Video cards

[starshooter10]

both are GREAT card for the $$
im running a 1600 and love it BUT
if you want raw frames i'd get the X850
if you want more detail (AA/AF/hi res)
i'd get the X1600
although the core and ram are slower it's a much better GPU
infact i don't think the 1600 core has pixlel pipes i think it's on the 100% new core....


look at this too:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/12/...for_the_money/

[cauzomb]

both are GREAT card for the $$
im running a 1600 and love it BUT
if you want raw frames i'd get the X850
if you want more detail (AA/AF/hi res)
i'd get the X1600
although the core and ram are slower it's a much better GPU
infact i don't think the 1600 core has pixlel pipes i think it's on the 100% new core....


look at this too:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/12/...for_the_money/

The x850xt is faster than the 1600gt by 3 points in toms graphs; this is with AA and AF on which is considered highquality in the visuals department, even at 1024x768. The x850 is faster at 1280x1024 with AA and AF by like 10fps? no big deal there but yeah it's discontinued so it's not worth the effort to locate the x850 or invest in a 1600 any more than locating a 1800 or 1900 series card that's faster than either.

Even though we're seeing more FPS out of the x850 with AA and AF ON is it just that the 1600's graphics look better?

The only time 1600xt bests the x850xt in AA and AF is when there are two 1600 in crossfire against ONE x850xt, and at that it's only a handfull of a difference, imagine if you run two x850xt's or even two x850xtpe's in crossfire "yes they do that" but again, the cost of doing this is like buying one new 1950xtx