The X1650Pro 512 MB card has 12 pixel shaders, the X1950 Pro has 36 shaders and the X1900XT has 48 pixel shaders.
I read that the X1900XT can pop a 1% frame in about 7 minutes, or 700 minutes for a work unit. That calculates to a work unit every 12 hours.
I am getting 24:40 minutes per 1% frame. It is certainly slower than the X1900XT, at around 1/4 of the speed. That shows the direct impact of the pixel shaders.
I will run the card this weekend before I decide to return it for a faster card.
Pros: it runs just fine on a 300 watt power supply. No major reconfiguration required.
Thin, only takes one slot.
Came with 512 MB not 256 MB.
Cheaper and within budget.
Cons: It isn't the fastest card available.
For a hundred $ more I could have the fastest card available.
Still, for not much money I have easily tripled my production on this system, and thats before I start playing with overclocking.
prophetic, did your new video card ever come in? How is it working for you?
The addition of the X1650 Pro card to my system has worked out very well. While I do not see the massive earned points that one gets on an X1900XT, the X1650 is a very viable upgrade for any AGP system.
I am running on an AMD Sempron 3000+, not the fastest CPU out there. The video upgrade did make the system faster and simply much prettier to watch a DVD or flash movie.
I had all the problems and driver issues pretty well fixed within an hour. F@H fired right up, but it took the better part of a day before I quit fiddling with it.
F@H GPU seems to produce about 250 - 350 ppd. I also have a console CPU running which completes in just a little longer than it used to, so add another 100 ppd for that.
I can heartily recommend adding the X1650 to an older system that you don't want to spend a lot upgrading.
Well worth it if you can buy it below $160.