ATI R520 (X1800) benches!!!!!!!

[Rubycon]

Anyone remember back in 1999 when ati.com was a site to buy fake poop from? Seriously it stood for artificial turd industries. Makes ya wonder!

ps: checked archive.org and it appears the purplehead did a real good job of mopping up the brown mess. Shucks!

 

[Stangs55]

I've always disliked ATI...but if this is accurate, I feel sorry for them....poor lil' fellas

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: C6FT7
Anyone remember back in 1999 when ati.com was a site to buy fake poop from? Seriously it stood for artificial turd industries. Makes ya wonder!

ps: checked archive.org and it appears the purplehead did a real good job of mopping up the brown mess. Shucks!

now thats some funny sh!t

http://web.archive.org/web/20010206062046/www.anntec.com/realpoop.html

 

[johnnqq]

no pun intended?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
That excuse didn't wash for the 5800 Ultra, it ain't gonna wash here. If the card performs well compared to current competition, when it launches won't matter. If it's only on par or behind, it's pretty much done until next gen.

the 5800 U wasn't even competitive.

 

[bob4432]

this is pretty sad, too many people will think these benches are real. i think since ati would know if these numbers are fake, then ati should sue the website - hardware analysis that originated these false claims because it is going to hurt their sales, probably big time. this might be enough for the not-so-knowledgeable public to just get a 7800gt/x since they read on "this xxxx site" that the new ati cards sucked.

 

[bob4432]

if you read on the hardware ananlysis site, the author has absolutely no credibility. i am sure this little hoax is just to drive more people to his site so he can charge a bit more for advertising.

Sorry guys, can't help you with pics or driver revs and all that, the testing was done in the lab of one of ATI's board partners in Taiwan, and they're not about to disclose who they are, as ATI will certainly want a 'word' with them. Nevertheless my hat's off to them and a big thanks is in order, as they were willing to help me when we came to them for a scoop a few weeks ago, and a scoop it sure was.

pathetic...

 

[sandorski]

I'm not even going to read that article and will wait for others who will Bench the cards themselves before believing anyhing.

The scenario provided is fraught with problems and the results could be doctored up by numerous people for numerous reasons.

1) The website has an obvious beef with ATI

2) If the website is to be believed, ATI has an obvious beef with that website

3) No ATI partner is going to Officially support breaking the NDA, 1 or a few individuals may do it from the inside and who knows what their motives are?

4) related to 3: Who knows what kind of skills or even access to various things such as Updated Drivers or Firmware these Individuals have. Perhaps none other than the basic vidcard and no skills beyond popping a vidcard in and out of a slot and install of Drivers

5) related to 3: If ATI caught wind of this websites attempt to attain info this way, perhaps ATI themselves sent/setup these numbers in an attempt to embarrass this website?

I'll wait a week or so to get the real scoop. It's not like every such release of "benchies" gathered covertly in the past has been reliable.

 

[imported_OnYX]

I take these numbers with a large grain of salt as well. On the other hand, why would HA lie and publish fake results? Not only it would mess up their credibility completely and forever, it would lead to ATi sueing HA for hurting their sales. Is there an official statement from ATi regarding these numbers?

 

[akugami]

An author who admits he does not have an X1800 nor did he oversee the benchmarking in person posting benchmarks for the X1800. What could possibly cause you to doubt his words?

 

[CraigRT]

Not as bad as I thought it was going to be.. seems a lot like when the X800 Pro first came out, it really was not better than the 6800GT at all, but when the X800XT came out, things changed. I wonder if they will have an XTPE soon after that will be faster by a decent margin than the next card in line.....

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: OnYX
I take these numbers with a large grain of salt as well. On the other hand, why would HA lie and publish fake results? Not only it would mess up their credibility completely and forever, it would lead to ATi sueing HA for hurting their sales. Is there an official statement from ATi regarding these numbers?

I tend tho agree with this statement. Why would the guy lie and forever hurt his credibility?

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: g33k

Originally posted by: OnYX
I take these numbers with a large grain of salt as well. On the other hand, why would HA lie and publish fake results? Not only it would mess up their credibility completely and forever, it would lead to ATi sueing HA for hurting their sales. Is there an official statement from ATi regarding these numbers?

I tend tho agree with this statement. Why would the guy lie and forever hurt his credibility?

He has already destroyed any credibility he might have had. He flat out said he did this because he was upset at ATI. What company would EVER have anything to do with someone like this? I sure as hell wouldn't hire him, not even to sweep the floors. ATI obviously made the right move when they declined to have anything to do with him.

 

[LxMxFxD3]

ATI = ABOUT TO IMPLODE

These benchmarks are sad. No one will buy this card.

ATI = out of biz in this market.

 

[woodchuck69]

Why buy ATI if they can't beat SLI.

 

[DarkKnight69]

I will repost since noone seems to have read this!!!

http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3069

interesting

 

[ronnn]

If you take those numbers as accurate, my question is what if Ati has really improved hdr performance and narrowly wins in farcry with nicer hdr and narrowly loses with the source engine, but has nicer hdr? These numbers could easily be right, but still lead to good competition. :music: On the other hand these could be cherry picked benchies by ATi and the situation is actually worse.

 

[djnsmith7]

If these benchmarks are true, then yes, they suck by comparison to the 7800. However, I'll wait until the information is provided by a more reliable source to finalize my opinion.

Don't believe everything you read the moment you read it. Some things should be questioned within reason.

 

[Kyanzes]

Maybe it's not nice of me but the benchmark results (if it's not a hoax) gave me a relief as I have just bought my 7800GTX like two days ago Would have been shocking to see like two-fold performance on the R520 compared to mine.

 

[i1o0i]

I would like to try 2xR580xtpe crossfire pwned 7800gtx sli.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I will repost since noone seems to have read this!!!

http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3069

interesting

* "Sander's R520 numbers don't come from an 520 graphics board - they come from a Ouija board," said one ATI official.

*The Inq's spin

Could certainly be fake . . . afterall they are not from Sanders but from some 'unnamed 'partner'.

 

[Oyeve]

I'll wait until Anand benches one.

 

[lodmdma]

ATI is King once more!!!

like what x850xt pe was to 6800 ultra.....

x1800xt is to 7800gtx

real bench!!!!

 

[klah]

7800 is still the fastest card you can actually buy :brokenheart:

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: lodmdma
ATI is King once more!!!

like what x850xt pe was to 6800 ultra.....

x1800xt is to 7800gtx

real bench!!!!

not really, did you even read the benches? we are talking on average of ~10% difference for the games they tested and with a street price of ~$600 when they come out, i would still buy a 7800gtx for quite a bit less. why was bf2 left out of the equations? does the new ati board really suck at it? i noticed anand left them out too.