7900gt or x1800xt

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: thilan29
Serious Sam 2, Farcry, Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory, Age of Empires 3, Oblivion (can't think of any more off the top of my head) can all do HDR + AA.

Originally posted by: munky
And here's a list of some other games that would be even more playable with HDR+AA:
SS2
AOE3
Farcry
<insert future TWIMTBP title here...>

HDR+AA is something that should have been supported by NV, but they took the lazy way out and did not implement it.

You do realize that NV supports HDR+AA in AOE3 as well.

This guy wants Prey/Quake Wars performance and thats all Nvidia FTW with the cool, quiet, single slot solution.
/thread

Did he say he ONLY wants to play Prey and Quake Wars?? He said he plays fps. And those games aren't even out and you're assuming that it's already won.

I guess we should all assume that since Ati cards are better in FarCry that we should all buy ATI cards to play CrySis which is also highly anticipated.

That was really weak..
If Crysis were released and benchmarked.. and a game that was based on the Crysis engine were to be released, yes, we could draw that conclusion. But a DX10 game is a bit silly to predict with an engine we've never even seen benched.

The GF7 has already won in Prey/QW.. OGL/D3 engine based games are NV's territory. I'd lay down good cash that the GF7 will take top ranks in 1600x1200 benchmarks in both of those games. Its free money.
All you have to do is look at the disparity between NV/ATI in D3 engine based games like Quake4 or D3 itself.

I wouldnt bet your livelihood on Crysis being ATIs game though considering DX10 cards are to be released yet.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: thilan29
Serious Sam 2, Farcry, Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory, Age of Empires 3, Oblivion (can't think of any more off the top of my head) can all do HDR + AA.

Originally posted by: munky
And here's a list of some other games that would be even more playable with HDR+AA:
SS2
AOE3
Farcry
<insert future TWIMTBP title here...>

HDR+AA is something that should have been supported by NV, but they took the lazy way out and did not implement it.

You do realize that NV supports HDR+AA in AOE3 as well.

This guy wants Prey/Quake Wars performance and thats all Nvidia FTW with the cool, quiet, single slot solution.
/thread

Did he say he ONLY wants to play Prey and Quake Wars?? He said he plays fps. And those games aren't even out and you're assuming that it's already won.

I guess we should all assume that since Ati cards are better in FarCry that we should all buy ATI cards to play CrySis which is also highly anticipated.

That was really weak..
If Crysis were released and benchmarked.. and a game that was based on the Crysis engine were to be released, yes, we could draw that conclusion. But a DX10 game is a bit silly to predict with an engine we've never even seen benched.

The GF7 has already won in Prey/QW.. OGL/D3 engine based games are NV's territory. I'd lay down good cash that the GF7 will take top ranks in 1600x1200 benchmarks in both of those games. Its free money.
All you have to do is look at the disparity between NV/ATI in D3 engine based games like Quake4 or D3 itself.

I wouldnt bet your livelihood on Crysis being ATIs game though considering DX10 cards are to be released yet.

You extrapolated Nvidia's current OGL performance to a game that hasn't been released. I also extrapolated ATI's DirectX performance to a game that hasn't been released. Irrespective of the fact it's DX10 since none of us know how DX10 will perform on either company's hardware, I made a prediction just as you did. You don't have actual proof but neither do I.

Until those games have been released we both should not be able to say one way or another but you can insist on doing so.

Also, those are not the only games that will be released are they?? There'll be many more games released and the majority of them will be DirectX based so what can you say about that? The OP never said he'll ONLY play Prey and QW...what's the point of getting a vid card based only on TWO unreleased games?

 

[josh6079]

quote:
Originally posted by: Crusader

This guy wants Prey/Quake Wars performance and thats all Nvidia FTW with the cool, quiet, single slot solution.

Crusaders sig:

Geforce 7- The cool, quiet, low power consumption solution with the best single slot card available,

You sound like an advertisement: "With the cool, quiet, single slot solution...With the cool, quiet, single slot solution".

When did any of those attributes apply to anyone who wants to get the most out of their money?

Cool? Most get other HSF's for their cards, so that doesn't matter.

Quiet? Only the badass 7900GTX cooler. 7900GT, not so much.

Low power consumption? His (and most of everyone else here who builds computers) rig has 550 Watts of power behind it, well enough to juice any card, even 450 would be fine.

Single Slot? Why does he (or anybody) need the PCI 1 slot that is taken up by a cooler to play games? Even those who have kept their same slot coolers on their 7 series don't use that.

The OP said that he will be overclocking (I don't know why exactly if he's not concerned with AA/AF and at that resolution) but in any case he said not w/ a volt mod. So right there the X1800 is a better choice because of better software overclocking. 7900GT or x1800, he'll want to get an aftermarket cooler, depending on the amount of overclocking he wants to do. Also, if he goes into a bigger monitor, the x1800 will come out on top most of the time, and offer features he may later want. Plus, in most posts I've seen, the x1800 can be bought for cheaper.

Seems clear to me.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: thilan29
You extrapolated Nvidia's current OGL performance to a game that hasn't been released. I also extrapolated ATI's DirectX performance to a game that hasn't been released. Irrespective of the fact it's DX10 since none of us know how DX10 will perform on either company's hardware, I made a prediction just as you did. You don't have actual proof but neither do I.

Until those games have been released we both should not be able to say one way or another but you can insist on doing so.

Also, those are not the only games that will be released are they?? There'll be many more games released and the majority of them will be DirectX based so what can you say about that? The OP never said he'll ONLY play Prey and QW...what's the point of getting a vid card based only on TWO unreleased games?

The difference is, my extrapolation makes sense. And it will become true. I'd bet anything on it with you. I wouldnt bet on your Crysis "theory" though, no way!
No DX10 cards, no Crysis benchmarks or demo, and no Vista/DX10 itself!
Quite the contrast compared to a future D3E based game..

Whats the point on buying a vid card based on two unreleased games? Well you take your best bet. Unless you are a noob, everyone knows OGL and esp John Carmack built engines are Nvidia's ballgame. Its not rocket science to know where to safetly hedge yer bets if choosing between an ATI or NV product with that in mind.
Of course the best idea is to wait till the games you are buying the card for are released and then purchasing.. but the guy needs a card now so he should go with the best card for an OGL based game.

I agree with you in that I always wait till a game that Im very interested is released then seeing what I need for it..as Im not that broad of a gamer.

I enjoy Doom3 based games (and immensely enjoyed D3/Q4), play WC3 TFT on battle.net, some Heroes of Might and Magic (5 currently but will still play the older ones even on my fancy rig) and Civilization 4.
The only really intensive game I have are the D3 based ones (tho HOMM5 is more intensive than one might imagine actually..) and I waited to upgrade for that game.

But we've seen what the D3E likes and thats what this guy is looking for, games based on this engine.

Prey does look spectacular..

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: josh6079
You sound like an advertisement: "With the cool, quiet, single slot solution...With the cool, quiet, single slot solution".

You must be new. I'm playing a parody on the famous R300 days.

If you had been into video cards as long as I have (pre-voodoo), you'd surely remember the fanatical cries for "the cool quiet single slot solution" from the R300 zealots.

But now, that is all quiet because Nvidia makes the cool, quiet solution and the only high end single slot card.. which is great for SFF and people that want multi-GPU but dont want to eat up 4 slots to do it.

Having a quiet, cool running, and single slot option in a product lineup is VERY important. I agree with the R300 fanboys who changed their tune conveniently

It was true then and its true now, single slot with equal performance is better due to not eating up the slot next to it. Sure you'll have every ATI fanboy screaming they use integrated this and that.. but the bottom line is that it doenst eat up your slots.

In a SFF PC or microATX board this matters even more and that stuff is becoming increasingly popular.
The 7900GT is in a class of its own, the class of cards that ATI and its legions created and are now taking flak for.

ATI cant hang with Nvidia with engineering a single slot card that can perform with the high end. 2nd rate engineering, theres not much else to explain that situation.

 

[thilanliyan]

The point in my post was that the OP NEVER stated he would ONLY play Prey and QW...he said fps also. That's why I asked why he should base his decision on only 2 games. The majority of games are DirectX not OGL.

Hopefully the OP has made a decision that suits him best.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Crusader

If you had been into video cards as long as I have (pre-voodoo), you'd surely remember the fanatical cries for "the cool quiet single slot solution" from the R300 zealots.

But now, that is all quiet because Nvidia makes the cool, quiet solution and the only high end single slot card.. which is great for SFF and people that want multi-GPU but dont want to eat up 4 slots to do it.

Sort of like how NVidia fans were screaming SM3 & HDR when the 6800 series came out, pointing to the more advanced featureset. But now the featureset doesn't matter anymore huh??

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: Crusader
ATI cant hang with Nvidia with engineering a single slot card that can perform with the high end. 2nd rate engineering, theres not much else to explain that situation.

So how come they couldn't make their cards do HDR + AA too like the second rate engineering managed to do?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: josh6079
You sound like an advertisement: "With the cool, quiet, single slot solution...With the cool, quiet, single slot solution".

You must be new. I'm playing a parody on the famous R300 days.

If you had been into video cards as long as I have (pre-voodoo), you'd surely remember the fanatical cries for "the cool quiet single slot solution" from the R300 zealots.

But now, that is all quiet because Nvidia makes the cool, quiet solution and the only high end single slot card.. which is great for SFF and people that want multi-GPU but dont want to eat up 4 slots to do it.

Having a quiet, cool running, and single slot option in a product lineup is VERY important. I agree with the R300 fanboys who changed their tune conveniently

It was true then and its true now, single slot with equal performance is better due to not eating up the slot next to it. Sure you'll have every ATI fanboy screaming they use integrated this and that.. but the bottom line is that it doenst eat up your slots.

In a SFF PC or microATX board this matters even more and that stuff is becoming increasingly popular.
The 7900GT is in a class of its own, the class of cards that ATI and its legions created and are now taking flak for.

ATI cant hang with Nvidia with engineering a single slot card that can perform with the high end. 2nd rate engineering, theres not much else to explain that situation.

2nd rate engineering? that's fanboy crap, and the reason many sensible people disregard much of what you say.

i'd agree that single slot is certainly a consideration for those with SFF cases, however hardware has changes and these days there's little need for the pci slots.

and the issue with the dusbuster was it was slow. big and loud were secondary problems and made for some good jokes, but the simple fact was with its 128-bit mem, nv30 was just butt slow compared to the 9700.

the nv35 were better cards (than nv30), but were still behind the r300 in features and (to a lesser extent) speed (it did fare well in ogl and certain multi-textured games).

the GT is a nice card and a great choice for some people, but the reality is the same could be said for the x1800/1900.

 

[Exsomnis]

Originally posted by: Crusader
If he has to give it back to his friend, I say 7900GT.

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
While the 7900 GT generally spent its time at the bottom of our high end tests, remember that it performs slightly better than a stock 7800 GTX. This puts it squarely at or better than the X1800 XL and X1800 XT.

I'd go with Derek Wilsons opinion.
Source

So would I.

 

[Exsomnis]

Originally posted by: Crusader
The X1800/X1900 are to slow to run HDR+AA.
Have to wait for the Geforce8 or Radeon X2K if you want HDR+AA to actually be playable.

WRONG. My X1800XT 256MB runs Oblivion just fine in 1280x960 with 6xFSAA and 16xAF.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Exsomnis

Originally posted by: Crusader
The X1800/X1900 are to slow to run HDR+AA.
Have to wait for the Geforce8 or Radeon X2K if you want HDR+AA to actually be playable.

WRONG. My X1800XT 256MB runs Oblivion just fine in 1280x960 with 6xFSAA and 16xAF.

This first gen HDR+AA hype is largely a check box feature, currently implemented in too limited a fashion to be of much use.

Most people with X1900s are going to have LCDs with a native resolution of 16X10 or higher. Running lower resolutions will degrade IQ.

Check out how ?well? a X1900XTX runs Oblivion at 16X12/HDR without AA:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page5.asp

Wow, a whole 27fps if you?re lucky enough to have a FX-57 for a cpu. Can?t wait to apply some AA to that and make it more of a slide show.

How about a less demanding part of the game?
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page3.asp

46fps is better, but a. doesn?t say that 8X AF is the High Quality, and it?s not the 16X most gamers use b. still on a FX57 c. what if you have a 23-24? LCD

So it looks like you need Crossfire, that few people have to enjoy HDR+AA and be guaranteed smooth frames with Oblivion. Is it really worth playing Far Cry again to add AA to the HDR? Is it worth enduring Serious Sam2 at all?

X1900s offer good performance, but HDR+AA is a tech demo at this point. By the time more games are using it, a X1900 will likely be a slow card.

 

[thilanliyan]

By those benchmarks it looks like you need a 7900GTX SLI setup to just use HDR in Oblivion at the higher resolutions.

Several people have come on this thread and proclaimed that Oblivion with HDR+AA is playable at higher res with a single X1900. Even ST said it and he has both a 7900GT and X1900XT. So have they all been smoking some good stuff to not notice any unbearable slowdowns??

 

[imported_spank]

Originally posted by: Crusader
Check out how ?well? a X1900XTX runs Oblivion at 16X12/HDR without AA:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page5.asp

Wow, a whole 27fps if you?re lucky enough to have a FX-57 for a cpu. Can?t wait to apply some AA to that and make it more of a slide show.

Are you saying that the 7900gtx is unplayable at 1600*1200 in oblivion ?

 

[zendari]

I like Nvidia cards so I got a cheap $280 7900 gt.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: Exsomnis

Originally posted by: Crusader
The X1800/X1900 are to slow to run HDR+AA.
Have to wait for the Geforce8 or Radeon X2K if you want HDR+AA to actually be playable.

WRONG. My X1800XT 256MB runs Oblivion just fine in 1280x960 with 6xFSAA and 16xAF.

This first gen HDR+AA hype is largely a check box feature, currently implemented in too limited a fashion to be of much use.

Most people with X1900s are going to have LCDs with a native resolution of 16X10 or higher. Running lower resolutions will degrade IQ.

Check out how ?well? a X1900XTX runs Oblivion at 16X12/HDR without AA:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page5.asp

Wow, a whole 27fps if you?re lucky enough to have a FX-57 for a cpu. Can?t wait to apply some AA to that and make it more of a slide show.

How about a less demanding part of the game?
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page3.asp

46fps is better, but a. doesn?t say that 8X AF is the High Quality, and it?s not the 16X most gamers use b. still on a FX57 c. what if you have a 23-24? LCD

So it looks like you need Crossfire, that few people have to enjoy HDR+AA and be guaranteed smooth frames with Oblivion. Is it really worth playing Far Cry again to add AA to the HDR? Is it worth enduring Serious Sam2 at all?

X1900s offer good performance, but HDR+AA is a tech demo at this point. By the time more games are using it, a X1900 will likely be a slow card.

27 fps compared to 20 fps on a 7900gtx. I bet the x1900xtx could run at least 20fps with HDR+AA, which is more that your primitive 7900gtx couls manage with inferior IQ. :laugh:. Then, we have a buch of people, including me, who actually have x1900xtx, play Oblivion with HDR+AA, and arent chugging along at 20 fps, but you just keep spouting the same crap over and over. Or how about at 1280x1024, the most common LCD resolution? x1800xt: 28fps, 7900gt: 17 fps. Where's that Nv domination over Ati I keep hearing about? The x1800xt gets a higher fps at 1600 res than a 7900gt at 1280 res. That's just embarrasing.

And lets take a look at that OGL/D3 domination:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard...7900_gt_7900_gtx/21/#abschnitt_quake_4
1280 res, 4x/16x = x1800xt beats the 7900gt in Quake 4.
1600 res, 4x/16x = x1800xt beats 7900gt in Quake 4.
So much for that theory.

 

[anandtechrocks]

Originally posted by: zendari
I like Nvidia cards so I got a cheap $280 7900 gt.

I like Nvidia and ATI cards so I got a cheap $240 X1800XT w/512MB.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: thilan29
Serious Sam 2, Farcry, Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory, Age of Empires 3, Oblivion (can't think of any more off the top of my head) can all do HDR + AA.

Originally posted by: munky
And here's a list of some other games that would be even more playable with HDR+AA:
SS2
AOE3
Farcry
<insert future TWIMTBP title here...>

HDR+AA is something that should have been supported by NV, but they took the lazy way out and did not implement it.

You do realize that NV supports HDR+AA in AOE3 as well.
/thread

Yes, it supports 1.5x SSAA, which doesnt look as good, kills performance, and only works because the devs went out of their way and manually coded SSAA in the game for the primitive 7 series.

 

[Tom]

"Or how about at 1280x1024, the most common LCD resolution? x1800xt: 28fps, 7900gt: 17 fps."

That is actual useful information. How did it get into the video forum ?

28fps is very playable, 17fps isn't.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: Exsomnis

Originally posted by: Crusader
The X1800/X1900 are to slow to run HDR+AA.
Have to wait for the Geforce8 or Radeon X2K if you want HDR+AA to actually be playable.

WRONG. My X1800XT 256MB runs Oblivion just fine in 1280x960 with 6xFSAA and 16xAF.

This first gen HDR+AA hype is largely a check box feature, currently implemented in too limited a fashion to be of much use.

Most people with X1900s are going to have LCDs with a native resolution of 16X10 or higher. Running lower resolutions will degrade IQ.

Check out how ?well? a X1900XTX runs Oblivion at 16X12/HDR without AA:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page5.asp

Wow, a whole 27fps if you?re lucky enough to have a FX-57 for a cpu. Can?t wait to apply some AA to that and make it more of a slide show.

How about a less demanding part of the game?
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page3.asp

46fps is better, but a. doesn?t say that 8X AF is the High Quality, and it?s not the 16X most gamers use b. still on a FX57 c. what if you have a 23-24? LCD

So it looks like you need Crossfire, that few people have to enjoy HDR+AA and be guaranteed smooth frames with Oblivion. Is it really worth playing Far Cry again to add AA to the HDR? Is it worth enduring Serious Sam2 at all?

X1900s offer good performance, but HDR+AA is a tech demo at this point. By the time more games are using it, a X1900 will likely be a slow card.

I have really no idea why people need such huge fps to run oblivion. I've got my X1600 pro overclocked decently and I'm running oblivion 1024x768 w/ HDR and view distance maxed along with a few items grass decent and it's running fine. I play Source w/ a Geforce 2MX so I guess i'm used to slow framerates THank GOd I'm not spoiled .

 

[Tom]

I have a question about OGL games..

I know it's a common claim that Nvidia is superior to ATI for OGL based games, but when I look at specific benchmarks between the 7900GT and the x1800xt, I don't see a very significant difference ?

I mean, there's a measurable, small, Nvidia advantage in some situations, mostly when features are all turned off which doesn't seem realistic to me, but both cards seem very capable at running OGL games. What am I missing here ?

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Tom
I have a question about OGL games..

I know it's a common claim that Nvidia is superior to ATI for OGL based games, but when I look at specific benchmarks between the 7900GT and the x1800xt, I don't see a very significant difference ?

I mean, there's a measurable, small, Nvidia advantage in some situations, mostly when features are all turned off which doesn't seem realistic to me, but both cards seem very capable at running OGL games. What am I missing here ?

Has to do with the 512-bit Ring bus on the X1800/X1900 series of cards that was utilized several driver releases back to improve Open GL performance with AA/AF enabled.

 

[Munky]

Some games, such as those based on the D3 engine, perform more or less on par on modern cards, although when the game first came out it ran significantly better on the 6800 cards than the x800 cards. Some OGL games, however, still run much better on Nv hardware, like Chronicles of Riddick, although this is more likely due to better OGL driver efficiency rather than the hardware. But in any case, NV's lead shrinks considerably once AA+AF are enabled.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: josh6079
You sound like an advertisement: "With the cool, quiet, single slot solution...With the cool, quiet, single slot solution".

You must be new. I'm playing a parody on the famous R300 days.

If you had been into video cards as long as I have (pre-voodoo), you'd surely remember the fanatical cries for "the cool quiet single slot solution" from the R300 zealots.

But now, that is all quiet because Nvidia makes the cool, quiet solution and the only high end single slot card.. which is great for SFF and people that want multi-GPU but dont want to eat up 4 slots to do it.

Having a quiet, cool running, and single slot option in a product lineup is VERY important. I agree with the R300 fanboys who changed their tune conveniently

It was true then and its true now, single slot with equal performance is better due to not eating up the slot next to it. Sure you'll have every ATI fanboy screaming they use integrated this and that.. but the bottom line is that it doenst eat up your slots.

In a SFF PC or microATX board this matters even more and that stuff is becoming increasingly popular.
The 7900GT is in a class of its own, the class of cards that ATI and its legions created and are now taking flak for.

ATI cant hang with Nvidia with engineering a single slot card that can perform with the high end. 2nd rate engineering, theres not much else to explain that situation.

Um, guy, you still sound like an advertisement, no matter what reason you have behind it. Besides, looks like when Nvida gets down to business and trys to make a supreme GPU for their company, they use two slots for cooling just like ATI. I guess ATI should be embarassed for puting a HSF that takes the hot air out of the case and cooling the memory as well.

Your also wrong about everything you've been sputtering. And even if you were right, even if the 7900GT was beating the X1800 by the amount the x1800 is beating the GT, it would still be a slap in the face for Nvidia since the X1800 is a GPU revision BEHIND the 7900GT. Plus, it still offers better features. If you wanted to compare the cards within the correct competition parameters it would be: 7900GTX vs X1900XTX/ 7900GT vs. X1900XT / 7800GTX512MB vs. X1800 512MB / 7800GTX & 7800GT vs. X1800 256MB. etc. Instead, the X1800 compares closely and sometimes better than the 7900GT.

Where's the OP. Has he even decided yet?

 

[Munky]

LOL, I dont remember many people raving about the r300 because it was cool and quiet. I remember the r300 as the card that offered a huge performance and features improvement over the gf4 series, and better overall performance than the FX series that came out 5 months later. Neither do I remember many people ditching their loud, dual slot 6800ultra's for a passively cooled, single slot x800xl, because then you'd lack SM3, HDR, soft shadows, and all that. Seems that when you're behind in features and performance, the only thing left to pimp is the single slot quiet thing, and even that's ironic, because the 7900gt is not quiet, and the 7900gtx is not single slot.