AT's X1900 review

[Ackmed]

Again, I didnt say the 512MB shouldnt be in a review. I said take them out, as a person reading a review to buy a card, and there is really only once choice, ATi. If you were going to buy a single new highend card, would/could you consider the 512MB GTX? If you cant admit that, then there really isnt any point in talking about it.

 

[beggerking]

Again, the review is on Performance, not Best bang for the Buck. Hence we should include all benchmarks to be fair. simple as that.

This is a performance review, no one cared whether or not anyone else would buy which card at what specific price. The only thing it guages is its performance vs other high end cards, hence 7800 512mb SHOULD BE included in the review to complete the review.

also, not everyone who read reviews are buying them. I read them just out of my interest in the newest technology. so stop generalize people and please be fair, be that you prefer ATI or not.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: beggerking

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.

let me quote you
"Take out the 512MB GTX results, since its hardly availably (and $999 right now in stock)... and NV doesnt have a card(s) to offer high end users. (jmo) Hopefully they will rebound with the next card, and it will actually be in stock."

It is available (limited quantity) so why should we take it out from a PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK ? what you are arguing is from a Best bang for the buck point of view, but the review is about performance, not bbfb.

ps. Please read before replying back

and some people do have preference on one card over another. Some may be willing to pay premiums. who knows?

Because genius:

1. It's a very limited card.
2. It's VERY high priced and therefore is not within the price range to compete against the X1900 series.

Therefore, using common sense and basic logic one could conclude that nVidia has no competitor that is widely available at the same price point. Therefore, the closest nVidia card to the X1900 is the 7800 gtx 256 mb which gets destroyed by the x1900xt/x = ATi domination. As for "best bang for the buck" the SLI 7800 GT would fit the bill but it lacks in features the ATi cards have - why buy yesterdays technology?

Next.

 

[xtx4u]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: MegaWorks

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The GTX512 was limited edition... it will never be sold in mass quantities, G71 will replace it as the top tier Nvidia card.

that's what "we" said

and - NOW - how do you know? the superfast RAM that was [supposedly] holding nVidia back is in good supply.

Maybe the 512-GTX be nvidia's "value" [highend] card. . . .

Well the GTX 512 is a piece of trash if you want ot compare it to this card.

Not really... this card is faster in most benchmarks, but its not that much faster.
The performance advantage benchmark is an exaggeration.. look again, read the real bench, and you will see its not that much faster than 7800 512.

This is a better card though.

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=12 iz almost 2x faster than a 7800 512mb in Shader intense games with AA, which I'm sure 2006 will have many

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: beggerking
Again, the review is on Performance, not Best bang for the Buck. Hence we should include all benchmarks to be fair. simple as that.

This is a performance review, no one cared whether or not anyone else would buy which card at what specific price. The only thing it guages is its performance vs other high end cards, hence 7800 512mb SHOULD BE included in the review to complete the review.

also, not everyone who read reviews are buying them. I read them just out of my interest in the newest technology. so stop generalize people and please be fair, be that you prefer ATI or not.

I didnt say it wasnt on performance, or bang for the buck. I also didnt say they shouldnt have used the 512MB GTX.

I also never said everyone reading the reviews, are buying a new card. Why cant you grasp what I am saying? If a person is looking to buy a new card, and looking at the reviews out there, there is really only one choice, ATi. Simply because the 512MB GTX costs so much more, and is hard to find, and lacks features the X1900 does. As the FS review states, the X1800XT, X1900XT/XTX really only has one card to compete with right now, the 256MB GTX. And there is no contest when looking at it realistically.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Because genius:

1. It's a very limited card.
2. It's VERY high priced and therefore is not within the price range to compete against the X1900 series.

Therefore, using common sense and basic logic one could conclude that nVidia has no competitor that is widely available at the same price point. Therefore, the closest nVidia card to the X1900 is the 7800 gtx 256 mb which gets destroyed by the x1900xt/x = ATi domination. As for "best bang for the buck" the SLI 7800 GT would fit the bill but it lacks in features the ATi cards have - why buy yesterdays technology?

Next.

then lets take out gtx 256mb and everything below since its not in its price range.

NO! The point is, the review is on performance, and Ackmod wants it out just because of his biase against Nvidia and his disrespect for 7800gtx 512mb.

that is not right. a performance review should include all cards to allow correct guage/comparison for readers.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: beggerking
Again, the review is on Performance, not Best bang for the Buck. Hence we should include all benchmarks to be fair. simple as that.

This is a performance review, no one cared whether or not anyone else would buy which card at what specific price. The only thing it guages is its performance vs other high end cards, hence 7800 512mb SHOULD BE included in the review to complete the review.

also, not everyone who read reviews are buying them. I read them just out of my interest in the newest technology. so stop generalize people and please be fair, be that you prefer ATI or not.

I didnt say it wasnt on performance, or bang for the buck. I also didnt say they shouldnt have used the 512MB GTX.

I also never said everyone reading the reviews, are buying a new card. Why cant you grasp what I am saying? If a person is looking to buy a new card, and looking at the reviews out there, there is really only one choice, ATi. Simply because the 512MB GTX costs so much more, and is hard to find, and lacks features the X1900 does. As the FS review states, the X1800XT, X1900XT/XTX really only has one card to compete with right now, the 256MB GTX. And there is no contest when looking at it realistically.

without a 7800gtx 512mb benchmark, the reader won't know x1900xtx is faster than 7800gtx

therefore we should not that it out.

please grasp that

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: UltraWide
I like the ATi, but I fail to see this "domination" in any areas. Is their new generation coming out soon along with nVidia? (say within 6 months?)

I mean the 1800 was very short lived and the 1900 seems to be a 6800 to 7800 type deal where there isn't a significat architecture change except for the pixel shaders.

It appears "domination" is very subjective. Would XTX dominate if it was 5% faster?

I would say 1800->1900 with pixel shader engine modification is bigger change than 6800->7800. ATI took a risk betting that shaders will drive future games. 6800 -> 7800 was a safe route.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Because genius:

1. It's a very limited card.
2. It's VERY high priced and therefore is not within the price range to compete against the X1900 series.

Therefore, using common sense and basic logic one could conclude that nVidia has no competitor that is widely available at the same price point. Therefore, the closest nVidia card to the X1900 is the 7800 gtx 256 mb which gets destroyed by the x1900xt/x = ATi domination. As for "best bang for the buck" the SLI 7800 GT would fit the bill but it lacks in features the ATi cards have - why buy yesterdays technology?

Next.

then lets take out gtx 256mb and everything below since its not in its price range.

NO! The point is, the review is on performance, and Ackmod wants it out just because of his biase against Nvidia and his disrespect for 7800gtx 512mb.

that is not right. a performance review should include all cards to allow correct guage/comparison for readers.

Sure it should include all cards even though the 512 MB GTX is basically a virtually unavailable high priced PR card. I don't see Ackmed saying it shouldn't be included, just that its results aren't very relevant given what I just said above. The 256 mb GTX is the nearest priced competitor the the X1900XT ($520 for the XT vs $450-$500+ GTX ). For single card performance, availability and price nothing touches the X1900 series. The 512 MB is just an nVidia PR card, nothing more. If availability and price change then we can start reall considering it - even then it would lose in performance for the most part and be lacking in features.

On another note, UPS tried to deliver my X1900XT this morning but my wife didn't answer the door. Grrr..waste of overnight delivery money.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
On another note, UPS tried to deliver my X1900XT this morning but my wife didn't answer the door. Grrr..waste of overnight delivery money.

You can't go after work or whatever and get it from the UPS office? I've had to do that several times, even though once I had to wait until almost 9pm for my truck to return to homebase.

 

[UltraWide]

if you call fast enough they can attempt to deliver again, if the driver is in the area.

hurry!

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Sure it should include all cards even though the 512 MB GTX is basically a virtually unavailable high priced PR card. I don't see Ackmed saying it shouldn't be included, just that its results aren't very relevant given what I just said above. The 256 mb GTX is the nearest priced competitor the the X1900XT ($520 for the XT vs $450-$500+ GTX ). For single card performance, availability and price nothing touches the X1900 series. The 512 MB is just an nVidia PR card, nothing more. If availability and price change then we can start reall considering it - even then it would lose in performance for the most part and be lacking in features.

On another note, UPS tried to deliver my X1900XT this morning but my wife didn't answer the door. Grrr..waste of overnight delivery money.

obviously we need its benchmark to know which card is faster. There are people who want the fastest card regardless of price. If 7800gtx 512 isn't in the benchmark, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHICH TO CHOOSE?

anywayz, arguing this is pointless as the benchmark IS on most reviews, so that speaks for my point.



b/w. You should go pick it up. I have lost several packages due to the driver keeping my package in the truck overnight. somehow its more likely to "magically" disappear.

 

[5150Joker]

I called UPS and scheduled a will call. They're making me wait until 9:30 pm PST though..wtf.

 

[RobertR1]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Why do people keep bringing up the 512 MB GTX? The lack of logic is baffling. The damn card is virtually unavailable and costs $900+ which is nearly 2x the price of a X1900XT. ATi is dominating right now because nVidia has no mass available competitor at the same price point, simple as that.

If you want to have a good laugh, go check out nvnews.net and how they're still searching for 7800GTX 512's and justifying it.

 

[Munky]

I dont see what's the big deal if the 512gtx is included in benches or not - it still loses. And the fact that you cant buy one at anywhere close to MSRP prices, and that Ati is not having any "shortage" issues with the same samsung mem only makes this more embarrasing for Nv.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: RobertR1

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Why do people keep bringing up the 512 MB GTX? The lack of logic is baffling. The damn card is virtually unavailable and costs $900+ which is nearly 2x the price of a X1900XT. ATi is dominating right now because nVidia has no mass available competitor at the same price point, simple as that.

If you want to have a good laugh, go check out nvnews.net and how they're still searching for 7800GTX 512's and justifying it.

Usually I refuse to go to that website because of the owners bad attitude (Mike C.) and the rabid fans but I gave it a quick glance just now - same old same old. One guy with over 13k posts was going on about how nVidia's 4xAA > ATi's Adaptive 6x AA. :roll:

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Sure it should include all cards even though the 512 MB GTX is basically a virtually unavailable high priced PR card. I don't see Ackmed saying it shouldn't be included, just that its results aren't very relevant given what I just said above. The 256 mb GTX is the nearest priced competitor the the X1900XT ($520 for the XT vs $450-$500+ GTX ). For single card performance, availability and price nothing touches the X1900 series. The 512 MB is just an nVidia PR card, nothing more. If availability and price change then we can start reall considering it - even then it would lose in performance for the most part and be lacking in features.

On another note, UPS tried to deliver my X1900XT this morning but my wife didn't answer the door. Grrr..waste of overnight delivery money.

obviously we need its benchmark to know which card is faster. There are people who want the fastest card regardless of price. If 7800gtx 512 isn't in the benchmark, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHICH TO CHOOSE?

Nobody is saying they shouldn't bench the card -- just that, for most people (at least in the US), it is simply not an option in terms of actually making a purchase.

You'd have to be pretty deluded to pay $900+ for a 7800GTX"Ultra" 512MB over the $550 MSRP X1900XT, when the performance differences are small and the X1900XT actually wins some of the benches.

 

[Frostwake]

Why do people keep bringing up the 512 MB GTX? The lack of logic is baffling. The damn card is virtually unavailable and costs $900+ which is nearly 2x the price of a X1900XT. ATi is dominating right now because nVidia has no mass available competitor at the same price point, simple as that.

Yes, and when you complain about it (I saw your (very good) post over at Hardocp, which is on par with nvnews in my opinion) they come up with some random excuse and threathen to ban you :| but fortunately for us users interested in knowing which is actually the best card, there are such reviews as the one below (next to that AT, guru3d and firingsquad are my favourites)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1900xtx.html

They keep getting better and better, testing everything there is to be tested, and being completely unbiased..

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: beggerking
Again, the review is on Performance, not Best bang for the Buck. Hence we should include all benchmarks to be fair. simple as that.

This is a performance review, no one cared whether or not anyone else would buy which card at what specific price. The only thing it guages is its performance vs other high end cards, hence 7800 512mb SHOULD BE included in the review to complete the review.

also, not everyone who read reviews are buying them. I read them just out of my interest in the newest technology. so stop generalize people and please be fair, be that you prefer ATI or not.

I didnt say it wasnt on performance, or bang for the buck. I also didnt say they shouldnt have used the 512MB GTX.

I also never said everyone reading the reviews, are buying a new card. Why cant you grasp what I am saying? If a person is looking to buy a new card, and looking at the reviews out there, there is really only one choice, ATi. Simply because the 512MB GTX costs so much more, and is hard to find, and lacks features the X1900 does. As the FS review states, the X1800XT, X1900XT/XTX really only has one card to compete with right now, the 256MB GTX. And there is no contest when looking at it realistically.

without a 7800gtx 512mb benchmark, the reader won't know x1900xtx is faster than 7800gtx

therefore we should not that it out.

please grasp that

You are clearly just trying to start something. I have said many times over, I wouldnt want the 512MB GTX out of benchmarks. One reason being, that in case the 512MB does become more available, and the price drops, readers need to see how is stacks up to the new X1900's.

What I did said (how many times have I said this now?) is that a reader looking to this review to buy a card, cant really even consider the 512MB GTX. As it costs a lot more than the XTX (and about twice the 256MB GTX price), upwards of $400. And is so scarce. So the buyer really only has one choice for the highend card, an ATi card.

Originally posted by: beggerking
then lets take out gtx 256mb and everything below since its not in its price range.

NO! The point is, the review is on performance, and Ackmod wants it out just because of his biase against Nvidia and his disrespect for 7800gtx 512mb.

that is not right. a performance review should include all cards to allow correct guage/comparison for readers.

You're grasping at straws, and not making any sense. The price difference between the X1900XT and 256MB GTX is about $60. The price difference between the X1900XT and the 512MB GTX is almost $500, and about $400 over the XTX. Your name calling is also not needed. If I am bias against NV, why do I have 2xGTX's in SLI? And a NF4 mobo? I dont disrespect the 512MB GTX, I just look at things realistically. Its a lot more than any ATi card, and I wouldnt even consider it if I was buying a new highend card. Its a lot more than the 256MB GTX too, and wouldnt think twice about buying one of those, instead of a 512MB GTX. In fact, by todays prices (US), you can buy two 256MB GTX's for less than a single 512MB GTX. Why should anyone even consider the 512MB GTX? I realize you are very pro-NV, but try to be a realist as well.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Sure it should include all cards even though the 512 MB GTX is basically a virtually unavailable high priced PR card. I don't see Ackmed saying it shouldn't be included, just that its results aren't very relevant given what I just said above. The 256 mb GTX is the nearest priced competitor the the X1900XT ($520 for the XT vs $450-$500+ GTX ). For single card performance, availability and price nothing touches the X1900 series. The 512 MB is just an nVidia PR card, nothing more. If availability and price change then we can start reall considering it - even then it would lose in performance for the most part and be lacking in features.

On another note, UPS tried to deliver my X1900XT this morning but my wife didn't answer the door. Grrr..waste of overnight delivery money.

obviously we need its benchmark to know which card is faster. There are people who want the fastest card regardless of price. If 7800gtx 512 isn't in the benchmark, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHICH TO CHOOSE?

Nobody is saying they shouldn't bench the card -- just that, for most people (at least in the US), it is simply not an option in terms of actually making a purchase.

You'd have to be pretty deluded to pay $900+ for a 7800GTX"Ultra" 512MB over the $550 MSRP X1900XT, when the performance differences are small and the X1900XT actually wins some of the benches.

Please refer to acmed's post. Acmed suggested to take out 7800gtx 512mb in benchmarks, I'm trying to prove to him its necessary to keep it in there for fairness and comparison.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Ackmed


You are clearly just trying to start something. I have said many times over, I wouldnt want the 512MB GTX out of benchmarks. One reason being, that in case the 512MB does become more available, and the price drops, readers need to see how is stacks up to the new X1900's.

What I did said (how many times have I said this now?) is that a reader looking to this review to buy a card, cant really even consider the 512MB GTX. As it costs a lot more than the XTX (and about twice the 256MB GTX price), upwards of $400. And is so scarce. So the buyer really only has one choice for the highend card, an ATi card.

Originally posted by: beggerking
then lets take out gtx 256mb and everything below since its not in its price range.

NO! The point is, the review is on performance, and Ackmod wants it out just because of his biase against Nvidia and his disrespect for 7800gtx 512mb.

that is not right. a performance review should include all cards to allow correct guage/comparison for readers.

You're grasping at straws, and not making any sense. The price difference between the X1900XT and 256MB GTX is about $60. The price difference between the X1900XT and the 512MB GTX is almost $500, and about $400 over the XTX. Your name calling is also not needed. If I am bias against NV, why do I have 2xGTX's in SLI? And a NF4 mobo? I dont disrespect the 512MB GTX, I just look at things realistically. Its a lot more than any ATi card, and I wouldnt even consider it if I was buying a new highend card. Its a lot more than the 256MB GTX too, and wouldnt think twice about buying one of those, instead of a 512MB GTX. In fact, by todays prices (US), you can buy two 256MB GTX's for less than a single 512MB GTX. Why should anyone even consider the 512MB GTX? I realize you are very pro-NV, but try to be a realist as well.

let me quote you again. You said:
"Take out the 512MB GTX results, since its hardly availably (and $999 right now in stock)... and NV doesnt have a card(s) to offer high end users. (jmo) Hopefully they will rebound with the next card, and it will actually be in stock."

so You are the one grasping on straws. There are people who are willing to pay lots more for the fastest card. If it isn't benched in review, how would they know which is faster? which one to buy? answer me! stop beating around the bushes and contradicting youself.

 

[razor2025]

all these talk about who's faster is pointless. How about they make another GTO^2 or LE version where we can unlock the cards at full XT/XTX speed? It would be killer to continue the trend with these unlockable cards @ 25-50% discount of its more expensive brothers. Come on ATI, make a X1900 GTO^3 for like $300, and I'm ALL over that.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: beggerking


let me quote you again. You said:
"Take out the 512MB GTX results, since its hardly availably (and $999 right now in stock)... and NV doesnt have a card(s) to offer high end users. (jmo) Hopefully they will rebound with the next card, and it will actually be in stock."

so You are the one grasping on straws. There are people who are willing to pay lots more for the fastest card. If it isn't benched in review, how would they know which is faster? which one to buy? answer me! stop beating around the bushes and contradicting youself.

I don't know I read this differently, what he was saying is that if you don't account for the 512mb GTX then NVIDIA doesn't have a direct competitor to the 1900. He wasn't suggesting that the 512 be excluded from the benchmarks.

But then again what do I know aside from how to read?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: beggerking
Please refer to acmed's post. Acmed suggested to take out 7800gtx 512mb in benchmarks, I'm trying to prove to him its necessary to keep it in there for fairness and comparison.

You're misreading his post. He has repeatedly clarified that he just thinks it is not worth considering right now in terms of making a purchase, not that it shouldn't be included in benchmarks.

Drop it, please. He's agreeing with you already on this point.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I dont mind having the 7800GTX 512mb in the benchmark. Its NVs flagship card and MANY people have them across various forums/or even own two of those monsters regradless of price.

According xbilabs: (16x12 4xAA 16xAF)
7800GTX 512mb X1900XTX
BF2: 86.4 103.1
TCOR: 62.4 54.2
COD2: 40.6 53.3
Doom3: 60.4 56.8
FC pier: 79.2 83.8
FC Research: 97.3 104.8
FC HDR: 64.3 56.1
F.E.A.R: 35 48
HL2: 84.3 87.3
HL2 LC: 53.8 58
Project SB: 91.2 71.2
Quake4: 106.3 97.1
SS2: 59.8 46
UT2004: 129.5 101.7
Prince of Persia: 169.8 153.2 (Only 16x12 no AA)
SC:CT 53.1 64.2
Coline McRae: 94.4 100.3
Pacific fighters: 70.2 48.7
AOE3: 45.9 40.9
Dwn Of war: 62.1 46.3

7800GTX 512mb: 11
X1900XTX: 9

The 7800GTX holds it own against the X1900XTX through various titles. People who still have a7800GTX 512mb or two should really not be considering any upgrade til G80/R600.