First Review of X1950XTX

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 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

bah.. why can't they get rid of the stupid "crossfire edition"...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 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

bah.. why can't they get rid of the stupid "crossfire edition"...

Because it's a "refresh" not a redesign.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 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

bah.. why can't they get rid of the stupid "crossfire edition"...

Because it's a "refresh" not a redesign.

I don't know about that are you calling all of the 1900 refresh or just the x1950? Some people say that the 1900 was a refresh from the 1800 but I wouldn't really call it that as they added those 48 pixel shaders. I do believe the 1950 is a refresh of the regular 1900 as it is really just a die shrink with some new memory added on. At any rate I don't like having to get a crossfire card and I'm not so happy with Nvidia for droping the 7800gt prices on that card are stupid and makes it hard to upgrade to sli when a x1900xt is in the same price range. I really don't like either dual gpu solution at the moment.

 

[450R]

So, uhm, did the X1950 Pro become the new 256MB X1900XT @ $279? DailyTech

Edit: And why didn't ATI give the new X1900XT the redesigned cooler as well? It's not like it didn't need it already, GDDR4 or not ... it's still running at the same clocks.

And add me to the I'm-tired-of-these-stupid-naming-schemes list.

 

[mikek753]

Originally posted by: 450R
So, uhm, did the X1950 Pro become the new 256MB X1900XT @ $279? DailyTech

Edit: And why didn't ATI give the new X1900XT the redesigned cooler as well? It's not like it didn't need it already, GDDR4 or not ... it's still running at the same clocks.

And add me to the I'm-tired-of-these-stupid-naming-schemes list.

will next gen start from 10000?
looks like inflation to me ...

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: 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

LOL @ the slides... wow... single x1900xtx beating a gx2 by almost double?

Notice "MaxAA" in the single card charts... Obviously they used 8xSS with nvidia cards and 6x MS with Ati to get those results.. what a load of crap

When you compare a 1900xtx with the new x1950 its like what 3-4 fps dif? :thumbsdown:

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: 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

LOL @ the slides... wow... single x1900xtx beating a gx2 by almost double?

Notice "MaxAA" in the single card charts... Obviously they used 8xSS with nvidia cards and 6x MS with Ati to get those results.. what a load of crap

When you compare a 1900xtx with the new x1950 its like what 3-4 fps dif? :thumbsdown:

That benchmrk itselt is a whole of BS.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Awesome post BFG10K @ episteme.arstechnica.com

Link?

 

[Zstream]

any reason why the links are dead now?

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: 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

LOL @ the slides... wow... single x1900xtx beating a gx2 by almost double?

Notice "MaxAA" in the single card charts... Obviously they used 8xSS with nvidia cards and 6x MS with Ati to get those results.. what a load of crap

When you compare a 1900xtx with the new x1950 its like what 3-4 fps dif? :thumbsdown:

I agree that is crap if they used 8xAA for NV, and 6xAA for ATi. Its a different type of AA, and they should not be benchmarked against each other.

How do you know there is only a 3-4fps difference? I think it will be more than that, a lot more depending on the game.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: 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

LOL @ the slides... wow... single x1900xtx beating a gx2 by almost double?

Notice "MaxAA" in the single card charts... Obviously they used 8xSS with nvidia cards and 6x MS with Ati to get those results.. what a load of crap

When you compare a 1900xtx with the new x1950 its like what 3-4 fps dif? :thumbsdown:

I agree that is crap if they used 8xAA for NV, and 6xAA for ATi. Its a different type of AA, and they should not be benchmarked against each other.

How do you know there is only a 3-4fps difference? I think it will be more than that, a lot more depending on the game.

It's kind of like benching Nvidia cards at Q while ATI is benched at HQ. It's alot worse in this case, but same concept.

 

[josh6079]

It's kind of like benching Nvidia cards at Q while ATI is benched at HQ. It's alot worse in this case, but same concept.

QFT. In order for an accurate and realistic comparison to take place, both cards should be at the default "High Quality" settings, all optimizations off, with 4xAA/16xAF with Supersampling AA (Maximum Transparency AA).

I would even consider averages with vsync and triple buffering as well since 130fps means nothing if it's tearing. Yet I know the jumps in frames are factored differently when those are on so I can see why they are left out for benches. Seeing how the card performs without a monitor's speed restricting it's frames gives a more accurate picture as to what settings effect performance and by how much.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: 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

LOL @ the slides... wow... single x1900xtx beating a gx2 by almost double?

Notice "MaxAA" in the single card charts... Obviously they used 8xSS with nvidia cards and 6x MS with Ati to get those results.. what a load of crap

When you compare a 1900xtx with the new x1950 its like what 3-4 fps dif? :thumbsdown:

I agree that is crap if they used 8xAA for NV, and 6xAA for ATi. Its a different type of AA, and they should not be benchmarked against each other.

How do you know there is only a 3-4fps difference? I think it will be more than that, a lot more depending on the game.

It's kind of like benching Nvidia cards at Q while ATI is benched at HQ. It's alot worse in this case, but same concept.

And just where does that happen?

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

How do you know there is only a 3-4fps difference? I think it will be more than that, a lot more depending on the game.

Did you bother to look at the charts? They compare the x1900xtx and x1950xtx directly, and the dif is 3 fps in 3 of the games tests, 4 in 2 of them, and 10 in the last one... dissapointing

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

How do you know there is only a 3-4fps difference? I think it will be more than that, a lot more depending on the game.

Did you bother to look at the charts? They compare the x1900xtx and x1950xtx directly, and the dif is 3 fps in 3 of the games tests, 4 in 2 of them, and 10 in the last one... dissapointing

So you think they are real? There is more of a difference with a X1900XT and a X1900XTX. Common sense...

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

How do you know there is only a 3-4fps difference? I think it will be more than that, a lot more depending on the game.

Did you bother to look at the charts? They compare the x1900xtx and x1950xtx directly, and the dif is 3 fps in 3 of the games tests, 4 in 2 of them, and 10 in the last one... dissapointing

So you think they are real? There is more of a difference with a X1900XT and a X1900XTX. Common sense...

Well true, but there is a 50 (?) core clock increase between them, while there is no core increase to be found on the 1950... Still.. It should easily get 10+ fps in about everything with those settings

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
It's kind of like benching Nvidia cards at Q while ATI is benched at HQ. It's alot worse in this case, but same concept.

And just where does that happen?

I think he's talking strictly about the concept, not a specific site that does it. Benching things at different IQ settings, whether it be Q vs. HQ or 6xAA vs. 8xSAA, will distort the findings and reward the appropriate card and therefore should be avoided. I think all would agree that if both ATI and Nvidia have such similar settings, why not make them reflective of eachother and see what happens?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
It's kind of like benching Nvidia cards at Q while ATI is benched at HQ. It's alot worse in this case, but same concept.

And just where does that happen?

I think he's talking strictly about the concept, not a specific site that does it. Benching things at different IQ settings, whether it be Q vs. HQ or 6xAA vs. 8xSAA, will distort the findings and reward the appropriate card and therefore should be avoided. I think all would agree that if both ATI and Nvidia have such similar settings, why not make them reflective of eachother and see what happens?

I am only worried about this if it actually occurs, in review made by sites that are not using marketing slides by ATI or Nvidia.

These are marketing slides by ATI, the settings they chose are going to be as optimal as necessary, while for the competitor are usually the bare minimum. This isn't surprising in the slightest.

As long as sites bench at the settings that have analagous counterparts, I am confortable with it, like 4xAA vs 4xAA, out of the box vs out of the box etc etc.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
It's kind of like benching Nvidia cards at Q while ATI is benched at HQ. It's alot worse in this case, but same concept.

And just where does that happen?

I think he's talking strictly about the concept, not a specific site that does it. Benching things at different IQ settings, whether it be Q vs. HQ or 6xAA vs. 8xSAA, will distort the findings and reward the appropriate card and therefore should be avoided. I think all would agree that if both ATI and Nvidia have such similar settings, why not make them reflective of eachother and see what happens?

I am only worried about this if it actually occurs, in review made by sites that are not using marketing slides by ATI or Nvidia.

These are marketing slides by ATI, the settings they chose are going to be as optimal as necessary, while for the competitor are usually the bare minimum. This isn't surprising in the slightest.

As long as sites bench at the settings that have analagous counterparts, I am confortable with it, like 4xAA vs 4xAA, out of the box vs out of the box etc etc.

I'm sorry, I was wrong, what I was meaning was the different IQ settings that they both get benched with. I was under the impresion that ATI came stock with their IQ settings at HQ and Nvidia came stock with their settings at Q. I asked around and it seams that the issue is just that nvidia has their ops. on and ATI has them off. This is how they are benched on most sites. schniderguy and I have been doing some benches and have found that on some games i.e. css, FEAR the difference between Q with ops on and HQ with ops off is around ~1% or non existant. There are other games that have ~15% difference namely oblivion. We set the nvidia card to HQ as that is what most of the people in the argument have said to be right, but in my view if ATI isn't using HQ and it is just the optomizations that are different between the two then I would almost support just changing Nvidia's optomizations to off and leaving it at Q. I hope this all makes sense and I would enjoy some feed back.