Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

x1900 vs 7900 (Fanboys welcome <3)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

7900GTX or x1900xtx?

Total: 123 votes

  • 7900GTX
  • 40 %
  • x1900xtx (or w/e best 1900 is)
  • 61 %
March 9, 2006 5:01:01 PM

Now I'll say this right up front: I'm an "nvidiot". I've never owned a single ATI video card in my life, and up until recently, never planned to.

However, after reading a lot of the benchmarks today, it seems that the 7900GTX hasn't entirely dethroned the 1900. Like stated in some other threads, the newer, shader heavy games show the 1900 coming out on top, where the older games, while extremely close, show the 7900GTX on top.

I have to make a decision on a card soon because my 6600GT is on the fritz, and my in-game FPS has been suffering as of late. I'm willing to spend about $500, maybe a little more.

Does it make sense to wait for these places to get the Superclocked EVGA GTX back in stock, or just pull the trigger on the 1900?

Which 1900 is best?
How well/easily does it Overclock?
Why would I stick with nvidia if the NEW stuff seems to work best with ATI?

The game I play the most is Counter-Strike Source (built on HL2 engine). I don't know why this decision is so hard for me to make, but I'd really like to get a new card soon. At this point, I'm willing to drop my fanboy ranking (sorry guys <3 youuu) to get a great card.

-Ryu

More about : x1900 7900 fanboys

Related resources
March 9, 2006 5:11:14 PM

As a GF 6800GT owner (but Radeon 9700 before that, a TNT (NV), Riva (NV), and Voodoo2 (3Dfx) before that) I would recommend if you don't need to upgrade now (i.e. no games are demanding you upgrade) I would say wait until fall. The current cards will be a lot cheaper and the DX10 GPU's will be here.

But if you cannot wait, I would suggest the X1900XT.

It leads in a number of modern games (Fear, BF2, CoD2) by significant margins--and for the most part the extra Pixel Shaders are not being utilized to their fullest either so it has HUGE upside. Further, the X1900XT has significantly better Dynamic Branching and Flow Control (300-400% better). So more shader power + better SM3.0 implimentation means in most situations it should perform better in the future. As it stands, with soft shadows enabled in FEAR the X1900XTX has a 60% lead over the 7900GTX @ 1600x1200 (61fps to 38fps). (Note that FEAR is a Nvidia TWIWMTBP partner).

The one caveat would be if you are a big id Software gamer. The 7900GTX does well in Quake 4, and it indicates there is a good chance that the 7900GTX could excell at Prey and Quake Wars: Enemy Territory.

It really is about the games. But if I was going to throw down $500 right now it would be for the X1900XT. It does fine in older games, but it should really strut its stuff in shader heavy games and SM3.0 games. And it has HQ AF and FP blending + MSAA support (not that it has the bandwidth for such...)

As a 6800GT owner I have a very hard time recommending the 7800 or 7900 series over an X1900.
March 9, 2006 5:20:28 PM

Hi man,

Well, I've owned both Ati and Nvidia cards (last card was a 6800 Ultra), and I can honestly say they are all great, when it comes down to it you can't go wrong with either as long as you know what you're paying and what you're getting.

So first off, if all you play is CS: Source... do you really need to upgrade? Heck, a 6600 GT or X800 GT should be able to handle that at relatively high resolutions just fine, even with AA & AF.

Wait for a game that comes out that you can't play to your satisfaction on your current hardware... then upgrade after seeing the benchmarks.

But if you want higher res & more AA & AF in CS, and you feel the need to pull the trigger now... well... right now, the future looks like it's heading in the direction of more shaders, and 48 shaders is alot of processing power.

If I had to make the choice between X1900 XTX and 7900 GTX, I think I'd go X1900 XTX. You can't really go wrong with either, but I have a feeling the X1900 will age better.


(On a side note, it looks like Nvidia still hasn't fixed the limitation of no OpenEXR HDR & AA at the same time in the 7900 series... that's a little dissapointing, especially since the 7900's are plenty powerful to do both at the same time if they could)
March 9, 2006 5:23:26 PM

You should create a poll to tally how many are in favor between each card. I pick 7900GTX 512. :D 
March 9, 2006 5:26:47 PM

Quote:
Hi man,

Well, I've owned both Ati and Nvidia cards (last card was a 6800 Ultra), and I can honestly say they are all great, when it comes down to it you can't go wrong with either as long as you know what you're paying and what you're getting.

So first off, if all you play is CS: Source... do you really need to upgrade? Heck, a 6600 GT or X800 GT should be able to handle that at relatively high resolutions just fine, even with AA & AF.

Wait for a game that comes out that you can't play to your satisfaction on your current hardware... then upgrade after seeing the benchmarks.

But if you want higher res & more AA & AF in CS, and you feel the need to pull the trigger now... well... right now, the future looks like it's heading in the direction of more shaders, and 48 shaders is alot of processing power.

If I had to make the choice between X1900 XTX and 7900 GTX, I think I'd go X1900 XTX. You can't really go wrong with either, but I have a feeling the X1900 will age better.


(On a side note, it looks like Nvidia still hasn't fixed the limitation of no OpenEXR HDR & AA at the same time in the 7900 series... that's a little dissapointing, especially since the 7900's are plenty powerful to do both at the same time if they could)

lol Trust me, the 6600GT leaves A LOT to be desired in CS:S. My frames constantly drop below 30 in firefights, and I have all the eyecandy turned WAY down.

Appreciate all the input so far. Anyone have any say on how easily/well the 1900s overclock? I was always a fan of the simple yet satisfying overclocking on the 6600GT.

-Ryu
March 9, 2006 5:38:54 PM

One of the advantages of the X1800/X1900 series is that you can control voltage (and even memory timings) in software with Atitool.

The X1800's and X1900's overclock like the dickens.

But the 7900's overclock well too, by the looks of it.
March 9, 2006 5:40:36 PM

Quote:
one thing HDR and AA, can the new card do that properly yet. nuke and militia are the 2 new maps which utilise(although i dont think as well as DOD) HDR and trust me, its a comp killer. with everything maxed i get 40-50's on militia so i would get the X1900XT cause it can handle the new source engine with the HDR enabled. all the maps which will be released from valve will be HDR enabled so it is a good investment for the future.


Valve's HDR method is shader based and can be done on any GPU; it does not require a GPU capable of MSAA and Floating Point blending capabilities.
March 9, 2006 5:46:50 PM

Oh noez... it looks like I might have been turned to the dark side (or light side, depends on your point of view).

Anyone have any numbers (core/mem) OC'd stable? I'd be interested to see how much extra people are extracting.

-Ryu
March 9, 2006 5:55:10 PM

For a single card configuration an X1900 XT would be better than a 7900GTX. A dual card solution is better with 7900GTXs in SLI, as was seen on Tomshardware, anandtech, and hardocp.
March 9, 2006 5:57:55 PM

ati's overclocker.exe is a bit buggy though, and relaxes the memory timings so much that 600 mhz memory with Atitool will outperform 700 Mhz memory with Ati's Overclocker.exe

Atitol is the way to go.
March 9, 2006 5:59:31 PM

Quote:
ye i noticed that. it might mean that all them whiners who say that dual gpu aint worth the performance gains will shut up


Everybody knows that dual GPUs perform better. But does that mean the performance increase is worth the $900 for two 7900 GTXs?

Hells, no.
March 9, 2006 6:02:37 PM

Quote:
ati's overclocker.exe is a bit buggy though, and relaxes the memory timings so much that 600 mhz memory with Atitool will outperform 700 Mhz memory with Ati's Overclocker.exe

Atitol is the way to go.

You seem like a knowledgeable fella... what's your opinion?

You know of any great OC's on the 1900?

-Ryu
March 9, 2006 6:17:49 PM

I vote NVIDIA and here's why. NVIDIA's latest definately fails to stomp the 1900xtx, they're very close in everything, anyway you slice it. However, the 7900 has so much less heat and power consumption than the x1900 series--it may just be worth it just to save on the electric bill :) 
March 9, 2006 6:35:43 PM

Oh man...

Decisions decisions lol.

What's the best 1900? XTX?

Also, I have no clue as to brand of card (ie Nvidia has PNY/EVGA etc.) Appreciate the help!

-Ryu
March 9, 2006 6:37:31 PM

Viperjohn got his up to 810 or so, but I think he's watercooling.

On good air cooling, with voltage increased, typically guys will get 700 to 750-ish on the X1900 core, give or take.
March 9, 2006 6:48:27 PM

Wow, big numbers.

-Ryu
March 9, 2006 7:30:19 PM

Quote:
I vote NVIDIA and here's why. NVIDIA's latest definately fails to stomp the 1900xtx, they're very close in everything, anyway you slice it. The 7900 has so much less heat and power consumption too.


Heat and power consumption are good points if they are important to your particular needs. Every consumer's needs are different and these are two important parts of the equation that definately can turn the tide.

But I do disagree the "very close in everything". I already explained my thoughts on how I look at the benchmarks, but to reitterate there is some serious stomping going on--it ain't close in all areas. We see is the ATI X1900XT(X) in shader heavy tasks and heavy dynamic branching dropping the 7900GTX like a bad habit. 60% performance difference in a shader heavy scenario (like FEAR with soft shadows) ain't close in my book and a 300%+ edge is heavy dynamic branching is going to make a big difference when we start seeing SM3.0 games.

I guess I will need to check back in 9-12 months. I remember how hard it was to explain to people NV30 had poor DX9 performance and people kept pointing to how the FX5800 rocked in DX8(.1) games. The 7900GTX is not a FX-disaster, but in terms of the difference in raw shading performance and in SM3.0 performance we are going to see a significant gap between these two GPUs over the next 12 months.

Not much of a fortune teller seeing as we already are seeing such in some games now. But it ain't may money ;) 

But performance is not everything as you noted. Every consumer needs are different.

But my vote was for the X1900. Anyone want to trade an X1900XT for my 6800GT with aftermarket Zalman cooler? It is quiet :D 
March 9, 2006 7:53:41 PM

Quote:

I guess I will need to check back in 9-12 months. I remember how hard it was to explain to people NV30 had poor DX9 performance and people kept pointing to how the FX5800 rocked in DX8(.1) games. The 7900GTX is not a FX-disaster, but in terms of the difference in raw shading performance and in SM3.0 performance we are going to see a significant gap between these two GPUs over the next 12 months.

Not much of a fortune teller seeing as we already are seeing such in some games now. But it ain't may money ;) 


EXACTLY.

Excellent post, sir.
a b U Graphics card
March 9, 2006 8:40:39 PM

Quote:

I guess I will need to check back in 9-12 months. I remember how hard it was to explain to people NV30 had poor DX9 performance and people kept pointing to how the FX5800 rocked in DX8(.1) games. The 7900GTX is not a FX-disaster, but in terms of the difference in raw shading performance and in SM3.0 performance we are going to see a significant gap between these two GPUs over the next 12 months.

Not much of a fortune teller seeing as we already are seeing such in some games now. But it ain't may money ;) 


EXACTLY.

Excellent post, sir.
I agree.


Also, I want IQ and the shimmering issues looked into more. [H] complained about major shimmer issues running driver defaults on the 7900's, and we have all heard of this with past cards at driver defaults. Get rid of the optimizations and the performance lacks. More info and comparisons would be nice.
March 9, 2006 9:50:52 PM

I am not going to disagree that the x1900xtx performs better in Sm3.0 games, but didn't we all see this coming with the 7900GTX? It was basicly supposed to be a G70 on 90nm with some optimizations, which is exactly what it is and it does its job well. I would surmise we will see nVidia's G80 really beef up the sm3.0 performance.

As it sits they are both damned fast cards, and if you intend to play fear I would definately say x1900xtx but along with that comes more power consumption and size. Lets not forget how freakishly large the x1900xtx is. the 7900GTX is smaller, cooler, lighter, and fits neatly in a smaller case. As pointed out before in SLI the 7900GTX's are as strong as the x1900xtx in crossfire and in fear it reduces the split to about 18% (ball parking it with mental math hehe) from the single card gap of 60%. Mind you also these %'s are at smaller frame rates so 5% at 30FPS obviously is less of a diffrence than 5% at 100FPS.

In the end: Props for ATI's monster 1 card solution, props to nvidia for the dual card solution and reduced size and power utilization.
March 9, 2006 10:10:06 PM

Quote:
I guess I will need to check back in 9-12 months. I remember how hard it was to explain to people NV30 had poor DX9 performance and people kept pointing to how the FX5800 rocked in DX8(.1) games. The 7900GTX is not a FX-disaster, but in terms of the difference in raw shading performance and in SM3.0 performance we are going to see a significant gap between these two GPUs over the next 12 months.

Not much of a fortune teller seeing as we already are seeing such in some games now. But it ain't may money


You couldn't have said it better. I'm still waiting but I think ATI will take my money this time.
March 9, 2006 10:35:21 PM

The 1900XT will do you justice I dumped my 7800GT for the 1900XT and glad I did plus great image quality.
March 9, 2006 11:53:26 PM

do what i do wait until you cant stand it anymore and splurge.
March 10, 2006 12:10:05 AM

I look at it like this:

I was planning on purchaseing a 7800GT for my build ( being purchased and assembled by me at the end of the month ). The 7900 series launches and is now just about the same price as the 7800GT series. The 7900GT I want is 15$ more then the 7800GT I first picked. The 7900GT beat the 7800GT by like 3000 3D05 marks in the 1024x768 4xAA 8XAF benchies. For the money the 7900GT is a good choice for me.

In this debate I would have to say go X1900XT over a 7900GTX. In the older games that arnt shader heavy the X1900XTX nips right at the heels of the 7900GTX. In games with softshadows and heavy shader usage the X1900XTX performs, in some cases, TWICE as well as the 7900GTX.

In the 1600x1200 FEAR softshadows with no AA and 16xAF the X1900XTX nearly doubles the 7900GTX FPS with respective scores of 61FPS and 38FPS.
March 10, 2006 12:30:04 AM

Very well said, I agree with you 100% SuperFly03.
March 10, 2006 12:31:17 AM

Quote:

As it sits they are both damned fast cards, and if you intend to play fear I would definately say x1900xtx but along with that comes more power consumption and size. Lets not forget how freakishly large the x1900xtx is. the 7900GTX is smaller, cooler, lighter, and fits neatly in a smaller case.
If you actually looked at the 7900GTX you'd see that it's every bit as big as the X1900 XT.
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2006 7:18:52 AM

Quote:
I am not going to disagree that the x1900xtx performs better in Sm3.0 games, but didn't we all see this coming with the 7900GTX? It was basicly supposed to be a G70 on 90nm with some optimizations, which is exactly what it is and it does its job well. I would surmise we will see nVidia's G80 really beef up the sm3.0 performance.


Why would you want beefed up SM3.0 performance, and not SM4.0/DX10, like has been expected? 'Good SM3.0 performance' would turn it into and FX-like part (a good DX8.1 part). Let's hope it's a good SM4.0/DX10 part instead, we sure don't neeed anymore FXs.

Quote:
Lets not forget how freakishly large the x1900xtx is. the 7900GTX is smaller,


No it's just as Freakishly large too, same cooler and size of the GF7800GTX-512;

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1817&pic_id=09

Which is just as big as the X1900XTX (or if anything with the HSF being longer the GF7900GTX would be BIGGER than the X1900XTX !);
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1792&pic_id=02

Do a little research first, eh! I'm sure you could find a review or two out there today. :roll:

Quote:
cooler,


While that's good in theory, the GF7900GTX empties half of it's exhaust air into your case while the X1900XTX exhaust air goes out the back of your rig. So cooler running is nice if it meant much higher OCs, which it doesn't, or a cooler case, which it doesn't.

Quote:
lighter,


Got anything to back that up, or is that assumption like the previous freakish mistake? Considering the considerable amount of metal on the GF7900's HSF you might have it backwards. Of course if you meant the chip itself is lighter, you are probably right based on die size.

Quote:
and fits neatly in a smaller case.


Nope, if anything would have a tougher time fitting into a smaller case than the XTX, whose HSF doesn't extend so far back. Recently I saw some crazy mod with an SFF case with the window removed and the HSF of the GTX-512 sticking outside the case. So yeah the GF7900GTX has SFF written all over it. :roll:

Quote:
As pointed out before in SLI the 7900GTX's are as strong as the x1900xtx in crossfire.


And just as before that's incorrect, clearly Crossfire still wins;
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7900_gt_gtx_performance/page18.asp

Who benches SLi/Xfire at 16x12 w/ 4XAA!?!
X1900Xfire has highest framerates at highest settings in all games tested and highest playable settings in all games tested.

Quote:
Props for ATI's monster 1 card solution,


And 2 card solution. Maybe nV can take the 4 card title.

Quote:
props to nvidia for the dual card solution


Dual card solution for low rez/setting gamers? Isn't that an OxyMORON?

Quote:
and reduced size and power utilization.


FINALLY you get something right! nV reduced the size of their chip by reducing the number of transistors required to do a better job than the GF7800 (that and a process shrink), which is truely remarkable. This helped them to reduce the power requirements, which is nice, but unfortunately still needs the added power connector just like the XTX, so it's utility is somewhat diminished compared to if they could've abanoned that. While 50-80W of power difference 'seems' to be a big difference, it would take 2-3 years of ~10hr/day gaming to make that difference equal about $20 at current electricity rates in my area (your mileage may vary). No THAT big a deal just on power consumption. Now PSU requirement is another thing, and requiring a less robust PSU would be a benifit, but for the recommended PSUs for these rigs neither system would be an issue, now for someone trying to extend the life of their OLD PSU that would be nice, if it weren't for the 6 pin PEG power connector issue. However every little bit helps for overall PC health.

In the end, I say it's a draw (too bad there's no poll choice for that), both have good and bad, especially if you take the effort to actually research them and find the facts and not the guesstimates.
March 10, 2006 11:27:28 AM

I never said there wouldn't be Dx10, nor did i say tehre would be, my point was that this chip wasn't redesigned ot handle the intense shader calculations in games like FEAR. ATi has the upper hand there and even in your link to the SLI benchies 7900GTX holds it own at up to 8xAA which is where I play at, most of the time I play at 4xAA so the face that ATI trumps nvidia as extreme AA settings doesn't matter. As for SLI, I still hold it to be the better solution. I like the chipset behind it with the 8+ SATA II conectors, nvfirewall, solid OC performance, and lack of external cabling, not to mention you don't have to bother with some master card.

I watercool my parts so where it dumps the exhaust from a fan doesn't matter to me; also SORRY for not examining every inch of the card before posting heaven forbid I call myself an expert.... oh wait I didn't. I was just posting my 2 cents about this card being an optimization of a G70 not a redesign lik the X1900XTX was.

Ok I will take to being wrong about the HS on the 7900GTX, I did look at it before posting and just got it wrong, such is life. And by the way thanks for coming down so hard on me, no it was fun being disrespected and corrected instead of just being corrected.
March 10, 2006 11:48:36 AM

Like you said new games with high load of shading proccessing show the 1900xtx as a leader that is due to the 48 shader units VS 24 of the nvidia
I say that X1900XTX is better than 7900gtx because it suports both HDR AND Antialising!!!! And it has AVIVO too. So in some time when the games become
more demanting in shading and rendering power the 7900GTX will stay behind and the x1900xtx will fly
March 10, 2006 12:27:51 PM

Doesn't the 7900GTX support HDR? (seriously just asking) I ask because Linage II released thier Chronicle 4 update and with that came HDR and I've been using it on my 7800 GTX's, so is that a software forced HDR or what?
March 10, 2006 12:35:45 PM

It supports HDR but without antialising the same time
March 10, 2006 12:37:12 PM

Ok, that explains it then. Ty
March 10, 2006 1:09:35 PM

I have both NVidia and ATI graphics solutions in my computers, but I voted for the ATI 1900 series because they seem to be a better single card graphics solution in most of the benchmarks. If you do end up buying a 1900 series card I'd go with Powercolor because I've heard (heard means I'm not 100% sure) they have lifetime warranties on their 1900 cards.

Peace :) 
March 10, 2006 1:21:27 PM

I think ATI is going to have the upper hand in DX10. I say this cuze the xbox 360 is based on[rumerd] DX10. ATI got a sweet deal on making that chip with all the ms info they wanted and the right to use it.
March 10, 2006 1:51:27 PM

Okay, well it looks like I'll be going 1900.

The XTX is the best of 'em all, correct?

Now which brand do you all recommend (cleeve... suggestion?)

-Ryu
March 10, 2006 2:19:20 PM

Well after researching a little bit more, it looks like it comes down to which brand has the best stock cooling....

This I haven't been able to determine as of yet. Any information you guys have would be appreciated :D 

-Ryu
March 10, 2006 2:26:56 PM

The 1900 XTX would be the fastest choice, and the brand I'd recommend is Powercolor because they have “lifetime” warranties.

Warranty
March 10, 2006 2:56:36 PM

My only suggestion nis to avoid the X1900 XTX like the plague and get an X1900 XT.

They are the EXACT SAME CARDS with a different BIOS that you pay and extra $100 for. Only 25mhz difference in clockspeeds. The chips aren't even speed-binned between the two, so there is really not a lick of difference.

Simple BIOS upgrade and , bang, your X1900 XT is an X1900 XTX...

Other than that, find the X1900 XT with the best cooling solution, like you said. Or just get the cheapest one you can find and add an Arctic-Cooling Accelero X2 to it... or wait for the KuFormula VF1 to come out in a month or two.
March 10, 2006 2:59:53 PM

Quote:
My only suggestion nis to avoid the X1900 XTX like the plague and get an X1900 XT.

They are the EXACT SAME CARDS with a different BIOS that you pay and extra $100 for. Only 25mhz difference in clockspeeds. The chips aren't even speed-binned between the two, so there is really not a lick of difference.

Simple BIOS upgrade and , bang, your X1900 is an X1900 XTX...

Other than that, find the X1900 XT with the best cooling solution, like you said. Or just get the cheapest one you can find and add an Arctic-Cooling Accelero X2 to it... or wait for the KuFormula VF1 to come out in a month or two.

Over on Rage3d they're arguing that the XTX overclocks better/higher/more stable higher up

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33843473&h...

I guess I could run it stock for a while and then upgrade the cooling before I OC.

-Ryu
March 10, 2006 3:50:19 PM

ATI x1900xtx.

I have used both ATI and NVIDIA, and right now i am using 6600gt. I really can't say i am having problems with it, it is probably the best card out there for me, only 100 bucks and agp, and i can play all the games i like with high settings. Thats why i bought it.

But I have seen that ATIs have better visual quality, games look so much better, and even if an nvidia card can outperform an ati card, ati card will age less, so you can use it more than you would an nvidia card. I think x1900xtx is worth the extra 50-100 dollars over 7900 gtx.

Plus ati drivers and software is lot better then drivers and any of the software bundled with nvidia cards.

Plus other people made their point about the shaders and dx and stuff, so i dont need to say more.
March 10, 2006 5:05:43 PM

That dude has no empirical evidence to back that up.

ATI has stated themselves that the GPUs are not speed binned. Then again, I can't find the link that stated that, so I have no impreical evidence, either.
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2006 8:56:28 PM

Quote:
I never said there wouldn't be Dx10, nor did i say tehre would be, my point was that this chip wasn't redesigned ot handle the intense shader calculations in games like FEAR.


And my point is that a card that won't hane a current game well until it's next generation isn't as impressive as a current card that handles next generation games. The FX was the former (similar to GF7800 in F.E.A.R. for your example), let's hope the G80 is the later (similar to the X1900 in F.E.A.R.)

Quote:
ATi has the upper hand there and even in your link to the SLI benchies 7900GTX holds it own at up to 8xAA which is where I play at


Holds it's own? You said it was a winner. Make up your mind and stop changing the goal posts because your team didn't score under those conditions. You set the rules (made the statements) I'm simply replying to them. When it comes to these discussions that's what I reply to, noticeable errors that others might go along with (case in point Bourgoisedude)

Quote:
most of the time I play at 4xAA so the face that ATI trumps nvidia as extreme AA settings doesn't matter


Except for they trump them at 4XAA too, and they can do it witth HDR as well, so trump #2.

Quote:
As for SLI, I still hold it to be the better solution.


Of course you do. In light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, alot of people think SLi is better simply because it gets 150fps at 1280x1024 - 1600x1200 w/4XAA whereas Xfire gets 144fps, of course when actually using it for the SLi and Xfire features, Xfire has highest playable. And when trying to say A > B like you were doing, that's what matters, not perception.

Quote:
I like the chipset behind it with the 8+ SATA II conectors,


So you're going on a hunting trip for excuses, let's watch.... SATA, I look for graphics performance from a graphics solution you need more SATA, think about a raid card, which is faster still.

Quote:
nvfirewall


Nortel firewall, once again better solution.

Quote:
solid OC performance,


Hmm, and yet the Xpress boards were equal or better overclockers even to 'nv-favourale sites' like Anand. Of course hey they are mature boards so I'll grant you OC just based on that.

Quote:
and lack of external cabling,


What external cables? The Xfire dongle? I'd rather hanve something outside my case than inside it, but when both move to bridgeless/dongle-less that'd be nice.

Quote:
not to mention you don't have to bother with some master card
.

Well just like nV's identical (not just matching) card requirement, that too will change.

Quote:
I watercool my parts so where it dumps the exhaust from a fan doesn't matter to me;


So for 10% or less of the marke that uses exotic cooling, and then the less than 15% of the market that replaces their HSF, that 1/4 of the overall GTX market won't feel the pinch we're talking about. But even then it would be adding strain to your system and it would depend on the effectiveness of your cooling system overall, if the GF7900 can't overclock more as a result of being cooler, it's only a concern for systems on the edge of efficiency or if you're worried about worming up your office/computer room, in which case the X1900 will add heat to a cold room (good) or to a warm room (bad).

Quote:
also SORRY for not examining every inch of the card before posting heaven forbid I call myself an expert.... oh wait I didn't.


Never, thought you were an expert, otherwise I would've been tougher on you if you were pretending to be one. However you posted something with strong adjectives to reinforce your point with authotiry, when in fact it just drew attention to your FREAKISH mistakes. I was simply pointing out those mistakes with the same style, which seems about right. Learn to deal dude, you were wrong, admit it and move on.

Quote:
I was just posting my 2 cents about this card being an optimization of a G70 not a redesign lik the X1900XTX was.


The G70 is just as much of a redesign as the X1900XTX, what do you think an 'optimization' is. Both are refresh products, neither is as revolutionary as their predecessors.

Quote:
Ok I will take to being wrong about the HS on the 7900GTX, I did look at it before posting and just got it wrong, such is life.


But not the only thing that was erroneous in your post, of course it was the easiest to demonstrate with a few links, just be happy I didn't put the Freakish images right in the page, now that would've been rubbing it in. :tongue:

Quote:
And by the way thanks for coming down so hard on me, no it was fun being disrespected and corrected instead of just being corrected.


Glad you got enjoyment out of it, actually to me it was far from as much fun as the hockey game 2 hours before, but hey you know it was soo easy that I didn't really get that much enjoyement out of it. Of course I could've come down on you harder and called you names, like is expected in a fanboi thread, but I thought I'd try to stick to the facts. If the truth hurts, then that's something to consider.

And seriously dude, being disrespectful would be asking you now if you'll be ok, or do you need a hug?
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2006 9:24:23 PM

Quote:
Like you said new games with high load of shading proccessing show the 1900xtx as a leader that is due to the 48 shader units VS 24 of the nvidia


Well it really depends on how you count them. And this is the tough part, technically both the X1900 and GF7800/7900 have 48 full featured ALUs, but in addition the X1900 has what are being called mini-ALUs.
For the general discuission though it's 48 vs 48.
March 10, 2006 10:18:58 PM

Quote:

What external cables? The Xfire dongle? I'd rather hanve something outside my case than inside it, but when both move to bridgeless/dongle-less that'd be nice.
Both setups are fine in my opinion, but the bridge is a little bit nicer.
This way I have the ability to use 4 monitors with the left click of a mouse. :lol: 
March 10, 2006 10:23:44 PM

Ok so i'm streching it with the refrence to SATA II, I know. The fact of the matter is I'm bitter at ATI for thier prior paper launches esp the X800XTPE. I will say Nvidia isn't perfect, but they have had a solid record since the 6800 launch (lets not discuss the 7800 GTX 512 lol). As of late ATI has done much better, no doubt. I just want to see a solid couple of launches from ATI before I toss them back into the bin. Furthermore eVGA only makes Nvidia cards (as far as I know) and thier step it up program (or whatever they call it) is really nice, it lasted me just longe enough to get the 7900GTX, I think i was on day 83ish of the 90 window 8O

Granted you didn't call names, which is appreciated. But what is this Nortel Firewall? I assume you meant Norton, and I do run Norton as well. Nvidia provides some nice tools to tweak the gigabit adapter is my reasoning there.

Bridgeless dual GPU solutions would be nice, but I don't see that happening that soon unless they can lay down more PCI Express lanes. Maximum PC had a small editor column that compared SLI w/bridge and w/o and it dropped a good 10-12% (if i remember correctly), so we will have to wait and see.

What do you mean by identical? if your refering to the old requirements of identical bios, then that limitation is gone; however, if your referring to the GPU"s having to be the same type (i.e. 7900GT and 7900GT) then yes that is still a limitation, Point for CF.

Granted most of the world doesn't cool thier computer the way I do, but since I do I just ignore the HS all together.

As for the redesign, didn't the x1900xtx double the shaders of the x1800xt? or was it just a 50% increase? in either case I thought ATI added some new "Stuff": like that to the card whereas nVidia just shrunk the die size and optimized flow.

I can be wrong... don't like to but it happens, thats how I get to right lol :) 

Damn Canadians can sure make graphics cards :lol: 
March 10, 2006 10:26:41 PM

Quote:
MadModMike is in denial


LOL
!