One big Q,does the x1650 accelerate h.264 at 1080p?
or does it still have limitation like x1600?
I suggest xbit include HD video playback also as a part of the benches..

Something's odd about the Call of Duty 2 benchmarks. Why does performance increase, as 4x antialiasing is enabled, on the X16x0 cards, in 1280x1024?

Do you think the use of an older/slower base platform is skewing your results about "playability" with any one one card at all? It could be that your minimum frames are largely CPU related.

Or I could be wrong. But it would be interesting to see a higher end AMD/Intel platform choice tested. It wouldn't take much to meet that criteria.

There is something more than a little misleading in the recent reviews. The statement, on the 'Pacific Fighters' page:

"Radeon X1000 series cards do not support vertex texturing, so they can’t use the appropriate technology to render the water surface with the highest quality in this game"

As it happens, this is no longer needed. When setting "perfect" water in the game with the latest patch (at least 4.04m), no .ini file tweaking is needed and both ATI and nVidia render the water the same.

Similarly, as a flight sim (long horizons to texture out to), nVidia's aniso texture filtering cheating on the 7-series cards results in an ENORMOUS performance boost. If you want to see more realistic numbers for this title, check out FiringSquad (who disable optimizations for both cards to max out image quality):

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_x1950_pro_agp_ ultimate_review/page9.asp

Interesting how the results are completely the opposite of what we see above, huh?

Does this fit in a HP Pavilion a1120n?

Well, im looking at a computer just trying to figure out which graphics are better - > Which one? Im looking for some nice performance with high end games.

*This ATI Radeon X1650 PCI-E 16X AddOn (256MB)

*This NVIDIA GeForce6100, NVIDIA nForce430 MCP