Introducing the Radeon X1650 XT: A New Mainstream GPU from ATI
by Josh Venning on October 30, 2006 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Power
Power consumption is always an important factor when looking at how a graphics card performs, and we did some tests here to determine how the X1650 XT compares to a few other key cards currently on the market. Even though these cards we tested are reference cards, we can still get a general idea of how much power they will use compared to one another. Of course, any card's power consumption has potential to increase or decrease depending on the different tweaks the individual vendors will make to them before shipping them out.
For these tests we start with the total power draw of the system with each of the cards installed while idle (no programs running). We chose these five cards because they include a general range of performance relative to the X1650 XT. We can see here that the X1950 Pro and X1650 XT are a little more power hungry than the rest of the cards at idle.
Next we look at the total power draw of the system while running some stress tests on each of the GPUs. The stress test we use is a few of the demos from 3dMark06, which are particularly graphics intensive. We see by this graph that the X1950 Pro is the most power hungry of these cards, which is to be expected given its level of performance. We also see that the X1650 XT has a more substantial power draw than any of the others, and in particular the 7600 GT, which shows to be the least power hungry of the five. The fact that the 7600 GT consumes less power than the X1650 XT is important, as these two cards are direct performance competitors. But again, keep in mind that these are reference cards and there will be some variation between power levels of the different vendor cards using these chipsets.
One nice thing about the X1650 XT is that it doesn't require an external power connection. This makes it a good choice for those with limited connections on their power supplies. However, the 7600 GT also doesn't need an external power connection, so our data might persuade those who are very concerned about power consumption to look into this card instead of the X1650 XT. 6W more power at idle and 24W more power at load (relative to the 7600 GT) shows that NVIDIA still holds a clear advantage when it comes to power requirements. However, the X1650 XT isn't a very power hungry card, so most users won't need to worry about its consumption. Worst case, 24W extra power use running 24/7 over the course of the year would still only amount to around $20. In the mobile market, however, ATI hardware still looks set to be at a disadvantage, as even a couple watts can be significant when you're looking at battery life.
Power consumption is always an important factor when looking at how a graphics card performs, and we did some tests here to determine how the X1650 XT compares to a few other key cards currently on the market. Even though these cards we tested are reference cards, we can still get a general idea of how much power they will use compared to one another. Of course, any card's power consumption has potential to increase or decrease depending on the different tweaks the individual vendors will make to them before shipping them out.
For these tests we start with the total power draw of the system with each of the cards installed while idle (no programs running). We chose these five cards because they include a general range of performance relative to the X1650 XT. We can see here that the X1950 Pro and X1650 XT are a little more power hungry than the rest of the cards at idle.
Next we look at the total power draw of the system while running some stress tests on each of the GPUs. The stress test we use is a few of the demos from 3dMark06, which are particularly graphics intensive. We see by this graph that the X1950 Pro is the most power hungry of these cards, which is to be expected given its level of performance. We also see that the X1650 XT has a more substantial power draw than any of the others, and in particular the 7600 GT, which shows to be the least power hungry of the five. The fact that the 7600 GT consumes less power than the X1650 XT is important, as these two cards are direct performance competitors. But again, keep in mind that these are reference cards and there will be some variation between power levels of the different vendor cards using these chipsets.
One nice thing about the X1650 XT is that it doesn't require an external power connection. This makes it a good choice for those with limited connections on their power supplies. However, the 7600 GT also doesn't need an external power connection, so our data might persuade those who are very concerned about power consumption to look into this card instead of the X1650 XT. 6W more power at idle and 24W more power at load (relative to the 7600 GT) shows that NVIDIA still holds a clear advantage when it comes to power requirements. However, the X1650 XT isn't a very power hungry card, so most users won't need to worry about its consumption. Worst case, 24W extra power use running 24/7 over the course of the year would still only amount to around $20. In the mobile market, however, ATI hardware still looks set to be at a disadvantage, as even a couple watts can be significant when you're looking at battery life.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
cornfedone - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link
If people stop buying over-priced, over-hyped graphics cards the prices will come down. If people stop pre-ordering paper launched video, mobo, and other PC products, the prices will come down. As long as consumers act stupid and spend money like a drunken sailor then they will be exploited by unscrupulous companies.yacoub - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link
This will not change until after the recession/crash, possible depression, that is coming soon.Niv KA - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link
There is a quote I remember, but I don't know from who or the exact quote itselfI'm not sure if it was 80% or the quote was structured that way, I just remember hearing it somewhere... not reading, hearing, from someone important, but I forgot who!
yacoub - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link
Funny having to go to the Crossfire graphs to see how the 7900GT (non SLI) performs compared to it. The end result: Another budget card that seems rather pointless these days when anyone spending $200 on a GPU should be getting something that can at least play these games that are two years old without having to sacrifice framerates so much. Come on now...Spoelie - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link
x1650pro still is competition for 7600gs. x1950pro in europe has an okay price (lowest around €180), but availability a bit tight. 7600gt sli benches missing from battlefield graph!viperboy2025 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Anandtech are on crack or something, or they woke up on the bad ATI side in the morning cause they kept bashing them for around 3 or more pages about the price of x1950 pro nto being the said $200 but being $300. I've actually bought one for $205 yesterday recently and there are other ones selling at similar price...$203.99 - (from zipzoomflt.com actually went down by $1 from when i bought it 2 days ago)...Sapphire RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB PCI-Express Dual-DVI, HDTV-Out Retail FREE SHIPPING
$199.99 - (from zipzoomfly..currently out of stock though) Asus EAX1950PRO/HTDP/256M Radeon X1950 Pro 256MB PCI-Express Dual-DVI, HDTV-Out Retail ***Free Shipping***
$199.99 - also from zipzoomfly are x1950 pro from makers of Connect3D and Diamond Viper - (this one is actually higher core clocked to 600MHz rather than 575)
Only cards on zipzoomfly that are over $200 are one from Gigabyte which is $229.99 but its out of stock so its useless anyways considering there are many others to choose from. There is also one manufactured by ATI themselves but who would buy that considering its at stock speeds and $279.99, $80 above all those other cards...
Newegg also has the saphire card at $199.99 plus shipping, and it also offers the ATI version at a ridicously overpriced price which is stupid for anyone to go for considering you can get the same card, higher clocked from a different manufacturer for $80 less and shouldn't be taken seriously by anandtech enough to bash ATI for 3-4 pages about all their 1950 pro cards being close to $300 and not near $200 as they promised. Since only one version of that card is offered at an insane inflated price.
The $200 dollar saphire is also available from pcconnection.com
viperboy2025 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
i know this was a 1650xt pro review but to add another thing anandtech keeps commenting about is that, the x1950 pro is competitive (actually they do they its also better) than the nvidia 7900 GS given their similar price similarity but if you looked at the performance charts some reviews ago about the x1950 pro it is actually very competitive with the 7900GT as a single card solution and they are nearly the same, but the GT costs $300 so in other words ATI owned 7900GT and the lower end 7900GS variant which is so outperformed that it shouldn't even be mentioned, unless you are going to SLi route which is the only thing that helps nvidia cards scale better against ATI crossfire, NVIDIA lost that battle. But one thing to keep in mind is SLI motherboards are way more expansive than single pci-e solution cards, so if you have a big purse, you should be looking for a more powerful card anyways if you haven't gotten one already, also SLI is not really a worth it (value) solution since it would require you to dish out about $400 for 2 7900GS cards or $550-600 for 2 7900GT cards, if you have that kind of money you should be buying a more powerfulful and mroe high-end card anyways, as most review sites will tell you if money allows, always go for a more powerful card rather than doing SLI/crossfire, since those are only options for future upgrades if you are running low on graphics power rather than being a real/viable current graphics solution. (eg the nvidia $500 7950GX2 SLI on 1 card is a better solution than 2 7900GT cards, and you don't even need an SLI mobo for it since it uses one PCI-e lane)kalrith - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
The 7900GT hasn't cost $300 in quite some time. At ZZF you can get it for either http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Pr...">$200 after a $20 MIR or http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Pr...">$190 after a $40 MIR. The $200 one is overclocked from 470/1.37GHz to 500/1.5GHz, which might be enough to put the 7900GT in the lead over the X1950PRO.Either way, both are good cards, and both are the same price. I just wanted to clear things up and say that the following statement is false: "the GT costs $300 so in other words ATI owned 7900GT".
viperboy2025 - Friday, November 3, 2006 - link
btw i got my new ATI card saphire x1950 pro and its great....it comes clocked at (core/memory) 581 MHz/701MHz (x2=1402 Mhz effective memory) which is faster than the 7900GT. I also easily got the ATI card to overlock to 621Mhz/781 x2 = 1562 Mhz effective, which makes this card incredibly fast...if you wanted to get a graphx card that will last you a good two years for games or more look no further, it even comes at a great price of only $200.JarredWalton - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link
BF2 7600 GT SLI performance is now added to the top graph. It was in the scaling graph but somehow left out of the 1600x1200-only chart.