Sapphire x1950 pro ultimate & 512MB

I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice they also
have a 512MB for about the same price.

I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the memory
size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better cooling. Would
that be correct?

Has anyone seen these cards compared and know the advantages/disadvantages?
The only difference I can see in the specs is the memory clock runs 200MHz
faster on the ultimate - overclocked?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102075
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102070

Leaning towards the ultimate as it's been around a bit longer and tends to
have better consumer reviews but this could just be because there are more
of them.



-KENT

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:25:09 +1300, "Kent Smith"
<> wrote:

>I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice they also
>have a 512MB for about the same price.
>
>I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the memory
>size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better cooling. Would
>that be correct?

If the memory speed is the same, the performance in most cases will be
the same. There might be some differences in very high resolutions,
but the board at the same time don't have the performance to use such
high resolutions.

>Has anyone seen these cards compared and know the advantages/disadvantages?
>The only difference I can see in the specs is the memory clock runs 200MHz
>faster on the ultimate - overclocked?
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102075
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102070

No, not overclocked. Since the 256 MB version has faster memory, it
will in general be faster than the 512 MB version.

512 MB on a board in this segment is a marketing tricks in most
situations.

I personally havn't tested the 1950Pro in 256 vs 512, but have done it
with the X1900XT, which is "about the same" -- in general not much of
a difference.


--
Clas Mehus
- "Den som har flest prylar när han dör vinner..."

The 256 MB "Ultimate" will run faster in almost all games due to the
higher-clocked memory, so get that one.

Be aware the screw heads on the back of the Ultimate's Zalman cooler stick
out more than usual. If the two PCIe x16 slots on your motherboard are
separated by just one slot, you won't be able fit two of these cards in
Crossfire.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."

"Kent Smith" <> wrote in message
news:erl58e$268j$...
>I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice they also
>have a 512MB for about the same price.
>
> I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the memory
> size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better cooling. Would
> that be correct?
>
> Has anyone seen these cards compared and know the
> advantages/disadvantages?
> The only difference I can see in the specs is the memory clock runs 200MHz
> faster on the ultimate - overclocked?
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102075
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102070
>
> Leaning towards the ultimate as it's been around a bit longer and tends to
> have better consumer reviews but this could just be because there are more
> of them.
>
>
>
> -KENT
>

Clas Mehus wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:25:09 +1300, "Kent Smith"
> <> wrote:
>
>> I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice
>> they also have a 512MB for about the same price.
>>
>> I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the
>> memory size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better
>> cooling. Would that be correct?
>
> If the memory speed is the same, the performance in most cases will be
> the same. There might be some differences in very high resolutions,
> but the board at the same time don't have the performance to use such
> high resolutions.
>
>> Has anyone seen these cards compared and know the
>> advantages/disadvantages? The only difference I can see in the specs
>> is the memory clock runs 200MHz faster on the ultimate - overclocked?
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102075
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102070
>
> No, not overclocked. Since the 256 MB version has faster memory, it
> will in general be faster than the 512 MB version.
>
> 512 MB on a board in this segment is a marketing tricks in most
> situations.
>
> I personally havn't tested the 1950Pro in 256 vs 512, but have done it
> with the X1900XT, which is "about the same" -- in general not much of
> a difference.

Fantastic - thanks for good info and quick reply. I'll go with the
ultimate.


-KENT

"Kent Smith" <> wrote in message
news:erl58e$268j$...
>I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice they also
>have a 512MB for about the same price.
>
> I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the memory
> size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better cooling. Would
> that be correct?

I have the same Zalman cooler on my X1900 GT and it is silent. Current games
don't take advantage of 512MB and by the time games benefit from 512MB, the
x1950pro will not be able to handle them. I'd definitely go for the
ultimate.

First of One wrote:
> The 256 MB "Ultimate" will run faster in almost all games due to the
> higher-clocked memory, so get that one.
>
> Be aware the screw heads on the back of the Ultimate's Zalman cooler
> stick out more than usual. If the two PCIe x16 slots on your
> motherboard are separated by just one slot, you won't be able fit two
> of these cards in Crossfire.
>
Thanks, good to know. I've got two slots (Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4) but not
looking at doing crossfire just yet. Might eventually up to a couple of
Directx10's when they're a bit more competitively priced.


-KENT

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102067

and for $20 more you get eggroll.
Clocks above are higher. The Pro is a scaled down version of the XT. I'd go
for the gusto myself, I have an XTX and love it.

"Kent Smith" <> wrote in message
news:erl58e$268j$...
>I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice they also
>have a 512MB for about the same price.
>
> I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the memory
> size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better cooling. Would
> that be correct?
>
> Has anyone seen these cards compared and know the
> advantages/disadvantages?
> The only difference I can see in the specs is the memory clock runs 200MHz
> faster on the ultimate - overclocked?
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102075
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102070
>
> Leaning towards the ultimate as it's been around a bit longer and tends to
> have better consumer reviews but this could just be because there are more
> of them.
>
>
>
> -KENT
>

Kent Smith schreef:
> I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice they also
> have a 512MB for about the same price.
>
> I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the memory
> size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better cooling. Would
> that be correct?
>
> Has anyone seen these cards compared and know the advantages/disadvantages?
> The only difference I can see in the specs is the memory clock runs 200MHz
> faster on the ultimate - overclocked?
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102075
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102070
>
> Leaning towards the ultimate as it's been around a bit longer and tends to
> have better consumer reviews but this could just be because there are more
> of them.
>
>
>
> -KENT
>
>

What i understand is, yes: with the toprange line of ATI, it makes sense
to have 512M memory onboard, but wit with the budget or mid range, it
slows down performance, compared to 256M versions..
Question: if so, why bother even bringing such models on market ?

TheFug wrote:
> Kent Smith schreef:
>> I was going to get a Sapphire 256MB x1950pro ultimate but notice
>> they also have a 512MB for about the same price.
>>
>> I would imagine the 512MB would have better performance due to the
>> memory size but the ultimate would be more reliable due to better
>> cooling. Would that be correct?
>>
> What i understand is, yes: with the toprange line of ATI, it makes
> sense to have 512M memory onboard, but wit with the budget or mid
> range, it slows down performance, compared to 256M versions..
> Question: if so, why bother even bringing such models on market ?

I agree with a previous post, the answer unfortunately, is probably
marketing. I almost bought the 512MB based purely on memory size. If they
can make a bunch of people buy these things over a competitors 256MB cards,
it has a purpose on the market.


-KENT