[Arun]

Beyond3D has learned of an upcoming specifications change to X1900 GT. The new spec lowers the clock speed by 63MHz, from 575MHz to 512MHz, while increasing the memory speed by 60MHz from 600MHz to 660MHz (1320MHz effective). A PCB redesign is also included to accomodate a fan change anticpated to produce improved accoustics, and HDCP capability is included by default on the new boards.

So, in exchange for a modest core decrease, purchasers of the new board will get faster memory, a hopefully quieter fan, and HDCP. As partners are expecting overall performance to remain pretty close, this doesn't sound like an unreasonable set of tradeoffs to be making.

Unfortunately, by deciding against a new name ("X1900 GT SE", anyone?) the situation becomes rife for some confusion for individual purchasers. There will be two signficantly different "X1900 GT" abroad in the land, and consumers who care about the difference between them should be careful to determine they know which they are purchasing until the stock of the old model disappears completely. The new model is not yet available in the channel, but it shouldn't be much longer before it makes its appearance.

[Rangers]

I'm guessing this is because ATI had to clock so high to be competitive versus Nvidia parts at 450 mhz (7900GT, 7900GS).

575 was probably cutting into their yield. I figured as much.

Core clock is more important then Mem though, so I'm sure it's losing performance.
________
Avandia lawsuit

[Shtal]

ATI X1300 standard/SE/PRO/XT
ATI X1600/X1650/nor-pro/PRO/XT
ATI X1800 standard/GT/GTO/XL/XT
ATI X1900/X1950 standard/GT/XT/XTX

The only thing ATI is missing is GS, hurry up ATI and copy Nvidia fast because they have GS and you guys don't!

Example: Because X1300XT is almost as fast as X1650Pro
and X1600XT about equal to X1650Pro.

And X1800GTO very close to X1800XL in performance.

How about X1800XT vs. X1900GT in FPS.

But wait what about X1900XT 256MB poison confusion?

Nvidia
7900gs - touch slower than 7900gt
7950gt - little faster than the 7900gt
now 7900gto - between the 7950 and 7900gtx?

7900gs, 7900gt, 7950gt, 7900gto, 7900gtx - for high end cores, that's a rediculous number...

I didn't even knew about X1950PRO that their is one more Difficulties selection of new video cards to buy.

[BrynS]

This effort (new fan, pcb redesign, HDCP, etc) on top of the core and memory changes seems to suggest that X1900GT will stick around longer than I would have anticipated for what I assume is a fairly low volume part anyway. Seems kind of redundant with RV570 just around the corner, unless it's had another run-in with the graphics gremlins.

[CJ]

Sounds to me like the new X1900GT will use RV570 cores. If you look at the PCB of the X1950Pro it already looks much cleaner than other ATi boards. And think of it.. they need to do something with the cores that don't easily reach the 600Mhz for the X1950Pro. So it would make sense if it's based on RV570 cores. New PCB, new cooler, new core, lower price (<$199).

[Geo]

Originally Posted by CJ

Sounds to me like the new X1900GT will use RV570 cores. If you look at the PCB of the X1950Pro it already looks much cleaner than other ATi boards. And think of it.. they need to do something with the cores that don't easily reach the 600Mhz for the X1950Pro. So it would make sense if it's based on RV570 cores. New PCB, new cooler, new core, lower price (<$199).

Well, it seems to me that so long as you've got a 4-quad for sale in R580+, that having somewhere to dump the one-quad-down parts at a reasonable price is going to be seen as a goodness. Sure, you could save them for a 2-quad GTO, but that's going to be even lower ASP, so why would you want to do that? And your RV570s one-down can go to that. So I tend to see it that way, with the PCB and cooling redesign aimed at improving yields and power/heat/noise. They seem to have taken the "AIIIEEE!! MY EARS!!! THE PAIN, LORD THE PAIN!!" comments to heart across a wide-ish swath of the stack.

Edit: And, y'know, presumably it will be the new R580 rev going to these, so that may have played a role in wanting to tweak the PCB, which would have been designed with the old rev of R580 in mind.

[CJ]

That could be true too. Only time will tell what core they'll be using. Or actually, it's the PCB that will tell the true story... If it has the double CF bridge, it obviously is based on RV570. If it doesn't feature the double CF bridge, it's based on R580(+).

[Moloch]

Originally Posted by Rangers

I'm guessing this is because ATI had to clock so high to be competitive versus Nvidia parts at 450 mhz (7900GT, 7900GS).

575 was probably cutting into their yield. I figured as much.

Core clock is more important then Mem though, so I'm sure it's losing performance.

Anyone else see anything wrong with that, or is the 1900GT core really sucky?

[LeadSled]

HDCP support is just another way of stopping us from backing up our DVD's , games or what ever. One scratch and it off the the store to buy another, doent you know we are all pirates and thieves. I think that with HDCP we should at least get warrenty with our not so cheap optical media.

[trinibwoy]

What does HDCP have to do with backing up DVD's and Games? I thought it was about protecting data transmitted to a dispay device - not preventing unauthorized copying.

[Anon Lamer]

Originally Posted by geo

Well, it seems to me that so long as you've got a 4-quad for sale in R580+, that having somewhere to dump the one-quad-down parts at a reasonable price is going to be seen as a goodness. Sure, you could save them for a 2-quad GTO, but that's going to be even lower ASP, so why would you want to do that? And your RV570s one-down can go to that. So I tend to see it that way, with the PCB and cooling redesign aimed at improving yields and power/heat/noise. They seem to have taken the "AIIIEEE!! MY EARS!!! THE PAIN, LORD THE PAIN!!" comments to heart across a wide-ish swath of the stack.

Edit: And, y'know, presumably it will be the new R580 rev going to these, so that may have played a role in wanting to tweak the PCB, which would have been designed with the old rev of R580 in mind.

The Rv570 is 12/12/36, same as 3/4 of a R580. So broken R580s will likely show up as X1950 pros.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Anon Lamer

The Rv570 is 12/12/36, same as 3/4 of a R580. So broken R580s will likely show up as X1950 pros.

Surely the new CF bridge would make that a wee bit difficult?

[vertex_shader]

"And think of it.. they need to do something with the cores that don't easily reach the 600Mhz for the X1950Pro."

Maybe this is the last dance of the "not fully functional" r580 cores, whats can't run x1900xt/xtx speed, and not even the x1900gt speeds.
7900gs is here, rv570 coming only in october, so they need a good price/performance card for a short time.

I still think the rv570 will be a overclock monster, with good yields

[no-X]

Originally Posted by vertex_shader

I still think the rv570 will be a overclock monster, with good yields

Why? RV535s OC (80nm) is quite average...

[vertex_shader]

Originally Posted by no-X

Why? RV535s OC (80nm) is quite average...

Because 90nm r580 running already 650mhz on x1900xt/xtx/x1950xtx, rv570 "easier" core with less transistor count, pipelines and its 80nm (hopefully default voltage will be enough for good overclocking, i think no software voltage control coming in a mainstream card, so hardmod the only way when the core running default in low voltage)
I not seen any review yet with rv535 core gpu overclocked, you have link?

[Wedge1]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Core clock is more important then Mem though, so I'm sure it's losing performance.

I have always wondered which is more important. I don't know enough about it to draw the conclusion myself.

[Geo]

I would think it's going to come down to the scenario. Medium to high-res AA should be helped, for instance. These cards are far enough up the food chain that should probably be *mostly* the way they are going to be used, and in scenarios where they aren't, the loss in frame rate should be trivial to playability.

But I'm sure somebody will test it and find out for sure.

[Anon Lamer]

Originally Posted by geo

Surely the new CF bridge would make that a wee bit difficult?

Hmm good point. Then there will be 2 offerings in the midrange segment.

[memberSince97]

Hi, I'm confused where does this fit in pricepoint between 1650XT, 1950Pro, 1900GT. I see they reworked the PCB which is nice , but now it seems we have refreshes within refreshes.

I don't mind that either, but will the parts have problems working side by side , ie new 1900gt with old 1900gt...

[vertex_shader]

X1900gt 512/1320 ~3.5% slower in 3dmark2k5 than the x1900gt 575/1200
They need to use other name, x1900gt hdcp edition or something, when no new name coming than its not user friendly mentality.

[no-X]

Could you try to benchmark it in any more BW demanding situation, e.g. with FSAA 4x turned on?

[vertex_shader]

Originally Posted by no-X

Could you try to benchmark it in any more BW demanding situation, e.g. with FSAA 4x turned on?

I not have any x1900gt, i asked some people to do some game test with and without FSAA.
Maybe with FSAA the higher memory clock help the x1900gt 512/1320 and will be faster than the x1900gt 575/1200.

I still think this action is only a stock clenaup before the x1950pro hit the dance floor

[Geo]

Originally Posted by vertex_shader

They need to use other name, x1900gt hdcp edition or something, when no new name coming than its not user friendly mentality.

Can't disagree with that, tho hopefully having a new cooler on it will make it identifiable in newegg pics and such.

[INKster]

Originally Posted by geo

Can't disagree with that, tho hopefully having a new cooler on it will make it identifiable in newegg pics and such.

What if some shady manufacturer decides to use the old chips with the new cooler ?
It's not like it didn't happen before...

[poopypoo]

Originally Posted by INKster

What if some shady manufacturer decides to use the old chips with the new cooler ?
It's not like it didn't happen before...

i agree. def seems shady, and to be honest, ATi seems to be getting recidivist on this subject. I can accept that partners are partners, and that ATi might need to make spec changes from time to time to boost output, but these naming conventions seem far too consistently confusing to be anything but convenient. The two GTO card issues can easily be seen as not ATi's problem - but it is their problem. Even if it's just overclockers and unlockers who feel bait-and-switched, well, it still becomes ATi's problem. Maybe it's just a reality of the market today, but that's never stopped me from blindly hoping someone will rise above, before.