Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7900 GTX vs. X1900XTX? (again)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 3, 2006 1:55:35 PM

I know that its been posted before, but i would still like some input.
Ive been trying to choose from one of these cards for a few days, and i just cant seem to be able to do it, because their performance is so close.
I have an FX5200 now.

The X1900XTX seems like this "magic" card - It has too many Shaders wich is overkill so it cant add to performance, and it has a too little ammount texture fill wich is the most important thing in any game, so that cant help it. According to it's specs its supposed to be much worse then the 7900GTX, but its not, so thats why i call it "magic", because it's specs arent as good as it's performance. Dont get me wrong, i think the XTX is an amazing card, but it has too much of what it dosent need and not enough of what it does need (wich the GTX has 2x of).

The 7900GTX, well since i have an Nvidia card right now, i feel closer to Nvidia and i think i would feel safer and better knowing that i have an Nvidia card, but i wouldnt want that to influence my decision, because i want to get the BEST card, not the one that i like the most because of sentiment.

I heard that each card has different features, like AVIVO or PureVideo. And is HDR+AA all that. Anyone know anything abt that and can help me decide, id love some input. I dont suppose anyone has both? :lol: 
Thnx

More about : 7900 gtx x1900xtx

August 3, 2006 2:02:18 PM

let the force guide you
August 3, 2006 2:11:15 PM

Quote:
let the force guide you


:?
Related resources
August 3, 2006 2:34:48 PM

i have personally used both the 7900 GTX and the X1900XT (basically a slightly lower clocked XTX)

I would get the ATI over Nvidia anyday.

Reasoning

at high resolutions the FPS barely flucates while at high resolutions nvidia cards tend to fluctate.

For example on the 7900 GTX fear would hover between 32 to 45 fps the ati stay constant at around 43-45 fps.

I also find that ATI cards look better then nvidia cards.

basically you'll get the same performance either way. the only differences are

1. ATI X1900XT or XTX does eye candy better
2. HDR+AA is awesome if you have a monitor that can really display it well
3. it's awesome at high resolutions
4. the hardware wasn't plagued with defects like some of the earlier 7900 series cards (i think they fixed it now, but there could still be defective cards floating in the retail channels)
5. nvidia drivers are less resource hungry
6. nvidia cards work better with linux.

i love my x1900xt if i new i would have had the problems that i did with my nvidia card i would have gotten a crossfire board instead of an nforce board.
August 3, 2006 2:35:45 PM

The two cards are very close, but imho its best to pick based upon which games you play.

nVidia cards have always had the edge in OpenGL stuff, for example Doom 3, Quake 4, and other games based on that engine (Prey is an example). I personally play alot of CoH/CoV, and the nVidia cards do much better there.

On the other hand, I know there are games like HL2 where ATi does better.

nVidia cards run much better under Linux, the driver is far more mature.

SLi doesnt require an external dongle or an expensive crossfire master card. The image composition is done on the GPU and not on a compositing chip (which the x850 series limited it to 1600x1200@60Hz iirc, the x1900 is better but even so if you do go twin cards and want to play on a high resolution CRT that could be a concern.) Of course you may not ever be interested in two gfx cards, and CF has the advantage of being better supported on the intel platform until nForce 590 Intel is released.

ATi has the advatage that AVIVO is free, whereas you have to buy PureVideo.

HDR+AA is possible on ATi.... but to be honest that doesnt bother me much, I'm happy to take Bloom+AA or just HDR and a higher res most of the time. My 7900GT would struggle with AA+HDR in oblivion at 1600x1200 even were it possible

Its a hard decision I know :) 
August 3, 2006 2:36:40 PM

What resolution do you game at? I'm geussing above 1600x1200? It seems to me that's when the X1900XTX pulls ahead of the 7900GTX in benches. Plus, there's always the image quality advantage. And the whole driver thing is not applicable with this generation, or even last generations ATI cards. It's just something that's been stuck with ATI. If you feel more comfortable with Nvidia, go with them. My suggestion would be to check out every review's benchmarks for each card that you can. Start today, and just read every review on the X1900XTX and the 7900GTX that you can.
August 3, 2006 3:03:29 PM

i would agree, but don't bother with the XTX since the difference over the XT isn't that much but the price is :D 

Also i game at 1680x1050 :D  been playing HL2 recently with everything maxed out. In lost coast avg framerate was 54 fps :D 
August 3, 2006 5:04:38 PM

My Max is 1280x1024, on a 17" monitor.
So wich card does better on "lower" resolutions?

Woh, can someone tell me what AVIVO and PureVideo are, and why one of them costs money?

And ive already read many reviews, but their performance is so close, that i guess i have to pick the prettiest..

Yeh, of course, i mean the X1900XT, only idiots buy the XTX.
August 3, 2006 5:12:30 PM

Quote:
nVidia cards run much better under Linux, the driver is far more mature.


Why have Linux when u can have Windows?


Quote:
nVidia cards have always had the edge in OpenGL stuff, for example Doom 3, Quake 4, and other games based on that engine (Prey is an example). I personally play alot of CoH/CoV, and the nVidia cards do much better there.
On the other hand, I know there are games like HL2 where ATi does
better.


Im planning to play every game, and also catch up on games ive missed ever since the FX5200 couldnt play new games.



Quote:
SLi doesnt require an external dongle or an expensive crossfire master card. The image composition is done on the GPU and not on a compositing chip (which the x850 series limited it to 1600x1200@60Hz iirc, the x1900 is better but even so if you do go twin cards and want to play on a high resolution CRT that could be a concern.) Of course you may not ever be interested in two gfx cards, and CF has the advantage of being better supported on the intel platform until nForce 590 Intel is released.

Yeh sure, if i lived in the US id probably be buying 2 cards right now.
However 1 card here costs like 2, so im screwed.
August 3, 2006 5:20:34 PM

Go for the cheaper one...
August 3, 2006 5:47:40 PM

Quote:
Go for the cheaper one...

I agree. They both perform similarly. Just get the one that's cheapest.
August 3, 2006 6:36:36 PM

certainly not magic. It is not overkill for the shaders as that is where the performance comes from. seems rather simple to me, and far from magic. Games are going to more shader effects, and that results in much more of a hit to Nv's "older" design.

In fact, if you go here you will see an interesting anomoly. On that site is a game called ".kkrieger" that is done without textures at all and is only 96k! It is entirely directX9 calls and will not run w/o a beefy directX9 card. (yours will do it, but it will be very slow) The reason I point this out is that you could really do an entire game w/ shaders... which does imply that as games (like FEAR and oblivion) move to more shader usage vid-cards that still sit on aging structures may find it harder to compete.

pure speculation I know, but interesting. ;) 

But anyway, I digress... The 1900 is capable of more (HDR+AA, etc) and the picture quality has been in ati's favor for a while too. Once you drop the linux support as an issue then you are left w/ very little to favor the Nv camp. sli is nice for sure, but IMO cf is good too. (who cares about the dongle...) You have not said you wanted dual cards though.

Both drivers are fine, both render games fast enough. (hence your dilema) Both sides have companies that make them w/ lifetime warranties. Both take up 2 slots, both simply do everything else well...

so the way I see it, if you want HDR+AA (which mine does it in oblivion at your 1280 res just fine... looks amazing and bloom cannot compete) and you want the quality of picture and a hardware design that is more "forward looking" that may still reveal more performance then go w/ the 1900...

if you dont care about those things, then they are = and you should get the Nv card as that is what you seem to want deep inside. ;) 
August 3, 2006 6:44:11 PM

Quote:
Go for the cheaper one...

I agree. They both perform similarly. Just get the one that's cheapest.

Same price.
August 3, 2006 7:03:22 PM

Quote:
certainly not magic. It is not overkill for the shaders as that is where the performance comes from. seems rather simple to me, and far from magic. Games are going to more shader effects, and that results in much more of a hit to Nv's "older" design.

In fact, if you go here you will see an interesting anomoly. On that site is a game called ".kkrieger" that is done without textures at all and is only 96k! It is entirely directX9 calls and will not run w/o a beefy directX9 card. (yours will do it, but it will be very slow) The reason I point this out is that you could really do an entire game w/ shaders... which does imply that as games (like FEAR and oblivion) move to more shader usage vid-cards that still sit on aging structures may find it harder to compete.

pure speculation I know, but interesting. ;) 

But anyway, I digress... The 1900 is capable of more (HDR+AA, etc) and the picture quality has been in ati's favor for a while too. Once you drop the linux support as an issue then you are left w/ very little to favor the Nv camp. sli is nice for sure, but IMO cf is good too. (who cares about the dongle...) You have not said you wanted dual cards though.

Both drivers are fine, both render games fast enough. (hence your dilema) Both sides have companies that make them w/ lifetime warranties. Both take up 2 slots, both simply do everything else well...

so the way I see it, if you want HDR+AA (which mine does it in oblivion at your 1280 res just fine... looks amazing and bloom cannot compete) and you want the quality of picture and a hardware design that is more "forward looking" that may still reveal more performance then go w/ the 1900...

if you dont care about those things, then they are = and you should get the Nv card as that is what you seem to want deep inside. ;) 


As i said before, i dont have Linux, nor anything else that Nvidia has (according to what u said) to ATi seems like the best option.
And that game is INSANE. how can u do everything with shaders ??
Hows AVIVO?
August 3, 2006 7:09:21 PM

Quote:
Go for the cheaper one...

I agree. They both perform similarly. Just get the one that's cheapest.

Same price.
Flip a coin...
a b U Graphics card
August 3, 2006 7:10:01 PM

Quote:

Why have Linux when u can have Windows?


Because being a linux admin means I make a metric assload more money than windows admins (since we're far more rare). And I'm never unemployed. Meaning the flow of goodies is never interrupted...

Don't get me wrong, Windows is good for games, but that's all I ever use it for.
August 3, 2006 7:11:51 PM

Quote:
As i said before, i dont have Linux, nor anything else that Nvidia has (according to what u said) to ATi seems like the best option.
And that game is INSANE. how can u do everything with shaders ??
Hows AVIVO?


ya, it is insane... A.I. is nonexistant of course, and very simplistic design but amazing visual quality. If you look around on their site you will find other graphics/sound demos that are simply great to look at, also on file sizes even smaller. I am not a directX programmer at all, so I an not sure how they do it exactly... they have a some interviews that try to explain some aspects of what they do, not directly on that .kkrieger game but still... Just goes to show you what can happen when you don't just think outside the box but totally smash said box. :twisted:

avivo is very good. Depending on the review you look at determines who wins that battle though as some say Nv's tv display is better, and others ati's... Every test for vivo functionality is at least partially subjective, so I do not put alot of stock in them. I tried it and then quit as I just don't need to display on my tv... that is why I have a monitor ;) 
August 3, 2006 7:33:31 PM

Quote:

And that game is INSANE. how can u do everything with shaders ??
Hows AVIVO?


Everything with shaders? Well, everything in kkreiger is a mathematical representation. Textures would be 'procedural', which means there is no bitmap, but each texture is kind of a 'program' that simulates a visual effect. kkreiger has been around a while. It's very cool.

AVIVO rocks if you compress/render alot of video. Let's say you have an iPod and want to convert a video to it's screen size and codec... huge performance gains doing that over other video cards (which don't assist in computational power when rendering video, it's entirely left to the CPU; Ati's AVIVO cards are the only ones that can assist rendering, to the best of my knowledge).
August 3, 2006 8:01:05 PM

Quote:
AVIVO rocks if you compress/render alot of video. Let's say you have an iPod and want to convert a video to it's screen size and codec... huge performance gains doing that over other video cards (which don't assist in computational power when rendering video, it's entirely left to the CPU; Ati's AVIVO cards are the only ones that can assist rendering, to the best of my knowledge).


but that is not really avivo is it? avivo (advanced video in video out) is regarding just that, video in and out... I guess that converter does kinda fit there, but thought it was still seperate, my bad. That gpu assisted video format converter is very cool (I forgot about that earlier) and Nv does not have a counter for it.

and ya, I thnk .kkrieger cam out in '04 so it has been out a while
August 3, 2006 8:04:05 PM

Quote:

And that game is INSANE. how can u do everything with shaders ??
Hows AVIVO?


Everything with shaders? Well, everything in kkreiger is a mathematical representation. Textures would be 'procedural', which means there is no bitmap, but each texture is kind of a 'program' that simulates a visual effect. kkreiger has been around a while. It's very cool.

AVIVO rocks if you compress/render alot of video. Let's say you have an iPod and want to convert a video to it's screen size and codec... huge performance gains doing that over other video cards (which don't assist in computational power when rendering video, it's entirely left to the CPU; Ati's AVIVO cards are the only ones that can assist rendering, to the best of my knowledge).

Wait, AVIVO is ONLY for rendering, as in making video files? I thought it would make the video files i already have prettier..
Hmm, well i do have a PSP.
August 3, 2006 8:10:30 PM

well, ati's video quality will make your current videos look better. Avivo is certainly part of that, but ati just have a better quality there overall (avivo or not) IMO.

but ya, w/ your psp compressing/rendering any vids for it is much faster w/ the 1900. (actually, any x1k card will do it)
August 3, 2006 8:12:51 PM

Personally I hate jaggies and love HDR, so AA + HDR is a great thing to have, especially as from benchmarks I have seen AA seems to be less of a performance hit with ATI cards (anyone know why that is?).

But of course I am biased because I have an X1800XT :) 

As most have said though, both cards are a good choice.
August 3, 2006 8:16:31 PM

if the x1900xt is less get that one, if the nvidia is less get that one. personally i love the ati card cause it looks way cooler :D 
August 3, 2006 8:38:43 PM

Quote:
well, ati's video quality will make your current videos look better. Avivo is certainly part of that, but ati just have a better quality there overall (avivo or not) IMO.

but ya, w/ your psp compressing/rendering any vids for it is much faster w/ the 1900. (actually, any x1k card will do it)


And what abt PureVideo?

And what abt all the other benefits of having ATI or Nvidia.. different type of AA ive heard.. anyone know and can compare?
August 3, 2006 8:49:04 PM

already said ati is better pic quality...

Quote:
The 1900 is capable of more (HDR+AA, etc) and the picture quality has been in ati's favor for a while too.


by capable of more I mean HDR+AA, much better AA, AF, richer colors... (colors are highly subjective) things that the Nv chips just cannot do.

most reviews (the ones worth reading) point out those quality diffs.
a b U Graphics card
August 3, 2006 9:58:26 PM

This [H] review has alot of comparisons mostly of the AF quality differences in games;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwMCwx...

Also static images can't really do Temporal-AA justice, but it's a nice benifit.

They are pretty close, but it is nice to turn up the AF in a game like Oblivion.
August 3, 2006 10:18:03 PM

I think the 1900 XTX is the best overall, I have one myself and it is blinding. Play BF2 mostly and can run it at 1920 x 1440 with max settings (no AA) prob get 60 - 80 fps which is well playable. If you want the very best the 7950 GX2 is the current fastest and paves the way for quad SLI if you so wish
August 4, 2006 3:43:16 AM

exactly the point I was getting at Grape. Thanks.


@ stiffmeister:

It is not an issue whether the 7950 is faster (of course it is), but debating the merits of the 7900gtx vs. 1900xtx/xt. And even being faster it does not have any visual improvements over the 7900 so the argument here over quality is still valid. "Best" is really relative to whether you mean "Best Speed" or "Best Quality"
August 4, 2006 4:52:39 AM

Im going to say go with the X1900 XT, its cheaper then either of them. And offers better performance then the 7900 GTX. Also heavily shaded games are the way of the future, notice how much better the ati cards handle COD2. I just got mine today and love it, oh and also anyone saying anything bad about the ati catalyst drivers is really nit picking. As of right now I havent seen one graphical glitch.
August 4, 2006 1:31:03 PM

OK m8 thx for clearing that up for me
August 4, 2006 1:43:06 PM

np at all man. Hope I did not come off as an a$$ (like so many do on a forum) Actually it is nice that this thread (so far) seems to be fanboi free. Everyone is offering good advice on the merits of both sides. Even that 7950 is worth considering if speed is of utmost importance... but the price certainly puts it out of the realm of the other 2 here. rock on.
August 4, 2006 3:14:03 PM

Does anyone get a steam menu lag while refreshing servers ?.... im getting one, and its annoying.
August 4, 2006 3:15:38 PM

Quote:
np at all man. Hope I did not come off as an a$$ (like so many do on a forum) Actually it is nice that this thread (so far) seems to be fanboi free. Everyone is offering good advice on the merits of both sides. Even that 7950 is worth considering if speed is of utmost importance... but the price certainly puts it out of the realm of the other 2 here. rock on.

Unlike the CPU section, we're pretty good about being unbiased.
August 4, 2006 10:43:39 PM

Nvidia drivers and control panel seems to work alot nicer and smoother. The new Catalyst control centre seems to crash alot and fail to start some of the time with my card and drivers ( Catalyst 6.6 and 6.7)
August 4, 2006 11:17:59 PM

Quote:
Nvidia drivers and control panel seems to work alot nicer and smoother. The new Catalyst control centre seems to crash alot and fail to start some of the time with my card and drivers ( Catalyst 6.6 and 6.7)


Anyone agree with this guy?
Is this an Issue?
August 5, 2006 1:06:33 AM

Not so far, catalyst seems to be completely stable for me anyways. They start up fast, how ever the control panel is some what slow. But works fine for me. I honestly am not understanding what people are complaining about when they say ati has unstable drivers, they seem to be perfectly stable and deliver extremly high image quality.
August 5, 2006 5:00:25 AM

Quote:
Not so far, catalyst seems to be completely stable for me anyways. They start up fast, how ever the control panel is some what slow. But works fine for me. I honestly am not understanding what people are complaining about when they say ati has unstable drivers, they seem to be perfectly stable and deliver extremly high image quality.


agreed, too many ppl rip on the ccc and drivers, yet provide no concrete examples of how it is really "bad". Back in the day yes, ati had wonky driver support. But since about 3 years ago (+/-) that was obliterated and catalyst has been rock-solid.

couple of things that help the "slowness" of ccc:

1. Install .net 2.0 it is faster and consumes less ram. Not that it is a problem as it only uses more ram when open, .net is the culprit on any ram use here, not ccc.

2. Go into display properties in ccc and for display detection option, select "manual detection only". (Thanks to GrapeApe for this heads up in another thread) When you fire up ccc it normally "checks" for installed monitors/tvs... if you are not swapping displays alot or if you just want a faster startup for ccc then manual is all you need. ;) 

tbh, the only issue I have had w/ ccc is that w/ v6.6 it would crash bf2. This was listed as a known issue in the realease notes, and was said to only do it to a select few systems. (most ppl I talked to did not have the issue) b/c it was listed there I did not worry and just re-installed the 6.5 set and all was well. 6.7 has fixed it and everything is right w/ the world. :) 

ati seems to be much faster w/ driver revs (once a month) vs. Nv who seem to be content w/ beta releases during their long full version cycles. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but just a difference. That is why I do not worry if there is an issue as ati is usually on the ball w/ a hotfix or a new version.

rock on.
August 5, 2006 3:47:45 PM

Either works fine. Forget SLi and Cossfire though. Lots of $$$ for very little visible results (I said visible to the actual eyes guys, not to the bench...) .

Unless you have a 23" montitor or something running at incredible resolution, what's the point. Get the X1900XTX or the 7900GTX and you will rock until direct x10 arrives. Heck, the X1900XT or the 7900GT is the beter price vs performance card right now.

I'm a BF2 addict and I have everything set as high as it will go and I have to wait for the others to spawn! Sure beats my old AMD 3200+ Barton.

My rig:
X6800 Conroe std clock
Intel D975XBXLRK
2 GB Corsair Pro PC6400 4-4-4-12
ATI X1900XTX
74GB 10k Raptor
Soundblaster Audigy 2 SZ
Ultra X-Finity 600W
!