ATI -- you bastard.



  • I posted last week re: my computer blowing up. The replacement video card is a radeon x1650 pro 512... by ATI. for some reason the performance is horrible, as in, worse than my X800 xl 256. i think this is because of poor 64 bit drivers support on the newer cards while they're doing stuff to make it run fast on Vista.

    The old one was agp, the new one is PCI-E.

    if anyone knows anyone that is desperately searching for a new PCI-E video card, or 1 gig of 400mhz ddr (184 pin) ram, please let me know, as i wish to replace this with an nvidia card STAT.

     

    also.. it likes to run at 87 degrees celcius. Who knows?



  • Well going from an X800 to an X1650 is quite a big downgrade... not surprising that the performance is worse.

     

    In fact something would have ben horribly horribly wrong with your old X800 if the X1650 was even in the same ballpark. you've moved from a high end to  down to a mainstream part.



  • @RayS said:

    Well going from an X800 to an X1650 is quite a big downgrade... not surprising that the performance is worse.

    In fact something would have ben horribly horribly wrong with your old X800 if the X1650 was even in the same ballpark. you've moved from a high end to  down to a mainstream part.

    X800XL: Pixel fill rate:  6400 MPix/s

    X1650Pro: Pixel fill rate:  2400 MPix/s

    I'd guess you are right... could it be that 16 pipelines are faster than 4, even if those 4 have a higher clock speed?
     



  • "But it's got a higher number!!"

     

    ATI just isn't healthy. 



  • @Nandurius said:

    "But it's got a higher number!!"

     

    ATI just isn't healthy. 

    Well nVidia aren't any better - not at all. Surely a Geforce 7300 is better than a 6800? Higher number, right? Wrong.

    When you know how the naming scheme goes, these things become a lot clearer, and both ATI and nVidia have very dirty hands in this matter. Of course, it would be better if you didn't have to know the naming scheme to work these things out. Higher "should" be better.

    Generally speaking (and suffixes such as GTX, TS, XFS, WTF, BBQ mess it up) you have the generation (ATI - 9xxx, Xxxx, X1xxx, nVidia - 5xxx, 6xxx, etc) and the ranking within the generation (eg x300 is low end crud, x500 is mid range, x800 is high end). As long as you actually know that, it's "obvious" here that a high end (x800) card was replaced with a midrange (x650) card, albeit of the next generation.

    As for pixel fillrate, those numbers highlight it well, although it's still just one metric among several others.



  • If you are just buying a video card based on the number that goes after it you probably don't need the performance.  When I buy a new video card I usually do silly things like LOOKING AT THE SPECS!



  • @tster said:

    If you are just buying a video card based on the number that goes after it you probably don't need the performance.  When I buy a new video card I usually do silly things like LOOKING AT THE SPECS!

    I was really in a hurry. :-(

    i regret my decision now.



  • @tster said:

    If you are just buying a video card based on the number that goes after it you probably don't need the performance.  When I buy a new video card I usually do silly things like LOOKING AT THE SPECS!

    I buy it based on the price... I'm bound to be screwed at some point.



  • @webzter said:

    @tster said:

    If you are just buying a video card based on the number that goes after it you probably don't need the performance.  When I buy a new video card I usually do silly things like LOOKING AT THE SPECS!

    I buy it based on the price... I'm bound to be screwed at some point.

    that's what screwed me, dude. I bought the midrange priced ATI card, as i have been doing for years. It failed me this time. Dammit.



  • I bought an nvidia 6800 when I had choices of the 7300 (cheaper) and 7800 (too expensive)

    I've never had issue with a midrange nv part, if you go back 1 or 1.5 revisions and get the nicer implementation of said card its always a good deal. Higher clock speeds out of the box, nicer heatsinks, and the driver support is there and everything.

    I gave up on ATI 4 years ago. It's like: well there's you're problem, ahyuck.
     



  • @GeneWitch said:

    @webzter said:

    @tster said:

    If you are just buying a video card based on the number that goes after it you probably don't need the performance.  When I buy a new video card I usually do silly things like LOOKING AT THE SPECS!

    I buy it based on the price... I'm bound to be screwed at some point.

    that's what screwed me, dude. I bought the midrange priced ATI card, as i have been doing for years. It failed me this time. Dammit.

     Just give up completely and buy integrated graphics from the bottom of the barrel like me!  You save a ton of money, and you don't have to chuck even more money after them fancy newfangled contraptions.  I'm personally a fan of Moria.  Definitely easy on the graphics card.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.