*OFFICIAL* ATI Radeon X800 PRO & XT Review Thread

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
ATI really needs to start working on improving their opengl drivers.

But does it matter to you if ATI gets 100 and Nvidia gets 200 frames in open GL games?

ATI can easily play Call of Duty, Quake 3, Serious Sam 2 at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF, and you are unsatisfied with its Open GL performance?

Nvidia has always been better optimized for OpenGL, but open GL games aren't as videocard demanding anyway so it doesnt matter. GEtting 20 extra FPS in new games like Far Cry is far more impressive.

On another note:
...until even 1 game that benefits from PS3.0 shaders comes out, no one can claim that ps3.0 performance is faster than 2.0. It's just too bad we cannot test the new cards at Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. to see a true winner, because those games will rock and the card that play the best between Far Cry and the 3 mentioned above will get my vote.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: jim1976
Yes I'm a foreigner so I apologise for this. Ok let's make it clearer.

Do you really believe that all these ps3 titles that are supposed to come out , will differ in terms of shader complexity and length? And if yes, do you think that this will happen in the near future?

yes. farcry has thier ps3 conversion done, they demonstrated the huge IQ difference about 2 weeks ago. stalker and battle for middle earth coming out in sept are ps3

Originally posted by: jim1976ATI had the CLEAR advantage with ps2 in the past , yet developers didn't even use ps2 shaders in the vast majority of games, as you Nvidia owners claimed.
Do you think because PS3 is easier to be programmed,that they will use extremely long shaders right now? I don't think so. Maybe you will be surprised if you see 6800 performance, if there's a single game that takes REAL ADVANTAGE OF PS3 in terms of IQ
And if ps2 IQ is almost identical with ps3 for now, and ATI has a performance lead why would I go with Nvidia?

yes, i think being easier to program will make a difference(duh!) as far as them being used now, devolopers are doing it already as i previously outlined. PS2 IQ is not "identical" with PS3, which again has been demonstrated.

Originally posted by: jim1976For futureproofness? Thanks, but until REAL PS3 shaders are utilized I prefer X800XT. In the future we will see. New cards will be here.

it looks like the "future" is now. all we need is the public release of DX9.0C

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Interesting.
Unless the SM3.0 vs SM2.0 scenario gets really significant in games, which i highly doubt it ever can from what ive read of the techs, then it seems that ATI, for the second generation running, produced a card thats faster than the competitions, uses less power, dissipates less heat, and is compatible with more systems. A card thats been very well designed from all angles.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FINALLY A SMART REPLY.
But warning don't say much about NVIDIA. YOU MIGHT BE ACCUSED OF FANBOYISM.

:beer:

Why thank you!
Fanboyism i cannot be accused of. Ive only ever owned 1 ATI card, all of my previous cards have been nVidia/S3 cards.
To continue;
The 6800U is still a good card, its fixed the nV30s problems, ie; the PS performance. But for the forseeable year at least, the X800s seem the better card.
Dont get me wrong, neither, appear to be bad choices, unlike the FX vs 9x00 debates, there is no clear cut winner. Both have their merits. nVidia being features, ATI being speed. And i think that this generation will be down to personal preference only, with very little in terms of real world gains seperating them.

Yep...

IMO ATI just built on to their already solid R3XX ( as noted in the AT review ) while Nvidia started fresh with entire new chip or at least no way near the same as the Nv3x. I think Nvidia is finally heading in the right direction and it is good to see ATI match Nvidias best.... :Q

 

[BoomAM]

Ive just read the AT review of the X800s and the 6800s.
The 6800GT looks like a very interesting card indeed. I might even consider buying one with my upgrade in a few months time.
Im hoping that ATI release something to compete with the 6800GT. If it retailed about £200, with a 16x1 config, it could be a killer card. Lets hope that ATI respond to it. To allow a price war to take place at all ends of the gfx card spectrum.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is there really a 60FPS cap on doom3?

 

[XBoxLPU]

I hate these new forums

 

[XBoxLPU]

Gah

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976
Yes I'm a foreigner so I apologise for this. Ok let's make it clearer.

Do you really believe that all these ps3 titles that are supposed to come out , will differ in terms of shader complexity and length? And if yes, do you think that this will happen in the near future?

yes. farcry has thier ps3 conversion done, they demonstrated the huge IQ difference about 2 weeks ago. stalker and battle for middle earth coming out in sept are ps3

Originally posted by: jim1976ATI had the CLEAR advantage with ps2 in the past , yet developers didn't even use ps2 shaders in the vast majority of games, as you Nvidia owners claimed.
Do you think because PS3 is easier to be programmed,that they will use extremely long shaders right now? I don't think so. Maybe you will be surprised if you see 6800 performance, if there's a single game that takes REAL ADVANTAGE OF PS3 in terms of IQ
And if ps2 IQ is almost identical with ps3 for now, and ATI has a performance lead why would I go with Nvidia?

yes, i think being easier to program will make a difference(duh!) as far as them being used now, devolopers are doing it already as i previously outlined. PS2 IQ is not "identical" with PS3, which again has been demonstrated.

Originally posted by: jim1976For futureproofness? Thanks, but until REAL PS3 shaders are utilized I prefer X800XT. In the future we will see. New cards will be here.

it looks like the "future" is now. all we need is the public release of DX9.0C

Where the freak have you been? The so-called PS2.0 screenshots nVidia demoed against PS3.0 were actually PS1.1. The difference between PS2.0 and 3.0 will mainly come down to framerates, not IQ!

Sorry to say, your beloved NVDA was caught again with its hand in the cookie jar.

Edit: Did you read this?

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976
Yes I'm a foreigner so I apologise for this. Ok let's make it clearer.

Do you really believe that all these ps3 titles that are supposed to come out , will differ in terms of shader complexity and length? And if yes, do you think that this will happen in the near future?

yes. farcry has thier ps3 conversion done, they demonstrated the huge IQ difference about 2 weeks ago. stalker and battle for middle earth coming out in sept are ps3

Originally posted by: jim1976ATI had the CLEAR advantage with ps2 in the past , yet developers didn't even use ps2 shaders in the vast majority of games, as you Nvidia owners claimed.
Do you think because PS3 is easier to be programmed,that they will use extremely long shaders right now? I don't think so. Maybe you will be surprised if you see 6800 performance, if there's a single game that takes REAL ADVANTAGE OF PS3 in terms of IQ
And if ps2 IQ is almost identical with ps3 for now, and ATI has a performance lead why would I go with Nvidia?

yes, i think being easier to program will make a difference(duh!) as far as them being used now, devolopers are doing it already as i previously outlined. PS2 IQ is not "identical" with PS3, which again has been demonstrated.

Originally posted by: jim1976For futureproofness? Thanks, but until REAL PS3 shaders are utilized I prefer X800XT. In the future we will see. New cards will be here.

it looks like the "future" is now. all we need is the public release of DX9.0C

Can you plz link me to it? Just plz don't bring me these rediculus pictures of that site that had ps1.1

Unless displacement mapping is involved PS2 can do pretty much the same things in terms of IQ. All we have to do is wait and see if indeed there will be difference between ps2 and ps3 in fortcoming games. Because I believe you will be dissapointed my friend. It's too early for real ps3 utilization

*edit* it's not ps2 at lowest settings. My mistake thanks GTAudiophile

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

have fun with your PS2 only card while i am playing farcry and stalker in PS3

and you already know that ATI cards smoke Nvidia in Far Cry, so what makes you think PS3.0 performance will be signficantly faster? I am not saying it won't but that is an assumption, and you are almost certain PS3.0 mode will be way faster for Nvidia when PS3.0 is simply an extension of PS2.0 mode. So if Nvidia is slower in lesser instructon set of 2.0, what makes you think it will even be able to handle 3.0 with its LONGER instruction set, at faster speed? :roll:

ATI demostrated PS3.0/2.0 performance vs. 1.1 version NOT 3.0 vs. 2.0 so as at stands now PS3.0 offers identical performance and image quality unless proven otherwise by any game (which up to this point hasn't come out)

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Where the freak have you been? The so-called PS2.0 screenshots nVidia demoed against PS3.0 were actually PS1.1. The difference between PS2.0 and 3.0 will mainly come down to framerates, not IQ!

Sorry to say, your beloved NVDA was caught again with its hand in the cookie jar.

Edit: Did you read this?

all i can say is wow! another poster on anandtech that seems to know more about the crytek engine than crytek does. simply amazing!

i compared what was shown in the demonstration to the same images on a machine with a athlon 3400+ with a 9800XT set at full image quality and the simple fact is ps3 does in fact look better than ps2 which makes your counterpoint invalid.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Interesting.
Unless the SM3.0 vs SM2.0 scenario gets really significant in games, which i highly doubt it ever can from what ive read of the techs, then it seems that ATI, for the second generation running, produced a card thats faster than the competitions, uses less power, dissipates less heat, and is compatible with more systems. A card thats been very well designed from all angles.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FINALLY A SMART REPLY.
But warning don't say much about NVIDIA. YOU MIGHT BE ACCUSED OF FANBOYISM.

:beer:

Why thank you!
Fanboyism i cannot be accused of. Ive only ever owned 1 ATI card, all of my previous cards have been nVidia/S3 cards.
To continue;
The 6800U is still a good card, its fixed the nV30s problems, ie; the PS performance. But for the forseeable year at least, the X800s seem the better card.
Dont get me wrong, neither, appear to be bad choices, unlike the FX vs 9x00 debates, there is no clear cut winner. Both have their merits. nVidia being features, ATI being speed. And i think that this generation will be down to personal preference only, with very little in terms of real world gains seperating them.

Yep...

IMO ATI just built on to their already solid R3XX ( as noted in the AT review ) while Nvidia started fresh with entire new chip or at least no way near the same as the Nv3x. I think Nvidia is finally heading in the right direction and it is good to see ATI match Nvidias best.... :Q

It is heading the right direction. And the differences are minor with these series from both companies.
6800u is an exceptional card. It has nothing to do with the NV3x series.
I agree that each company has its advantages and disadvantages. And I'm glad Nvidia has SM3 features, even if they won't be utilized in the near future. I'm always in favor of new tech features. I just thanked BOOMAM because he got the main idea IMO. ATI has the smartest card for the battle for now from many angles.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Where the freak have you been? The so-called PS2.0 screenshots nVidia demoed against PS3.0 were actually PS1.1. The difference between PS2.0 and 3.0 will mainly come down to framerates, not IQ!

Sorry to say, your beloved NVDA was caught again with its hand in the cookie jar.

Edit: Did you read this?

all i can say is wow! another poster on anandtech that seems to know more about the crytek engine than crytek does. simply amazing!

i compared what was shown in the demonstration to the same images on a machine with a athlon 3400+ with a 9800XT set at full image quality and the simple fact is ps3 does in fact look better than ps2 which makes your counterpoint invalid.

Ok because I have done the same with my 9800pro, I AM ASKING YOU TO BRING PICTURES FROM YOUR MACHINE. Because I have seen ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

*edit* You had the flashlight ON right?

 

[LTC8K6]

A: In current engine there are no visible difference between PS2.0 and PS3.0. PS3.0 is used automatically for per-pixel lighting depending on some conditions to improve speed of rendering.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

A: In current engine there are no visible difference between PS2.0 and PS3.0. PS3.0 is used automatically for per-pixel lighting depending on some conditions to improve speed of rendering.

OWNED

 

[daction]

Both are amazing cards. For me it's looking like either the X800pro or the 6800GT.

 

[Reliant]

Any retail sightings yet?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

have fun with your PS2 only card while i am playing farcry and stalker in PS3

and you already know that ATI cards smoke Nvidia in Far Cry, so what makes you think PS3.0 performance will be signficantly faster? I am not saying it won't but that is an assumption, and you are almost certain PS3.0 mode will be way faster for Nvidia when PS3.0 is simply an extension of PS2.0 mode. So if Nvidia is slower in lesser instructon set of 2.0, what makes you think it will even be able to handle 3.0 with its LONGER instruction set, at faster speed? :roll:

1. p3 can handle over 65000 pixel shader instructions compared to PS2's 256 that just does not equate into more fps, but the abilty to use vastly more shaders per scene, which makes a difference on IQ overall since more shaders can be used...

you can see this demonstrated here thanks to GT for providing the link!

quote from website

"First we thought it prudent to compare realworld in-game SM2.0 screenshots with NVIDIA's marketing screenshots to give us an up-to-date feel for Image Quality in FarCry and what SM3.0 promises. The screenshots below were rendered in the retail version of FarCry with patch 1.1 on a Radeon 9800Pro with Catalyst 4.4 driver and every game video detail set to their maximum values (PS/VS 2.0)."

here the statue rendered in 3.0 is much more realistic looking than the PS 2.0 version, which looks like someone smeared oil on a part of it's belly, the detail in the PS 3 version looks much more realistic.

linky

here is the objectivity test, which looks better? the shader model 2 or 3 version? why do they look so different if shader 3 is "identical" to shader 2?

 

[pcmodem]

Am I the only one that think folks must be on drugs to be willing to pay $400 or $500 for a video card?



Cheers, :beer:
PCM

 

[Maverick]

I'll wait till I can get the X800 XT at $300-350 before I take the plunge.

Still both Nvidia and ATI cards are looking pretty close. I'd love for the peformance to be close enough that price was the major factor in my decision making. Not quite there yet.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: pcmodem
Am I the only one that think folks must be on drugs to be willing to pay $400 or $500 for a video card?



Cheers, :beer:
PCM

Not only that, but I'm pulling my hair out waiting to do it!

Oh, and I plan on getting a new power supply anyways, my current Zalman 400w is too loud (shows you how quiet my system is), I'm gonna go for one of those fancy $200 fanless types.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

have fun with your PS2 only card while i am playing farcry and stalker in PS3

and you already know that ATI cards smoke Nvidia in Far Cry, so what makes you think PS3.0 performance will be signficantly faster? I am not saying it won't but that is an assumption, and you are almost certain PS3.0 mode will be way faster for Nvidia when PS3.0 is simply an extension of PS2.0 mode. So if Nvidia is slower in lesser instructon set of 2.0, what makes you think it will even be able to handle 3.0 with its LONGER instruction set, at faster speed? :roll:

1. p3 can handle over 65000 pixel shader instructions compared to PS2's 256 that just does not equate into more fps, but the abilty to use vastly more shaders per scene, which makes a difference on IQ overall since more shaders can be used...

you can see this demonstrated here thanks to GT for providing the link!

quote from website

"First we thought it prudent to compare realworld in-game SM2.0 screenshots with NVIDIA's marketing screenshots to give us an up-to-date feel for Image Quality in FarCry and what SM3.0 promises. The screenshots below were rendered in the retail version of FarCry with patch 1.1 on a Radeon 9800Pro with Catalyst 4.4 driver and every game video detail set to their maximum values (PS/VS 2.0)."

here the statue rendered in 3.0 is much more realistic looking than the PS 2.0 version, which looks like someone smeared oil on a part of it's belly, the detail in the PS 3 version looks much more realistic.

linky

here is the objectivity test, which looks better? the shader model 2 or 3 version? why do they look so different if shader 3 is "identical" to shader 2?

Going back and reading exactly what we asked NVIDIA, "What exact PS 3.0 features are (Crytek) using?" They responded, "As stated earlier, displacement mapping is used for the walls and stone textures like the Buddha." Funny enough, as noted earlier, Displacement Mapping is a Vertex Shader feature not a Pixel Shader feature. So all in all, I would have to believe what Tamasi is quoted as saying in the TR interview as true.

It seems that once again getting the exact truth out of NVIDIA can be a painstakingly complex exercise.

all i can say is wow! another poster on anandtech that seems to know more about the crytek engine than crytek does. simply amazing!

UPDATE #2:

PC Perspective has posted an interview with the CEO of the makers of FarCry. We found that answers to questions 7 and 8 fully support our conclusions on the subject we have put forth here in our article.


Q: 7) What aspects of the screenshots seen at the launch event are specific examples of the flexibility and power of Shader 3.0?

A: In current engine there are no visible difference between PS2.0 and PS3.0. PS3.0 is used automatically for per-pixel lighting depending on some conditions to improve speed of rendering.

Q: 8) Is the same level of image quality seen when using Shader 3.0 possible using Shader 2.0? If so, what dictates which Shader you decide to use?

A: In current generation engine quality of PS3.0 is almost the same as PS2.0. PS3.0 is used for performance optimization purposes.

=Link=

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

have fun with your PS2 only card while i am playing farcry and stalker in PS3

and you already know that ATI cards smoke Nvidia in Far Cry, so what makes you think PS3.0 performance will be signficantly faster? I am not saying it won't but that is an assumption, and you are almost certain PS3.0 mode will be way faster for Nvidia when PS3.0 is simply an extension of PS2.0 mode. So if Nvidia is slower in lesser instructon set of 2.0, what makes you think it will even be able to handle 3.0 with its LONGER instruction set, at faster speed? :roll:

1. p3 can handle over 65000 pixel shader instructions compared to PS2's 256 that just does not equate into more fps, but the abilty to use vastly more shaders per scene, which makes a difference on IQ overall since more shaders can be used...

you can see this demonstrated here thanks to GT for providing the link!

quote from website

"First we thought it prudent to compare realworld in-game SM2.0 screenshots with NVIDIA's marketing screenshots to give us an up-to-date feel for Image Quality in FarCry and what SM3.0 promises. The screenshots below were rendered in the retail version of FarCry with patch 1.1 on a Radeon 9800Pro with Catalyst 4.4 driver and every game video detail set to their maximum values (PS/VS 2.0)."

here the statue rendered in 3.0 is much more realistic looking than the PS 2.0 version, which looks like someone smeared oil on a part of it's belly, the detail in the PS 3 version looks much more realistic.

linky

here is the objectivity test, which looks better? the shader model 2 or 3 version? why do they look so different if shader 3 is "identical" to shader 2?

LOL. .

1. Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.
2. Even if that was possible, what are you comparing? There's no identical pictures to compare, just random pictures with flashlight "on" in the SM3 and "off" in the SM2.

Either bring your pictures or go play the game my friend (FYI the level is catacombs)

 

[Regs]

It looks like the X800 pro will actually be the Non-Pro of this series judging by those benchmarks. Which means if I have to wait until june to see the 6800GT arrive with around the same performance if not better, at the same price, with one molex connector, and a single slot cooling solution.... I'm going to get very anxious.

There would be no way ATI could sell the X800pro for 400 dollars with the 6800GT in that league. This is why I agree with Danpusher and Jeff right now. The prices are going to drop and we well be left with a clearer picture of which brings the better value/performance ratio.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: jim1976


LOL. .

1. Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.
2. Even if that was possible, what are you comparing? There's no identical pictures to compare, just random pictures with flashlight "on" in the SM3 and "off" in the SM2.

Either bring your pictures or go play the game my friend (FYI the level is catacombs)

i posted the pics from hard OCP and mine look the same. and you sure dodged the question. typical. here is the link again and i find it hilarious you actually said "Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.

ROFL!

since our disagrement is about the difference on PS2 and PS3 what you siad is totally irrelevant.



PICS

so answer the question fanboy! which scene looks better? why do they look different if ps2 and ps3 are basically "identical"?