Verdict

Each time a new graphics card is released, the model number seems to get closer and closer to a car model number. However, this is the first time when looking for prices for a card that I could only find the prices for Golf, Alfa Romeo and Mustang cars. I personally find it particularly confusing as X1900 GT and 7900 GT seem to get mushed up in my mind in both audio and visual terms. A one may be six away from seven but the characters are all too similar for my liking – thank Jebus for the added X. It is rather apt then, that this sub £200 card is squarely aimed at competing with the 7900 GT.

The card tested here was supplied by Connect3D and as this was one of the first in the country it is just an ATI reference sample. This means there isn’t anything particularly Connect3D specific (such as overclocking) but it does still tell us what we need to know about stock performance. Interestingly, although briefed to me as an X1900 GT, on the back of the card it is called an X1900 GTO so we may well see both product names marketed.

In the ATI line up, the X1900 GT is designed to replace the X1800 XT. It is a slightly cut down version of the X1900 XT. Like the X1900 XT it has eight vertex shaders, but it has only 36 pixel shaders, compared to the 48 on the XT and XTX parts. This equates to only 12 pixel output engines, instead of the 16. Naturally, it has ATI’s ring bus memory architecture and improved efficiency over the X1800 series.

As you can see above, the cooler has changed somewhat from the previous single slot design. It’s actually considerably better too, without the annoying pitch changes we saw in the X1800 XL and X1800 GTO cards.

This card has 256MB of memory running at 600MHz (1200MHz effective) which is strange as the memory modules are the same 1.4ns Samsung parts that are on the nVidia 7600 GT and 7900 GT cards. These are technically rated to 715MHz despite only running at 600MHz, in fact on the nVidia cards we squeezed speeds as high as 915MHz out of them when overclocked – it’s always good to know that you’ve got some headroom to play with. The core is running at 575MHz, compared to the 625MHz of an XT.

Connect3D’s unique selling point is cheap prices and minimal bundles. No software is included, but you do get ViVo breakout cables, S-Video and composite cables, component output, DVI adapters and a Molex to 6-pin PCI-E connector.

The nVidia cards were tested on an Asus A8N32-SLI using an Athlon 64 FX60, 2GB of CMX1024-3500LLPRO RAM and a Seagate Barracuda ST340083A8 hard disk. Power was supplied by a Tagan 900W TG900-U95. For ATI testing, everything was kept the same except for the use of an Asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe and an Etasis 850W ET850.

All of the nVidia cards were tested using the official 84.21 ForceWare drivers. The X1800 GTO and the X1900 XTX were tested using the official Catalyst 6.3 drivers, while the X1900 GTO was tested using Catalyst 6.4.

Using our proprietary automated benchmarking suite, aptly dubbed “SpodeMark 3D”, I ran Call of Duty 2, Counter Strike: Source, Quake 4, Battlefield 2 and 3DMark 06. Bar 3DMark06, these all run using our in-house pre-recorded timedemos in the most intense sections of each game I could find. Each setting is run three times and the average is taken, for reproducible and accurate results. I ran each game test at 1,280 x 1,024, 1,600 x 1,200, 1,920 x 1,440 and 2,048 x 1,536 each at 0x FSAA with trilinear filtering, 2x FSAA with 4x AF and 4x FSAA with 8x AF.

In our graphs you will see results compared to the X1800 GTO, X1900 XTX and a 7900 GT.

Averaged across all the gaming benchmarks, the X1900 GT was 27 per cent faster than the X1800 GTO and interestingly the X1900 XTX was 30 per cent faster than the X1900 GT, so the card is very much in the middle of the two.

In 3DMark the X1900 GT scored almost identically to the 7900 GT, suggesting that ATI possibly used this is a point of reference. In most games though, on average the 7900 GT was 15 per cent ahead. However, in Battlefield 2 for instance, the X1900 GT was faster in everything especially when FSAA and AF were switched on.

In Quake 4 which traditionally favours nVidia ardware, the 7900 GT was 24 per cent ahead on average and as much as 33 per cent in places. At the lower resolutions, the CPU was the limiting factor so there was only a 13 per cent difference.

In Counter-Strike: Source, the 7900 GT was 15 per cent ahead in average, with a huge 38 per cent improvement at 2,048 x 1,536 with 4x FSAA and 8x AF. In ATI’s defence this is only 26.96 versus 19.48 – neither of which are close to representing a playable frame rate.

Call of Duty 2 showed a similar result to everything else, with the 7900 GT on average 27 per cent ahead. This was as high as 46 per cent in places. All of the frame rates were pretty low though and playing above 1,600 x 1,200 wouldn’t be recommended.

Overall, the 7900 GT is definitely faster but we all know there is more to buying a graphics card than speed. It’s good to see the cooler improvement on the ATI card making it very similar to the 7900 GT. Of the current ATI line up, this does seem to offer the best value for money and of course has the ability to run FSAA and HDR simultaneously.

This card can also be run in CrossFire, but as the master card has to be an X1900 XT you’ll be paying a lot more for your second card, and having to run it at X1900 GT speeds. In contrast, with SLI you can just buy another card a few months down the line (possibly even second hand)and upgrade performance. With CrossFire because you need a specific master card you pretty much have to decide to go CrossFire from day one, and that will probably mean you’ll be looking at an X1900 XT rather than a GT.

At £199.69, this is a good price and comes in cheaper than most 7900 GTs, but the performance isn’t quite there. But in the time it takes for Catalyst Control Center to load, you should be able to find a 7900 GT for similar money. Connect3D cards are usually pretty good value when it comes to ATI hardware, so other brands could well be more expesive than this one.