First Review of X1950XTX

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

Well you gotta keep in mind it's relative 45 FPS VS 34 FPS means that the X1900 XT is 25% slower or the 7950GX2 is 33% faster. More or less. That is quite significant in the relative sense. At least that is to me.

And yes I already have posted that a 7800 GTX 512 SLI is not likely to be matched by the X1950 XTX.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

Well you gotta keep in mind it's relative 45 FPS VS 34 FPS means that the X1900 XT is 25% slower or the 7950GX2 is 33% faster. More or less. That is quite significant in the relative sense. At least that is to me.

And yes I already have posted that a 7800 GTX 512 SLI is not likely to be matched by the X1950 XTX.

That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

Well you gotta keep in mind it's relative 45 FPS VS 34 FPS means that the X1900 XT is 25% slower or the 7950GX2 is 33% faster. More or less. That is quite significant in the relative sense. At least that is to me.

And yes I already have posted that a 7800 GTX 512 SLI is not likely to be matched by the X1950 XTX.

That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

That kind of analysis is meaning less. So the X1900XTX should never have been produced because a X1900XT is only 5~10 fps behind? (check the benches). How about a X1950XTX. It increased by ~10fps against the X1900XTX (according to Vr-Zone). According to your logic, 10fps in the video world is not a big differene at all??!?!?

 

[robkas]

10 fps can make the difference from playing the game as a slideshow, or a motion picture.

 

[450R]

Originally posted by: redbox
That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

Sorry but in the 35-45 FPS range 11 is a HUGE difference. Forget percentages, ratios and relevancy - 11 FPS is often the difference between playable and unplayable at those rates, especially if you're talking 45 FPS average.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

Well you gotta keep in mind it's relative 45 FPS VS 34 FPS means that the X1900 XT is 25% slower or the 7950GX2 is 33% faster. More or less. That is quite significant in the relative sense. At least that is to me.

And yes I already have posted that a 7800 GTX 512 SLI is not likely to be matched by the X1950 XTX.

That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

That kind of analysis is meaning less. So the X1900XTX should never have been produced because a X1900XT is only 5~10 fps behind? (check the benches). How about a X1950XTX. It increased by ~10fps against the X1900XTX (according to Vr-Zone). According to your logic, 10fps in the video world is not a big differene at all??!?!?

Maybe I should clearify a difference of 10fps is not a big enough difference for me to spring and buy a certain gpu at a given price. IMO no an x1900xtx should not have been made as the price was too much given it's difference over an xt. In that same regard I don't really see the reason ATI is making an x1950xtx or xt. Unless they have just that many 580 cores to get ride of. Lets say they make both an xt and an xtx of the 1950 that is now four gpu's that perform in about the same area and also in about the same price market. Why would you do that? Nvidia has one mid range gpu the 7900gt, one good high end gpu the 7900gtx, and one good ultra high end the 7950GX2. ATI on the other hand would have one good mid range the 1900gt, and four good high end gpu's? It just doesn't make sense. They should have just made either the xt or the xtx.

Now lets look at that 10 fps that I don't see as a big deal. It depends at what level we get the extra 10 fps doesn't it? Lets say we get the 10 fps boost at the 20-30fps level. This helps out alot in the playablity of a game and would be worth it. Now lets say we get the 10fps boost at the 60-70fps level this added performance does little to increase the playablity of the game and so I would find it's increase meaningless.

 

[robkas]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

Well you gotta keep in mind it's relative 45 FPS VS 34 FPS means that the X1900 XT is 25% slower or the 7950GX2 is 33% faster. More or less. That is quite significant in the relative sense. At least that is to me.

And yes I already have posted that a 7800 GTX 512 SLI is not likely to be matched by the X1950 XTX.

That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

That kind of analysis is meaning less. So the X1900XTX should never have been produced because a X1900XT is only 5~10 fps behind? (check the benches). How about a X1950XTX. It increased by ~10fps against the X1900XTX (according to Vr-Zone). According to your logic, 10fps in the video world is not a big differene at all??!?!?

Maybe I should clearify a difference of 10fps is not a big enough difference for me to spring and buy a certain gpu at a given price. IMO no an x1900xtx should not have been made as the price was too much given it's difference over an xt. In that same regard I don't really see the reason ATI is making an x1950xtx or xt. Unless they have just that many 580 cores to get ride of. Lets say they make both an xt and an xtx of the 1950 that is now four gpu's that perform in about the same area and also in about the same price market. Why would you do that? Nvidia has one mid range gpu the 7900gt, one good high end gpu the 7900gtx, and one good ultra high end the 7950GX2. ATI on the other hand would have one good mid range the 1900gt, and four good high end gpu's? It just doesn't make sense. They should have just made either the xt or the xtx.

Now lets look at that 10 fps that I don't see as a big deal. It depends at what level we get the extra 10 fps doesn't it? Lets say we get the 10 fps boost at the 20-30fps level. This helps out alot in the playablity of a game and would be worth it. Now lets say we get the 10fps boost at the 60-70fps level this added performance does little to increase the playablity of the game and so I would find it's increase meaningless.

actually...for games like counterstrike source (although it is a CPU dependent game more then GPU) those extra 10 frames come in handy at ANY range. this is because of networking. i'm not familiar with how networking works with other games....but your "OUT" depends on how many frames you are getting. you want to get a constant 100, as most competitive servers are 100 ticks and if you are sending and recieving 100 the hitreg is awsome.

 

[dug777]

*dug777 waits for the AT benchmarks before he starts arguing*

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: 450R

Originally posted by: redbox
That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

Sorry but in the 35-45 FPS range 11 is a HUGE difference. Forget percentages, ratios and relevancy - 11 FPS is often the difference between playable and unplayable at those rates, especially if you're talking 45 FPS average.

Agreed. 10FPS is who cares territory when you're up above 100FPS..but the jump from 35-45FPS is one pretty much everyone will notice.

Although I don't care for average framerates. I prefer to see the minimums as well, because its the minimum framerate that really drives you nuts.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Ya after looking around a bit with some of the newer benches on Anandtech it looks like Nvidia have done better with FEAR. Their most recent review showed the 7950GX2 doing 45 fps @ 2048x1536 4xAA and a x1900xt doing 34 fps @ 2048x1536. thats 11 fps difference which to me isn't a whole lot but enough to make a differnce. I would be supprised if the x1950xtx is able to beat the 7950GX2 by a whole lot. If anything it will be close to a tie. Now back to that 7800gtx 512 SLI claim if the x1950xtx would tie a 7950GX2 then I guess it wouldn't be able to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI rig. Then again I haven't seen any recent Anandtech review that puts that setup against a 7950GX2. So its hard to say how much better the frames would be.

Well you gotta keep in mind it's relative 45 FPS VS 34 FPS means that the X1900 XT is 25% slower or the 7950GX2 is 33% faster. More or less. That is quite significant in the relative sense. At least that is to me.

And yes I already have posted that a 7800 GTX 512 SLI is not likely to be matched by the X1950 XTX.

That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

No my reasoning is quite informative and quite meaningful in this case, your example just plain sucks.

At around 33FPS an increase to 45FPS is quite significant.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 450R

Originally posted by: redbox
That type of reasoning is meaning less. If I had one apple and increased it by 100% then I would have two apples but that can hardle be called a big difference. 11 fps in the video world is not a big difference at all.

Sorry but in the 35-45 FPS range 11 is a HUGE difference. Forget percentages, ratios and relevancy - 11 FPS is often the difference between playable and unplayable at those rates, especially if you're talking 45 FPS average.

Agreed. 10FPS is who cares territory when you're up above 100FPS..but the jump from 35-45FPS is one pretty much everyone will notice.

Although I don't care for average framerates. I prefer to see the minimums as well, because its the minimum framerate that really drives you nuts.

Preferably the minimum with a histogram of where it occurs, like does it occur only once or multiple times throughout.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27


No my reasoning is quite informative and quite meaningful in this case, your example just plain sucks.

At around 33FPS an increase to 45FPS is quite significant.

It was an example to show that even though there might be a big percent differnce it doesn't mean there really is a big number differnce. The 11fps difference might help alot depending on where you get the +11fps. However I personaly don't feel it is worth the $200 extra the 7950GX2 comes with. I know that is a separate issue though. I do think though that it is a relitively small gap that ATI could shut with their mem freq increase. And as long as we are using percents it is about a 38% increase in mem freq.

In short I don't think the 7950GX2 really has such a big lead in performance that ATI can't touch it with their x1950xt/x.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


No my reasoning is quite informative and quite meaningful in this case, your example just plain sucks.

At around 33FPS an increase to 45FPS is quite significant.

It was an example to show that even though there might be a big percent differnce it doesn't mean there really is a big number differnce. The 11fps difference might help alot depending on where you get the +11fps. However I personaly don't feel it is worth the $200 extra the 7950GX2 comes with. I know that is a separate issue though. I do think though that it is a relitively small gap that ATI could shut with their mem freq increase. And as long as we are using percents it is about a 38% increase in mem freq.

In short I don't think the 7950GX2 really has such a big lead in performance that ATI can't touch it with their x1950xt/x.

Yes, but the example is 33FPS to 45FPS, so it is meaningful here. The example provided about apples isn't relevant to this case. I am only talking about the percentage differences here because the X1950 XTX is claimed to be 7-10% faster overall then the X1900 XTX.

This would still place it behind 7950GX2. As well we also don't know how Nvidia will react with their 7950GX2 pricing once the X1950 XTX hits the streets. I am hoping Nvidia will slash their prices somewhat to compete with ATI's rumor intro price point of X1950 XTX at 400US. You can get the 7950GX2 for 500US or so, which makes the difference between em ~100US or so.

Memory frequency increases rarely translate to performance gains of near linearity like core increases usually do. So a 38% increase in memory frequency, will NOT translate to 38% performance increase. they will be lucky to get 1/4 that percentage in the actual performance increase.

Percentages are useful, but not everywhere. Here though in the cases I provided they are.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27


Yes, but the example is 33FPS to 45FPS, so it is meaningful here. The example provided about apples isn't relevant to this case. I am only talking about the percentage differences here because the X1950 XTX is claimed to be 7-10% faster overall then the X1900 XTX.

This would still place it behind 7950GX2. As well we also don't know how Nvidia will react with their 7950GX2 pricing once the X1950 XTX hits the streets. I am hoping Nvidia will slash their prices somewhat to compete with ATI's rumor intro price point of X1950 XTX at 400US. You can get the 7950GX2 for 500US or so, which makes the difference between em ~100US or so.

Memory frequency increases rarely translate to performance gains of near linearity like core increases usually do. So a 38% increase in memory frequency, will NOT translate to 38% performance increase. they will be lucky to get 1/4 that percentage in the actual performance increase.

Percentages are useful, but not everywhere. Here though in the cases I provided they are.

I didn't mean it to come off like I was expecting a 38%increase in performance for a 38%increase in mem freq. You don't get that kind of return even with core increases. For a 100% increase in core you sure don't get 100% increase in performance.

What I expect to happen with this release is the new ATI card to come very close to the 7950GX2 in some games. The 7950GX2 to come down in price a little perhaps to the $450 level but that might not happen if it still performs alot better than ATI's card. Not to mention the G80 is supposed to be out for Nvidia shortly after the release of this ATI card, so they might not budge on the price of a 7950GX2 at all.

With the top of the line ATI card now at $400 that means the xtx is their $350 gpu and the xt is their $300 gpu but that pushes the 1900gt out of a price slot. The one card I think is going to get a nice price reduction is the x1900gt. I expect it to move to $250.

ATI is kind of in a pinch what they need to do is sell the x1950xt/x for more than $400 but they can't if it doesn't perform better than the 7950GX2. This priceing forces them to sell expensive 580 cores(not to mention brand new GDDR4 mem) at cheap prices. Bad for ATI good for Us.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27


Yes, but the example is 33FPS to 45FPS, so it is meaningful here. The example provided about apples isn't relevant to this case. I am only talking about the percentage differences here because the X1950 XTX is claimed to be 7-10% faster overall then the X1900 XTX.

This would still place it behind 7950GX2. As well we also don't know how Nvidia will react with their 7950GX2 pricing once the X1950 XTX hits the streets. I am hoping Nvidia will slash their prices somewhat to compete with ATI's rumor intro price point of X1950 XTX at 400US. You can get the 7950GX2 for 500US or so, which makes the difference between em ~100US or so.

Memory frequency increases rarely translate to performance gains of near linearity like core increases usually do. So a 38% increase in memory frequency, will NOT translate to 38% performance increase. they will be lucky to get 1/4 that percentage in the actual performance increase.

Percentages are useful, but not everywhere. Here though in the cases I provided they are.

I didn't mean it to come off like I was expecting a 38%increase in performance for a 38%increase in mem freq. You don't get that kind of return even with core increases. For a 100% increase in core you sure don't get 100% increase in performance.

What I expect to happen with this release is the new ATI card to come very close to the 7950GX2 in some games. The 7950GX2 to come down in price a little perhaps to the $450 level but that might not happen if it still performs alot better than ATI's card. Not to mention the G80 is supposed to be out for Nvidia shortly after the release of this ATI card, so they might not budge on the price of a 7950GX2 at all.

With the top of the line ATI card now at $400 that means the xtx is their $350 gpu and the xt is their $300 gpu but that pushes the 1900gt out of a price slot. The one card I think is going to get a nice price reduction is the x1900gt. I expect it to move to $250.

ATI is kind of in a pinch what they need to do is sell the x1950xt/x for more than $400 but they can't if it doesn't perform better than the 7950GX2. This priceing forces them to sell expensive 580 cores(not to mention brand new GDDR4 mem) at cheap prices. Bad for ATI good for Us.

No, I don't expect linearity from Core increases either, if you do hit a memory bandwidth limitations that impedes core scaling from reaching it's potential. But it's far closer to linearity then memory bandwidth. Hence why a % for memory bandwidth isn't as relevant, because the scaling is far worse.

Some situations perhaps, but I already addressed this concern where I consider the average across a spectrum of games more important than hand picked scenarios which paints a biased picture.

The X1900 XTX and XT are already close to the price points you listed, with the X1900 GT already below 250US.

You also have to keep in mind, price/performance is not a linear function as you go up, normally it drops as you go higher. Though it also drops once you get down to the low end as well. So 500US would still be reasonable to some degree for the 7950GX2 if the X1950 XTX is indeed 400US. It would also depend on what price point the G80 would be introduced at, if it is say 500US then that would push the 7950GX2 to potentially 450US or lower, if at 600US then no the 7950GX2 might not budge at all.

Yeah, thats the price ATI has got to pay this generation for it's feature richness. They are mor expensive to produce then the competition.

 

[mikek753]

Originally posted by: redbox
With the top of the line ATI card now at $400 that means the xtx is their $350 gpu and the xt is their $300 gpu but that pushes the 1900gt out of a price slot. The one card I think is going to get a nice price reduction is the x1900gt. I expect it to move to $250.

ATI is kind of in a pinch what they need to do is sell the x1950xt/x for more than $400 but they can't if it doesn't perform better than the 7950GX2. This priceing forces them to sell expensive 580 cores(not to mention brand new GDDR4 mem) at cheap prices. Bad for ATI good for Us.

1. no one sales x1950 for $400!!! Will it happen we don't know. ATI pushed x1950 to end of September, and they can push it even more. As for me it's marketing trick to tell people do not buy 7950 now, but wait for cheaper x1950 that would be soon. I'll beleive it when I see it from more then one x-tailer.

2. x1900GT already at $200 price range and newer x1950Pro will replace it at $199. MSRP price range. Again, when???

3. by the time ATI release x1950 7950GX2 may drop in price too. Lets say to $450. price point. Then what?

Looks like we will not see x1950 for one more month ... :-( too bad NV will get GPU market again for that extra month - IMHO.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: hemmy
an X1950XTX cannot beat a 7800GTX 512 in SLI, im sorry but you are on drugs

...

...

...


The 7900GT=7800GTX (slightly OCed)
The 7950GX2 has 2 7900GT GPUs in it
The x1950xtx can beat a 7950GX2
SO, x1950xtx>7800GTX SLI

Capiche?

7800 GTX 512 SLI, that is extremely close to a 7900 GTX SLI configuration. So no only in a situation where ATI has massive advantages.

On the whole if the performance of the X1950 XTX is around the level of the 7950GX2, then no it won't beat 7800 GTX 512 in SLI.

Read more carefully next time.

Did you see my post :

quoted by redbox
Here are your drugs

Lets see what Fear at 1920x1400 4xaa does with a pair of 7800gtx 512?

36fps not bad

Now lets see what Fear does with the same settings with one x1900xtx?

38fps ummm lets see that one beats the 7800gtx 512 in SLI!!!!!

And that isn't even the x1950xtx :Q

Right there an x1900xtx is beating 7800gtx 512 in SLI so you know the x1950xtx will with it's 2ghz mem. It's not beating it buy alot and they can pretty much be called a tie but it's SLI vs. a single card come on!

EDIT: after looking at the Anandtech bench closer I found that FEAR is about the only game that the x1900xtx beats a 7800gtx 512 SLI setup. This still is nothing to frown at though as I find FEAR to be the hardest to run game right now. It will be hard for the x1950xtx though to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI setup in all the games.

I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Lets not forget F.E.A.R. is a very shader-intensive game... and we all know what the X1900's card selling point is (in case you didn't get it, pixel shading units, the X1900 has them in spades), so its really not a fair comparison...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: hemmy
an X1950XTX cannot beat a 7800GTX 512 in SLI, im sorry but you are on drugs

...

...

...


The 7900GT=7800GTX (slightly OCed)
The 7950GX2 has 2 7900GT GPUs in it
The x1950xtx can beat a 7950GX2
SO, x1950xtx>7800GTX SLI

Capiche?

7800 GTX 512 SLI, that is extremely close to a 7900 GTX SLI configuration. So no only in a situation where ATI has massive advantages.

On the whole if the performance of the X1950 XTX is around the level of the 7950GX2, then no it won't beat 7800 GTX 512 in SLI.

Read more carefully next time.

Did you see my post :

quoted by redbox
Here are your drugs

Lets see what Fear at 1920x1400 4xaa does with a pair of 7800gtx 512?

36fps not bad

Now lets see what Fear does with the same settings with one x1900xtx?

38fps ummm lets see that one beats the 7800gtx 512 in SLI!!!!!

And that isn't even the x1950xtx :Q

Right there an x1900xtx is beating 7800gtx 512 in SLI so you know the x1950xtx will with it's 2ghz mem. It's not beating it buy alot and they can pretty much be called a tie but it's SLI vs. a single card come on!

EDIT: after looking at the Anandtech bench closer I found that FEAR is about the only game that the x1900xtx beats a 7800gtx 512 SLI setup. This still is nothing to frown at though as I find FEAR to be the hardest to run game right now. It will be hard for the x1950xtx though to beat a 7800gtx 512 SLI setup in all the games.

I already covered that with my post. F.E.A.R was programmed on ATI hardware and got the Nvidia TWIWMTBP sticker at the last minute, and hence is an ATI favourable game, there was a time where the 7800 GTX lost to the X850 XT PE in this game till the "service pack" Nvidia driver threw out so they became more competitive.

Like I have stated, I will consider an average, not selectively chosen secenarios.

Not to mention that the data you posted is not only outdated, as well it was done on the demo, which sucked even more on Nvidia hardware. So this is data I will throw out immediately.

Lets not forget F.E.A.R. is a very shader-intensive game... and we all know what the X1900's card selling point is (in case you didn't get it, pixel shading units, the X1900 has them in spades), so its really not a fair comparison...

Not really, because if R4xx hardware could beat G7x hardware in it, and we know R4xx is not more powerful shader hardware then G7x based hardware, we know alot of the performance is coming from be favourable to ATI architectures. And yes I am already aware of the R580 advantage of having many shader units. That only extends ATI's advantage even further in this particular game.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Lets not forget F.E.A.R. is a very shader-intensive game... and we all know what the X1900's card selling point is (in case you didn't get it, pixel shading units, the X1900 has them in spades), so its really not a fair comparison...

Not a fair comparison? Not fair for which situation the x1900 or the 7800gtx 512 SLI rig we where talking about? Single card vs. Two cards ummm I wonder what is fair?

 

[redbox]

I went to vr-zone and asked Shamino what he did wrong on his bench. He couldn't tell me much this is what he said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by redbox
So did Shamino figure out what was wrong in his bench? Or is he just going to wait to share that with us when he rereleases the bench?

I can't share on that till after NDA
but profile's really need specific file names

Not much but he hints at a mess up with the profiles. What do you guys think?

 

[josh6079]

Eh, we could speculate all we want about what went wrong. Just relax, time will tell.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Lets not forget F.E.A.R. is a very shader-intensive game... and we all know what the X1900's card selling point is (in case you didn't get it, pixel shading units, the X1900 has them in spades), so its really not a fair comparison...

It would be unfair if FEAR was in a class of it's own, but most if not all modern games use shaders, and some games like Oblivion and are even more shader-heavy than FEAR, so there's nothing abnormal about shader-intensive games.

 

[Bull Dog]

Originally posted by: dug777
*dug777 waits for the AT benchmarks before he starts arguing*

Ditto

 

[redbox]

Goody the price already changed and it isn't even paper launched yet.

Pricing on the new cards are quite competitive at $449 for the Radeon X1950XTX and Radeon X1950 CrossFire

quoted from here: DailyTech