eVGA 7900GTX vs. Sapphire X1900XTX

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: munky
I'm using a x1900xt with a DFI NF4 board, and it does make my chipset fan speed up under load. I did replace it with a Evercool copper HSF that cools better than the crap stock chipset cooler and is not as loud, but it still reaches full speed under load. However, I have it set to go full speed when the chipset temps go above 50C, so I'm not sure how a different threshold will react. Also, it doesnt matter whether you use the stock gpu cooler or something like the vf700 or 900 - it still heats up the chipset fan, probably because of those vregs right above it.

Thanks for the information. That might make the X1900 louder than I thought. Is the Evercool fan a lot quieter than the stock one? I think that DFI fan is much more irritating than the X1900 cooler noise I've heard.

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
GF7's all have VIVO I think.

I could be wrong, but I remember someone here saying that they dropped it on the 7900s. The reviews don't say anything about this though. It's not a big deal either way, as I may end up getting a tuner card anyway.

Originally posted by: munky
The x1k cards could do FP16HDR in SC:CT, but because of the way the game is coded, they still run it using FX10 HDR. Anyway, I deleted the game before I even beat it after I found out it was using Starforce.

I hate Starforce too, but this game is so good otherwise that I'm willing to put up with it (at least I haven't had any problems with SF, even though it's essentially malware). It's a good thing Ubi has announced that their future games won't use it.

Originally posted by: Elfear
I agree with most of your statements but this.

X1900XTX vs. 7900GTX

I was basically referring to FPS games and going by the AT, X-bit, FS and TR reviews. FEAR is faster on the X1900 at higher settings, but the framerate is way too low for me on both cards at those settings; at lower settings the 7900 seems to come out slightly on top, especially with the minimum framerates. I generally play Far Cry with HDR rather than AA (even if I could use AA, I would prefer a higher resolution instead) and the GTX appears to be a bit better at that, at least according to X-bit. The SCCT benchmarks are not really valid because as mentioned earlier, the X1900 cards can't do the true HDR due to a flaw in the game. There is also a big difference in favor of the GTX in Riddick, which isn't shown in that chart.

I also play several older games quite often, which are mostly OpenGL based and would probably run better on the 7900.

One non-FPS game I am quite interested in but doesn't seem to be benchmarked anywhere is NFS: Most Wanted. Do you happen to know any site that covers this one?

 

[jack bauer]

I see on nvidias web site that the 7900GTX supports HDR and AA, so what gives? I also read the HDR on the X1900s isn't as good, is that true?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
I see on nvidias web site that the 7900GTX supports HDR and AA, so what gives? I also read the HDR on the X1900s isn't as good, is that true?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html

It does support both but not at the SAME time. For games using FP16 HDR(FarCry, Serious Sam 2...can't think of more) you CANNOT run AA with HDR at the same time with NVidia cards. You can with ATI X1K cards though.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
I see on nvidias web site that the 7900GTX supports HDR and AA, so what gives? I also read the HDR on the X1900s isn't as good, is that true?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html

Not sure about this but ATi's HDR differs from NV's HDR.

As in the end results are different. NV is brighter than ATi (ATi's HDR seems like a "bloom" effect). Not sure if its a bug, but someone could post some screenshots regarding this. Try the game FC for example.

NV also does support HDR plus AA but not FP16 HDR/AA. Example is half life2 lost coast. Valve made the pixel shaders do AA while doing HDR at the same time (could be wrong, but i think it was a bunch of hacks). So technically its not "true" HDR plus AA but the end results are the same if not better. Minimal performance hit too.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
you mean like a zelman VF700 or something similar? would that quiet the card down a bit too?

the 700 really isn't enough to cool it according to some who have used it. the 900 would be better.

personally tho i don't want the heat coming off of a 90c gpu blowing around my case, so they don't really have a cooler i like very much. i suppose i could go with an expensive watercooler, but for now i just deal with the noise....

 

[jack bauer]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: jack bauer
I see on nvidias web site that the 7900GTX supports HDR and AA, so what gives? I also read the HDR on the X1900s isn't as good, is that true?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html

Not sure about this but ATi's HDR differs from NV's HDR.

As in the end results are different. NV is brighter than ATi (ATi's HDR seems like a "bloom" effect). Not sure if its a bug, but someone could post some screenshots regarding this. Try the game FC for example.

NV also does support HDR plus AA but not FP16 HDR/AA. Example is half life2 lost coast. Valve made the pixel shaders do AA while doing HDR at the same time (could be wrong, but i think it was a bunch of hacks). So technically its not "true" HDR plus AA but the end results are the same if not better. Minimal performance hit too.

1. What is FP16HDR? What about elder scrolls iv? can the 7900GTX do AA and HDR regular not this FR16?

2. I have a regular flat screen monitor. CRT. Top resolution I will try will be 1280 x 1024. Can I use the 7900 with HDR and at least some AA? How about future games?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: jack bauer
Does the 512mb really make a lot of difference over the 256mb cards? ie. X1800XT 256 vs. 512

There are a good number of reviews that address your exact question. Comparing Identical cards (E.G. x800xl 256 vs. x800xl 512) to see "when" this would make a difference. The answer is, it really depends on the games you play and at what resolutions. The differences can safely be called minimimal if at all.

For example, Doom3 at "ULTRA" settings needs more than 256MB of memory for textures. But nobody notices any gain in image quality over just "HIGH" settings.
If you are concerned about memory size, temps, noise, warranty to be intact because you don't need to put an aftermarket cooler on, then go with a 7900GTX. You have your 512 mem, quiet, cool, and great performance. The 7900GT is a great deal IMHO, but if the memory size concerns you too much, go with the GTX.

i used to feel the same way, but i've changed my mind and disagree completely. the lower end parts the additional ram doesn't seem to make a difference, but there's been several comparisons done on 1800/1900xt which shows some significant differences in multiple games (for some reason the additional ram doesnt seem to help the nv products as significantly as the ati products tho).

it's late and don't feel like taking the time, but if you want to spend a bit of time searching, there's been several threads w/ links to various articles which show it does make a difference in more than just CoD2...

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: munky
I'm using a x1900xt with a DFI NF4 board, and it does make my chipset fan speed up under load. I did replace it with a Evercool copper HSF that cools better than the crap stock chipset cooler and is not as loud, but it still reaches full speed under load. However, I have it set to go full speed when the chipset temps go above 50C, so I'm not sure how a different threshold will react. Also, it doesnt matter whether you use the stock gpu cooler or something like the vf700 or 900 - it still heats up the chipset fan, probably because of those vregs right above it.

i'm using the stock cooler, and the chipset fan only runs on startup then shuts off - and stays shut off (thermaltake tsunami case w/ 12cm fan intake & exh)..

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: jack bauer

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: jack bauer
I see on nvidias web site that the 7900GTX supports HDR and AA, so what gives? I also read the HDR on the X1900s isn't as good, is that true?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html

Not sure about this but ATi's HDR differs from NV's HDR.

As in the end results are different. NV is brighter than ATi (ATi's HDR seems like a "bloom" effect). Not sure if its a bug, but someone could post some screenshots regarding this. Try the game FC for example.

NV also does support HDR plus AA but not FP16 HDR/AA. Example is half life2 lost coast. Valve made the pixel shaders do AA while doing HDR at the same time (could be wrong, but i think it was a bunch of hacks). So technically its not "true" HDR plus AA but the end results are the same if not better. Minimal performance hit too.

1. What is FP16HDR? What about elder scrolls iv? can the 7900GTX do AA and HDR regular not this FR16?

2. I have a regular flat screen monitor. CRT. Top resolution I will try will be 1280 x 1024. Can I use the 7900 with HDR and at least some AA? How about future games?

Atleast me put it this way. In oblivion, you can play HDR or bloom AND AA.
This bloom feature is like the watered down HDR. This bloom/AA combo can be used by either card.

This shows various IQ tests.

Link

Decide for yourself which has better image quality. To me NV looks better, even in the filtering aspect for some reason. (More detail of the pave stones) However they didnt use

Although the HDR plus AA on the ATi looks good, i want to see bloom/AA compared to HDR/AA.


Pretty much it comes down to this:

7900GTX
pros:
-silence
-good performance especially in OpenGL (if your going to play prey or quake wars this is the card to get or even RCWT2)
-less power
-less heat
-easy to use control panel (doesnt suck up lots of ram)
-life time warranty
-SLi
-pure video

cons:
-cant do AA and HDR but in some games this is possible e.g half life2 lost coast
-bit more expensive

X1900XTX
pros
-Faster than the 7900GTX espiecally D3D games like BF2, oblivion (games like cod2, F.E.A.R, SS2 are pretty equal as of now)
-AVIVO
-Software voltage tool for OCing
-cheaper than the 7900GTX
-HDR plus AA capability / angle independent filtering
-Good drivers (updates every month)
-crossfire (not as mature as SLi but it has its merits although 2 X1900s would sound like a wind turbine)

cons
-CCC (sucks alot of ram and takes awhile to start up)
-heat
-noise
-not life time warranty? (not sure about this)


Off topic-

Can anyone post screenshots of FC using HDR? any 7900GTX or X1900XTX owners? i want to see the difference.

Note-
I did include IQ advatanges in there but you have to remember that a) IQ is almost similiar between the cards b) its up to the user's eye on deciding which card has better visuals. Some say ATi is better, some say NV is, etc. To me the differences are WAY too small to fuss about.

However one thing i really want to know is why the HDR from ATi and NV differs. ATis HDR looks more like "maxed out" bloom effects. Would appreicate some screenshots.

 

[fierydemise]

Cookie a couple of points:
1. Powercolor does offer a lifetime warranty
2. You don't need to use CCC
Also a couple minute details:
Why do you put HDR+AA and angle independents AF as a single bullet point?
I would separate them and change the 7900GTX from silence to quiet and possibly combine less heat and less power because those things are so closely related

Otherwise good straight forward summary

 

[jack bauer]

Ok, is the picture in french on the far right of the ati in full HDR and AA? Looks too bloomy and bright. Can someone send a link of the GTX on full vs. x1900 on full of oblivion or HL2?

Is the X1900's HDR effect really even that great?

Although the HDR plus AA on the ATi looks good, i want to see bloom/AA compared to HDR/AA.

and I agree!

 

[videopho]

Quote from the OP:
"...and then upgrade in a year when they get their act together. "

what makes you think it would get its act together a year or two from now, amid the new releases of a bunch new software products such as Vista, DirectX 10 and the newer games to run based on these new window platforms?
It will be even more chaotic, and confusing than ever.
Just my $0.02

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I was basically referring to FPS games and going by the AT, X-bit, FS and TR reviews. FEAR is faster on the X1900 at higher settings, but the framerate is way too low for me on both cards at those settings; at lower settings the 7900 seems to come out slightly on top, especially with the minimum framerates. I generally play Far Cry with HDR rather than AA (even if I could use AA, I would prefer a higher resolution instead) and the GTX appears to be a bit better at that, at least according to X-bit. The SCCT benchmarks are not really valid because as mentioned earlier, the X1900 cards can't do the true HDR due to a flaw in the game. There is also a big difference in favor of the GTX in Riddick, which isn't shown in that chart.

I also play several older games quite often, which are mostly OpenGL based and would probably run better on the 7900.

One non-FPS game I am quite interested in but doesn't seem to be benchmarked anywhere is NFS: Most Wanted. Do you happen to know any site that covers this one?

If you're running your games at 1280x1024 than either of these cards will give you plenty of speed. Performance really becomes a moot argument.

Here is my take on the debate:

X1900XTX

Pros:
1) HQ AF
2) HDR + AA
3) Overall faster at high res (>=1600x1200) with AA/AF
4) Software voltage adjustments
5) AVIVO
6) Costs less

Cons:
1) Stock cooler rather loud (if you game with no sound than this can be a problem)
2) Slightly more robust PSU required over a 7900GTX
3) Better hsf required for good overclocking

7900GTX

Pros:
1) Good hsf for overclocking
2) Quiet
3) Better performance in OpenGL (although not a big gap anymore)

Cons:
1) No HQ AF
2) No HDR + AA
3) No software voltage adjustments
4) Pure Video < AVIVO
5) More expensive
6) Overall not as fast

 

[CP5670]

If you're running your games at 1280x1024 than either of these cards will give you plenty of speed. Performance really becomes a moot argument.

I generally just use the highest resolution (up to 2048x1536, without AA in most cases) that will keep the minimum framerates around 50-60fps. I don't think these cards handle 1280x960/1024 that well in some newer games though. I find FEAR's multiplayer to be too choppy at that resolution on my 7800 GTs (which are about the same speed as one of these cards), with frequent drops into the low 30s in large fights.

Anyway, I am just going pick up whichever card I can find a better deal for on ebay. They seem overall close enough that I can't really go wrong either way.

3) Better performance in OpenGL (although not a big gap anymore)

How big is that gap these days? ATI has gotten close in Doom 3 and Quake 4 but not some other games (like Riddick), so it's hard to tell whether they have been improving their OGL drivers in general or making optimizations specifically for the D3 engine.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: CP5670

If you're running your games at 1280x1024 than either of these cards will give you plenty of speed. Performance really becomes a moot argument.

I generally just use the highest resolution (up to 2048x1536, without AA in most cases) that will keep the minimum framerates around 50-60fps. I don't think these cards handle 1280x960/1024 that well in some newer games though. I find FEAR's multiplayer to be too choppy at that resolution on my 7800 GTs (which are about the same speed as one of these cards), with frequent drops into the low 30s in large fights.

If AA isn't your thing than performance is pretty close like you've said.

How big is that gap these days? ATI has gotten close in Doom 3 and Quake 4 but not some other games (like Riddick), so it's hard to tell whether they have been improving their OGL drivers in general or making optimizations specifically for the D3 engine.

True. With Riddick there is still a big gap.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Cookie a couple of points:
1. Powercolor does offer a lifetime warranty
2. You don't need to use CCC
Also a couple minute details:
Why do you put HDR+AA and angle independents AF as a single bullet point?
I would separate them and change the 7900GTX from silence to quiet and possibly combine less heat and less power because those things are so closely related

Otherwise good straight forward summary

Most NV partners offer lifetime e.g BFG, XFX and so on.

I put angle independent/HDR plus AA on one point becuase its not a big of a factor to sway someone to buy such a card because it has "those" features. Its not a "must" have feature, just like back when the 6 series was around. "HDR" wasnt a must nor was S.M 3.0 . Many people bought the X800/X850 series even though the compeition had these features.

Then whats the point of having CCC when you could use lets say ATi tools which is much better than CCC. NV comes with a straight forward panel that does everything, installs easy, doesnt suck up ram, easy to load, and if your a hardocer/enthusiast there are many things in the NV control panel that you can unlock and start toying around with e.g coolbits etc.

In the end, it comes down to performance and user friendliness to most average people. (features are just icying on the cake really). Personally, i dont like having to use a 3rd party control panel or cooler due to the clumsiness of the CCC or the problem of noise and heat. The thing is that many people just dont have time to play around with their hardware nor fiddle around with anything because of warranty and the risk they have to take on a $500~ dollar video card.

Let me say this to the OP. Flip a coin.

edit - i came across this
Go down to self shadowing.

 

[jack bauer]

No really, does the GTXs HDR look good? How about bloom with AA on the GTX? Comparable to ATI? I hear ATI's HDR looks like 'over bloom'.

 

[PSUPef2k]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
No really, does the GTXs HDR look good? How about bloom with AA on the GTX? Comparable to ATI? I hear ATI's HDR looks like 'over bloom'.

did you decide yet? I am about to order, and it looks like I am going to run a 1900xtx on my a8n32-sli board.

 

[jack bauer]

Almost, leading toward the X1900XT. Anyone out there know if the X1800XT 512 is close enough and worth the price differenced saved?

 

[NoDamage]

Check the Hot Deals forum, right now you can grab a X1900XT from Dell for $351, or a 7900GTX for $380.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
Almost, leading toward the X1900XT. Anyone out there know if the X1800XT 512 is close enough and worth the price differenced saved?

i went the 1800xt. why? just didn't seem to make sense to spend the extra $$ when vista/dx10 is around the corner... and yet another video card purchase is on the horizon.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
Almost, leading toward the X1900XT. Anyone out there know if the X1800XT 512 is close enough and worth the price differenced saved?

Not a prayer. There is a big difference in performance. Like I said I still think the 1800XT256 is a good deal at 290, altho if you raelly can get a 1900XT for 351 go for that.

 

[jack bauer]

i dont think that dell stuff will work

 

[NoDamage]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
i dont think that dell stuff will work

?

There is a FatWallet thread on the subject here:

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?start=0&catid=18&threadid=603071

It requires a little effort if you don't have the 25% coupon (you'll have to find one or get one off eBay) but it is definitely worth the effort to pick up an X1900XT or 7900GTX for the same price as a higher end 7900GT.

 

[josh6079]

IMO, the HDR ATI produces is better than the HDR Nvidia produces. Going from a supposed close competition rig, 7800GT SLI to X1900XTX, the visuals are a lot more crisp and detailed as well as better colored with the ATI. I'll work on posting a Far Cry clip I had with the 78's and a new one with the 1900. I only have one from when I had the SLI, and I don't know if it shows off the HDR all that great, but I'll try to recreate a similar scene with the 1900 in order to compare it closely.

Not by any means is ATI's HDR "overbloom". The bloom feature coupled with AA sucks big time compared to HDR and AA. In fact, I didn't think that with either setup bloom looked good at all. I also noticed before the chuck patch, that ATI's HDR with no AA looked better than Nvidia's HDR and no AA. Whether this is a difference in the way both do AA or not I don't know. All I know is that it looked a little better.