Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7900GTX or 1900XTX

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 14, 2006 4:55:34 AM

I don't know wich is better I have heard that the 7900GTX is faster but this is fuc**ng confusing. Wich is better SLI or Crossfire

More about : 7900gtx 1900xtx

April 14, 2006 5:38:52 AM

They are exacly the same.
Go with your feeling.
April 14, 2006 5:39:14 AM

they perform pretty much the same

If i were to choose i would go with the 7900 gtx as i favour the nvidia drivers more
Related resources
April 14, 2006 6:36:42 AM

Quote:
I don't know wich is better I have heard that the 7900GTX is faster but this is fuc**ng confusing. Wich is better SLI or Crossfire



ATI usually performs better in D3D and is pretty much windoze only.

nVidia usually performs better in OpenGL and has better drivers in windoze, Linux, *BSD, etc.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/09/ati_and_nvidias_...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/09/ati_and_nvidias_...

Make sure you take benchmarks with a grain of salt.
April 14, 2006 6:58:08 AM

SLI usually performs better than Crossfire due to it's age, but X1900s are good cards too.
April 14, 2006 8:26:21 AM

LOL are you serious?
April 14, 2006 12:08:03 PM

Quote:
SLI usually performs better than Crossfire due to it's age, but X1900s are good cards too.

Exactly. SLI is most established and usually performs better. But it also depends on the card. SLI 7900GTX will win some benchmakrs, and Crssfire X1900 will win some benchmarks.


Heyyou27 and prozac are absolutely correct. SLI is usually more stable and more mature.

In the benchmarks they each win some and lose some.

nVidia is usually better in OpenGL and ATI is normally better in D3D.

For operating systems other than windoze, nVidia is a much better choice.
April 14, 2006 4:27:54 PM

We understand that Nvidia partners are still not that happy with the volumes of the available Geforce 7900 GTX and GT cards in Europe. This is the general feeling at this weeks Nvidia's Prague partner gathering.
We don’t know what the problem is, but it seems that Nvidia cannot print enough G71 based chips. We know that many partners have a huge queue of back orders and some of them already have a few hundreds or even more pre-ordered cards they want to ship.

It doesn’t appear that the situation will be fixed soon...
The Inquirer

Could be nVidia is having problems with the chips running that high passing for manufacture thus making them harder to produce enough for market.
They had similar problems with the 7800GTX and apparently still do.

I would go with the X1900XT for its respectable blazing speed and high quality HDR/AA imaging along with being AVIVO enabled.
April 14, 2006 5:02:39 PM

The best thing you can do sir, is google some benchmarks and make up your own mind.

Benchmarks have no brand loyalty, for the most part. Both will win their share of benchmarks.
April 14, 2006 8:39:42 PM

First up...you'd have to be nuts to go with either SLI or XF, but SLI is the best...more stable and mature{ATI could become the best within 14 months or so, but Nvidia are the dual card king right now!!}.....consider that to get any value over a 1900XT{the current price/power champ}, you'd need either 2 1900XT's or 2 7900GTX's, and that's nutsoid from a value POV, but damn exciting, LOL.

If you went 7900GT SLI, you'd be about 25-30% faster than a 1900XT, but you'd have to pay heaps more for it, and then the next refresh might pawn your ass!

SLI/XF is only for very hi-res LCD gaming, ie, beyond 16x1200, but of course, as soon as game comes out and knocks you out of native, then you'll have to do 2 x 800GTX to keep up.....a very expensive hobby, especially considering how bad most games are lately.

So, the 1900XTX is the fastest card overall{all benchmarks will confirm this}, and the good news is that it rocks in both FEAR and Q4{both extremely demanding when IQ cranked}, but it's the 1900XT that represents the value at the high end.

Warning...don't buy an oclocked Nvidia, or any card for that matter.
April 14, 2006 9:48:30 PM

Quote:

So, the 1900XTX is the fastest card overall{all benchmarks will confirm this}, and the good news is that it rocks in both FEAR and Q4{both extremely demanding when IQ cranked}, but it's the 1900XT that represents the value at the high end.

Warning...don't buy an oclocked Nvidia, or any card for that matter.


The first quoted statement doesn't exactly hold up: FEAR Benchmarks, Q4 Benchmarks.

Secondly, the 7900GT offers comparable performance for about $100 less. You could bump your video card spending up about $60 and get a 7900GTX over a 1900XT though, and the performance jump is quite worth the price differential.

Thirdly, I have a factory overclocked 7800GT. No problems. I have 4 other friends with factory overclocked cards from BFG, XFX, and eVGA (mine), and none have any issues whatsoever.
April 14, 2006 10:02:33 PM

The 1900XTX is the fastest in Fear, and is the fastest card overall......let's see you refute that with something exact.

I like the 7900GT, but it depends on how the 1800GTO fairs and it's price, but let's keep it real, the 1900XT pawns a 7900GT any day.
As for your oclocked cards, I couldn't care less....I don't oclock anything and never have any stability issues, unlike the recent batch of 7900GTX's.
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2006 11:20:05 PM

The 1900 series are great single card solutions....

But I wouldn't call a 1-2 fps deficit on the part of a 7900GTX "dismal" either! :-)

(Take a close look at crossfire vs 7900 SLI performance)

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bfg_geforce_7900_gt...

And these were with older Nvidia drivers, as Nvidia got a nice driver boost in FEAR a few weeks back (example: 7800GT boosted from 56 fps to 63 fps)
April 15, 2006 4:10:48 AM

I haven't lied or exaggerated....like you have....but it's obvious you're a Nvidia fannyboy.
April 15, 2006 4:28:10 AM

You're an ATI fanboy if you’re not willing to admit SLI usually performs better, due to its maturity.
April 15, 2006 4:31:46 AM

Quote:
The 1900XTX is the fastest in Fear, and is the fastest card overall......let's see you refute that with something exact.


I linked you some solid evidence showing that in both Fear and Quake 4 the cards are nearly equal, depending on resolution.

Quote:
I like the 7900GT, but it depends on how the 1800GTO fairs and it's price, but let's keep it real, the 1900XT pawns a 7900GT any day.


I never disagreed about the 1900XT pwning the 7900GT. The 1900XT has 512 mb of memory, and is just a better card overall. However, it costs $100 more, so the two can't be compared in a price/performance ratio category.

Quote:

As for your oclocked cards, I couldn't care less....I don't oclock anything and never have any stability issues, unlike the recent batch of 7900GTX's.


Coincidentally, I would hope that you don't experience stability issues. If you do, and your cards aren't overclocked, there's something wrong. I've used the 7900GTX in two past builds and not had issues (specifically the XFX models). Must just be bad cards.

Unfortunately for nVidia, ATI is going to hold higher sales due to a better availability of cards. nVidia's new 90nm technology will hopefully make all graphics solutions from this point forward much better, especially going into 80nm and beyond.

As far as the "fannyboy" accusation.. I don't consider myself an nVidia fanboy. I just don't like ATI too much, due to a few personal experiences. For those of you who love your ATI cards, great. I just choose not to buy ATI.

Also, I did provide something somewhat concrete as to your flat argument that the 1900XTX is "the fastest card overall". I still haven't seen anything you've posted back your claim up.
April 15, 2006 5:17:42 AM

Quote:
You're an ATI fanboy if you’re not willing to admit SLI usually performs better, due to its maturity.


Quote:
but SLI is the best...more stable and mature


See the above statement....I MADE IT IN THIS THREAD.
April 15, 2006 5:34:18 AM

Quote:
So, the new flagship product from Nvidia looks competitive enough, even though it has not become an indisputable performance leader. It’s now up to Nvidia to satisfy the demand for this highly appealing graphics card which is going to be high, considering the price tag. We hope the GeForce 7900 GTX will not repeat the fate of the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 and will come to market in mass quantities very soon.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7...

Based on our conversations with some of NVIDIA’s board partners though, they’ve got some pretty aggressive plans for ratcheting up the stock speeds of the GeForce 7900 GTX on their overclocked line of boards. Perhaps one of these boards may manage to grab a few of the benchmarks that the X1900 XTX holds today

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7900...


Jaffe

Your initial response to me was a pathetic attempt to favour Nvidia, and FYI, only a fool would judge a high end card on anything other than 16x12 and above, and ATI is consistently the top dog in games overall....especially as OPGL isn't dominant.

I'm simply pointing out the truth that atm, ATI have the best high end card, ie, the 1900XT, fast, affordable and available, not to mention all websites consider it's pixel shaders to offer some degree of future proofing, and also that overall the 1900XTX is the fastest card.

I favour SLI over XF, although I'm not a fan of the tech based primarily on a value for money criteria, I think the 6800GS, 7600GT are good cards, but it looks like the 1800GTO, 1900XT, 1900XTX are the mid-high end champs.
April 15, 2006 6:43:02 AM

we have heard and see lots of benchmarks about 7900 vs x1900 and sli vs xf. but is there actually a benchmark on single card set-up motherboards? i mean, if i were to buy x1900 (not planning on dual-card, so theres no need for xf), what motherboard is best?

1. is sli based mb is better than xf based even if im using x1900?
2. for mb, the more important factor is actually amd architecture vs intel. when combined with the graphic card. which one is better? if suppose im going to use amd processor, and a nvidia card using a xf supporting mb, will it going to perform well?
3. what about the card maker? as far as i know, the best nvidia maker would be BFG that supports factory overclocked cards. and for ATI i would say Sapphire. But is that correct? or is there any other opinions?

im going to buy a new computer also in two months. for the moment, here's my spec:

MB: Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4
CPU: Athlon64 X2 4800
Memory: Corsair DDR SDRAM PC3200 1GB×2 TWINX2048-3200C2
VGA: X1900XTX

I'm pretty confused with the Mobo though, is it better using Asus A8N32-SLI or A8R-MVP (xf)?

thanks for all the help.
April 15, 2006 6:41:10 PM

Quote:


Jaffe

Your initial response to me was a pathetic attempt to favour Nvidia, and FYI, only a fool would judge a high end card on anything other than 16x12 and above, and ATI is consistently the top dog in games overall....especially as OPGL isn't dominant.

I'm simply pointing out the truth that atm, ATI have the best high end card, ie, the 1900XT, fast, affordable and available, not to mention all websites consider it's pixel shaders to offer some degree of future proofing, and also that overall the 1900XTX is the fastest card.

I favour SLI over XF, although I'm not a fan of the tech based primarily on a value for money criteria, I think the 6800GS, 7600GT are good cards, but it looks like the 1800GTO, 1900XT, 1900XTX are the mid-high end champs.


I'm surprised that I've in some way offended you. The premise of my argument is that you cannot in any way shape or form dub one card "the leader" when they're within 5 frames of eachother on each test, one way or the other. Period. I'm not saying the 7900GTX is the leader, I'm not saying the 1900XTX is the leader. I'm simply saying that you can't dub one or the other "the crown" so to speak.

Unfortunately for you, you still don't see my argument regarding the X1900XT. $430 is not affordable to most people, so you cannot deem it as such. $330 is within reach of more people, and nVidia is offering comparable performance with their 7900GT for $100 under ATI's price. The two CANNOT be compared. If they were within $50 of eachother, maybe. But $100 is a big budget difference when contrasting PC components.

As far as your statement concerning ATI's future proofing.. well, both companies are obviously futureproofing. However, the jump from 110nm to 90nm is very significant to the advancement of technology and the quality of the cards both companies are putting on the market.

Now, on to actually help someone.

Punkouter:
As far as single card setups, it's all about personal preference, really. I prefer AMD/nVidia for a few reasons. nVidia's nForce4 chipset (and all its variations) is currently the most popular chipset for gaming motherboards. More gamers, as I've seen from my personal experience, choose the AMD/nVidia combination. SLI is more efficient than Crossfire at the moment, so many think that the nForce4 chipset is more efficient than ATI Xpress chipsets. There are various other reasons you could use to back up either ATI/nVidia or AMD/intel, but currently I feel that your best bet is AMD/nVidia. That's just me though.
April 15, 2006 7:39:16 PM

Jaffee.

The problem between us is that you tried to contradict/undermine everything I said, and all for Nvidia's benefit, and you've even admitted to favouring Nvidia for undisclosed personal reasons, as such, I merely pointed out to you that your reasoning was biased and effectively had little merit relative to what I said.

The 7900GT was a great card for a few weeks, but now is under threat by the much cheaper 1800GTO, having said that, the 7900GT is faster....however, atm there are 3 high end cards, and the 1900XT is the only rational choice....fast, affordable, available.

I couldn't care less about how much someone earns or their psychological PC/GPU budget, all I care about is offering advice that conforms to reason, and I don't care to have blatant Nvidia fannyboi's running off at the mouth.

FYI, I'm not suggesting you're uninformed/dumb, but I am suggesting you're a Nvidiot, and I can't stand them.
April 15, 2006 7:50:10 PM

flip a coin 10 time and which ever wins go with that
April 15, 2006 7:50:32 PM

Quote:
we have heard and see lots of benchmarks about 7900 vs x1900 and sli vs xf. but is there actually a benchmark on single card set-up motherboards? i mean, if i were to buy x1900 (not planning on dual-card, so theres no need for xf), what motherboard is best?

p.


If no SLI, then still get a NF4 based mobo{I have ASUS A8N-E and it's perfect for a single card, extremely stable}.......do not get a ATI mobo, but have no fear in adding a ATI GPU to your NF4 mobo{I have a Saphire X800GT}.

Also, if you buy one of the big dollar mobo's{Premium/deluxe}, you'll have to get high speed ram to match the memory timings.....so a A8N-E or entry level SLI board will do, unless you're planning on adding fast ram.

Don't forget, it would be totally nutsoid to get a 1900XT{great card}, and not get 2 gig of ram as the IQ modes chug ram, also, Vista is a ram hog by the sound of it, so go 2 gig 2 x 1 straight up.

The GPU and ram is more important than superdooper CPU grunt, so anything fast as or faster than a AMD 3500 will do.
Get a 550w PSU if you buy 1900XT.
April 15, 2006 8:05:26 PM

Quote:
Jaffee.

The problem between us is that you tried to contradict/undermine everything I said, and all for Nvidia's benefit, and you've even admitted to favouring Nvidia for undisclosed personal reasons, as such, I merely pointed out to you that your reasoning was biased and effectively had little merit relative to what I said.

The 7900GT was a great card for a few weeks, but now is under threat by the much cheaper 1800GTO, having said that, the 7900GT is faster....however, atm there are 3 high end cards, and the 1900XT is the only rational choice....fast, affordable, available.

I couldn't care less about how much someone earns or their psychological PC/GPU budget, all I care about is offering advice that conforms to reason, and I don't care to have blatant Nvidia fannyboi's running off at the mouth.

FYI, I'm not suggesting you're uninformed/dumb, but I am suggesting you're a Nvidiot, and I can't stand them.


It's unfortunate that you feel this way when all you need to do is look at your own posts and my replies to see that all you were doing was nVidia bashing, and I, being even handed as I am, decided to put up a stand in nVidia's defense. Period. End of story.

I'm sorry to hear that you somehow hate an entire company and decide to call the consumers that it attracts "nVidiots".. rather uncouth, in my opinion, and I believe that statement undermines all your arguments thusforth more than anything. It clearly shows that you are ATI-biased in your approach.

As for my "undisclosed reason" for not purchasing ATI products.. it all stems from constant problems with their products. I recieved 3 dead cards in a row. When replaced with a different ATI card, the PC I was trying to boot worked fine. However, as the working card was not mine, I asked for a refund from the retailer, received it, and purchased an nVidia card at the suggestion of mulitple friends in my area. I did, and I haven't gone back to ATI, and I don't plan to unless nVidia gives me trouble. There, now my reasoning is disclosed. Happy?
April 15, 2006 8:52:37 PM

Quote:
[ It's unfortunate that you feel this way when all you need to do is look at your own posts and my replies to see that all you were doing was nVidia bashing, and I, being even handed as I am, decided to put up a stand in nVidia's defense. Period. End of story.

I'm sorry to hear that you somehow hate an entire company and decide to call the consumers that it attracts "nVidiots".. rather uncouth, in my opinion, and I believe that statement undermines all your arguments thusforth more than anything. It clearly shows that you are ATI-biased in your approach.

?


Chump....I've stuck up for NF4, SLI, 6800GS, 7600GT, 7900GT, and I'm not anti the 7900GTX, nor the 6800GT 256, so stop making a complete goose of yourself......it's time for you to quietly disappear from this thread as any more bullshit will only further highlight your blatant Nvidia bias.....also you've decided to exaggerate again and ass-ume I think all Nvidia fans are Nvidiots, when the truth is that I accused only you, and only those that are irrationally attached to a brand rather than some ratio of quality and performance.

It's a lovely sounding fantasy world you're living in, but I prefer the cold hard facts, ......something you've shunned in favour of fanboism,......congratulations, you're now a message board superhero prone to exaggeration and product propaganda :roll:
April 15, 2006 9:09:56 PM

I think that we can all agree that the X1900XTX and 7900GTX are very close in terms of speed.

Regardless of which one you choose they will be able to play most games at very similar framerates.

However if we look at the features, the fact that ATI's X1k series can do both HDR and Anti-Aliasing at the same time, IMO gives the card the upper hand of being the better of the two.

Just about every new game coming out these days supports HDR, and Nvidia users have to make the painstaking decision of Smooth Edges versus very realisitic lighting.

Since ATI can do both together, it makes it the only card that can truely run a game at maximum settings.

Nvidia jowever does have the advantage of a better dual card solutuion, so I would reccomend that to anyone who plans on running games at ungodly resolutions on a 30 inch monitor.
April 15, 2006 10:06:35 PM

ATI also have the extra pixel shader units, but my main point is that it's the 1900XT that represents value at the top end, ie, it's not significantly slower than the more expensive less advanced 7900GTX.....afterall, one would assume that if you forked out for a top end card you're a IQ freak, and good on you.

I don't see the point of doing either SLI or XF, especially given the crappy standard gaming is at right now, and even if it improves dramatically, you're forced to upgrade at a frightening rate, and I'm sure most of the SLI owners aren't as rich as they'd like us to believe.

Consider that the only real value from dual GPU is 2 x7900GTX 512, ie, 7900GT x 2 isn't that much faster than 1900XTX...nahh, the two best games are Far Cry and Fear, and neither of them really need a 30inch moniter, I'm slumming it out with a 19in CRT.
April 15, 2006 10:24:15 PM

X1900XTX all the way. Once you start/try to overclock, it will own Nvidia considering you can adjust voltage in software.
Even without this edge, it should still win most benchmarks. I personally consider ATi to have superior image quality, but this is nothing I can prove, nor is this the ground for that argument, just my 2 cents.
April 16, 2006 2:30:06 AM

That's a 7900GT.
April 16, 2006 10:31:57 AM

Yes, the 7900 series overclocks well, but that required a bunch of soldering jobs to increase the voltage:

http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=3330&s=2

Like ak47is1337 said, the X1x00 series can voltmod in software, which is nice if you don't want to pooch your warranty...
April 16, 2006 2:09:35 PM

Quote:

Chump....I've stuck up for NF4, SLI, 6800GS, 7600GT, 7900GT, and I'm not anti the 7900GTX, nor the 6800GT 256, so stop making a complete goose of yourself......it's time for you to quietly disappear from this thread as any more bullshit will only further highlight your blatant Nvidia bias.....also you've decided to exaggerate again and ass-ume I think all Nvidia fans are Nvidiots, when the truth is that I accused only you, and only those that are irrationally attached to a brand rather than some ratio of quality and performance.


/sigh. There is no ratio of quality and performance showing that the X1900XTX demolishes, or even has an extreme upperhand over the 7900GTX. I feel the two cards are even and when purchasing one, a consumer should consider preference of company, price, availability, and ease of use. My personal choice would be the 7900GTX (if I had that kind of money right now, lol) because I've had bad past experiences with ATI. Does it make me an nVidia fan because I choose their products over ATI's (except in notebooks, mind you)? Sure. Does it make me an nVidia zealot out to rid the world of ATI's mindless blabber and evil cards? Negative. I don't see how I'm bullshitting at all. Before each post I went and found something to back me up. I even posted links to "cold hard facts".

Quote:

It's a lovely sounding fantasy world you're living in, but I prefer the cold hard facts, ......something you've shunned in favour of fanboism,......congratulations, you're now a message board superhero prone to exaggeration and product propaganda :roll:


What am I exaggerating? You have consistently stated that the ATI X1900XTX is the performance champion of today's video card market. I posted links to two benchmark tests (by a site that I believe to be somewhat ATI heavy-handed, just look at their video section) that show that the nVidia 7900GTX provides comparable performance, within 5 frames, either higher or lower, on each test. Somehow, though, I'm exaggerating.. perhaps when you called me an nVidiot and I got pissed off?

By the way, there are no cold hard facts supporting your claim. It's simply performance benchmarks which are different for every test. Sometimes the nVidia card is higher, sometimes the ATI card is higher.

At any rate..

Quote:

X1900XTX all the way. Once you start/try to overclock, it will own Nvidia considering you can adjust voltage in software.


Yea, nVidia needs to figure this one out if they're going to maintain a spot in the enthusiast market. ATI has made it extremely easy to overclock the cards without voiding a warranty, bwahaha.

Quote:

I think that we can all agree that the X1900XTX and 7900GTX are very close in terms of speed.

Regardless of which one you choose they will be able to play most games at very similar framerates.


My feeling exactly.
April 16, 2006 10:47:44 PM

Jaffee.
I used various websites to prove that the 1900XTX is the top dog, and that's the truth....it doesn't matter that there's only a few frames in it, because the real price/power champion is the 1900XT, and that's nearly as fast, much cheaper and is freely available, IOW, there's just no doubt about it, if you want the best value single high end card, you want 1900XT.....and the 1900series is considered more future proof than the 7900....all in all, the 1900XT is a winner.

There was never a need for your pro-Nvidia BS post early on....other than your rampant fannyboism.

There are only 4 high end cards that exist, 1900XTX, 1900XT, 7900GTX 512, and EVGA 7900GT OC.....but only one is certain to be fast, stable affordable and reliable and that's 1900XT.....read it and weep Nvidiot :roll:
April 16, 2006 11:56:12 PM

7900GT ~ $330 not widely available

7900GTX ~ $540 not widely available

X1900XT ~ $440 is widely available

X1900XTX ~ 490 is widely available
April 17, 2006 12:03:03 AM

I hear ya Rich...and what kind of dork would pay $110US over a 1900XT 8O
April 17, 2006 12:35:08 AM

Still worth it.
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2006 12:56:37 AM

Not sure where you get your pricing from. USA?

I like the XTX better than the XT. It's not a big price difference. Matter of fact it was just a $21 difference for the HIS cards at Newegg last weeks ($428 vs. $449). To me the XTX for $21 more is an absolute no brainer. Currently the His XT stayed $228 AR and the XTX went up $20. Sure, once I hit $40-50+ more I cheap and lean toward the XT, but remember, the memory on the XTX is superior.

I have my eye out for the HIS iceQ3 XT or XTX. If it happens soon and for the right price of say $430 for the XT or $460 for the XTX, there won't be no stopping me from clicking submit order.
April 17, 2006 1:48:02 AM

/sigh. People are so difficult sometimes. I just give up, I'm sick of arguing. Thanks for calling me an idiot again. Sorry that my opinion bothers you.

zomg X1900XTX ftw. zomg X1900XT ftw. zomg zerg zerg zerg.

EDIT: I just went back and read the two pages you did happen to link and neither really support your claim of a factual win for ATI performance-wise. They both mention extremely competitive performance from the two cards. One actually talks about how the X1900XTX might not have the raw performance power to play future games at acceptable settings (for its price).

DOH!
April 17, 2006 1:56:58 AM

Paul.

I'm in the 3rd world{Australia}....but I was responding to the price differences that Rich quoted.
I have no problem with someone buying the XTX for a few bob more....but here is OZ, there's often $100+ difference, and that's just a waste IMO, esepcially as the advantage of XTX over XT is usually only meaningful above 16x12, and then it's only a few %.

I hold the view that one must be rational about buying their PC and any upgrades, regardless of the temptations and appalling website advocacy.

And HIS are making a proper ICEQ for XT-XTX.....nice one!!
April 17, 2006 2:08:09 AM

Quote:
/sigh. People are so difficult sometimes. I just give up, I'm sick of arguing. Thanks for calling me an idiot again. Sorry that my opinion bothers you.
.


Son, the only thing you're stressed about is the fact that I exposed your Nvidia bias....and I'm glad it bothers you, as hopefully you'll take your blinkers off and focus on the facts and a cogent argument in future.

I'm in favour of good companies and good products, and I think both ATI and Nvidia are good companies who routinely take turns at cocking up various segments, so when I favour a particular product, it doesn't mean I'm anti the competing company.
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2006 2:32:24 AM

??? Hmm, all this you said this & you said that talk... wish you would have responded to the right person. I didn't say nottin' :tongue:
April 17, 2006 2:44:14 AM

Quote:
EDIT: I just went back and read the two pages you did happen to link and neither really support your claim of a factual win for ATI performance-wise. They both mention extremely competitive performance from the two cards. One actually talks about how the X1900XTX might not have the raw performance power to play future games at acceptable settings (for its price).


Jaffe said...blah, blah, blah.

You've done a good job of making an ass of yourself haven't you......get this straight, IF the 1900's struggle under the weight of future games, then the 7900's will struggle even more.

Also, it's common knowledge that the XTX is the the world's fastest single card, I'm not going to waste anymore time justifying that as you're Nvision has blinded you to that truth.
April 17, 2006 3:45:56 AM

If your are looking for a single card solution go with the X1900XTX , if you waht dual configuration go with the 7900 series.
April 17, 2006 3:56:26 AM

Quote:

Jaffe said...blah, blah, blah.

You've done a good job of making an ass of yourself haven't you......get this straight, IF the 1900's struggle under the weight of future games, then the 7900's will struggle even more.

Also, it's common knowledge that the XTX is the the world's fastest single card, I'm not going to waste anymore time justifying that as you're Nvision has blinded you to that truth.


Hah, I don't really see how calling them somewhat equal (as most of the other people have pointed out in this thread) is making an ass of myself. Nor do I see how I made an ass of myself by putting up two benchmarks that clearly showed the two cards are within 5 frames of eachother on every test. I can see, however, that you have made an ass of yourself by stating, flatly, that the X1900XTX is the best, blah blah blah, there isn't even a contest, you can't even give the 7900GTX credit, nVidiots, nVision, blah blah blah. This is funny because one of the links you did provide said, and I quote (from Xbit):

Quote:
Our tests have shown that Nvidia’s approach is justifiable even in modern games with their abundance of pixel shader-based visual effects because the Radeon X1900 often slows down under high textural load. You should also keep it in mind that though the Radeon X1900 XTX may be architecturally better suited for future games, its raw performance may prove too low to run such games at an acceptable speed when they do come out.


Here's one from your FiringSquad link concerning the even-ness of the cards:

Quote:

Right now there really is no decisive winner here, your final decision will most likely boil down to what types of games you play on your PC.

So, we can’t say the GeForce 7900 GTX is a clear winner today, but it has done at least no worse than the Radeon X1900 XTX in 14 out of 18 tests.


Here's one from Xbit about the 7900GT's price/performance ratio proving my earlier point:

Quote:

Between the two GPUs, the slam dunk product in our opinion is NVIDIA’s GeForce 7900 GT. For $300 you’re basically getting a graphics card that delivers performance that’s a little greater than the GeForce 7800 GTX (typically the 7900 GT runs between 5-8% faster than a 7800 GTX), but in a smaller, cooler-running package. With the GeForce 7900 GT, NVIDIA’s basically established a new level of performance at the $300 price point that ATI currently doesn’t match: looking over the latest PriceGrabber and PriceWatch prices, the closest equivalent ATI and their board partners currently have to the GeForce 7900 GT is the X1800 XL, which currently sells for about $310. As you probably know by now, the X1800 XL was positioned against the GeForce 7800 GT, not a card that performs like the GeForce 7900 GT, there’s just no comparison.


Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, these articles are probably older, and here's a sentence that does support your claim (Xbit):

Quote:
ATI’s graphics card, however, does better in high resolutions as well as in FSAA modes higher than 4x thanks to its more advanced memory controller.


'gratz, one sentence.

Are you done calling me a fanboy now, I'm trying to have a serious debate and it's hard when someone resorts to petty insults.
April 17, 2006 4:23:38 AM

Jaffee
10 mins ago you were tired of arguing, now you're back with an extended version of your past Nvidiadroid worship......well make up your mind, and quit throwing tantrums in a bid for sympathy and support.

I maintain that the 1900XTX is the fastest single card, I no longer care that the anonymous Jaffee disagrees with me, IOW, I'm not going to dig up scores of benchmarks which prove you wrong.....anyway, performance is only one aspect, there are others like price and availabilty.....now tell us all that the 7900GTX beats the 1900XT on price and availability, LOLOLOL.

The implications of your blathering is that people should avoid buying either the top dog 1900XTX, or the superb 1900XT because the 7900 is in the same league, even though it's the most expensive and potentially on back-order, HAHAHAHAAHAAHA, .....is that your so-called argument!!

These are the only cards worth buying atm....in descending order..

1900XT...XTX ok if 20-$30 more.
7900GT
1800GTO,7600GT, 6800GS, X850XT{entry level IMO}

Now any of these cards are good, but the two best value for money cards are the 7600GT and 1900XT....based on price/power and availabilty.


Now exactly what are you hoping to achieve?........your severed testicals will be re-attached when you man up and face the truth.
April 17, 2006 4:44:34 AM

Quote:

Here's one from Xbit about the 7900GT's price/performance ratio proving my earlier point:


With the GeForce 7900 GT, NVIDIA’s basically established a new level of performance at the $300 price point that ATI currently doesn’t match: looking over the latest PriceGrabber and PriceWatch prices, the closest equivalent ATI and their board partners currently have to the GeForce 7900 GT is the X1800 XL, which currently sells for about $310. As you probably know by now, the X1800 XL was positioned against the GeForce 7800 GT, not a card that performs like the GeForce 7900 GT, there’s just no comparison.



That assessment is kind of obsolete now, seeing as how the X1800 XT's have come down to the $300 price point to compete against the 7900 GTs.

The X1800 XT will stand toe-to-toe to a 7900 GT. Both cards are viable competitors in the price segment.
April 17, 2006 4:52:40 AM

Quote:

Now any of these cards are good, but the two best value for money cards are the 1800GTO and 1900XT....based on price/power and availabilty.


You think the X1800 GTO is worth the $50 or so premium over a 7600 GT?

The 7600 GT will meet, and about half the time beat, the X1800 GTO at stock speeds. Sure the X1800 GTO is a great overclocker, but the 7600 GT is no slouch when overclocked, either.

If I had to pick the best two cards for the money right now, I think the 7600 GT would be one of them. The other would be either the X1800 XT or 7900 GT I think... with availability in the consideration I'd say the X1800 XT.

IMHO though, the X1800 GTOs are still just too expensive (without rebates)... if they can lower them to $200, it'd be a different story...
April 17, 2006 4:55:16 AM

Wow. That's sad. Well, where shall I begin.

You can't attack me here...
Quote:
now tell us all that the 7900GTX beats the 1900XT on price and availability, LOLOLOL.

...because I mentioned ATI's upperhand in availability here:
Quote:
Unfortunately for nVidia, ATI is going to hold higher sales due to a better availability of cards.


You lied when you said this...
Quote:
I used various websites to prove that the 1900XTX is the top dog, and that's the truth.

...because the sources you linked don't prove your claim at all.

Why would you say this...
Quote:
I'm not going to dig up scores of benchmarks which prove you wrong.

...when if you did, you'd be easily toppling my argument (remember, it's that both cards are even in performance, not in favor of one or the other). I mean, it should be easy to find such benchmarks as there are a plethora of them, right? Hmm... /shifty eyes.

Concerning this...
Quote:
10 mins ago you were tired of arguing, now you're back with an extended version of your past Nvidiadroid worship...

...well, I changed my mind. Sorry. Oh, hey look, there's another insult.

Oh, here's a lovely tidbit:
Quote:
The implications of your blathering is that people should avoid buying either the top dog 1900XTX, or the superb 1900XT because the 7900 is in the same league, even though it's the most expensive and potentially on back-order, HAHAHAHAAHAAHA, .....is that your so-called argument!!

That's funny, I've outlined my arugment in plenty of my posts. Here it is again for you, though:

1. ATI's X1900XTX and nVidia's 7900GTX, regardless of price, provide similar performance, within 5 frames of eachother in nearly every test (14/18 according to your source). Many people agree with me, right in this very thread! Here are their names:

a. MafiaAce
b. vulefu
c. trunks512
d. Cleeve
e. mdd1963

So are you calling all these people idiots as well for not accepting "cold, hard fact" and "common knowledge"?

2. The nVidia 7900GT is the best sweetspot buy right now. With a large target market of ~$300, it provides high-end performance comparable to the ATI X1900XT until superhigh resolutions and HDR/smooth-shading/AA are enabled. This is all for about ~$100 less than the ATI X1900XT.

3. Overclocked cards aren't bad.

4. ATI will beat nVidia in sales because the dumbasses over at nVidia don't know how to manufacture enough cards to suit the demand of the market.

5. ATI will beat nVidia in EASE of overclocking, and possibly overclocking effect due to the method of voltmodding. ATI's software approach easily has the upperhand over nVidia's need for hardware modding.

Now, the real question is can you refute anything I've posted above without using a single insult? I think you throw them (often and with wanton disregard for others who are trying to have a civil discussion) because there is no creedance to your argument. All you do is repeat a similar line, which I believe goes something like "Accept the facts, the X1900XTX is the best, it's common knowledge, cold hard fact, etc." This is humorous because NOTHING you've posted has proven this WHATSOEVER. As soon as you post something that DOES prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt (because that's what fact is), I'll stop arguing with you. Maybe.

I'm off to bed now, I'll crush your reply to this in the morning.
!