exactly. I think ATI should add a few more texture renderers to make it at least 20 to perform more "balanced", so it would excel in all games.
Originally posted by: sindows
Originally posted by: Zebo
Seems weird not to have Sli GT's in there. I still think thats the best deal in highend -around the $550 price point. Should clean up on both the 1900Xt and 1900XTX pretty handily for the same price or less.
Check out techreport's review. The SLI Gts beat the X1900 but not as big of a margin as one would hope for(at the highest resolution they tested at). I quickly skimmed over it but the differences where within 10 fps. But if game at 1600x1200 or lower, the GTs produce many more frames. It seems that ATI's new architecture thrives at high res.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
First up the R580 appears to be a competent recovery from the doldrums for ATi. thats good for competition, now perhaps the can finally rid the market of r4xx derivatives (unless they still have warhouse upon warehouse full of dies like they did with r2xx).
Secondly, the 512mb 7800GTX is not unavailable, as I and other posters have shown in other threads, it is highly priced granted, but the price will fall with competition.
If you want it removed from comparisons, then I'm afraid you'll also have to accept people going back in time and removing 850PE radeons from the reviews of those times too, since the very reasons you cite for the 7800 512's removal apply perfectly to that product also. Given the way the fanATics loved to wave the 850PE around in forum threads regarding performance at that time I doubt you will be accepting my proposal...
NVIDIA?s not going to sit around and watch though. Their refresh for the GeForce 7800 GTX is right around the corner, and it?s rumored that NVIDIA?s going to be integrating more shaders into their next part as well. But until they can get their availability issues resolved with GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB, ATI?s Radeon X1800 XT and X1900 XT/XTX cards are essentially competing with the GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB. And in this battle, ATI?s the clear winner.
would someone mind explaining this to me? it doesn't seem quite clear. what exactly is meant by a "single channel" texture map? what is the alternative to a "single channel" texture map? and what exactly is meant by "texture address"? is that just a texel?The real feature of interest is the ability to load and filter 4 texture addresses from a single channel texture map.
by four components in a location, is he refering to "RGBA" (red, green, blue, alpha) channels on each pixel? and again... what does he mean by "address" from a "texture map".Textures which describe color generally have four components at every location in the texture, and normally the hardware will load an address from a texture map, split the 4 channels and filter them independently.
i thought R520 didn't have the quad pixel shader...? if R520 can also filter 4 "components" (whatever that's supposed to be) then what's the big deal? what's so new about it?In cases where single channel textures are used (ATI likes to use the example of a shadow map), the R520 will look up the appropriate address and will filter the single channel (letting the hardware's ability to filter 3 other components go to waste).
this sentence isn't even proper english... ("filtering" should be "filter"). so by adjacent does he mean loading adjacent texels for whatever filtering scheme is used? (eg. anisotropic, bicubic, etc.)In what ATI calls it's Fetch4 feature, the R580 is capable of loading 3 other adjacent single channel values from the texture and filtering these at the same time.
again... don't know what is meant by "single channel" formats. and what is the difference between a traditional texture and one that describes vector fields? and what is meant by "uses" in that sentence? does he mean "read"? and what is "one channel per position in the texture"? is that one color channel per texel?This effectively loads 4 and filters four times the texture data when working with single channel formats. Traditional color textures, or textures describing vector fields (which make use of more than one channel per position in the texture) will not see any performance improvement, but for some soft shadowing algorithms performance increases could be significant.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: DrZoidberg
very nice card, too bad i dont want to spend $500+.
will ATI release a x1900xl maybe with lower clocks like 550 core/1.3ghz memory
It looks like they will, since the x1900 line up is replacing the entire x1800 series. Now, the real question is will they release a x1900gto that unlocks into an xt?
See, now you're confusing me. You said there were no traditional pipes in the R580. What would there be to unlock?
Originally posted by: Ackmed
How much more is the 512MB GTX than the XT, or XTX? A lot I assume. You have links to stores that have them in stock right now? No offense, but I dont put much stock into "posters from various parts of europe" reporting availability. I like to stick to facts. But yes there is a world outside the US, Ive spent many a year outside the US.
The simple fact is, the 512MB GTX is "hardly available", and prices well over the XTX, or even the XT. So its not really even a consideration for someone looking to buy a new highend card.
Originally posted by: Ackmed
How much more is the 512MB GTX than the XT, or XTX? A lot I assume. You have links to stores that have them in stock right now? No offense, but I dont put much stock into "posters from various parts of europe" reporting availability. I like to stick to facts. But yes there is a world outside the US, Ive spent many a year outside the US.
The simple fact is, the 512MB GTX is "hardly available", and prices well over the XTX, or even the XT. So its not really even a consideration for someone looking to buy a new highend card.
Originally posted by: UltraWide
To be honest, it's a good performer but not for $550+
It was fastest in a lot of tests, but it doesn't blow anything away, just faster by a small margin.
I will wait it out for the next nVidia card.
Originally posted by: UltraWide
I am expecting the G71 to actually show significant increase over the current 7800-series. Like going from 6800 to 7800 the increase was very noticeable hardly marginal. If not then they are all worthless and I'll have to wait another 6 months for the next gen cards.
Originally posted by: UltraWide
I am expecting the G71 to actually show significant increase over the current 7800-series. Like going from 6800 to 7800 the increase was very noticeable hardly marginal. If not then they are all worthless and I'll have to wait another 6 months for the next gen cards.
Originally posted by: ayabe
If I had a 7800GT like you, I would see an upgrade at this point to be a waste. But I don't think the difference is going to be earth-shattering because it's not really a completely next-gen chip like the 6800-->7800. Only time will tell
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: ayabe
If I had a 7800GT like you, I would see an upgrade at this point to be a waste. But I don't think the difference is going to be earth-shattering because it's not really a completely next-gen chip like the 6800-->7800. Only time will tell
You could just slap another GT in for $280 and have better performance than a $600+ XTX.
Originally posted by: beggerking
hardly available != Not available.
If its a benchmark to benchmark the highest performing card, then it is only fair to include all cards. For some people, even a pricetag of >$400 is "too much".
the only time to filter out hard-to-find or high-priced card from a PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK is when the review is on "which card is the BBFB". Hence, your suggestion to filter out whatever card you suggest is biased.
Originally posted by: schtuga
Why the lack of driver support?Is it possible the cards were ready early and they simply didn't want to miss the window of oppotunity to have an uncontested card out with as much opportunity to make some cash before the G71?
I mean both companies have driver glitches /game conflicts,but it seems that people find future cards showing up in Nvidia drivers every now and then,but ATI always seem to be behind their launches with drivers.And if the unreleased drivers are going to make a huge difference,why would you want your card initially crippled by lack of driver support giving false impressions to perspective buyers.
Their tech is great,they are just very poorly managed.
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Originally posted by: beggerking
hardly available != Not available.
If its a benchmark to benchmark the highest performing card, then it is only fair to include all cards. For some people, even a pricetag of >$400 is "too much".
the only time to filter out hard-to-find or high-priced card from a PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK is when the review is on "which card is the BBFB". Hence, your suggestion to filter out whatever card you suggest is biased.
Once again, I never said the 512MB shouldnt be in a review. What I did say was, "Looking at it realistically, someone looking at reviews to make a buying decision, really has doesnt have the option to get the 512MB GTX. If they do find one, it wont be anywhere near the price of the XT or XTX." ZZF has the 512MB GTX for $999 right now, the only store I know of in the US with them in stock. A X1900XTX is about $400 less than that. Would you even consider the GTX? Please read before replying.