Date: December 12, 2006 - Author: Rob Williams
If you are looking for a card around the $200 mark, then be sure to see the performance of the X1950PRO first! This particular card retails for less than the 7900GT in which it competes, but which takes the top spot?
We took a quick look at the X1950PRO when it was first announced a few months ago, but this is the first time we take a deeper look to see how it compares against the direct competition. On the NVIDIA side of things, the 7900GT is directly in line with what the X1950PRO has to offer, and both happen to be in the same price bracket.
I've been a fan of my ASUS 7900GT, so I was looking forward to seeing how both cards fared against each other. To me, the 7900GT and X1950PRO cards are for those who want a very good card at an easy to swallow price. Last week, we took the X1650XT for a spin. It proved to a solid budget card, but as we find out, this X1950PRO blows it's pants off for about $40 more.
Actually, the pricing for this specific card is one thing that surprised me. Checking out a few popular e-tailers, ASUS' card proved to be cheaper than most others out there. As per past experience, I've been in the habit of seeing their products priced higher than others, but not here. While most other X1950PRO's and 7900GT's available retail for $220 - $260, the ASUS EAX1950PRO retails for only $190 - $200. Note though, that there are two versions of the card. You can expect to pay more for the Crossfire edition, which includes the bridges you will need.
This card is based on the RV570 core, so we are dealing with the second to top for ATI. The RV580 is the 1950XXXT. Err.. X1950XTX. The 1950 uses a 581MHz clock and 702MHz GDDR3, and also a 256-Bit memory interface.
The max resolution that the card offers is 2048x1536, so no 30" monitors for those who have them. I will jump to conclusions in guessing that those with those monitors won't mind springing for a high-end GPU though.
This card can be compared in a lot of ways to the X1650XT, but the 1950s 256-Bit memory interface is certainly going to help put the card far beyond what the 1650 has to offer.
Like the X1650XT, this card also arrived in a very thin box. It's large enough to safely hold the card, and the extras. This is what I like to see. If you recall my EN7950GT review, the box there was near 50% larger in volume compared to a standard motherboard box. Boxes like the one below are good for the environment, and also won't hog all of your closet space if you like to hold onto them.
The contents are also similar to what we have seen with the X1650XT. The only difference is the lack of a second DVI connector and also a game. The card we are looking at is the Crossfire edition, so it's contents are slightly different. This card assumes that you will not need a second DVI connector, because you would have had one with the non-Crossfire edition. Most manufacturers include a bridge in each card, but ASUS holds off and decided to include two bridges with the Crossfire edition. This works out to the favor of those who don't want Crossfire, but to those who do, should expect to pay $20 more for the version with the bridges.
If you are familiar with the cooler ATI throws on their cards, you will probably notice that this one is nothing like it. Both coolers have their advantages though. ASUS obviously was going for the quietest solution. Overall, the cooler takes up less room on the card, but is slightly taller, thanks to a heatpipe.
One thing that quickly struck me was the sheer size of the card. Compared to a 7900GT, the X1950PRO is about 3/4" longer so it may prove to be a tight squeeze for smaller PC cases.
Similar to a few Arctic Cooling coolers, the EAX1950 uses a fan specifically designed to blow warm out to the back of the card and into your case, to take it off your GPU core quickly.
You will know very well what brand you are dealing with. Here you can also see how high the cooler is.
When looking towards the back of the card, you can understand how the cooler works. It's a copper heatsink, which has a base inside to sit on the core. The heat leaves the core along the single heatpipe, which brings it towards the fins for the fan to blow out into the open. It's a solid design.
The somewhat bulky cooler is held in place by a very thin metal bracket.
Overall, I love the look of the card. I actually prefer the ASUS cooler over the one we see on the ATI cards. They both have their advantages, but this one comes out on top for me. The only thing I dislike about the card is the length, which is still understandable. Since I was using a somewhat smaller case (NZXT Adamas) the GPU came very close to where my HDD was installed. This left about 2mm between the end of the GPU pcb and the hard drive.
Throughout all of our benchmarks regardless of what we are reviewing, testing is done in a clean and stand-alone version of Windows XP Professional with SP2. Prior to testing, these conditions are met:
The testing rig used for today's benchmarking is as follows:
In regards to overclocking, I did not get as far as I had hoped, but the results were not that shabby. The default clocks on the card is 571MHz/702MHz, and my max overclock before be a GPU recovery prompt was 598MHz/724MHz (1.45GHz). Nothing to brag about, but it's there for the taking!
For our testing today we will be using 5 current games, including Half-Life 2: Episode 1, Call of Duty 2, Oblivion, Ghost Recon: AW and Need for Speed: Carbon. For those who enjoy them, 3D Mark 01, 05 and 06 results are also included.
Half-Life 2 is by far one of the best games of all time. Even though the game has been out for over two years, it proves to be as fun as the day it was released. This could be just because I am a fanboy though. I've put many hours into this particular game for benchmarking, and -still- don't get bored when it's loaded up. That's some staying power!
Since Episode 1 was released this past summer, it became the new standard and replaced the original version for GPU testing. One of my favorite levels in the game is c17_02a, which starts you off in a dimly lit hallway. You make your way through to the roof and, after seeing a friendly get killed, you must take out the airship with the rocket launcher. This is one of the best parts of the game and is very rewarding.
The settings we use for HL2: Episode 1 are easy... all options on high, AA on 4x and AF at 8x. Throughout this test and all the ones coming, we bench both with 1280x1024 and the widescreen resolution of 1680x1050.
The EN7900GT came out on top overall here, ignoring the more expensive EN7950GT. At our highest resolution of 1680x1050 though, both cards were right on par with the 1950 having a better minimum frame rate. Great performance here.
Just when WWII-type games were getting incredibly dull and boring, Infinity Ward came along and delivered an outstanding experience that was almost like playing a movie. Not only was the game quite realistic in every way, but the graphics really helped grab the player in. The result was breathtaking.
Even though the games been out for over a year, it still has what it takes to really push all GPU's to their fullest. If you have a great GPU, the game runs like a dream, but at least 50FPS is recommended for a the most enjoyable run. As I found out in the EAX1650XT review, this game is very hard on "budget" cards.
The level used here is Demolition, the very second in the game. Why? One, because I am lazy to progress through the game for a second time to have a good save. Second, this is a great level! There are a lot of men throughout in battle, and effects on the side. It's a good level for testing thanks to all that the level delivers. We again use 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 for testing in addition to 4x AA. Antisotropic Filtering is used, and the other settings are kept on the highest.
Both of the cards offer extremely close performance, no complaints.
Does this game need an introduction? There are few out there who have played Oblivion that were not completely enthralled by the experience. Unlike most current RPG games, Oblivion stuck to the old school way of doing things, and paired with the enormous and realistic world, it was an epic experience. If you have never played the game, do yourself a favor and pick it up! It's no surprise that the game won many awards for the graphical capabilities... they are incredible. That said, it's a game that we had to get in for use with our GPU reviews.
1280x1024 and 1680x1050 were used once again, with all additional settings cranked up to the highest setting. HDR is used instead of AA, since the effect tends to be the preferred choice. None of the slider bars were adjusted in the graphic menu, only the regular options, like texture size and water features.
Remarkably, the X1950PRO had quite an advantage over our 7900GT... an additional 13FPS at 1680x1050. This is very impressive considering the cards are quite similar.
There's no denying that Ghost Recon is a true stature in the real time strategy scheme of things. The games are realistic, and that's what players want. It also just so happens that GRAW is one of the most graphical games out right now and does a great job of pushing your GPU to the limits. Don't believe me? Load it up and see for yourself.
One thing I highly disagree with when it comes to the game though, is that it will automatically detect your GPU and decide for you what settings you can and cannot use. Of course, you can decrease the options they set for you, but not increase. For instance, on the X1950PRO and EN7900GT, high texture quality and 1680x1050 settings are not available... they are simply not in the drop down. The EN7950GT is a different story however, as it lists everything. Assumingly this is thanks to the 512MB of GDDR3.
That said, you can force any resolution you want, as long as your monitor will support it. This requires editing an *.xml file in your game directory, where you can also increase texture quality and other factors. The level used for testing is the very first in the game, Contact! The reasons why this is a great level for testing is evident as soon as you play. I will not get into them so as to not spoil it for anyone who has not played the game.
In our Oblivion tests, we saw the X1950PRO with a large advantage over the EN7900GT. Well, here's a complete vice versa. The 7900GT had an 8FPS advantage over the X1950PRO at the same graphic settings.
If you are a fan of Need for Speed like I am, then Carbon will not disappoint. It essentially takes the best of Most Wanted and Underground 2 and throws them in a blender. The result is a tried and true NFS formula that will please even the most hardcore fans. Of course the game is not without fault. I make mention of all of them in my review.
Sadly, this game does not support widescreen resolutions. If it supports 1920*, then I apologize, but it does not utilize 1680x1050 which is a common widescreen resolution for ~20" LCD's. That said, the game is benchmarked only using 1280x1024. All of the advanced graphic options are increased to the max available setting. Note that enabling all of these features really adds a lot of stress to the GPU. If you choose to use the default settings, you will likely gain 20FPS.
That's not the point though... we are here for some great visual quality ;-)
I don't think anyone will argue the fact that the top two cards are near identical here... they even have the same minimum frame rate. Even the much beefier 7950GT only has 3FPS over the X1950PRO.
For our last set of tests, we will be using the loved/hated 3D Marks. Regardless of their downsides, these benchmarks do a decent job of telling you how well a cards performance scales alongside another and is a good way to see how much good your "mega" overclock actually did.
Oddly enough, the 1950PRO beat the 7900GT good in the 05 test, but wasn't the case in the 06 test.
I am impressed with this card, no questions! Not to conclude right there though, I will explain why. Compared to the 7900GT which costs around $20 more, the EAX1950PRO kept on par with it's performance. Each one of the cards out performed each other in various tests though, so either card you choose will do a great job at keeping you happy.
As I mentioned earlier, this card can currently be found on an e-tailer for $190 - $200, which to me is very reasonable. I took a quick look at a few prices for the competition, including the eVGA 7900GT, and even it cost $220 -after- a rebate. So needless to say, at $190, the EAX1950 is a superb card for the price.
If there are any downsides, it may be that there are two versions of the card, one that includes two bridges and one that doesn't include any. If you are not planning on Crossfire, then this is not an issue in the least. However, if it is, you may have a difficult time finding a Crossfire edition in stock. Quick searches only found a few places (not the most popular e-tailers) that had them in stock.
In the end, I am awarding this card a 9 out of 10 and our Editors Choice award. Taking everything into consideration, this is the first GPU in a while to impress me quite like this.
If you have a comment you wish to make on this review, feel free to head on into our forums! There is no need to register in order to reply to such threads.
Copyright © 2005-2009 Techgage Networks Inc. - All Rights Reserved.