It would appear that the X1900XTX has 30,000 Shader Operations/s because it has 48 pipes, while the 7900 GTX has 17,000. But that dose't matter because its overkill, meaning that no game uses the full 30,000 or even 20,000. The other thing is that the 7900 GTX has 17,000M Texels/s, Texture Fill Rate while the X1900XTX has only 10,000M Texels/s.
So, from this i get that having 1.7x the Texture Fill Rate, makes the 7900 GTX better in most games by a small margain.
Since, they both cost the same, i dont know wich one to get. Ive listed the only differences beetween them.. they both have 512Mb or memory, same bandwidth etc.
So, what do u think?

The X1900 series is superior to nVidia in graphic quality within gaming...
Performance is a mixed bag, with some going to one, others to the other...
Quality tho is much more clear...

Could u please explain what u mean "quality", because i see no difference in what eavh company's chips can render in games.

Thanx to Cleeve... This should lay it to rest...

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/hdr_aa_ati_radeon_x1k/

I know abt HDR + AA, but what does that have to do with picture quality?

When HDR and AA are on, the graphics end up looking nicer.

I know abt HDR + AA, but what does that have to do with picture quality?

It makes the game look prettier, and makes you drool more.

Instead of comparing specs, how about you tell us the games you plan on playing.

Doom3 engine based games (Doom3, Quake 4, Prey, Enemy Territory Quake Wars) usually perform better on the 7900GTX

F.E.A.R. is usually pretty mixed; both ATI and Nvidia cards perform pretty much the same

Oblivion performance wise is pretty similar on the 7900GTX vs. the X1900XT but the X1900 has a serious advantage with OpenEXR HDR and antialiasing support.

Far Cry's performance is also similar on both cards, but ATI still has an advantage with HDR and antialiasing support.

Battlefield2 is pretty mixed; both cards will perform fine

Source engine games perform about the same with either card.

In addition to the HDR + AA issue, Ati's AF algorithm is less angle dependant than Nvidia's, and their AA is considered slightly better.

Also, Nvidia and Ati cards will render colors differently in many titles, it's a point of subjection but many people feel that ati's methods are superior.

At the end of the day though, I think they both do good and passable job. Nvidia has come a long way from the Geforce FX image butchering fiascos of the past.

it pretty much if u prefer nvidia or ati, and the x1900 will have better image quality

Games shmames, I like BIG numbers!

I'd agree with most of your assessment, except the following;

While their averages are close to similar, the the GTX bottoms out way lower with min fps, so as most reviews found the Ati series is more playable that it's matched competitor in Oblivion because of this.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/v [...] xtx_8.html

Anywhoo, for anyone who cares to take the time, there's alot of game benchmarks in that there review to give a great overall picture of the situation.

However I say go with the one that has the coolest BOX!

I am imagining a few of those ATI girls have pretty hot boxes!

well i was in the same spot you were in a little while ago and i was upgrading from 2 7800gt's in sli. so i asked around, and looked for reviews online. i decided to go with the x1900 because i heard it had much better image quality and preformance was similar. i saw MUCH better quality in my games! colors in my opinion look amazingly well sturated, bright, and just purely wonderful! AA+HDR looks awsome! i did notice the the AA is also smoother and nicer especialy in HL2. you can also enable high quality AF which looks very nice but takes a prity big preformance hit so i would only use it in CF mode. also if you look at the scores in games, though the 7900 usualy preforms better in older game titles, the x1900 begins to take over in newer games because of the demand of pixle shaders. it was a very smart move by ati to favor more shader units than texture units, though at least 20 pipelines would have been nice not to mension probly MUCH better benchmarks. i am almost sure that the x1900 will dominate in upcoming titles like UT 2007 and crysis! not to mension that the next gen of gpu's will prob come out till early 2007 or late 2006. games WILL get more demanding and i know the x1900 will be king until the next gpus.

i didnt read the whole thread, but someone should suggest to ATI to start putting the middle chick on their boxes rather than a computer generated Ruby. Their sales would sky rocket

Ok, i can see that many ppl think that ATI's picture quality is better then Nvidia's and i think i might see a small difference, when comparing some pics online, but to me it dosent matter because im upgrading from an FX 5200 so i wont notice any AA or AF or HDR changes, ive never even seen HDR in action.
I plan to play every game possible, mostly FPSs and RTSs. And every game that ive missed since oh.. 2004 cause of my crappy card.

I know that the X1900XTX has twice as many Shaders then the 7900GTX, but thats useless, cause all u need is the ammount that the 7900GTX has, so basiclly ATI has no advantage in current games, and the GTX has almost twice as many Texels and Texture fill rate, wich is a big advantage.
So i just dont know! GTX performs better in games.. but the XTX has some interesting advantages.

According to my calculations, Windows Vista wont be here till here Feburary 2007. Now i dont know when the DX10 card are going to show up, but it could be in 2007 or in the Fall of 2006.. depends how much the delay affects them. I think it will affect them but i know many ppl think it wont.
I want to buy a card now so that i can play in the summer, since im going in to my 12th year of High School and wont have much time for games, and also ive been waiting long enough. The only problem is, that this card is going to have to last me for at least a couple of years and with the DX10 cards, not waiting seems dumb.