Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: Crusader
You must be new. I'm playing a parody on the famous R300 days.Originally posted by: josh6079
You sound like an advertisement: "With the cool, quiet, single slot solution...With the cool, quiet, single slot solution".
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.
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: Exsomnis
WRONG. My X1800XT 256MB runs Oblivion just fine in 1280x960 with 6xFSAA and 16xAF.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.
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.
Originally posted by: Crusader
No, you are chugging at 20FPS or lower according to reliable sources.
While you have no proof, making you a liar.
HDR+AA on ATI is a tacked on feature that is not properly impemented and before its time and when it is useful in every game it will be to slow to perform with it. Top end cards today can barely pull through Oblivion with high res + HDR.
It'd be wise to wait for Nvidia to do HDR+AA right.
Your checkbox feature requires hacks to be enabled in Oblivion.
So you know how I play better than me? Takes a lot of ignorance to make that claim.Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: Exsomnis
WRONG. My X1800XT 256MB runs Oblivion just fine in 1280x960 with 6xFSAA and 16xAF.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.
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.
No, you are chugging at 20FPS or lower according to reliable sources.
While you have no proof, making you a liar.
How come Nv cant tack on such a feature through their awesome drivers?HDR+AA on ATI is a tacked on feature
What's a more proper way of doing FP16 HDR with MSAA in hardware? By making the game devs manually code SSAA instead? Or by making them manually code HDR by shaders?that is not properly impemented
And yet it can be used in the most popular game right now.and before its time
It is useful right now in the game I play. You expect me to wait 6-8 more months to play Oblivion "the way it was really meant to be played?"and when it is useful in every game it will be to slow to perform with it.
Whatever fps a 7900gtx pulls with HDR, a x1900xtx will pull with HDR+AA. A realy tough decision there...Top end cards today can barely pull through Oblivion with high res + HDR.
Well, then first that would mean they'd have to get plain AA right so it doesnt cause a 50% performance penalty. Then they'd have to get SliAA right, so quad SLI doesnt chug along at 30fps. Then, maybe by the time DX11 and the year 2009 comes around, they'd finally get HDR+AA right. Have fun waiting...It'd be wise to wait for Nvidia to do HDR+AA right.
If by "hack" it means giving me more features that the game should have had in the first place, then bring on the hacks. Dont you wish Nv would enable such a hack in their drivers?Your checkbox feature requires hacks to be enabled in Oblivion.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: Crusader
No, you are chugging at 20FPS or lower according to reliable sources.
While you have no proof, making you a liar.
HDR+AA on ATI is a tacked on feature that is not properly impemented and before its time and when it is useful in every game it will be to slow to perform with it. Top end cards today can barely pull through Oblivion with high res + HDR.
It'd be wise to wait for Nvidia to do HDR+AA right.
Your checkbox feature requires hacks to be enabled in Oblivion.
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: 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.
SSAA > MSAA imho...
Blurring everything out is better?
LOL. I agree. Only I think the sad part is that he isn't upset with his hardware, and anybody who has eyes should be if they saw what the X1*** series is like. He also isn't making any comments about the fact that his 7900 card of God is competing with a X1800, a card that has been around longer than the revised 7 series GPU. Crusader, I'm not saying that the 7900 is useless, just not as good as a deal right now--especially since the OP wont be doing a volt mod to overclock some of its possibly hidden potential. Stock vs. Stock, the X1800 is all over your 7900.Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: Crusader
No, you are chugging at 20FPS or lower according to reliable sources.
While you have no proof, making you a liar.
HDR+AA on ATI is a tacked on feature that is not properly impemented and before its time and when it is useful in every game it will be to slow to perform with it. Top end cards today can barely pull through Oblivion with high res + HDR.
It'd be wise to wait for Nvidia to do HDR+AA right.
Your checkbox feature requires hacks to be enabled in Oblivion.
so it's a conspiracy? all of us playing oblivion running AA & HDR concurrently are all lying? @ 1440x900 (widescreen rocks) i am not "chugging" along at 20fps or lower, and certainly don't need someone who has no exp. whatsoever to tell me i am.
lol.... it's really sad you are so upset your hardware can't do it you have to go thru all this trouble trying to convice all of us who are running it that it isn't possible.
Originally posted by: eits
anyone who says x1800xt is an idiot.
evga 7900gt co superclocked crushes x1800xt 512mb... it's almost right on par with the 7900gtx.
Originally posted by: josh6079
Originally posted by: eits
anyone who says x1800xt is an idiot.
evga 7900gt co superclocked crushes x1800xt 512mb... it's almost right on par with the 7900gtx.
If you say superclocked, I hope your implying volt modded which the OP wont be doing. And if you are implying the stock "superclocked" version of a 7900GT then your mistaken.
Here is the most expensive 7900GT I found on Newegg:
"Best" stock 7900GT
Here is the least expensive X1800XT on Newegg:
Stock X1800XTX
Here is the least expensive 7900GTX on Newegg:
Stock 7900GTX
Lets look at what you said about a "superclocked" 7900GT performing up to par with the 7900GTX (which would be just plain stupid on Nvidia's part if that were the case).
The specs for the 7900GT I showed are 550Mhz core, 1580Mhz memory, and only 256 MB of memory at that. The 7900GTX is 650 Mhz on the core, and 1600 on the memory, while giving 512 MB of memory. The X1800XT is clocked at 625 Mhz on the core, 1500 Mhz on the memory (same as the 7900GT), and gives you the same amount of memory as the 7900GTX, or 512MB.
So, the 7900GT is not as good as the 7900GTX and the card that seperates the two is the X1800XT since its core clock is higher than the 7900GT's and it has twice the amount of memory. In fact, the only thing it loses to the 7900GT in is the memory frequency.
Since the 7900GT is $343.69 once shipped, and the X1800XT is $283.89 once shipped, you are definatley getting more for your money with the X1800XT. And even if 7900GT had the same exact specs as the X1800XT, the X1800 would still be a better buy because of the price, the better IQ features, twice as much the amount of available memory, and because of its easier voltage settings through certain overclocking utilities that enable people to unleash the cards full potential without risking a voltmod no matter how failsafe it is. Those points and being able to overclock the X1800XT through software is where it becomes the card the OP should buy.
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Going by the benchmarks you provided they perform about equally when you turn up AA and AF, plus you can do HDR + AA with the X1800XT and IIRC the X1800XT is cheaper than the eVGA 7900GT.
Oh and try to provide a site other than theinquirer cause they're more about gettin the big story than providing proper benchmarks(as other people can tell you also).
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Going by the benchmarks you provided they perform about equally when you turn up AA and AF, plus you can do HDR + AA with the X1800XT and IIRC the X1800XT is cheaper than the eVGA 7900GT.
Oh and try to provide a site other than theinquirer cause they're more about gettin the big story than providing proper benchmarks(as other people can tell you also).
read the article, dude... don't just look at the numbers.
maybe you'd like this one better...
http://xtreview.com/articles.php?id=28&view=Evga_7900_gt_super_clock_review
find more reviews here:
http://www.evga.com/newsletter/awards/#7900GTCOSUPERCLOCKED%EF%BF%BD
and the x1800xt isn't much cheaper than the 7900gt oc sc.
the 7900gt oc sc is $330ish
the median price of the x1800xt 512mb model is around $340ish
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Going by the benchmarks you provided they perform about equally when you turn up AA and AF, plus you can do HDR + AA with the X1800XT and IIRC the X1800XT is cheaper than the eVGA 7900GT.
Oh and try to provide a site other than theinquirer cause they're more about gettin the big story than providing proper benchmarks(as other people can tell you also).
read the article, dude... don't just look at the numbers.
maybe you'd like this one better...
http://xtreview.com/articles.php?id=28&view=Evga_7900_gt_super_clock_review
find more reviews here:
http://www.evga.com/newsletter/awards/#7900GTCOSUPERCLOCKED%EF%BF%BD
and the x1800xt isn't much cheaper than the 7900gt oc sc.
the 7900gt oc sc is $330ish
the median price of the x1800xt 512mb model is around $340ish
And why would you link to the eVGA site to look for reviews of their own card?? Duh...of course they're only gonna pick sites that show them in a better light.
Those two reviews (this one and the inquirer one you gave earlier) are the EXACT same(look at the test system section...why do they have the 7800GS listed there?? Same mistake on both sites plus the fact that everything else is the same also.). Why don't you link a more reputable site like Firingsquad, hexus, xbitlabs, Anandtech???
And no the X1800XT is NOT $340 (why'd you say median price anyway?? I'm sure everyone goes looking for the median price....). You can get the X1800XT 512 for about $290 shipped from NewEgg and the X1800XT 256 for about $255. And on NewEgg the 7900GT superclocked is $340. THis is in the US of course.
Check your facts before you post em.
The 7900GT is a great card I'm sure but it no way "crushes" the X1800XT as you put it before when you consider all things.
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Going by the benchmarks you provided they perform about equally when you turn up AA and AF, plus you can do HDR + AA with the X1800XT and IIRC the X1800XT is cheaper than the eVGA 7900GT.
Oh and try to provide a site other than theinquirer cause they're more about gettin the big story than providing proper benchmarks(as other people can tell you also).
read the article, dude... don't just look at the numbers.
maybe you'd like this one better...
http://xtreview.com/articles.php?id=28&view=Evga_7900_gt_super_clock_review
find more reviews here:
http://www.evga.com/newsletter/awards/#7900GTCOSUPERCLOCKED%EF%BF%BD
and the x1800xt isn't much cheaper than the 7900gt oc sc.
the 7900gt oc sc is $330ish
the median price of the x1800xt 512mb model is around $340ish
And why would you link to the eVGA site to look for reviews of their own card?? Duh...of course they're only gonna pick sites that show them in a better light.
Those two reviews (this one and the inquirer one you gave earlier) are the EXACT same(look at the test system section...why do they have the 7800GS listed there?? Same mistake on both sites plus the fact that everything else is the same also.). Why don't you link a more reputable site like Firingsquad, hexus, xbitlabs, Anandtech???
And no the X1800XT is NOT $340 (why'd you say median price anyway?? I'm sure everyone goes looking for the median price....). You can get the X1800XT 512 for about $290 shipped from NewEgg and the X1800XT 256 for about $255. And on NewEgg the 7900GT superclocked is $340. THis is in the US of course.
Check your facts before you post em.
The 7900GT is a great card I'm sure but it no way "crushes" the X1800XT as you put it before when you consider all things.
well, no shyt, but those are still valid reviews. that's the entire reason why companies give review sites hardware to review in the first place... so they can review them and post the articles on their site. that doesn't discredit the review at all, though. it's not like evga pulled a bush administration and made them to fabricate good review.
i know that review's the same as the inquirer one... that's why i posted you dumbass. you whined about it being the inquirer, so i found the review for you.
i looked at other sites and this was the only benchmark i could find that had the x1800xt 512mb vs the 7900gt co sc. if you want better benches, get off your lazy fvcking ass and look them up yourself... i'm not a fanboy, so i have no allegiance to either company... i go with what's better, and the 7900gt co sc is clearly better.
i did check my facts before i posted them... that's why i posted them. why don't you learn to read before you post a rebuttal? didn't you learn the definition of a median in 6th grade? also, why would you want the cheapest x1800xt 512 only to sacrifice performance against the others? all x1800xt 512s aren't created equal... it's like having a powercolor vs an asus or HIS.
look, i'm tired of you, corky... you can feel free to be a ati fanboy if you'd like. the fact of the matter is that the best choice is the evga 7900gt co sc.
don't forget about the lifetime warranty, too.
the obvious answer to this dilemma is the 7900gt co superclocked.
Originally posted by: eits
i looked at other sites and this was the only benchmark i could find that had the x1800xt 512mb vs the 7900gt co sc. if you want better benches, get off your lazy fvcking ass and look them up yourself... i'm not a fanboy, so i have no allegiance to either company... i go with what's better, and the 7900gt co sc is clearly better.
i did check my facts before i posted them... that's why i posted them. why don't you learn to read before you post a rebuttal? didn't you learn the definition of a median in 6th grade? also, why would you want the cheapest x1800xt 512 only to sacrifice performance against the others? all x1800xt 512s aren't created equal... it's like having a powercolor vs an asus or HIS.
look, i'm tired of you, corky... you can feel free to be a ati fanboy if you'd like. the fact of the matter is that the best choice is the evga 7900gt co sc.
don't forget about the lifetime warranty, too.
the obvious answer to this dilemma is the 7900gt co superclocked.
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Going by the benchmarks you provided they perform about equally when you turn up AA and AF, plus you can do HDR + AA with the X1800XT and IIRC the X1800XT is cheaper than the eVGA 7900GT.
Oh and try to provide a site other than theinquirer cause they're more about gettin the big story than providing proper benchmarks(as other people can tell you also).
read the article, dude... don't just look at the numbers.
maybe you'd like this one better...
http://xtreview.com/articles.php?id=28&view=Evga_7900_gt_super_clock_review
find more reviews here:
http://www.evga.com/newsletter/awards/#7900GTCOSUPERCLOCKED%EF%BF%BD
and the x1800xt isn't much cheaper than the 7900gt oc sc.
the 7900gt oc sc is $330ish
the median price of the x1800xt 512mb model is around $340ish
And why would you link to the eVGA site to look for reviews of their own card?? Duh...of course they're only gonna pick sites that show them in a better light.
Those two reviews (this one and the inquirer one you gave earlier) are the EXACT same(look at the test system section...why do they have the 7800GS listed there?? Same mistake on both sites plus the fact that everything else is the same also.). Why don't you link a more reputable site like Firingsquad, hexus, xbitlabs, Anandtech???
And no the X1800XT is NOT $340 (why'd you say median price anyway?? I'm sure everyone goes looking for the median price....). You can get the X1800XT 512 for about $290 shipped from NewEgg and the X1800XT 256 for about $255. And on NewEgg the 7900GT superclocked is $340. THis is in the US of course.
Check your facts before you post em.
The 7900GT is a great card I'm sure but it no way "crushes" the X1800XT as you put it before when you consider all things.
also, why would you want the cheapest x1800xt 512 only to sacrifice performance against the others? all x1800xt 512s aren't created equal... it's like having a powercolor vs an asus or HIS.
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: eits
the 7900gt co superclocked wins.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30680
as you can see, they used a 512mb x1800xt in the benchmark and the 7900gt co sc still beats it... and they're priced about the same.
lol.. using the INQ as a review source. now that's funny!
first of all, they are not prices "about the same" (unless you consider $40-50US inconsequential in a $300ish card)
it also shows the GT in a more favorable position than just about every other review i've run across.
this review shows them to be fairly comparable when the GT is overclocked to 560mhz, offering quite similar performance in several games while trading wins in several others.
the biggest difference is in features, where ATI offers some IQ advantages not offered by NV - namely High Quality AF and the ability to run AA and HDR concurrently (they both offer "HQ AA" which are pretty close in rendering quality. check out "The HDR+AA Fiasco" for more details.
also, for whatever reason, while both cards can show "shimmering", the GT seems to suffer from this more than the XT.
while the GTX is certainly quieter than the XT, the same can't really be said for the GT as nvidia made some compromises in order to get the retail price down. the wimpy cooler on the GT is an example (compared to the elegant cooler on the GTX) as is the "cut down" pcb compared to the GTX. the core itself tho is the same iirc.
at any rate, running the GT clockspeeds 100mhz over the reference puts it about even in terms of performance to the XT (overclocking it further puts it close to the x1900XT), but there are other issues to consider. you can read about them in this thread.
in the end which card is best for you will probably be determined by what's most important to you, but there is plenty of info. available for you to make the right choice for you.