A xbitlabs review

[Cookie Monster]

This may come in handy in choosing your card.

Link

The EVGA 7900Gt CO SC is clocked at 550mhz core, while the KO is clocked at 500mhz core. That is a 50 mhz difference, but the KO has a better cooler.

The oblivion performance seems weird as the 550mhz clocked 7900GT is faster than the X1800XT in both outdoor/indoor.

 

[tuteja1986]

It wasn't 7900GT vs X1800XT :!

You make it sound like it was Ultimate Showdown Review. It doesn't even say if they even benchmarked the x1800xt or used their old results.

This is just a 7900GT OC review and doesn't compare them intensely like an article that should if it was an X1800XT vs 7900GT.

 

[thilanliyan]

Is the X1900XT that much faster than the X1800XT in Oblivion?? I thought they were fairly even??

Is it the extra shaders??

The 7900 does really well by the way.

 

[nitromullet]

Odd that they would use different motherboards for the different cards considering they didn't test any dual card setups in the mix...

# Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe mainboard (Nvidia nForce4 SLI X16 chipset) for Nvidia GeForce graphics cards
# Asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe mainboard (CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset) for ATI Radeon graphics cards

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
This may come in handy in choosing your card.

Link

The EVGA 7900Gt CO SC is clocked at 550mhz core, while the KO is clocked at 500mhz core. That is a 50 mhz difference, but the KO has a better cooler.

The oblivion performance seems weird as the 550mhz clocked 7900GT is faster than the X1800XT in both outdoor/indoor.

It's the HDR rendering that causes this. For whatever reason the x1800XT does not handle HDR very well in any game (also see Far Cry HDR versus regular in this review).

 

[fierydemise]

I love xbit but there are a few irregularities that are very uncharacteristic and don't inspire confidence in their results.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
It wasn't 7900GT vs X1800XT :!

You make it sound like it was Ultimate Showdown Review. It doesn't even say if they even benchmarked the x1800xt or used their old results.

This is just a 7900GT OC review and doesn't compare them intensely like an article that should if it was an X1800XT vs 7900GT.

more intensely? how? its already using more games than most reviews.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Is the X1900XT that much faster than the X1800XT in Oblivion?? I thought they were fairly even??

Is it the extra shaders??

The 7900 does really well by the way.

they are pretty even according to other reviews, such as FiringSquad's.

Originally posted by: the Chase
It's the HDR rendering that causes this. For whatever reason the x1800XT does not handle HDR very well in any game (also see Far Cry HDR versus regular in this review).

i really doubt this as no other review has shown this.

 

[firewolfsm]

wow, the 7900GT is better than the X1800XT 512 90% of the time. This is proof, even without a vmod, the 7900GT is faster.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: thilan29
Is the X1900XT that much faster than the X1800XT in Oblivion?? I thought they were fairly even??

Is it the extra shaders??

The 7900 does really well by the way.

they are pretty even according to other reviews, such as FiringSquad's.

So who's right then?? Could it be the different areas tested??

 

[Munky]

And again, as usual, they test the cards using "Quality" options (using the term very losely...)

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: munky
And again, as usual, they test the cards using "Quality" options (using the term very losely...)

i am sick of these ati X1800 vs 7900GT thread ;(

/ADD fuel to flame

<recape>
ATI :
Better IQ , HDR with AA , Great performance in Oblivion/BF2 , AVIVO encoder/decoder , Overall better performance 7900GT

Nvidia :
Cool , Consume less power and you can volt mod to crazy speed at the expensive of warranty.

Stock speed Benchmarking on high res with AA/AF :
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvi...rce_7900_gt_gtx_performance/page10.asp
Battlefield 2 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

X1800XT : 70.3FPS
7900GT : 31.7FPS

Quake 4 Ultra Quality 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

X1800XT : 49
7900GT : 40.1

Lock On Modern Air Combat 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

7900GT : 57.6
x1800xt : 47.9

Pacific Fighters 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

7900GT : 45.7
X1800XT : 41.5

FEAR 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

X1800XT : 25
7900GT : 20

Call of Duty 2 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

x1800xt : 23.2
7900GT : 16.7

Serious Sam 2 2048x1536x32 4xAA/16xAF

X1800XT : 36.9
7900GT : 34.5

</recape>

 

[dfloyd]

Strange results considering most sites disagree with those numbers. The X1800XT usually out paces the 7900GT especially in games like Oblivion. I know the above was for the 512 MB version but the 256 MB version can be had for $239 right now and the Evga 7900 GT CO is $339 (Both prices from Newegg), so considering that alone, I dont think this is much of a competition, at least at the moment.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: thilan29
Is the X1900XT that much faster than the X1800XT in Oblivion?? I thought they were fairly even??

Is it the extra shaders??

The 7900 does really well by the way.

they are pretty even according to other reviews, such as FiringSquad's.

So who's right then?? Could it be the different areas tested??

i dunno.. the methodology is kind of weird. they test on different motherboards, and driver settings are kind of weird.. if you look at the nv driver settings, they have some opts on, but i can't really say how much of a difference it makes.

i know i've read at least 2 other reviews which shows the GT @550mhz about comparable to an 1800xt, but i do find it strange that xbit shows the oblivion results so poor (compared to the 1900xt, which in other reviews show as pretty close).

i just figure the point it's not worth arguing.. i actually got to play with an XFX xtreme (560mhz) on a friend's rig over the weekend, and it's a fast card, but oblivion performance with HDR was about up to par with mine (tho mine is running 700/1600) running both HDR & AA, and i liked the rendering output a lot better on the XT (aside form HDR/AA, the AF is noticeabley better on the XT)- i certainly wouldn't trade him my 1800xt for it. with the attitude i've seen in all the GT vs XT arguments on these forums, ppl can believe whatever they like. i know i'm happy with what i have, and that's good enough for me

 

[Capt Caveman]

Stock - at higher resolutions and higher Settings the X1800XT 512 outperforms the 7900GT, ymmv based on these settings though...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
wow, the 7900GT is better than the X1800XT 512 90% of the time. This is proof, even without a vmod, the 7900GT is faster.

Pretty much.

I like how Xbit uses a broader range of games to give you a better sample over all.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Odd that they would use different motherboards for the different cards considering they didn't test any dual card setups in the mix...

# Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe mainboard (Nvidia nForce4 SLI X16 chipset) for Nvidia GeForce graphics cards
# Asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe mainboard (CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset) for ATI Radeon graphics cards

Why? is the ATI board worse?

 

[josh6079]

OMFG! Another thread, same topic?

All in all, it is pretty pathetic that the 7900 is competeing this much with an X1800XT since it is newer and a whole GPU revision away from its predated 7800. I think anymore people who like the 7900 more are just posting any results they can find to show that it beats a X1800. Well, good! Maybe I'll have some restored faith for nvidia if I see that their newer cards can beat older cards rather than compete with them. Like I said, its still pretty pathetic that this competition is going on like this.

Performance wise, the 7900GT probably could take the crown when volt-moding it. However, the X1800XT takes that crown when IQ and actual graphic quality comes into play. They're both good cards, but I like graphics to look as good as they can, so I went with ATI this round and noticed that the nvidia setup I had was giving me a washed out and mundane look when compared to the ATI. For some though, the fact that they might be 5-10 frames faster than the competition is most important so...it's in the air for every user.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
wow, the 7900GT is better than the X1800XT 512 90% of the time. This is proof, even without a vmod, the 7900GT is faster.

Correction, the 7900GT CO SC is faster 90% of the time.

Edit- and louder by the sound of it.

Also a lot of reviews that test HDR games have the X1800XT falling behind the Nvidia/X1900XT cards more than just 4AA/8 or 16AF testing.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Odd that they would use different motherboards for the different cards considering they didn't test any dual card setups in the mix...

# Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe mainboard (Nvidia nForce4 SLI X16 chipset) for Nvidia GeForce graphics cards
# Asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe mainboard (CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset) for ATI Radeon graphics cards

Why? is the ATI board worse?

It's different. Standard practice is to try and minimise any factors that aren't related to what you're testing. As such you'd expect them to test them both on the same motherboard, as most reviews do.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: josh6079
OMFG! Another thread, same topic?

All in all, it is pretty pathetic that the 7900 is competeing this much with an X1800XT since it is newer and a whole GPU revision away from its predated 7800. I think anymore people who like the 7900 more are just posting any results they can find to show that it beats a X1800. Well, good! Maybe I'll have some restored faith for nvidia if I see that their newer cards can beat older cards rather than compete with them. Like I said, its still pretty pathetic that this competition is going on like this.

Performance wise, the 7900GT probably could take the crown when volt-moding it. However, the X1800XT takes that crown when IQ and actual graphic quality comes into play. They're both good cards, but I like graphics to look as good as they can, so I went with ATI this round and noticed that the nvidia setup I had was giving me a washed out and mundane look when compared to the ATI. For some though, the fact that they might be 5-10 frames faster than the competition is most important so...it's in the air for every user.

Have you used Digital Vibrance and colour/contrast setting in the NV panel?
Because without it some games do look washed out.

 

[CaiNaM]

looking at the rigs with a 7800gs and x1800xt right in front of me, the GT is does not look "washed out" to me whatsoever, and i don't use DV (both are using lcd monitors, and both have been color calibrated - and nv driver has a nice tool built in). the big difference to me in the image quality dept. is the texture quality. with HQAF, it's soooo much better on the XT (tho i'm not sure if it's as good as GF4 was).

imo, they'd be pretty comparable in IQ if nvidia would improve their AF quality.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
looking at the rigs with a 7800gs and x1800xt right in front of me, the GT is does not look "washed out" to me whatsoever, and i don't use DV (both are using lcd monitors, and both have been color calibrated - and nv driver has a nice tool built in). the big difference to me in the image quality dept. is the texture quality. with HQAF, it's soooo much better on the XT (tho i'm not sure if it's as good as GF4 was).

imo, they'd be pretty comparable in IQ if nvidia would improve their AF quality.

can you share some pics Maniac? tia

 

[CaiNaM]

i could, however if the monitor calibration is incorrect, sshots wouldn't matter, would it?

 

[fierydemise]

Something I haven't seen people mention is price, just going by newegg an X1800 can be found for $240 and the 7900GT CO SC is $340, the 7900GT CO SC may be faster but it is $100 more.