my gfx card?

i was wondering if the (ATI Mobility Radeon 256MB X1400 Native PCI Express x16) that i am getting with my Dell E1505 would be faster then My (Geforce FX 128MB 5900XT 8X AGP) thats in my Desktop? my FX 5900XT is @ 415 Core and 748 Memory... what are the clock speeds on the X1400 and can it be OC?

 

the clock speed of X1400 is 450mhz and it can't be OC, even if you find a way its not worth it, but X1400 will smokes your 5900XT

 

What?! Your 5900 MUST be OC'd, as the stock 6800's run at 350/750. Well, the stock 6 series has more pipes, though.

 

All the FX line are crap cards. The X1400 will be infinitely better.

 

Well DX8 stuff the FX will be good at it. Unofortunately they had awful, awful Shader Model 2 compatibility so anything from the past 3 years will be pretty bad. X1400 for the win, as some would said.

note to Kgann, the 5900XT had clock speeds anywhere from 350 to past 400. It only had 4 pixel pipelines though, compared to the 6800s 12 pipes. (6800GT/Ultra has 16 pipes)

 

hehe people forget that on paper, video cards havnt gotten much "faster". Old cards were running the same mhz as todays cards. When the next generation chip with more pipelines came out, the mhz jumps back down (well, when ever they decide to release the budget versions of that chip ). There has been an average increase, but thats generaly what happens.

The 1400 should edge out the 5900fx on everything, especialy 9x, but with 4 pipelines, the 1400 isnt gonna wow you. But it can play pretty much everything out now except oblivion.

 

KGann, the Defualts on that card is 390 Core and 700 Memory..And Thx Every one for your Reply's..

Specs: my GeForce FX 5900 XT
390MHz core clock
700MHz Memory Data Rate
292 million vertices/sec
256-bit graphics core
256-bit memory interface
8 pixels per clock (peak)
16 textures per pixel(max in a single rendering pass)with 8 textures applied per clock
DX9 with Vertex Shader 2.0+ and Pixel Shader 2.0+

A link to my card
http://www.pny.fr/fr/verto_prev_fx_5900_xt.asp

 

all the FX are crappy? So the x1400 ( I am also getting ) will be better than my desktop geforce FX 5700 Ultra?? I thought the 5700 ultra was pretty smooth for the games I played.

 

The FX series of cards were pretty good in terms of raw power available to the card, it was just they had awful shader model 2 support which really meant its future proofness was zilch. DX8 games it'll cope with no problem, but throw on something with Shader Model 2 and watch it crawl. Even Half Life 2 defaults the FX series of cards to DX8 mode, since its DX9 support was so poor.

 

On paper though, the two cards look pretty similar

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=162&card2=452

They both have 4 pixel pipelines but the FX 5900XT has almost double the memory bandwidth because of its 256bit memory bus vs the 128bit on the X1400.

 

In response to that comparison, im seeing that the x1400 gets around 11GB/Second for memory bandwidth, but the x1400 Hypermemory (HM) only gets 5.52GB/sec memory bandwidth. hmm...

 

Right.. I'm a bit confused about that myself. I've always heard that enabling hypermemory/turbocache isn't supposed to hurt performance, so I don't know what to make of that. Unfortunately I don't have a HM or Turbocache card myself to test stuff like this.

 

Well if you have a 256mb dedicated X1400 then the bandwith will be 11gbs, as you are using local video memory on a 128bit bus. If you have say, 256/256 dedicated and shared, then the shared memory will be running at 5.5gbs as then it is using system memory on a 64bit bus.

However, this would not affect performance, as firstly the X1400 simply wouldn't be utilising 256mb of local memory to full speed anyway, and the hypermemory, if it was used of course, would only be there to cache textures, which wouldn't require massive amounts of speed to do anyway.

 

That Link Was really Helpeful thanx for post.

 

The nVidia GeForce Go 7400 seems to be a better card Hmmm...
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=408&card2=452

 

Quiong, the chip technology is several generations newer then the FX cards, and that will increase its speeds as well.

 

I realize that.. the FX cards in particular were infamous for poor performance with shader model 2.0, so basically they supported the feature in name only, because actually enabling shader model 2.0 caused large performance penalties. The numbers on paper are still useful for comparing theoretical fillrates and bandwidths however. Because nobody has ever done a comparison between a desktop FX 5900 and a mobility X1400, comparing them on paper and speculating about performance is probably the next best thing we can do.

 

Thanks for the info guys... I didn't know. I remember when first buying my GFX card though, my tech-buddy advised me to get above 12 PP's.

 

Pipelines, memory bus, core speeds etc wil only tell part of the story about graphics cards. You really need to check out online reviews of the cards in action to get an idea of whether the card is for you or not. It like looking at the specs of a car, sure it may look good on paper, but what about how it handles, comfort etc? For a graphics card, there are things such as Image quality, power consumption, heat generation, shader model, AA/AF methods.

For example, the 6600gt was an 8 pipe card, but yet it was able to match the 6800 (a 12 pipe card) across a large variety of games. It was only when you applied lots of AA/AF and upped the resolution that the 6800 pulled ahead by a margin that the end user would notice, and even then the results would be best described as sketchy. 6800GS is a 12 pipe card, but is able to keep up with the 6800GT, a 16 pipe card another example.