Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X1900XTX performance

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gtx
  • Performance
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 7, 2006 6:10:47 PM

How come the X1900XTX performs closely to the 7900 GTX when it has only 66% of it's texture fill.
The 7900 GTX has 15 Billion Texeles/s and the X1900XTX has 10 Billion.

I know the X1900XTX has twice as many shader operations as the 7900 GTX but thats mostly overkill and shaders arent supposed to matter that much, and they arent even used in every game. Texture Fill is what powers the game right?

In most games, the 7900 GTX performs better with up to 15 FPS more, but in some games, i.e. F.E.A.R. or COD2 the X1900XTX can perform just as much better then the 7900 GTX, wich is wierd since it does have 66% of it's shaders.

The 7900 GTX seems like a more rounded card, wich has just as much texture fill as shader operations and i dont see how games can be limited by the shaders (and thus the X1900XTX performs better) before they can be limited by the texture fill wich is obviously far more important and in wich case the 7900 GTX should be a lot better.

The shaders on the X1900XTX are overkill, and ATI seems like a very stupid company to just put all their resources in one place and end with that (other then a few tweaks of performance to the texture fill as i hear). I mean first they have too little so they just move everything to the shaders and triple the shader power with only somewhat of a gain in most current games.

So, can someone please tell me why it is that the X1900XTX performs better then the 7900 GTX sometimes?
And the 7900 GTX came 2 months after the X1900XTX and from what i hear it was supposed to bring it down. You see, first the 7800 GTX 512 came along, and the X1900 series was supposed to overpower it, and now the 7900 series comes along to overpower the X1900 series as it would seem. So does that mean that i should buy the 7900 GTX because its newer or what? Im so confused over this.
I mean, HDR+AA, seems to be a must right? I mean every game that supports HDR is going to look like sh*t, wich jagged sides? And i hear the picture quality is much better for ATI as well.
So, what do u think abt the performance, does it make sence? ATI seemed to have just gotten lucky, they put out a bad card and it performs well, wtf right?

P.S. Is AVIVO worth it? (knowing that PureVideo costs money).

More about : x1900xtx performance

August 7, 2006 6:32:59 PM

Quote:
How come the X1900XTX performs closely to the 7900 GTX when it has only 66% of it's texture fill.
The 7900 GTX has 15 Billion Texeles/s and the X1900XTX has 10 Billion.

I know the X1900XTX has twice as many shader operations as the 7900 GTX but thats mostly overkill and shaders arent supposed to matter that much, and they arent even used in every game. Texture Fill is what powers the game right?


if it is overkill, then why does it do better? lol, maybe b/c it is not overkill!

Quote:
the texture fill wich is obviously far more important and in wich case the 7900 GTX should be a lot better.


well, obviously your information is wrong. ;) 

Quote:
The shaders on the X1900XTX are overkill, and ATI seems like a very stupid company to just put all their resources in one place and end with that (other then a few tweaks of performance to the texture fill as i hear). I mean first they have too little so they just move everything to the shaders and triple the shader power with only somewhat of a gain in most current games.


not very stupid if it works...

Quote:
So, can someone please tell me why it is that the X1900XTX performs better then the 7900 GTX sometimes?
And the 7900 GTX came 2 months after the X1900XTX and from what i hear it was supposed to bring it down. You see, first the 7800 GTX 512 came along, and the X1900 series was supposed to overpower it, and now the 7900 series comes along to overpower the X1900 series as it would seem. So does that mean that i should buy the 7900 GTX because its newer or what? Im so confused over this.
I mean, HDR+AA, seems to be a must right? I mean every game that supports HDR is going to look like sh*t, wich jagged sides? And i hear the picture quality is much better for ATI as well.
So, what do u think abt the performance, does it make sence? ATI seemed to have just gotten lucky, they put out a bad card and it performs well, wtf right?


yup, it's luck... and the magic pixie-dust they sprinkle over each card before shipping.

Quote:
P.S. Is AVIVO worth it? (knowing that PureVideo costs money).

nah, it is overkill like the shaders... buy the card w/ the lower quality, lower performance and less features b/c it is more "rounded".

:D 
August 7, 2006 6:40:46 PM

Are u saying that the 7900 GTX has less features and less performance ??

I just think that the shader power on the X1900XTX is suited to future games, other then current ones.

And since im going to be selling the card, and my entire PC in 1 year.. then the X1900XTX wouldnt do me much good.

Well, what else could it be? They put in 2/3 of the textures and it runs like the GTX in most cases, what can u call that other then magic or luck?

Its just that AVIVO and HDR+AA is bothering me. I think games will look much nicer with HDR+AA. I mean how can u run a game withuot AA??
Related resources
August 7, 2006 6:42:32 PM

You don't put millions of dollars into engineering and research to just come out "lucky". They engineered their cards to run more effectively with less. That's technology.
August 7, 2006 6:46:36 PM

Quote:
You don't put millions of dollars into engineering and research to just come out "lucky". They engineered their cards to run more effectively with less. That's technology.


You mean like AMD has lower clocked CPUs that perform better?

Hmm, i think i heard that ATI made some modifications, or "tweaks" to their Texture Units, making it so that they would run better.. but i thought that that was only a rumor. Plus, they cant run THAT much better, can they?

Are u sure ur not all just ATI fanboys?
August 7, 2006 6:49:27 PM

Quote:
the X1900XTX wouldnt do me much good.


tell me again, why is this thread here? why are you even wondering? Just go get that 7900 and stay away from the lucky/magic/voodoo card that seems to beat it and is ready for the future.
August 7, 2006 6:50:59 PM

Ya never can tell :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  8O 8O

Then again, looking at your OP, it seems as if your mind for the time being has been made up that the Nvidia solution seems superior. So I dont think there's anything convincing you otherwise....
August 7, 2006 6:52:44 PM

Quote:
Then again, looking at your OP, it seems as if your mind for the time being has been made up that the Nvidia solution seems superior. So I dont think there's anything convincing you otherwise....

Indeed.
August 7, 2006 6:55:12 PM

Made up ?? Are u joking? Ive been rattling my brain for the last 8 days trying to decide and i still cant do it.

Look, i DONT get how the X1900 can do what it does when one part of it is overkill (or dont u believe in that?) and one part is too little, why dont u explain it to me other then take offense?

Its just that im selling my PC in 1 year and i only need it to play games from 2003 till the beggining of 2007, and i dont know what is the best solution for me.
Also, i dont know how i would feel having an ATI card, when ive had Nvidia for.. 4 years? Although ive only had the lowest end of their cards.
August 7, 2006 6:55:20 PM

Quote:
Are u sure ur not all just ATI fanboys?


lol, no... it's just you started this thread w/ what seemed like just a simple question wrapped w/ thick fanboi rants about ati's overkill... so I responded w/ sarcasm as it seemed that you were answering your own question on which card to get. You sound like you love Nv and want it, so just get it instead of ripping on something you aparently know nothing about.

If you had approached it w/ a more level headed actual question then you would have gotten different responses. 8O
August 7, 2006 6:59:27 PM

So many questions and observations. A few things to keep in mind. Sometimes gamemakers optimise their games for one card or the other. Result? it plays best on the optimized card. Duh. HDR + AA is a coming thing and Nvidia has been slow on the uptake. That's one reason I went from a Nvidia card to an ATI card when it was time for an update.

Numbers of transistors are not a total answer. It makes a lot of difference how the transistors are used, whether they are wasted doing simple things or used to maximum effect on complex things. ATI didn't just get lucky by producing a bad card that preforms well. Their engineers tested the card out a bunch and came up with a final design that does some things well at the sacrifice of others. That's called a compromise, and every company comprises stuff in trying to build a good final product. After all, transistors cost money, so the companies try to use them in a way they think is most efficient. When they guess wrong, typically because they build one direction and the game makers go the other, then the card becomes a total looser. That happens to all companies from time to time. Sure, luck can play a part in all this, but mostly its a result of planned compromises on the gpu makers part.

This competition to make the overall best leaves the consumer with the advantage. We read the reviews, figure out which card is bests for our needs and budgets and buy accordingly. I don't think of myself as a fanboy. I own both Intel and AMD computers. I have both Nvidia and ATI cards in various machines acoording to what I want that machine to do. I don't bother questioning the designs or companies too much. I look at the results and care about them.
August 7, 2006 7:02:14 PM

I don't see the dilemma. You obviously know that the X1900XTX performs better, you've stated it yourself several times. Why not get it? Who cares how it works, as long as it performs better.
August 7, 2006 7:02:50 PM

Quote:
Look, i DONT get how the X1900 can do what it does when one part of it is overkill (or dont u believe in that?) and one part is too little, why dont u explain it to me other then take offense?

Its just that im selling my PC in 1 year and i only need it to play games from 2003 till the beggining of 2007, and i dont know what is the best solution for me.
Also, i dont know how i would feel having an ATI card, when ive had Nvidia for.. 4 years? Although ive only had the lowest end of their cards.


That is the point man! if you think it is overkill and you dont like the "feel" of an ati card then get the 7900. End of problem.

My point earlier is that you say the shaders are overkill but that is not true. Those shaders are how it gets the performance. It runs asynchronosly and can do more operations per cycle in that "less-rounded" structure w/ more shaders per "pipeline" if it is a game that relies on more shaders then texture ops. (which most games like fear and oblivion are moving towards)

It just seems simple. If they changed to this "overkill" configuration and made better performance, then maybe you are wrong and it is not overkill... maybe THAT is the direction all cards will go...
August 7, 2006 7:04:38 PM

Quote:
Numbers of transistors are not a total answer.


heads up man, he is talking shaders, not transistors. ;) 
August 7, 2006 7:19:12 PM

Ok, wait.. ur saying that its not overkill because the 48 pipes can do more then 24 pipes at a higher clock speed?

Who says games are moving towards this, and how the heck does this make any sence?
I mean Textures are what make a game run, without them u have no game, so how can shaders be that important i mean arent shaders just a luxery eye candy thing that not even all games have?

Look, i dont know how im going to feel buying either the Nvidia card or the ATI card.. most chances are ill lose and win both ways. But it just seems wierd that the ATI card does better sometimes, i mean arent textures the main use anymore? I mean the X1900's structure and built are what give it it's performance? Because i just dont get it.. to me its magic, so can someone explain to me how it is that it works better?

I DONT know that the ATI card performs better, because in 90% on games the 7900 GTX performs better. Just games like F.E.A.R. or COD2 that need shaders much more. And i do care abt WHY a card performs the way it does, because i constantly think abt it.

Are HDR+AA and AVIVO worth the move to ATI wich might be less comfortible then a move from Nvidia to Nvidia, even though it may be harder (fan and i have to buy it at a different store.. etc.)


Most of all, i hate that i have to think abt this so much, i mean its abt GAMES right? Its supposed to be fun, and it was until just a week ago.

Also, i intend to play EVERY game since 2003, just as a note. I know that if i was going to play Doom 3 or Quake 4, wich use OpenGL i would want an Nvidia card, but ill actually probably play those games in the very least (still need to play Quake 3 and still traumatized from my childhood by Doom 2).
August 7, 2006 7:19:36 PM

You're right. I confused the issue, confused myself for that matter.
August 7, 2006 7:31:54 PM

Essentially, ATI has always done more with less. NV has always used the "horsepower" approach. Now only if there Linux support was better....!!
August 7, 2006 8:22:01 PM

Quote:
Ok, wait.. ur saying that its not overkill because the 48 pipes can do more then 24 pipes at a higher clock speed?

not 48 pipes... 16 pipes w/ 3 shaders each.
Quote:
Who says games are moving towards this, and how the heck does this make any sence?
I mean Textures are what make a game run, without them u have no game, so how can shaders be that important i mean arent shaders just a luxery eye candy thing that not even all games have?

actually, YOU say it yourself right here:
Quote:
Just games like F.E.A.R. or COD2 that need shaders much more.
many new games are moving to shader heavy ops, and w/ most devs (finally) going almost exclusively dx9 and dx10 around the corner that will only increase.

Quote:
Look, i dont know how im going to feel buying either the Nvidia card or the ATI card.. most chances are ill lose and win both ways. But it just seems wierd that the ATI card does better sometimes, i mean arent textures the main use anymore? I mean the X1900's structure and built are what give it it's performance? Because i just dont get it.. to me its magic, so can someone explain to me how it is that it works better?

I would think it rather obvious that if shaders are giving more performance then that is where the future is going. Yes, texture and geometry ops are still done, (no telling what the new "geometry shader" in dx10 will do...) but they are not the "main use" as you put it... you still need that structure to build on, but you cannot do all the complex environmental stuff w/o shaders anymore. And yes, you can build a game w/o textures at all... it looks different but it can be done. It is just a massive resource hog compared to texture/geometry work in real time.

Quote:
I DONT know that the ATI card performs better, because in 90% on games the 7900 GTX performs better

really? 90%? link to the tests that show this? (curiosity...)

Quote:
Are HDR+AA and AVIVO worth the move to ATI wich might be less comfortible then a move from Nvidia to Nvidia, even though it may be harder (fan and i have to buy it at a different store.. etc.)

Yes, worth it but that is subjective. If you are such a "fan" then just get Nv.

Quote:
Most of all, i hate that i have to think abt this so much, i mean its abt GAMES right? Its supposed to be fun, and it was until just a week ago.

Also, i intend to play EVERY game since 2003, just as a note. I know that if i was going to play Doom 3 or Quake 4, wich use OpenGL i would want an Nvidia card, but ill actually probably play those games in the very least (still need to play Quake 3 and still traumatized from my childhood by Doom 2).

A week ago? where have you been? these cards are not "new" anymore... why is it only NOW that you are not having fun? If you want the best visuals (IMO) and HDR+AA and better "future" game performance (whatever that entails...) then be happy getting the 1900. it has closed the gap in openGL and runs circles around the 7900 in games like oblivion. If you really are uneasy about getting the wrong one then the 7900 is not a bad card by any means and you will enjoy it as well.

I cannot make it more clear to you. If you still do not understand how the 1900 does its magic then I cannot help you... sometimes you need to accept that it just "is". Kinda like the existence of God... can't always explain it, so you take it on faith... the 1900 is not God, but if you can't see the logic to this point then perhaps you need some faith. ;) 
August 7, 2006 9:11:58 PM

Quote:
Essentially, ATI has always done more with less. NV has always used the "horsepower" approach. Now only if there Linux support was better....!!


You mean like AMD?

What is Linux really, other then an OS?
August 7, 2006 9:21:09 PM

Look, u have an X1900XT.. is it really all that great?

I heard the Control Center is horrible and takes a lot of resources and that its not attached to the monitor prefrences.. and that there is no Digital Vibrance support, wich i find quite fun.

But then theres HDR+AA, i mean isnt that a selling point?

If i buy this card now, wich im pretty sure has 48 pipes.. then how can i buy a "better" card next year.. i mean no game will use the ammount of shaders that this card can wip out for at least 2 years.
The wierd thing is, that by the time that games use that many Shaders, they will also use far too many textures for the X1900 to handle right?


Look, can u just tell me why i should buy this card?
And what tweak they have done to make the Texture Fill better?
That would really help me.
August 7, 2006 9:29:28 PM

If you're not sure if you should buy it, don't buy it then. Buy something else.
August 7, 2006 10:01:37 PM

is it just me, or is this topic going completely and absolutely UTTERLY GREATLY FANTASTICALLY N-O-W-H-E-R-E AT ALLLLLLLL!!!!!????


LETS TALK IN CIRCLES MORE. ITS FUN.
August 7, 2006 10:02:54 PM

Quote:
Look, u have an X1900XT.. is it really all that great?

I heard the Control Center is horrible and takes a lot of resources and that its not attached to the monitor prefrences.. and that there is no Digital Vibrance support, wich i find quite fun.

DVC just looks to me like they are trying to compensate for the lack ov vibrance in their output rather then enhance it. I do not have an Nv card right now to test that, but the pics look like they should look @ default.

Quote:
But then theres HDR+AA, i mean isnt that a selling point?

If i buy this card now, wich im pretty sure has 48 pipes.. then how can i buy a "better" card next year.. i mean no game will use the ammount of shaders that this card can wip out for at least 2 years.
The wierd thing is, that by the time that games use that many Shaders, they will also use far too many textures for the X1900 to handle right?

google it up, look on tom's here... it has 16 pipes and 48 shaders. Nv has 24 pipes, each w/ 1 shader set.

I already said a bunch about HDR+AA... and told you why the 1900 is better. Read.


Quote:
Look, can u just tell me why i should buy this card?

Aparently not, if you can't get it from my earlier posts, then I have no solution.
Quote:
And what tweak they have done to make the Texture Fill better?
That would really help me.

Not really sure they ever did, nor do they need to... runs just fine as it was. afaik the 1900 and 1800 are the same there, no improvement between them.
August 7, 2006 10:04:06 PM

Quote:
is it just me, or is this topic going completely and absolutely UTTERLY GREATLY FANTASTICALLY N-O-W-H-E-R-E AT ALLLLLLLL!!!!!????


LETS TALK IN CIRCLES MORE. ITS FUN.


I was having fun, but now I'm bored. ;) 
August 7, 2006 10:06:52 PM

my point exactly hehe ^^
August 7, 2006 10:41:11 PM

What abt the Control Center?
August 8, 2006 1:25:06 AM

Make it easy on yourself..... buy both and then return the one that you like the least. That is what I did.

BTW, I kept the 1900xt and oc'd it way above xtx specs.
August 8, 2006 2:22:09 AM

There's tweaks too make it not so bad.....really its not killer in the first place, but it could be better.
August 8, 2006 5:34:04 AM

Quote:


I mean Textures are what make a game run, without them u have no game, so how can shaders be that important i mean arent shaders just a luxery eye candy thing that not even all games have?


hello! luxury eye candy? if they make the games look better (which they do), then why not resort to making a card that performs shader operations better?

and not only that, but try playing any of the Splinter Cell games with out shaders (not that i know a way). with out all the shadows and pretty display modes it would be pretty bland, no matter how big and bad the geometry and textures are.

we also see the move from loads of geometry with the use of normal maps. they take a very high poly count object and convert it to a low poly count but also apply maps with shader commands to make it look like the high poly model. this technique is well illustrated in Oblivion. and with oblivion already taxing most systems how would you like it if they dropped the shaders and made it even more geometry orientated. talk about needing a computing cluster to rending the thing.

and if you at all interested you look into the future of ray tracing. it puts a whole new spin on rendering.
August 8, 2006 6:28:58 AM

You are one of the most uninformed people I have heard of. Not to mention you are just plain stupid. Your "lucky" you haven't forgotten to breathe. If you have an issue with the flux capacitors of the Radeon or the doohickeys of the Geforce dont get either.
August 8, 2006 3:18:00 PM

lolz......
August 8, 2006 3:22:38 PM

Quote:
You are one of the most uninformed people I have heard of. Not to mention you are just plain stupid. Your "lucky" you haven't forgotten to breathe. If you have an issue with the flux capacitors of the Radeon or the doohickeys of the Geforce dont get either.

:lol:  :lol: 
August 8, 2006 3:43:33 PM

I hear that via Chrome is sweet.

I mean, if the "Girlz of Destruction" can use it, why not track?

lol
!