Ati X1800 vs Nvidia go 7900gs

Im looking to buy a new laptop and I have a budget of £1200, which graphics card would you choose between the X1800 or the go 7900gs? What are the advantages/disadvantages of both cards? Im looking to play all the latest games at high quality as well as using graphics software such as 3dmax and Photoshop. As well as the graphics card my system wil have a 2ghz core 2 duo and 2gb DDR2 Ram.

Can anyone link me to any other retailers such as dell in which i can customise a laptop for reasonable prices.

Thanks

 

Specifications and some benchmarks on ATI Mobility x1800 here, and a similar setting for the nVidia card here.

7900 GS works on 20 pixel-pipelines and 7 vertex-pipelines in compared to x1800's 12 pixel and 6 vertex. Hence the 7900 GS scores some better benchmarks as it appears. Benchmarks aren't the God, though. Maybe this was of some help.

Some custom laptop companies include Rock, Alienware (Alienware is part of Dell), Voodoo PC (HP bought this one a while ago), and the one I bought mine from is the smaller Danish Zepto. Browse around, and compare prices and what you can get off, x1800 and 7900 GS are probably only found in 17" screens (with some Dells being the exception here, which is why Dell will probably be your bet here eventually), though.

ps. In Finland, some importers sell the Fujitsu Amilo XI 1546 (UK webbie) at around 1700 euros with the 2GB 2x533 RAM and T7200; maybe you could find a shop in UK which delivers the Amilo with a similar setup, it might fit your budget well; I think Rock, Alienware, and such will charge you a few hundred £ above your budget for a computer of your preferences. I suppose in addition to Fujitsu the already mentioned Dell might have something for you.

 

Look at the previous post for some suggestions. However, don't count on getting all of that for 1200 pounds easily. I would recommend the Dell Inspiron e1705 as it is very cheap with a 7900gs.

As for video cards, definately get the 7900GS, it has much more raw power and well, those people biased to ATi and Nvidia are just stupid, claiming that the X1800 is better than the 7900GS. The 7900GS is much more powerful and is a lot more common.

EDIT: I'm not too sure of the Fujitsu. The price is WAY above your budget (considering pounds) and well, Rock and Alienware might jus be out of reach. The e1705 is sturdy and powerful and cheap, though cheap, which isn't all that good. It should fit your budget, but I'm not sure you can configure all you want.

EDIT: Another edit. You could get near your configuration with the e1705 (or the 9400 in the UK) for around 1300 pounds with the 20% off coupon in the Dell Coupons section of this website. 1 gig ram, 2.0Ghz C2D, 80Gb HDD 5400RPM, 3 year basic care, 7900GS. If you absolutely NEED 2 gig RAM (battlefield 2/2142) then do it yourself later by selecting the 1 x 1gig ram and make sure it is 533mhz as it doesn't make much of a diff jumping to 667 (except money). good luck on your search!

 

The problem is you can't draw out a fair diagram. The x1800 was always underclocked.

When it runs at stock speeds it meets or defeats a 7900gs, esp. considering what you play.

Excluding certain people with charts, I get 6100+ with 512 megs of ram on a x1800 at 3dmark05. I've seen differences of 300 points being added from going from 512 megs to 2 gigs, and a 7900gs scores in the 6300 area...

So in affect, a x1800 would defeat it.

However, that is not the whole picture... You must see what each card can do to learn their strengths and weaknesses.

7900 gs: Shader Operations: 7500 Operations/sec
x1800: Shader Operations: 5400 Operations/sec

So what are shader operations?

This gives a huge advantage to the 7900gs. In newer games and future games, it'll be able to show more shaders then a x1800.

7900gs: Pixel Fill Rate: 6000 MPixels/sec
x1800: Pixel Fill Rate: 7200 MPixels/sec

What is pixel fill rate?

So it seems the shader operations definately hold back the x1800.

Does it have any advantages at all other then higher clock speed, which makes it run hotter?

Even it's advantages are useless, except this:

7900gs: Memory Bus Type: 64x4 (256 bit)
x1800: Memory Bus Type: 32x8 (256 bit)

You should now understand the secret of the x1800, and in affect, most ati cards. The different in memory bus types gives it a big advantage, not really to the point of dominace or even to where it takes over, but to where it can actually perform.

However, it runs a bit hot when you do this... I'm not sure how far you can overclock it, but I wouldn't try 8000...

A 7900gs can hit 9000 and above... Just one...

EDIT: I had this part wrong. A x1800 could possibly be better then a 7900gs, but it wouldn't run cooler or take less power at all.

Hope that helps.

If your getting this for Oblivion, I would suggest suggest the x1800

Here is one thing anyone who wants to get an x1800 should consider:

7900gs: Framebuffer: 512 MB
x1800: Framebuffer: 256 MB

What is framebuffer?

While you won't notice much of a difference in today's games, and you may be able to even get better performance, because of the 7900gs's bigger framebuffer, when Crysis comes around, the x1800 will be slightly crippled.

As of right now though, it's up in the air as to which performs better, when both are stock. The 7900gs defeats the x1800 in most areas, while the x1800 has better memory architechture...

 

The Go 7900 GS is simply the better card overall and the option I would go for.

Excluding certain people without charts, the Go 7900 GS is still the better card overall. Using 3DMark to compare card from Nvidia with cards from Ati is nothing but pastime for kids.

Couldn't have said it better

 

You'll never know because it was underclocked because of heat issues. Thankfully we have cooling pads, no?

If this was june, or hell, a couple of months ago, I'd recommend a x1800, but Crysis is about to come out. Don't screw yourself over. Get a 7900gs. The framebuffer would haunt you in the end.

 

Well, I guess that if hell froze over it would be a more confortable place.

 

Yeah, you're probably right at the fact that with coupons Dell is the best option to go. Too bad Dell don't do coupons to here in Finland.

 

I know laptops are more expensive over there than in the US, but 1200 pounds is a lot of money to pay for an e1705.

Have you seen the Rock (rockdirect.com) Extreme CTX? It's far better than the e1705 or the Amilo and a basic configuration is about 1249 pounds with VAT. It has the 512 MB go 7950 GTX in it and is a very high-quality system.

You may find a cheaper version of it elsewhere. It's the Clevo M570U aka Sager NP5760 in these forums.

If I had to choose between the two GPUs you mentioned originally, I'd go with the go 7900 GS since it runs cooler and uses less power if I remember correctly.

 

Thanks for everyones in depth replies, they have all been very useful.

I have configured two laptops, which one would eveyone reccomend me to buy, each has their own advantages and disadvantages.

I have configured a dell Inspiron 9400 with the following specs for just under £1162:

2 ghz core 2 duo
2gb 533 mhz DDR2 RAM
256mb NVIDIA 7900gs
120 gb (5,400 rpm) hard drive
17" Wide Screen WXGA (1440x900) TFT Display
1 year insurance collect and return

OR

From Rock for £1285

Xtreme CTX
intel core duo 1.83 ghz
512mb NVIDIA 7900 GTX
1gb ddr2 667mhz ram
100gb (7200 rpm) hard drive
17" WSXGA+ X-Glass TFT Screen (1680 x 1050)
3 year insurance collect and return

Which one would you buy? im guessing the Rock laptop is not a core 2 duo, will this significantly affect performance? The only downside I can see to the Xtreme CTX is the processor as I could easily upgrade the RAM in the future. Does anyone Know if it is possible with Rock to reduce the years for teh insurance jsut so I could reduce the price. Im after the best gaming laptop for my budget of £1200 - £1300.

Thanks

 

Easily the xtreme ctx: better screen , better resolution, better warranty, better harddrive, wayyyy better graphics card (when overclocked it runs at same speed as 2x 7900gs in sli). (just to upgrade these 4 things normally would cost you around 300+ pounds)

 

Tough one. The main downside of Core Duo in compared to Core2Duo is probably the fact that it's a 32bit processor, and C2D is 64bit - which gives you a little more insurance for the future programs (though things like Vista will come in both 32 and 64 bit versions), depending on how scared you are of the 64bit revolution. To sum up, the effect in performance at the moment isn't probably anything you'd notice, the graphics cards and RAM cause more difference with these two setups. In the future, perhaps a year or two, when 64bit program and driver support get better, there might be more difference.

7200rpm hard drive is much nicer (in my opinion) than 5400rpm'er, and then you've got a better screen to it (1440x900 with 17" wide screen sounds awfully lonely to me), and a better graphics card.

It's probably a matter of flavour. Better hard drive and better GPU or better processor and more RAM. Tough one.

I don't think you can upgrade to Santa Rosa - it's not a processor, it's a platform (ie. as the NAPA is for current Merom and Yonah, and so on), so there will probably be some processors inserted to the platform. Well, I just don't think you can change that much in a laptop - correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You're right Keizafk, Santa Rosa is a platform and it is NOT backwards compatible with the current generation of Core Duos and Core 2 Duos. Santa Rosa C2D's are not drop in compatible with the any of the current chipsets because of the fact that they have a 800Mhz FSB. That being said, I would recommend the Rock configuration. The 7200RPM hard drive would serve you better in gaming as well as the much more powerful 7900GTX. Both the RAM and the processor can be user upgraded at a later date while the card can not. The speed difference in gaming on the mobile C2D's is usually not significant (mainly because it is going from an older Core architecture, which was already very efficient, whereas on the desktop, you're going from the NetBurst architecture), so there are no worries there. Hope that helps

 

Thanks for everyones help I was all set on buying the Dell Inspiron 9400 but now im seriously considering the Rock Extreme ctx. Im just a little worried about the core duo only being a 32 bit processor, when do you think 64 bit prossersors will become more in use? How does having a 32 bit processor effect my use with windows vista? Is it possible to upgrade the core duo processor to a core 2 duo in the future or will i be stuck with the core duo until I buy a new laptop?

Im happy that I could easily uprade the ram of the Rock in the future the only drawback is the core duo. Can anyone point me to a system with the following specs for about 1200 pounds:

any core 2 duo
1-2gb DDR2 ram
NVIDIA go 7900GTX or NVIDI go 7950
100+gb hd (7200 rpm)
17" WSXGA (1680 x 1050)

Thank you for all your help its greatly appreciated.

 

64-Bit isn't going to be coming for quite a while, however, Vista will prefer if you have a 64-bit processor. You can upgrade a Core Duo to Core 2 Duo. However, it is generally expensive, and difficult to do. I think it may also void the warranty on most cases.

 

If you really want to stay on top of it, I think the added expense now to get a Core 2 Duo is the way to go on the Rock CTX. Otherwise you'll end up paying for two processors over time. It shouldn't cost too much to upgrade to a T5500/T5600 Core 2 Duo. I'm sorry to keep upping your budget.

The Rock CTX is an amazing system. It is vastly superior to the Dell 9400 in terms of build quality and power. And it doesn't cost that much more.

If you want something more along the lines of the Dell, there is the Toshiba P105. You can get some nice specs there for less money--but personally I'd recommend spending the little extra for the Rock.

 

Zellio, sorry, I read your post and it was like my brain was screaming to get out:

The phrase is "in effect", not "in affect".

 

I'm not sure if you can get CTX with Core2Duo? It doesn't seem to give you an option to upgrade directly to T5500 or T5600, which I frankly find silly. Maybe ask Rock about it? CTX Pro comes with Core2Duo T7200 (and Gforce Go 7950GTX), and costs 1399£ incl. VAT. If you could pinch up budget, it would be ideal, of course.

 

That Figures . The go 7950 GTX and T7200 setup is ideal. That's a shame if they won't let you get at least a C2D in the CTX. It's worth a call/email I'd say. Shouldn't be much to upgrade to one of those processors (assuming Rock even carries them).

 

X1800 is not better then Gf7900gs, it was design to compite with Gf7800. I think it is better to compare ATI x1900 and Gf7900gs. The new FSC with ATI X1900 cost about the same as a Dell with Gf7900gs.