Even while ATI fans crow over the new Radeon HD 2000 series of graphics cards, many R5xx-based cards are now being sold at discounted prices. One, the Radeon X1950 GT, was recently created to offer a graphics card that would offer really good value for money. Join us today as we take a look at the Sapphire Radeon X1950 GT and see how it fares in the new Windows Vista operating system. This will show us just how much value there is in such cards. Link : Sapphire Radeon X1950 GT Graphics Card Review
This card is basically a 1950pro, as evidenced by the 1.25ns memory chips. So, it stands to reason it should be overclocked to at least that level AND then compared to the 7900GS.....not cards significantly faster than a GS. What the h*** were you thinking comparing it to 8800s and a 7950? The 1950gt is cheaper than even a 7900gs but at least that would be it's closest competitor, both price and spec - wise. Since the author mentioned comparing it to an overclocked 7900GS, the 1950gt should be overclocked too....I'm sure it will go way beyond 1950pro speeds. Good luck with your reviewing. Hopefully you will re-do this review and include a valid comparison test.
Yup, I would agree with you. The card is more comparable with the GeForce 7900 GS than the cards used in the comparison. In fact, that was what we compared in the ASUS EN7900GS review. However, the ASUS EN7900GS card was only available for a short time. By the time ATI released the better Catalyst 7.4 driver, we could no longer retest the GeForce 7900 GS for the comparison. Sure, we can retest it if and when we get hold (again) of the lower-end NVIDIA cards. However, until and unless ATI can get their drivers right, we will only face the same test issues again and again. For us, the graphics card is more than just the hardware. It's a package that includes the driver and overall user experience. With that said, we did not intentionally compare the X1950 GT with much superior cards to make it look bad. Ultimately, you can decide by the card's performance even without an "equivalent" comparison. If you feel that 46 fps at 1920x1200 in COH is good enough for the price, then it's a good enough reason to buy the card. You don't have to make sure it beats an "equivalent" NVIDIA card to buy it. As mentioned earlier, the graphics card is more than just the card itself. For me personally, the driver is a critical part and to a lesser extent, ease-of-installation, ease-of-use, reliability, warranty, etc. IMHO, you shouldn't buy a card just because it's the fastest kid on the block, or avoid a card just because it lost out to an "equivalent" card.
Sir, First, thanks for the response. I hope I wasn't too critical in the last post. You said that the reviewed card wasn't intentionally campared to superior cards to make it look bad......OK, fine. Maybe it wasn't intentional but it IS what happened. You should be able to see that and admit it.......regardless of whether you run any re-tests of the card or not. You publish a review of a card,........then end with a conclusion that includes this morsel; "It certainly did not impress us in our tests. It was consistently slower than the GeForce 7950 GT. Although it's not really targeted at that card, we have seen earlier that even an overclocked GeForce 7900 GS can beat it flat." Excuse my French, as they say but no sh*t. It didn't IMPRESS because it wasn't as fast as a 7950GT or an OVERCLOCKED 7900GS? The review is what it is. It's over and done with. I said my piece in my last post. Its not a huge deal....just clarifying my position on this. Keeping in mind this card is really an under-clocked 1950pro, it seems to be an excellent value. I would, however, probably go with a 7900gs given it was the same price as the 1950gt and I wasn't going to use it for F@H. Jay
