R520 Benchies at HA

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I wouldn't call it a round won yet. It's not over.

First we need to see what kind of image quality and features ATI offers. Then we need to see what the final price is, they may change it. And finally, we need to see if there are any performance enhancements from new drivers that could flip the tables. Nvidia has won this battle, but the war is far from over.

I hope the war is never "over" so to speak.

If ATI could release the XT's at $499, XL's at $399 then they could make some headway, but they would lose their shirts.

 

[Soccerman06]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
The 7800GTX has not been around for 6 months. Why do people keep saying it has, when it was released to the market on June 22 (or atleast reviewed by AT). I would hope after 3 months of driver updates, the X1800XT could do a better.

Would I be wrong to say that the 7800GTX released at the same price (msrp)? hhhhm lets thing about that, it took basically 2 months to drop the average price around $500, ATI should lower the price of the cards about the same in 1 month if they want to make any money this round.

Wow, this tech is garbage, I thought that extra 256mb of VRAM would help with the higher resolutions, but it appears it's necessary just to compete at the higher rez's with the GTX.

Since when does the amount of VRAM have anything to do with performance (on the high end)? The 9800pro 128 and 256 performed basically the same with their gen of games. The X800Xl 512 was just as fast (barely faster sometimes) as the 256 version and the same thing can be said about the 6800Ultra 512. The only game that can currently take advantage of 512mb of video memory is F.E.A.R. and only on high settings.

And how many 512mb 7800GTX are in production and buyable right now? Thats right, none.

Extra VRAM is only for higher resolutions, that's always been the argument. Don't talk to me about the 9800 or the X800XL, those cards were given extra RAM as a marketing tool, which it appears ATI is doing here. I bet the XT would be getting trounced even more at 1600x1200 if it didn't have the extra 256. If you are touting it as useless, then why are you so proud that ATI is producing 512mb cards?

Don't refute your own arguments in the future.

Edit - Also, how many 1800XT's are in production are buyable right now?

Production - probably not many if the yields are as bad as they are rumored to be
Buyable - ZERO

Theres a difference of a card being released and a card that doesnt have the same features as its predicesor.

You forget the 6800Ultra 512mb. The extra memory doesnt help the 6800Ultra perform any faster (maybe 1-2%), even at 20x15. That card is still a high/mid range, if there was a 512mb version of the 7800GTX I doubt it would perform much faster at high res.

 

[Muscles]

I'm going to repeat on this thread what I said in another.

You guys keep waiting! I've been waiting for 4 months or so to build myself a new system and I'm done waiting. Those benchmarks look too authentic to me yet the ATI fan boys are still hoping for a miracle. Sorry ATI my money goes to Nvidia (again). God damn I was so stupid to wait 3 months for ATI and their crap, I could have been gaming happily this whole time. Oh well lesson learned.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Richdog
Complete and utter dissappointment from ATI... what were they thinking...

Nvidia won this round...

After reading the negative stuff in that review I have my doubts about the results. HA seem to have a problem with ATI so I would wait until Anandtech release a review for a fair review.

QFT :thumbsup:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Richdog
Complete and utter dissappointment from ATI... what were they thinking...

Nvidia won this round...

After reading the negative stuff in that review I have my doubts about the results. HA seem to have a problem with ATI so I would wait until Anandtech release a review for a fair review.

QFT :thumbsup:

My reading into the negative stuff is that ATI was trying to punish them for writing about things that are embarassing to ATI. While I also trust AT and HardOCP above all else, I don't believe that HA is skewing the results.

 

[biostud]

I thought the extra memory would be used for highres (or uncompressed) textures and 3Dc textures. Not that many games use it. Guess we'll have to wait for UT2K7.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: biostud
I thought the extra memory would be used for highres (or uncompressed) textures and 3Dc textures. Not that many games use it. Guess we'll have to wait for UT2K7.

Hmmm.. The way BF2 eats system memory, I would suspect that 512 may help it. Would love to try one on my editor with some 1080i source (using one that requires DX9, makes DX9 calls, uses DX9 for it operations). 1080i editing requires 256MB on the card to work well.

 

[jasonja]

I love how everyone compares the MSRP of the X1800XT with the street price of the GTX.

I'm also not going to take benchmarks from a card that is obviously not the final press sample (because those haven't gone out yet) from a guy that apparently has a bone to pick with ATI for not getting picked.

 

[VIAN]

I think the reason they stopped making the X850 is because of how powerful it is. They would have lower the price because it is not next gen or they would keep it high and not sell. The X850XT is so powerful it is a competitor the the X18Pro. Damn! What a fcking long name, so I shortend it.

Let me try to break it up into percentages 7800 vs X18 series:

Remeber 4xAA & 8xAF are enabled. Percentages are rounded up to whole numbers. I consider anything at 10% and up to be a decent improvement. If cards are within 10%, then I consider them to be roughly equal.

HL2
GTX vs XT
768 -- 2% ATI
1024 - 1% Nv
1200 - 12% Nv

GT vs Pro
768 -- 1% Nv
1024 - 4% ATI
1200 - 5% Nv

Doom3
GTX vs XT
768 -- 18% Nv
1024 - 20% Nv
1200 - 25% Nv

GT vs Pro
768 -- 34% Nv
1024 - 23% Nv
1200 - 38% Nv

FarCry
GTX vs XT
768 -- 5% ATI
1024 - 1% ATI
1200 - 1% ATI

GT vs Pro
768 -- 7% ATI
1024 - 4% ATI
1200 - 8% ATI

Splinter Cell 3
GTX vs XT
768 -- 14% Nv
1024 - 17% Nv
1200 - 12% Nv

GT vs Pro
768 -- 9% Nv
1024 - 24% Nv
1200 - 13% Nv

From this, ATI's winnings are not worth considering, however Nv's winnings definitely shine... brightly. From these benches, it seems fruitless to get an ATI card. But, I would still wait till official and verified numbers are released.

 

[vision33r]

Originally posted by: mindgam3

Originally posted by: vision33r
It looks like ATI got their ass handed again. It looks like the new cards are only competitive against the 6800 series.

The drivers are RC, they are pretty much production quality. I expect a jump of 20% in performance when they mature somewhat but not gonna be more than 50% leap, whoever thinks that better drivers would do is just a "fool's hope" The 7800 series performance was evident even with beta drivers.

There's no question, the R520 is a dissappointment while the fanboys now will chant the "R580 will rock."

Only competitive against the 6800 series? Are you on crack it actually beats the GTX in a few of the benchmarks and always beats the 6800 except on a few of the SLI tests... And why do you have to bring fanboy crap into the post .

Yes, because it was able to beat the 6800 but not the 7800 clearly. In some benches, the 6800GT SLI was about to pull ahead comfortably.

The bad part is that with 600-700mhz, it can't beat the 7800 with 24 pipes and only 500mhz part.

What a dissappointment.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: vision33r

Originally posted by: mindgam3

Originally posted by: vision33r
It looks like ATI got their ass handed again. It looks like the new cards are only competitive against the 6800 series.

The drivers are RC, they are pretty much production quality. I expect a jump of 20% in performance when they mature somewhat but not gonna be more than 50% leap, whoever thinks that better drivers would do is just a "fool's hope" The 7800 series performance was evident even with beta drivers.

There's no question, the R520 is a dissappointment while the fanboys now will chant the "R580 will rock."

Only competitive against the 6800 series? Are you on crack it actually beats the GTX in a few of the benchmarks and always beats the 6800 except on a few of the SLI tests... And why do you have to bring fanboy crap into the post .

Yes, because it was able to beat the 6800 but not the 7800 clearly. In some benches, the 6800GT SLI was about to pull ahead comfortably.

The bad part is that with 600-700mhz, it can't beat the 7800 with 24 pipes and only 500mhz part.

What a dissappointment.

The stock core speed for the 7800 is ~430 isn't it? Can't remember, I think one of the OC 7800's would improve upon these results by quite a bit.

 

[Rage187]

I'm dissapointed but going to wait to see Anand's benchmarks before deciding what to upgrade to from a 6800gt.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: vision33r

Originally posted by: mindgam3

Originally posted by: vision33r
It looks like ATI got their ass handed again. It looks like the new cards are only competitive against the 6800 series.

The drivers are RC, they are pretty much production quality. I expect a jump of 20% in performance when they mature somewhat but not gonna be more than 50% leap, whoever thinks that better drivers would do is just a "fool's hope" The 7800 series performance was evident even with beta drivers.

There's no question, the R520 is a dissappointment while the fanboys now will chant the "R580 will rock."

Only competitive against the 6800 series? Are you on crack it actually beats the GTX in a few of the benchmarks and always beats the 6800 except on a few of the SLI tests... And why do you have to bring fanboy crap into the post .

Yes, because it was able to beat the 6800 but not the 7800 clearly. In some benches, the 6800GT SLI was about to pull ahead comfortably.

The bad part is that with 600-700mhz, it can't beat the 7800 with 24 pipes and only 500mhz part.

What a dissappointment.

The stock core speed for the 7800 is ~430 isn't it? Can't remember, I think one of the OC 7800's would improve upon these results by quite a bit.

Who's to say you won't be able to overclock a X1800 to 700mhz?

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: jasonja
I love how everyone compares the MSRP of the X1800XT with the street price of the GTX.

I'm also not going to take benchmarks from a card that is obviously not the final press sample (because those haven't gone out yet) from a guy that apparently has a bone to pick with ATI for not getting picked.

a) You can compare the street price to the MSRP because considering ATi's history of phantom high end parts and the fact that they've specifically said that the XT will not be in high supply for a while means that the price will either stay at MSRP or (as was often the case with the X800XT PE) go above it. It will be more expensive, that's a given.

b) Where do you think he got the sample? Conjured out of thin air? Read the article: he got a sample from a board partner, which is likely pretty indicative of what a standard card will do. And do you think he's so mad at ATi that his systems magically run benchmarks slower on ATi cards?

I know you are disappointed, but your fanboy is showing.

Edit:

Who's to say you won't be able to overclock a X1800 to 700mhz?

The fact that it took 3 tape outs and double slot cooling just to hit 600mhz seems a good indicator.

Your fanboy is really showing.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: jasonja

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: vision33r

Originally posted by: mindgam3

Originally posted by: vision33r
It looks like ATI got their ass handed again. It looks like the new cards are only competitive against the 6800 series.

The drivers are RC, they are pretty much production quality. I expect a jump of 20% in performance when they mature somewhat but not gonna be more than 50% leap, whoever thinks that better drivers would do is just a "fool's hope" The 7800 series performance was evident even with beta drivers.

There's no question, the R520 is a dissappointment while the fanboys now will chant the "R580 will rock."

Only competitive against the 6800 series? Are you on crack it actually beats the GTX in a few of the benchmarks and always beats the 6800 except on a few of the SLI tests... And why do you have to bring fanboy crap into the post .

Yes, because it was able to beat the 6800 but not the 7800 clearly. In some benches, the 6800GT SLI was about to pull ahead comfortably.

The bad part is that with 600-700mhz, it can't beat the 7800 with 24 pipes and only 500mhz part.

What a dissappointment.

The stock core speed for the 7800 is ~430 isn't it? Can't remember, I think one of the OC 7800's would improve upon these results by quite a bit.

Who's to say you won't be able to overclock a X1800 to 700mhz?

If you READ carefully I was just trying to keep things at an even keel, he is stating the XT can't keep up with a 500mhz part, when in reality it's a 430mhz part.

 

[nitromullet]

This is pretty much what I expected and what has previoulsy been leaked as well. Wasn't there some site that recently said something to the effect of X1800 with 16-pipes would be competative with the GTX, which it is. After all of the delays and re-tapes I serioulsy think that it would have been a miracle if ATI had come out with the "GTX Killer" some were hoping for. The good news is that neither is a bad pick by any means.

I wish that this review had a slightly less offensive tone. They definitely sound like they have an axe to grind with ATI for getting snubbed. That being said, I am kind of glad that they didn't conduct the benchmarks themselves, it adds more credibility. I dont't imagine that a board partner would try to make their own cards look bad. Then again, I imagine that this tests were conducted under the table and not with managemnt's blessing.

2) Look at the D3 benchmark - why are the fps so low for all the cards? Compare this to some benches from other sites, for example at Techreport the x850 gets over 100fps in D3 at 10x7 4x8x. What would cause it to only get 30fps in this case? I'd think a 9800p could get 30fps in D3 at 10x7.

I noticed this as well, and thought it was odd. Then I noticed that it said "Custom benchmark" also. I think that most sites are using the built in time demo which does a good job of stressing just the video card, but isn't representative of game play performance. There is a minor debate about that as well, so I won't get into that. The way I see it though, as long as the benchmark was consistently done accoss the platforms, then the results should be valid. Along those same lines, it would have been nice had they included at least a hint of the specs of the system they tested on.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: jasonja
I love how everyone compares the MSRP of the X1800XT with the street price of the GTX.

I'm also not going to take benchmarks from a card that is obviously not the final press sample (because those haven't gone out yet) from a guy that apparently has a bone to pick with ATI for not getting picked.

a) You can compare the street price to the MSRP because considering ATi's history of phantom high end parts and the fact that they've specifically said that the XT will not be in high supply for a while means that the price will either stay at MSRP or (as was often the case with the X800XT PE) go above it. It will be more expensive, that's a given.

b) Where do you think he got the sample? Conjured out of thin air? Read the article: he got a sample from a board partner, which is likely pretty indicative of what a standard card will do. And do you think he's so mad at ATi that his systems magically run benchmarks slower on ATi cards?

I know you are disappointed, but your fanboy is showing.

Edit:

Who's to say you won't be able to overclock a X1800 to 700mhz?

The fact that it took 3 tape outs and double slot cooling just to hit 600mhz seems a good indicator.

Your fanboy is really showing.

Okay I see... so even though nVidia was just as guilty with the (impossible to buy)6800 Ultra release, ATI can't possibly turn it around like nVidia did with the 7800GTX?

You said it yourself... there were up to 3 versions of the 520 floating around, perhaps the one he used isn't a final one. We've seen several posts regarding the XT being in the 650mhz range. Why do you assume the final tape out didn't resolve the issues they were having allowing them to get 600Mhz easily?

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: VIAN
it's in general, doesn't matter.


Anyway it's a diappointment.

Big One..

 

[Sentential]

I really think those results are biased. These idiots are the same people who claimed that it takes a 5.2ghz intel to match an FX, which has been proven false by so many other sites

 

[ddogg]

big disappointment...i would like to see this at resolutions above 16x12 where the GTX is king. the XI800 tends of fall off when the resolution is cranked upto 16x12 with AA/AF on, it even loses in HL2. from these benchies it looks like the XI800 wont be able to compete at 20x16 with AA/AF on.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Along those same lines, it would have been nice had they included at least a hint of the specs of the system they tested on.

they did, an fx-57, 1 gig on an asus sli premium iirc.

 

[chinkgai]

looks like im not gona sell my bfg after...



kinda sad cuz ati vivo > nvidia vivo...which i need

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: rise4310

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Along those same lines, it would have been nice had they included at least a hint of the specs of the system they tested on.

they did, an fx-57, 1 gig on an asus sli premium iirc.

Ok, you're right. It was in the conclusion as opposed to before the benchmarks. Good catch.

 

[nitromullet]

You said it yourself... there were up to 3 versions of the 520 floating around, perhaps the one he used isn't a final one. We've seen several posts regarding the XT being in the 650mhz range. Why do you assume the final tape out didn't resolve the issues they were having allowing them to get 600Mhz easily?

Isn't the X1800 supposed to launch on Oct 5? Don't you think that ATI would have the final chip in the hands of the manufacturers by now?

 

[Killrose]

tsk tsk, H.A. you broke NDA. No more ATi cards for you.

First off what benchmarks are they using? They are calling all thier benchmarks "Custom" which leads me to believe they are in-house made benchmarks which is not good if true. Normally all other sites will use the same built in game benchmark utility.