All ATi has done for months is try beating nvidia's leading model rather then spend the time designing a chip properly, there about to (if nvidia makes another leading card) loose there third series.

If you ask me Nvidia has spent the many months while nvidia's 7800 was out designing an even quicker card waiting for something from ATi - what else has nvidia done for the last months - the GTX512 is just a G70 supporting 512mb and thats not much time and effort.

http://www.nforcershq.com/article5142.html - Some Nvidia GeForce 7900 specs for anyone wondering.
 

agent14

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
42
0
18,530
Between the ATI 1900 and Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB it would make more sense to get the Geforce IMO. Paying at least $150 more for a small performance difference isn't worth it. But the ATI 1900 seems to be more worthwhile between the itself and 7900. Considering that the Nvidia was running on a faster processor and still got less FPSs it shows ATI has something good going on. Out of them all the 7800 is the one I'm going to get... at least for now.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4346
 

pauldh

Illustrious
Hey all, just stop and take a look at the benchies a little.

Fear 1600x1200 4XAA:
7800GTX 256MB: 25 fps
X1900XT 512MB: 45 fps

That's an 80% increase in performance in a GPU intesive test. I fully agree that they should have pitted it up against the GTX 512MB, so I won't even look at COD2 where the amount of RAM makes a big difference. But also note, this is the X1900XT, and not the faster clocked XTX. More real reviews should be out next week, so we'll know soon enough how it competes with GTX 512MB.
 

Rabidpeanut

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2005
922
0
18,980
That kind of performance is the kind i dream of. I hate africa

But just think, if it does really suck then it should be cheap. I'm all for that.
 
"the GTX512 is just a G70 supporting 512mb and thats not much time and effort. "

Although with faster core speeds, and much faster RAM (1700-1800 effective)!


The GTX512 variants should have been called Ultras!
 
"Fear 1600x1200 4XAA:
7800GTX 256MB: 25 fps
X1900XT 512MB: 45 fps "

A recent test of the GTX512 showed 39 fps in FEAR at these settings, so besting a GTX512 by 15% is hardly peanuts...and this is supposedly just the Xt, not the XTX? I'm impressed...

(Now if they can just sell them for under $500, I'd buy it!)

:)

My 7800GT just keeps sliding further and further down the performance charts! :-(
 

RX8

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2004
848
0
18,980
NO WAY AM I EMPRESSED, takes bigger FPS to empress me.

its always going to be catch up with ATI. hahahahahahaha :twisted:
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Here's a graph I made.

The BF2 scores were really close, but BF2 is a RAM limited game, and is a little strange when it comes to graphics cards, so I concentrated on FEAR and COD2:

x1900_7800gtx.gif


This is actually pretty damn impressive: remember, this isn't the top-of-the-line X1900 XTX - it's the lower XT model... which will be the direct competitor to the 7800 GTX 256 when it's released...

Quite impressive indeed. Hope it lowers the prices of the X1800's...
 

RichPLS

Champion
7800GTX's are still scarce and $700+, months after release.
Why release a new card if you can not supply the current ones, unless something is wrong with it making it un-profitable to produce? (at $750 per card or more, hardly) So, in a month or two, they will announce a new card...on paper, and you can get one in what, another couple months.


I got a retail HiSX1800XT (700mhz/1500mhz) over a month ago for $549, now they are around $500. Kick ass card, btw.

ATI will have the 1900's in 4 days, for real, paper and retail.
I imagine if you are thrifty, you can find it for under $600 at launch or within a week to wait for price to settle.
 
"hmm now the question for me is
get the x1900XTX and & crossfire
"

The Crossfire XT card runs at the XT's clock rates, so an XTX for the 2nd card might be kind of a waste...presumably it will run clocked at the same, lower speed of the XT..
 

raven_87

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2005
1,756
0
19,780
Although impressive, I believe some final driver optimizations will definetly bring up preformance levels.

I also belief ATI hasnt "lost" at all. Yes, they've given some market share to Nvidia, since the 7800 series..History...look at the FX series when compared to the R3xx *shudders* I took an X800pro instead of a 6800GT. Why? I wanted to use a smaller form factor (MATX)
I knew my Raidmax 420watt supply would have no problem with
the X wattage requirements and I also realized (in 2004) that no game
for the next 3 years would exclusively utilize SM3.0. I upgrade my GPU
every 2 years or so, unless I really have the money for refresh lines.
So the X8xx vs the 68xx was a good match up - a draw IMHO

Both companies have had their hicups. To me though, its more about product features opposed to FPS. Although a big thing yes, but when an X1800XL does 52FPS in games that support HDR, and I can finally run that while using FSAA (something NV cant do) whilst the 7800GT cant run both simultainiously, but is getting 58FPS...I'll take the features thanks.

The 7800Ultra, yes a very amazing card...unfortunately ATi had no response with the exception of allowing their board manufactorers to factory overclock their cards. I think 2006 is a good year for ATi to shine. I really dont buy hype, and I'll see the figures for myself when both cards hit market. I personally (and seeming to be the rest of the market) are now concerned with Price/Preformance, as high end cards are now hitting over $700...some of us just dont have that cash.
 

RichPLS

Champion
but then crossfire requires crossfire motherboard
hmm maybe ill stick with SLI then
get 2 7800 512's

ahh, yes for two cards, but a single crossfire/crossfire ready card works in any PCI-e board.
SLI only works in SLI boards too.

But I really see no need in SLI or Crossfire, except for extravagence and bragging rights, and the occasion where you buy a low end affordable card, and in 6 months the mate is only around $150 to add for CF or SLI.
I mean, $500 cards like the X1800XT perform all todays games at max quality fluidly, and in a couple years when gaming steps up a notch, they will still run them at high quality, and if you need the greatest, spend another $500 on the newest fastest single card then, and you will once again have the newest and best being able to play any game at max quality you want for a few more years.
 

ColdBreeze

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
21
0
18,510
I think the best way to go with all these new Over-$600 Video Cards coming out is to get either a CF or SLI of lower-end and it will equal or beat a single card solution of a higher-end. My SLI of 2 6800GS's is on par or beats a 7800GTX 256 in most instances, and I've seen it best a GTX512 in 1 benchmark (can't remember which). I merely paid $390 for my GS's and they perform to the level of these $500, $600 cards. The best thing to do is get 2 x1800XL's in CF or 2 7800GT's in SLI and you're set for at least a year or 2 and by that time you'll be able to get the next latest-greatest thing.

When Multi-Core Gaming arrives, the load won't even be so much on the GPU anymore, being Phsyics and A.I. are being taken away from the CPU with the Ageia PhysX and that new A.I. card some company's working on, thus providing a Multi-Core CPU with the game written for Multi-Core to not require such a $600 GPU to run good. Benches on Multi-Core performance on Quake 4 alone show frames jumping from 60-80 to 120-140 using Dual-Core. My SLI of GS's for $390 plays COD2, FEAR, BF2, Quake 4, etc. with very high settings just fine, better than most single card solutions, and I say this being that it's cheaper by $60 at least.

So I say save the $ on these $1200 SLI/CF solutions and buy a fast Multi-Core CPU and a cheap SLI solution, and you'll be right up there with the big boys in performance (Until somebody buy's an FX-60 and 2 GTX512's:( )
 

raven_87

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2005
1,756
0
19,780
Incorrect...correct :lol:

There are benchies (need to find them) of an X1800XT @ 725/1700mhz
that (forced custom res) 1600x1200 max settings and achieve a constant (average) 30FPS.

I think those were the clock speeds, I'll see if I can find the article.

EDIT:

The thing about these physics cards, although a great idea.
Dual core or Multi would make them obsolete. Especially when games
start to become multi-threaded. With one execution on the game architecture and the other on the physics and A.I...Those add in cards better be reasonably priced and marketed quickly to single CPU systems.