can find out 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 bits, 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:
  • 2x512 MB Kingston DDR 533
• HDD:
  • Western Digital 80 GB

An operating room was installed on the test bench Microsoft system Windows XP with Service Pack 2, as well as test programs and real gaming applications.

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

The main parameters in the NVIDIA and ATI video card drivers 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 two-dimensional image increasingly depends on the monitor used, as well as the cable (which can be damaged and then have a negative effect on 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, even at a resolution of 1600x1200x85 Hz no problems were observed.

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 expectedly lags behind the Radeon X1600 XT, although it should be ahead. The point here, of course, is significantly slower memory. In the Nature benchmark, the gap increases even more, since it uses shaders (both pixel and vertex), albeit the first version.

With anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, the situation repeats. Although a slight overclocking of the video card in question allows it to be at least a little on par with other members of the family.

The GeForce 7600 GT remains the leader. This chip is better optimized to handle previous generation games and benchmarks, so it comes out on top 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">

An almost similar situation is observed in 3DMark 2005. Despite the relative novelty of the test, the GeForce 7600 GT is ahead of everyone, and it is ahead of the rest quite significantly.

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 in GeCube performance it lags behind the Radeon X1600 XT operating at nominal frequencies, and is slightly ahead http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=Radeon+X1600+Pro%20" jbsctx="">Radeon X1600 Pro, whose frequencies are even lower. Overclocking helps to smooth out the lag a little, but as the resolution and load increase, the gained advantage is practically reduced to nothing.

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 expectedly in 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 a large clock frequency 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, which Aquamark specifically refers to. Moreover, when antialiasing and anisotropy are turned on, the gap increases.

The hero of our review is in penultimate place here too. There is nothing else to expect.

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 dates back to the times of 3DMark 2001SE and Aquamark. It's 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 - low 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 are almost on par with the GeForce 7600 GT. GeCube http://www.2378.ru/toolbar/Search?pnam=RX165PG2-D3%20" jbsctx="">RX165PG2-D3 lags behind quite a bit. But as the load increases, the gap increases. This is especially noticeable after turning on 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 they say, miracles happen - this time the RX165PG2-D3 outperformed its rivals, the Radeon X1600 XT, in the game Doom III at 640x480 resolution, despite significantly reduced memory frequencies. The reason for this was the slightly increased frequency of the chip - at the most low settings dependence on memory is significantly reduced. As the load increases, the video card in question becomes an outsider.

The Doom III engine has always been partial to NVIDIA video cards. Therefore, here too the GeForce 7600 GT comes out as the absolute winner.

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 above about the special "love" of "Doom III" for NVIDIA GPUs. This game is made on the same engine. As for the RX165PG2-D3, at a resolution of 640x480 it again repeats its “feat”, just a little behind the Radeon X1600 XT. In more high resolutions he takes the expected second-to-last place.

Half-Life 2

The good old Quake 3 is still popular today. Many today will prefer it to the newfangled and “heavier” Quake 4. After all, for the “troika” there is no need to update the processor, video card, and so on - it works perfectly on an average computer five years ago. And few people still need “rubber” beauties in Deathmatch. But we digress.

The GeCube RX165PG2-D3 consistently shows the penultimate result here too. And the GeForce 7600 GT is consistently in 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 handle older games better. RX165PG2-D3 is again in penultimate place. Even overclocking does not help it get 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 you do not take into account the Radeon X1600 Pro), and the GeForce 7600 GT, with anti-aliasing and anisotropy enabled, is significantly 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 testing participants is more or less smoothed out. True, this statement applies only to the “lightest” modes. If ATI video cards at 1600x1200 without antialiasing and anisotropy, they 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 chip frequency 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 others.

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 there is comparative parity. In most tests the GeForce 7600 GT is ahead, with the exception of ugs-04 - there it is behind everyone else. Apparently, this benchmark uses algorithms and scenes that are less “friendly” for this video card. " jbsctx="">Radeon X1650 Pro from GeCube is again in penultimate place relative to other ATI video cards.

Conclusion

The release of the Radeon X1650 Pro was just a “cosmetic” update to attract more attention to the company's products. However, due to confusion created either by ATI itself or by video card manufacturers, you may not end up buying what you expected. The GeCube RX165PG2-D3 video card that came to us for testing is an excellent example of this. Memory frequencies reduced by almost half 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 Radeon X1650 XT to go on sale, which should contain 24 pixel pipelines. Such solutions will be more expensive, but not significantly. But you will get better performance.

Recommend page	Discuss material	Write to the editor
Print page		Date of publication: 06/15/2006

If today an overclocker, when choosing a video card, sets an upper limit of $180-200, then I think that most of us will choose GeForce video card 7600 GT with a memory capacity of 256 Mb. A huge assortment of such video cards on the retail market, versions with standard and higher 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 simply observe this “disgrace” and quickly tried to oppose the GeForce 7600 GT with the Radeon X1800 GTO video card, 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 "plug the gap" in the price segment up to 200 US dollars by reducing the price of video cards of the X1800 line, 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 from the announcement it is clear that ATI did not repeat its mistakes with the release of the Radeon X1600 XT, when the recommended price was 249(!) US dollars (although it was later sharply reduced to 199, and today such video cards with a memory capacity of 256 MB can not be purchased more than 150 US dollars). The recommended price of the Radeon X1650 XT is only $149, and, most likely, the RadeonX1650 XT is unlikely to cross the $200 barrier, even taking into account the “appetites” of sellers and the novelty of the video card.

advertising

How successful was the new graphics solution? Will the Radeon X1650 XT be able to compete on an equal footing with the GeForce 7600 GT, which has firmly established itself in this sector of the market? Is there a lot of heat generation? You will find answers to these and some other questions in today's material.

1. Technical characteristics of 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, sq.mm	270	127
Number of transistors, million	n/a	177
Operating frequencies of graphics processors, MHz	600	560
Operating frequencies of video memory, MHz	1400
Memory capacity, 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 power requirements, W	~350	~350 (400 for SLI)
Dimensions of reference design video card, mm. (L x H x T)	130 x 100 x 25	170 x 100 x 15
Exits	2 x DVI (Dual-Link), TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support
Additionally	CrossFire technology support	SLI mode support
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 already thinks that we are writing something about products from NVIDIA, but there is nothing from a competitor in the form of AMD. Of course, there is, it’s just that the entire November was devoted to new products from the Californian company, which is why so much attention was paid to the GeForce 8800 series. But normal everyday life began, and life became the same as it was: some products from AMD/ATI, some from NVIDIA.

Not long ago, new mid-rangers from AMD/ATI came out, namely RADEON X1650 XT, X1950 PRO. And also the former X1600 XT and X1600 PRO were renamed 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 highlights.

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 Number of ROPs: 4 Dimensions: 170x100x35 mm (the last value is the maximum thickness of the 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 operating frequencies (ROPs/Shaders): 575/575 MHz (nominal - 580/580 MHz) Memory operating frequencies (physical (effective)): 680 (1360) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Number of pixel processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Number of texture processors: 12 Number of 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 operating frequencies (ROPs/Shaders): 630/630 MHz (nominal - 600/600 MHz) Memory operating frequencies (physical (effective)): 760 (1520) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 128bit Number of vertex processors: 6 Number of pixel processors: 24 Number of universal processors: - Number of texture processors: 8 Number of ROPs: 8 Dimensions: 160x100x32 mm (the last value is the maximum thickness of the 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 X1950 PRO (RV570) Interface: PCI-Express x16 GPU operating frequencies (ROPs/Shaders): 650/650 MHz (nominal - 580/580 MHz) Memory operating frequencies (physical (effective)): 740 (1480) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Number of pixel processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Number of texture processors: 12 Number of ROPs: 12 Dimensions: 220x100x37 mm (the last value is the maximum thickness of the 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 operating frequencies (ROPs/Shaders): 600/600 MHz (nominal - 600/600 MHz) Memory operating frequencies (physical (effective)): Memory bus width: 128bit Number of vertex processors: 6 Number of pixel processors: 24 Number of universal processors: - Number of texture processors: 8 Number of ROPs: 8 Dimensions: 160x100x15 mm (the last value is the maximum thickness of the 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 operating frequencies (ROPs/Shaders): Memory operating frequencies (physical (effective)): 700 (1400) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Number of pixel processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Number of texture processors: 12 Number of ROPs: 12 Dimensions: 220x100x15 mm (the last value is the maximum thickness of the 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 operating frequencies (ROPs/Shaders): 580/580 MHz (nominal - 580/580 MHz) Memory operating frequencies (physical (effective)): 700 (1400) MHz (nominal - 700 (1400) MHz) Memory bus width: 256bit Number of vertex processors: 8 Number of pixel processors: 36 Number of universal processors: - Number of texture processors: 12 Number of ROPs: 12 Dimensions: 220x100x40 mm (the last value is the maximum thickness of the 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 memory, located in 4 chips on the front side of the PCB. Infineon memory chips (GDDR3). The access time for memory chips is 1.4 ns, which corresponds to an 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 memory, 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 memory, located in 8 chips on the front side of the PCB. Microcircuits Samsung memory(GDDR3). The access time of memory chips is 1.2ns, which corresponds to an operating frequency of 800 (1600) MHz.
Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E
The card has 256 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM memory, located in 4 chips on the front side of the PCB. Infineon memory chips (GDDR3). The access time for memory chips is 1.3 ns, which corresponds to an 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 visible from the upward-shifted connector external power supply, when the reference design provides for installing it in the middle of the card, of course, in the tail of the PCB. However, we do not know whether the reference design has been redesigned. And it is possible that this is a copy of the new reference card. But the most important thing about this card is its cooler, and we'll talk about it later. It must be said that the frequencies of this card are slightly lower than the nominal, but the presence of 512 megabytes of memory in high resolutions, where playability has not reached a minimum, still allowed this card to perform not only no worse, but sometimes even better than its 256 megabyte analogues .

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

A special product from Gigabyte based on the former X1600 XT, and now the X1650 PRO, is almost identical in its PCB design to the reference. Again, the highlight is in the cooler.

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

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

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

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

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

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E
Passive cooling device, that is, without a fan. It consists of two radiators, one of which is located on the front side of the card and is adjacent to the card bracket, facilitating the removal of heat from the system unit through flows inside the case. The second radiator is located at the rear. Both of them remove 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 beautifully shaped flat cooler that works according to the usual scheme of passing air along the radiator using a fan. The plastic casing covers the radiator completely, 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 the memory. The maximum possible overclocking for this instance is 640/1580 MHz
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E
The device is similar in principle to the previous one, but, despite its beauty, this long plastic casing, coupled with the radiator fins arranged along a curve, produces a very unpleasant noise from the cooling system. It's sad, but it's true. Despite all the efforts of the developers to somehow improve efficiency, they sacrificed silence. And this is the wrong approach today. Overclocking the card showed that it lives at frequencies of 630/1750 MHz.
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E
In this case, the installation of a special cooler from Zalman is the main detail 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 core speed! This is very, very impressive. And at the same time, the quiet operation of the cooler is guaranteed! The cooler itself is a round funnel made of copper plates, the edges of which are formed from copper heat pipes that carry 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 amount of memory than usual for the 1950 PRO, but also to install a kind of monster cooler on the core, which now occupies not two, but three slots in the system unit. As we can see, the system is dual-fan with a huge radiator. Of course, heat pipes were also used, and where would we be 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 so monstrous is not required. This is not the X1950 XTX. Is it just a joy for overclockers? By the way, the cooler played a role here - the core was able to operate at 695 MHz without problems.

We studied the monitoring of the GeCube card using the well-known RivaTuner (author A. Nikolaychuk AKA Unwinder):

Equipment.

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E
User manual, driver disk, game “Civilization-4”, 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, driver disk, DVI-to-d-Sub and S-Video-to-RCA adapters, composite output adapter, bracket grid, 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, driver CD, game CD, DVI-to-d-Sub and S-Video-to-RCA adapters, composite output adapter, bracket grille, 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
TV-out cables have been added to the previous set, plus the game has been replaced with The Da Vinci Code.
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO Ultimate 256MB PCI-E
A similar set, but again the game has been replaced.

Packaging.

Gigabyte RADEON X1650 PRO (GV-RX165P256D-RH) 256MB PCI-E
Large glossy box with a thick cardboard box inside. The card and the entire set are rigidly fixed, so there is no chance of looseness.
GeCube RADEON X1950 PRO FZ Cool Fan 512MB PCI-E
Likewise. A 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 kit is carefully laid out in compartments, and the video card is reliably protected from dangling inside the package.
HIS IceQ III RADEON X1650 XT Turbo 256MB PCI-E
Traditional packaging that we have seen before: blue and white design, an oval window through which you can see the card, everything inside the box is placed in plastic compartments. Pack for five!
HIS IceQ III RADEON X1950 PRO Turbo 256MB PCI-E
This is a new HIS style; we started seeing such boxes with the advent of the X1900 series. I personally like this option even better, and all the advantages of the previous packaging remain - the cards are just as securely packaged in plastic.
Sapphire RADEON X1650 XT 256MB PCI-E
At Sapphire, after a couple of years of updating their packaging designs (when we could see bright boxes with windows through which the cards were visible, and the entire set was packaged in plastic, like HIS), it was time for packaging designers to become depressed. They changed the appearance a little, the design became white with black drawings, but at the same time the plastic disappeared from the inside, and all these cardboard partitions are not worth a penny.
Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-E
And therefore all the cards, except for the very thick ones, which are simply squeezed inside by their shapes, dangle in the 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 to hang a map in the middle of a huge box so that it looks like it’s in zero gravity? It’s very simple: Make a huge box from expensive plastic, place an oversized transparent plastic fastener inside, and place a card inside. As a result, it looks awesome, of course, but distributors look at it no less awesome, calculating how much air they will carry when buying such cards.

Installation and drivers

Test bench configuration:

• Computer based on Intel Core2 Duo (775 Socket)
  • processor Intel Core2 Duo Extreme X6800 (2930 MHz) (L2=4096K);
  • EVGA nForce 680i SLI motherboard based on the NVIDIA nForce 680i chipset;
  • 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;
• Dell 3007WFP (30") monitor (and Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb (21")).
• ATI drivers version CATALYST 6.11; NVIDIA version 96.94.

VSync is disabled.

Test results: performance comparison

We used the following tools:

• Splinter Cell Chaos of Theory v.1.04 (Ubisoft) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing 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 card types were removed in the dxsupport.cfg file.
• FarCry 1.4beta (Crytek/UbiSoft), DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, demo from the Research level (launch the game with the -DEVMODE option), testing settings are all Very High. The beta version of the patch is because it has support for HDR+AA, which is not in the release.
• DOOM III (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, testing settings - High Quality (ANIS8x). There is an example of automating launch with increasing speed and decreasing the number of jerks (precaching). (DO NOT BE AFRAID of the black screen after the first menu, this is how it should be! It will be for 5-10 seconds, and then the demo should start)
• 3DMark05 1.20 (FutureMark) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing settings - trilinear,
• The Chronicles Of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay 1.10 (Starbreeze/Vivendi) - OpenGL, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum quality textures, Shader 2.0.

  I express my gratitude Rinat Dosaev (AKA 4uckall) And Alexey Ostrovsky (AKA Ducci) for writing a demo for this game, and thank you very much Alexey Berillo AKA Somebody Else for your help
  

• F.E.A.R. v.1.05 (Multiplayer) (Monolith/Sierra) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum, Soft shadows disabled.
• Call Of Duty 2 DEMO (Ubisoft) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum, shaders 2.0, testing with Benchemall, demo and launch script, readme contains instructions

Video card performance

Those wishing to download all the results in Excel format (Office 2003 format) can take the 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

The release of new products is often accompanied by price shifts in the relevant segments. With the release of new AMD/ATI RV560/570 video processors, which are designed for the average price segment, the “oldies” based on the RV530 naturally gave way to them and moved to the lower end of the middle class. Moreover, this shift is even accompanied by crossing the conventional border between the low- and middle-end segments. Video cards based on RV530 have also penetrated into the lower price segment, but have acquired a name that formally belongs to the X1300 series - with the XT suffix. There was considerable confusion. The characteristics of the video cards are very similar, and not without surprises, as we will see later, but they belong to different classes. If the division of classes is maintained by 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 aggravate the resulting confusion. 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 performance. Looking ahead, let's say there will be surprises! But first things first.

Sapphire X1650Pro

The packaging design is traditional for video cards produced by Sapphire. The equipment is also quite familiar:

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

Can't you shake the feeling that you've already 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 what was previously seen on the Sapphire X1600XT. Only the sticker already says X1650 Pro, but everything else is unchanged. For those who still doubt. There are no differences. It’s understandable why reinvent the wheel if everything has long been invented and tested.

But in the GPU markings we will no longer find RV530 symbols, as before, but the essence remains the same. The operating frequency has remained virtually unchanged. If earlier 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 real frequencies is due to the frequency of the master oscillator and the discreteness of the multiplier.

With video memory installed on the Sapphire X1650Pro card, things are 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 a nominal frequency of 1500 MHz. For some reason we were unable to find such microcircuits on the Infineon website, in the lists of manufactured memory types. Be that as it may, the standard video memory frequency is 1377 MHz DDR. And this is again slightly higher than the 1368 MHz we saw on the Sapphire X1600XT. Again, discreteness in setting frequencies and the difference in 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 have other manufacturers prepared?

There is less and less time left before the release of cards based on the R600 chip. Potential buyers are excitedly awaiting this significant event, and with no less interest are regulars of Internet resources testing new products in the field of computer components. We look at the situation a little more broadly, so we are interested not only in top solutions, but also in solutions of the middle and lower echelons...

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

We have already mentioned more than once that the most popular price niche is the so-called Middle-End. Indeed, if you look at the situation that has developed today, it becomes clear that most users prefer solutions that cost no more than $250. This is a completely justified choice on their part. Products belonging to this price segment have the best combination of cost and performance. In addition, these solutions allow you to enjoy most modern games.

So, we realized for ourselves that for economical user It makes more sense to buy cards from the Middle-End category. But as soon as you look at the price list, your eyes immediately run wide from the abundance of different positions. Where should the poor peasant go? 🙂 The question, although rhetorical, is quite applicable in relation to today’s problem.

So, we have already roughly divided the market into several price niches. The first, called Low-End, includes solutions with a cost of up to $100. While testing cards based on the GeForce 7600 GS and Radeon X1650 PRO, we were faced with the problem of market differentiation. The first card, at first glance, should belong to the category of the average price niche. This is supported, for example, by the cost of the tested Leadtek Geforce 7600 GS, which at the time of writing cost $134. On the other hand, the minimum cost for cards in this series is just below $100 for a variant from Palit. In this case, we tend to base it on the average cost of cards in the aggregate of different manufacturers.

Thus, we safely classify GeForce 7600 GS series cards as being in 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 low-end product, if not eliminated altogether.

We have decided on the lower limit of the middle price segment. What about the upper limit? Not everything is clear here either. The maximum cost for Middle-End solutions is at $250. Thus, in this niche, the most advanced solution from NVIDIA is the Geforce 7900 GS, while AMD here presents the Radeon X1950 PRO. In the case of AMD, products are differentiated 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 option, then this product quite accurately belongs to the High-End segment with a cost of around 290-300 US dollars. But we may also encounter another form of this solution, namely the 256 MB option. In this case, the cost is noticeably lower and is around 260-270 US dollars, which is close to the upper Middle-End level. So where should we take 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 may 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 remains 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 are radically different 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, million	177	330	321
GPU frequency, MHz	560	575	500
Video memory frequency, MHz	1400	1350	1000
Memory capacity, MB	256
Type of memory used	GDDR3
Memory bus width, Bit	128		256
Memory bandwidth, 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 blocks, pcs.	5	8	12
Number of rasterization units (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 power requirements, W	350
Dimensions of reference design video card, mm. (L x H x T)	130 x 100 x 25	170 x 100 x 15	205 x 100 x 16
Exits	2 x DVI, TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support
Interface	PCI-Express x16
Retail price in Moscow, US dollars	132	150	192

These video cards have been on the market for quite some time. Today their production has been discontinued, but they can still be found on store shelves.

The Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO comes in a compact package. Such a conservative approach is traditional for Sapphire.

However, the equipment 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 its dimensions. When testing mid-priced products, it is difficult to find such a long card. When installed in the case, you immediately notice that it stretches across almost 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 external efficiency. The image of ATI's Ruby 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 also comes into contact with them through thermal pads.

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

I note that in automatic speed mode the cooler is quite quiet. Its noise does not stand out against the background of other components of the system.

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

The chip temperature now reached only 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 doing its job quite quietly in automatic speed mode.

At first glance, the design of the board is surprising. This applies to both the wiring and the power supply system. “This was clearly intended for a top card,” you say. And, to some extent, you will be right. Indeed, the design is quite expensive, which is not surprising, since this decision is only a slightly trimmed 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.

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 one would expect, the haste of the release led to the fact that the new product did not become a competitor to the NVIDIA card as such, due to its clearly 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 that ATI has resorted to creating solutions in the mid-price range by cutting down older models. This tradition dates back to 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 initially not profitable enough to produce, so production was not so widespread, 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 the series mobile solutions. Based on the test results, and in particular the temperature conditions, we can conclude that the use of a mobile chip leads to a significantly lower level of heat generation and power consumption compared to conventional copies.

The Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO is equipped with eight Samsung-made chips with a total capacity of 256 MB, which are located on the front side. Memory access time is 1.4 ns. Unlike the other two boards tested today, the memory on the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO operates via a 256-bit bus.

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

Using the ATITool utility, it was found that in nominal mode the chip operates at a voltage of 1.075 V, while the memory at 1.889 V. Practical studies have shown that the Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO has a very effective cooling system, which at maximum speed with a large margin copes with heat dissipation on the R520 chip. At the same time, we established that the board has complex wiring and a high-quality power supply system. Thus, it was possible to proceed with the voltmode procedure without much risk. Moreover, we were prompted to carry out this manipulation by very weak overclocking results. Without increasing the voltage, the chip could only operate at 553 MHz, and the memory at 1300 MHz, while the nominal values ​​are 500/1000, respectively.

Experimenting with voltage values, while simultaneously analyzing temperature and overclocking readings, it was decided to settle on 1.35 V for the chip and 2.1 V for the memory. However, while increasing the voltage on the chip stimulated an excellent increase in frequency, the increase for memory was quite small. The final result was 688 MHz for the chip and 1332 MHz for the memory.

Such manipulations affected the temperature regime. The chip temperature in load mode was now almost 70 degrees. Particular attention should be paid to the temperature of the voltage regulator. Its temperature after voltmod increased by 11 degrees and amounted to 74 degrees during acceleration. Thus, if you decide to significantly increase the performance level of your card by volt mod and 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 functionality of the video adapter.

Amazing thing. Each new NVIDIA product designed for the mid-market segment 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 - qualities that allowed these solutions to win the lion's share of the market. Today it is difficult to find a store where these cards would not be presented in an assortment 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 higher frequencies than 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, options with a passive cooling system will come in handy, of which there are a great many, due to the fact that the G73 chip has very low heat generation. If the potential buyer is an enthusiast who prefers overclocking to the nominal mode, then he will certainly be interested in options with an effective cooling system, like those we can find in the MSI version. In a word, today there is plenty to choose from, even if you limit your gaze only to solutions from NVIDIA.

Today we received 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 colors. There is a transparent cutout in the central part.

A nice thing is that the CD with software, a manual for use and other additional components of the package are folded into a separate stylish envelope. The so-called “additional components” deserve special attention. In addition to the video adapter, BFG carefully included forms with information about various game servers on which owners of these cards can organize online battles.

BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is made on blue PCB. The card itself is unusually compact. In our opinion, this is especially important. Like most solutions from NVIDIA, the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC supports SLI technology. Thus, if you have two of these cards, you can combine them into an array, which will significantly improve the performance level of your system. However, it is unlikely that this manipulation would have been completely 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 each other up.

The cooler is similar to what we can find on the reference version of the GeForce 7900 GT. The main disadvantage of this cooling system is the very high level noise. When the system was turned on, only the noise of the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC cooler stood out against the background of the operation 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 design of the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is traditional for all motherboards in this series. The wiring is quite 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.

Underneath the cooling system is the G73 chip, manufactured in Taiwan. Unfortunately, the kernel revision is A2. Let me remind you that not long ago NVIDIA launched the release of Geforce 7600 series cards based on the G73 chip, revision B1. The main advantage of this innovation is the use of a thinner 0.08 nm process technology. This could indirectly affect the overclocking potential of the chip, as well as, to some extent, the level of power consumption, which is already quite low.

It is worth noting that, unlike most similar video adapters, the chip frequency on the BFG Geforce 7600 GT OC is 580 MHz. Thus, we have an increase of 20 MHz compared to the usual version. In addition, already in the name of the board, the OC index means Overclocked, i.e. "overclocked".

The memory with a total capacity of 256 MB is composed of four chips manufactured by Samsung with an access time of 1.4 ns. Its frequency is 50 MHz higher than the standard one and is 1450 MHz.

However, despite the high-quality workmanship, a fairly effective cooling system and already slightly increased frequencies, the BFG GeForce 7600 GT OC was not able to significantly increase overclocking. Without changing the delta, the chip managed to reach 620 MHz, while the memory overclocked to 1735 MHz. Consequently, we have a weak result for the kernel, which can easily be solved by setting a certain delta between the geometry and shader units. For memory, especially with an access time of 1.4 ns, 1735 MHz is a very good result.

Finally, we got to the very new product that should change the situation for AMD/ATI in the mid-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 similar to top solutions.

With such a slight hint, I would like to direct the reader’s mind to the fact that one should not expect a revolution from the new product, but rather an evolution, a logical continuation of the traditions of AMD/ATI solutions in the mid-price range.

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

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

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

The cooling system is a radiator, which in turn is cooled by a small fan. The presence of a stylish image on the front side of the cooler is pleasing to 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 indicates not so much the low efficiency of the cooler, but rather the decent heat dissipation of the board. 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 normal for cards in this series.

Even 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 Radeon X1650 PRO series boards (Radeon X1600XT). This applies to both the wiring and the power supply system.

The back side of the board is similar.

However, the RV560 chip installed on 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 chip area. In reality, there are much more changes. First main weak point RV530 had a small number of texture units. In RV560 their number has doubled to 8 pieces. However, the AMD solution is still inferior to its NVIDIA counterparts in this parameter. However, this lag is more than compensated for by pixel processors, of which there are 24 this time! Thus, the new product could theoretically gain an advantage in tasks that require complex calculations with many branches. Now the solution from AMD is not inferior in the number of raster blocks. The chip frequency is still high. In our case it is 575 MHz.

Therefore, despite the outdated board design, simple wiring and modest power supply, the Radeon X1650 XT has a truly efficient chip. We have a kind of emerald in a cheap wrapper.

The memory with a total capacity of 256 MB is assembled by four chips manufactured by Qimonda with an access time of 1.4 ns. The memory operating frequency is 1350 MHz. Memory bandwidth has not changed since the Radeon X1600 XT. This, in our opinion, can become a weak point in the card’s operation, which will not allow the chip’s capabilities to be fully revealed.

Some of our assumptions showed up in practice quite quickly. A study of the overclocking potential led to the conclusion that the Radeon X1650 XT does not have any frequency headroom. If the chip frequency was raised to 627 MHz, then any change in the memory frequency led to the system freezing. Thus, a weak power 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.

Testing took place in three resolutions - 1024 x 768, 1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200. Modes were used with and without anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing filters enabled.

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.

Programs and games used:

• 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 via HOC Benchmark, HWzone demo. Boost Graphics included. Image quality Highest. Run the demo twice;
• Serious Sam 2, Build 2.070— testing via HOC Benchmark, Greendale demo. Direct 3D. HDR disabled;
• F.E.A.R., Build 1.0.1— Testing via built-in benchmark. Resolution 1280x1024 is set through the configuration file. Soft Shadows included;
• Call Of Duty 2, Build 1.3— testing in the game itself, using the Timedemo command at the Fortress Stalingrad level. The quality is set to Extra Quality;
• Need For Speed ​​Most Wanted, Build 1.3- testing in the game itself. FPS measurement using FRAPS. Run the demo 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 set using the driver panel.
• The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, Build 1.1.511— In-game testing via FRAPS. Run three times and calculate the average value. Bloom disabled.

Testing

The 3D Mark 2006 results clearly show that the GeForce 7600 GT performs equally well in both 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 once again proves that AMD cards are oriented towards use in 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 ways, this is due to the fact that the latter has 12 raster blocks at once. In addition, the presence of a 256-bit memory bus has a beneficial effect on performance, which leads to much greater bandwidth.

In Prey, the results are repeated. Once again, without enabling filters, 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 small, and in some places the new product even manages to outstrip 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, is ahead of not only the Radeon X1650 XT, but even the GeForce 7900 GS. Thus, there is a clear tendency for the solution on the R520 to dominate in modes with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

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

Another victory for the Radeon X1800 GTO, not only over its direct rivals, but also over the GeForce 7900 GS. 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 analogues from AMD. This time was no exception. The GeForce 7600 GT leads regardless of the mode, while the Radeon X1800 GTO has a minimal advantage over the Radeon X1650 XT.

Need For Speed ​​Carbon is the only game where the number of pixel processors plays a decisive role. Thus, the Radeon X1650 XT is ahead of the GeForce 7900 GS in this parameter, but is second only to the Radeon X1950 PRO. The advantage over the GeForce 7600 GT is huge and in some places reaches more than 90%.

However, in Toca Race Driver 2 the opposite is true. The GeForce 7600 GT not only takes revenge on its immediate rivals, but is also ahead of even the Radeon X1950 PRO in some places. The Radeon X1650 XT looks like a clear outsider. Only this card was unable to demonstrate comfortable FPS in the hardest mode.

In Oblivion, the Radeon X1650 XT and Radeon X1800 GTO show approximately similar levels of performance. They are ahead of not only the GeForce 7600 GT, but also the GeForce 7900 GS, when using full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

The situation is similar when using HDR. Moreover, we can clearly see that as the resolution increases, the gap between the GeForce 7900 GS and Radeon X1800 GTO initially narrows, and then completely turns into an advantage for the latter.

Testing was able to quite clearly identify the leader among the boards reviewed. 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 clear in the confrontation between GeForce 7600 GT and Radeon X1650 XT. Both video adapters have similar levels of performance. Moreover, depending on the game used, the positive features of a particular card may appear. Thus, based on your gaming preferences, as well as price, you can choose a video adapter for yourself.

Despite the fact that the Radeon X1800 GTO was recognized as the winner of today's testing, this product cannot definitely be called the best. Unfortunately, the initially high 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. Their prices are currently in the $130-$160 range, while the Radeon X1800 GTO is still rarely found below $200. Thus, even all the advantages of this product do not allow us to recommend 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 there varies depending on the geographical location and social conditions of a particular region, then feel free to purchase this product.

Testing has been completed, results have been received, conclusions have been drawn. The reader, as a potential buyer, only has to make a choice from this “motley crowd” of so different solutions, each of which has its own characteristic features, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages.

Results

• Appearance - 8/10 ;
• Equipment - 7/10 ;
• Performance - 7/10 ;
• Overclocking potential - 7/10 ;
• Noise level - 7/10 ;
• Price - 1/10 ;

• Overall rating - 37/60 ;

• The minimum cost in Moscow is $212.

• Appearance - 5/10 ;
• Equipment - 6/10 ;
• Performance - 6/10 ;
• Overclocking potential - 6/10 ;
• Noise level - 2/10 ;
• Price - 6/10 ;

• Overall rating - 31/60 ;

• The minimum cost in Moscow is $184.

• Appearance - 7/10 ;
• Equipment - 6/10 ;
• Performance - 5/10 ;
• Overclocking potential - 2/10 ;
• Noise level - 7/10 ;
• Price - 10/10 ;

• Overall rating - 37/60 ;

• The minimum cost in Moscow is $154.