R580 Beating GTX512 by 25% +

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

We'll see how G71 & R580 stack up side by side. (Gotta love ATi's emergency edition catalysts too, just after 3dmark06 was released).

Well, since most ATI owners (including the X1800XT guys) are reporting either no change or a drop in performance for their 3DMark06 scores, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended purpose of the release.

Originally posted by: beggerking

you must be joking! x1800xt is intended for 7800 GTX 512MB as expected by everybody(except ATI)

This has been hashed over way too many times. It comes down to, do you compare by price point or by release date? If you think the latter than I think you need to go talk to a few more people. Anyone without unlimited funds will look at a specific price range rather than a release date. Do you ever hear people saying "Ok, I'm looking for a new card but it has to have been released in the last 2 weeks, what would you recommend?" Hmmmm....

The more likely scenario is "Ok, I'm looking for a new card in the $400-500 range, what would you recommend?" Being that the latter case is much more prevelant, the X1800XT most closely matches the 256MB 7800GTX rather than the $750-1000 512MB 7800GTX. The 256MB 7800GTX is it's main competitor at this point in time.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: beggerking
you must be joking! x1800xt is intended for 7800 GTX 512MB as expected by everybody(except ATI)

This has been hashed over way too many times. It comes down to, do you compare by price point or by release date? If you think the latter than I think you need to go talk to a few more people. Anyone without unlimited funds will look at a specific price range rather than a release date. Do you ever hear people saying "Ok, I'm looking for a new card but it has to have been released in the last 2 weeks, what would you recommend?" Hmmmm....

The more likely scenario is "Ok, I'm looking for a new card in the $400-500 range, what would you recommend?" Being that the latter case is much more prevelant, the X1800XT most closely matches the 256MB 7800GTX rather than the $750-1000 512MB 7800GTX. The 256MB 7800GTX is it's main competitor at this point in time.

QFT

 

[Clauzii]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: John Reynolds

Originally posted by: Rollo
You can rationalize having less flexibility and power in your computer graphics all you like, but the fact remains, SLI is MUCH better.

Who's rationalizing anything? And your above claim is only true for games that work with dual PEG solutions. A single high-end board has 100% compatibility in today's games. . .SLI and X-fire do not.

:roll:
Examples of some games that are not compatible with SLI and Crossfire?

As for your Call of Duty 2 example, I played it at 1680x1050 with 2x AA, 4x AF, DX9, high texture settings, etc., and it ran fine on a X800 XT (500/500).

Wow John! You must have one of those magic X800XTs[/b] I've heard about!

All the ones I see reviewed REALLY SUCK at COD2!
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_9.html

Hmmm.
A whole 13.2 fps at 12X10 4X16X with a 4000+.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_2_midrange_graphics/page8.asp">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware..._of_duty_2_midrange_graphics/page8.asp</a>

Wow! The X800XL, a bit below your card, can muster a whole 18 fps at 16X12 2X8X with a 3500+.

How wrong I was. I'm sold. X800XTs are CLEARLY the card to have for sub 30 fps gaming fury!

John was talking 2xAA 4xAF - and You compare it with 4/16 and 2/8 ????????????????
Off course a SLI or X-Fire solution is faster - but if the said GPU is enough for the personal enjoyment I see no problem....

Hell....I play NFS:U2 and NFS:MW on a 9800Pro in 10x7, AA and AF set to medium and the rest at Max. (Exept world detail set to nexthighest setting and High Contrast which for me brings nothing....) - Smooth )

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: apoppin
well "GTX" sure doesn't have a "good" name anymore - with the 512 debacle,

Says you. You make a global statement. Try to not speak for the collective public on something, please.

Stick to your opinions, and try not to post blatant flamebait as fact.

 

[RobertR1]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Hey it wasn't just me expressing suprise at the release of the drivers.

JR - I expect R580 will end up just like X1600 (which falls in between 660GT & 6800GS) - it will fall in between 7800 512 GTX & G71 (falling closer to the G71 IMO judging by how its only rumored to be 25 -30% faster than the 512GTX).

Brute force may not be particuarly elegant, but it usually is very effective and thats what counts.

If nvidia goes the brute force route, which seems to the case, one has to wonder if they'll have the same issues of availability as the 7800GTX 512.

Nothing is stopping them for release such a "PR" card to take the performance crown and then slower cards that are actually widely available. If they go with premium cores and expensive mem, expect a very high price with not a lot of room to drop.

 

[Gstanfor]

Brute force doesn't have to mean lacks of availability.

Keep in mid its *rumored* that G71 only needs to be clocked @430mhz to beat 512mb GTX 7800. It is *rumored* nVidia is aiming for 700 mhz (not sure myself) but just look at how far G70 can overclock - G71 should do better if TSMC's process claims are to be believed, even @ 600mhz nVidia should have a monster card on their hands.

EDIT: just did the math - 559mhz is what nVidia have to hit to equal R580's rumored performance. That is comfortably inside G70's known overclocking range. (430mhz = 7800 512 performance, 30% of 430 = 129, 430 + 129 = 559) 560mhz is far easier fabbable than ATi's ~650mhz for R580, and the really good clocking cores go towards the top of the line g71.

 

[John Reynolds]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
JR - I expect R580 will end up just like X1600 (which falls in between 660GT & 6800GS) - it will fall in between 7800 512 GTX & G71 (falling closer to the G71 IMO judging by how its only rumored to be 25 -30% faster than the 512GTX).

And going even further afield in terms of what I'm talking about rebutes my statement that you're conciously ignoring my point?? I wonder why FEAR's--and other games--performance will go signficantly up on R580 compared to R520, yet the former has the exact same # of texture address and ROP units as the latter. You'll probably reply with more trite about NVIDIA being faster, NVIDIA being better, ad nauseum (you really can't seem to help yourself get off this meme), when IHV vs. IHV is the farthest thing from what I'm talking about.

I am writing in English, right? Anyone else understand the point I'm making that math and not raster performance is the bottleneck these days?

 

[Gstanfor]

So what if x1600XT is faster overall and at math than its predecessor x700 John? It still sucks compared to the competition, and thats all that matters to most consumers.

 

[Steelski]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
So what if x1600XT is faster overall and at math than its predecessor x700 John? It still sucks compared to the competition, and thats all that matters to most consumers.

what exactly is the price point of an X1600 card?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Steelski

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
So what if x1600XT is faster overall and at math than its predecessor x700 John? It still sucks compared to the competition, and thats all that matters to most consumers.

what exactly is the price point of an X1600 card?

pricing
Pricing image

The prices are very comparable. The 6600 GT is a good match for the lowend x1600's and the 6800 GS likewise for the higherend x1600's.

The 6800GS may be just a touch more expensive (can probbaly get better pricing than that if you try - this is just local mom & pop pricing), but its money well spent IMO.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: Steelski

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
So what if x1600XT is faster overall and at math than its predecessor x700 John? It still sucks compared to the competition, and thats all that matters to most consumers.

what exactly is the price point of an X1600 card?

pricing
Pricing image

The prices are very comparable. The 6600 GT is a good match for the lowend x1600's and the 6800 GS likewise for the higherend x1600's.

The 6800GS may be just a touch more expensive (can probbaly get better pricing than that if you try - this is just local mom & pop pricing), but its money well spent IMO.

Where the hell did you find those ridiculous prices? The x1600pro can already be had for $119 at newegg, and the x1600xt is sold for $165. Pricewise, it makes it a direct competitor to the 6600gt, which it beats in most if not all benches.

 

[Gstanfor]

Read the post. The link is right there. Those prices are pretty representative of australian pricing overall. Its reality not fiction, no matter how much you may not like it.

 

[Munky]

Australian prices at a local mom and pop shop arent a good indicator of the products actual price, although an uneducated consumer may very well overpay for the products there. I can also find a 6600gt at BestBuy for $250, but when online retailers sell the same card for $130, nobody really cares what local shops sell the thing for.

 

[Gstanfor]

Except that this particular mon & pop shop does not overcharge people. A lot of the time I cannot order goods in from wholesalers cheaper, due to freight charges.

You are not being rippped off there, trust me.

currency convertor

6600 GT 128mb $229.00 AU = $170.914 US
6600 GT 256mb $285.00 AU = $212.685 US
6800 GS 256mb $379.00 AU = $282.709 US
x1600 pro 256 mb $235.00 AU = $175.349 US
x1600 XT 256 mb $355.00 AU = $264.889 US

 

[John Reynolds]

I wish some of you guys wouldn't even reply to these type of off-topic trollings by you-know-who (who, with his mom 'n pop price quoting somehow failed to see yet again he did exactly what I said he would). My point by linking to B3D's recent review was never about the X1600 relative price or performance, but how despite fewer texture address and ROP units it still outperforms a part with higher theoretical raster capabilities. The R580 is going to do the same thing to the R520, especially in titles like FEAR, and by a margin that exceeds the clock speed differences of the two parts.

I would cite NVIDIA hardware but with the 7900s having increased texture addressing they're not good examples for this point I've been belaboring.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: beggerking

you must be joking! x1800xt is intended for 7800 GTX 512MB as expected by everybody(except ATI)

This has been hashed over way too many times. It comes down to, do you compare by price point or by release date? If you think the latter than I think you need to go talk to a few more people. Anyone without unlimited funds will look at a specific price range rather than a release date. Do you ever hear people saying "Ok, I'm looking for a new card but it has to have been released in the last 2 weeks, what would you recommend?" Hmmmm....

The more likely scenario is "Ok, I'm looking for a new card in the $400-500 range, what would you recommend?" Being that the latter case is much more prevelant, the X1800XT most closely matches the 256MB 7800GTX rather than the $750-1000 512MB 7800GTX. The 256MB 7800GTX is it's main competitor at this point in time.

you missed the point.

The point is "which card run faster for the generation" rather than "which card is the BBFB".

Even though 7800GTX 512mb is way more expensive than x1800xt, it is faster and there are people who do look for the best gaming experience possible. x1800xt was compared to 7800GTX 256mb when it first came out, and it was way more expensive at the time as well.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: John Reynolds
....
I am writing in English, right? Anyone else understand the point I'm making that math and not raster performance is the bottleneck these days?

Yup, and something interesting that I picked up from the 3DMark06 whitepapers

Heterogeneous fog. Since this is a new effect to most people, it is in order to explain how it has been achieved. We simply ray-march through a volume whose density is defined by a volume texture as well as simple height based function. Since the density distribution has a very low frequency we are able to get away with using only 5 samples along each ray. The arithmetic to texture ratio for this shader is around 20:1, meaning that this effect puts a lot of pressure on the pixel shader units. This effect can be used in many different ways, and we use it both as a humid fog effect in Canyon Flight as well as a snow storm effect in Deep Freeze.

There are also other tests with a high ratio, the SM3 perlin noise test uses a 9:1 ratio for example.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

We'll see how G71 & R580 stack up side by side. (Gotta love ATi's emergency edition catalysts too, just after 3dmark06 was released).

Well, since most ATI owners (including the X1800XT guys) are reporting either no change or a drop in performance for their 3DMark06 scores, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended purpose of the release.

Originally posted by: beggerking

you must be joking! x1800xt is intended for 7800 GTX 512MB as expected by everybody(except ATI)

This has been hashed over way too many times. It comes down to, do you compare by price point or by release date? If you think the latter than I think you need to go talk to a few more people. Anyone without unlimited funds will look at a specific price range rather than a release date. Do you ever hear people saying "Ok, I'm looking for a new card but it has to have been released in the last 2 weeks, what would you recommend?" Hmmmm....

The more likely scenario is "Ok, I'm looking for a new card in the $400-500 range, what would you recommend?" Being that the latter case is much more prevelant, the X1800XT most closely matches the 256MB 7800GTX rather than the $750-1000 512MB 7800GTX. The 256MB 7800GTX is it's main competitor at this point in time.

This is a harder question than it would seem on the face of it.

They started out close to the same price, but supply/demand shot the GTX up and the X1800XT down.

If you compare based on price, you're comparing to a card that hard launched in mega quantity over four months prior to the X1800XT, that has half the RAM and far lower clock speed. (not to mention that I don't think the RAM used on X1800XTs was widely available when the 7800GTXs were being built)

One thing is for sure: if you're a buyer, comparing by price is probably the way unless anything under $1000 is change to you.

 

[nts]

If you were comparing on time would you now compare the 7300GS to the X1900 just because they are launched within a week or 2 of each other

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: John Reynolds
I wish some of you guys wouldn't even reply to these type of off-topic trollings by you-know-who (who, with his mom 'n pop price quoting somehow failed to see yet again he did exactly what I said he would). My point by linking to B3D's recent review was never about the X1600 relative price or performance, but how despite fewer texture address and ROP units it still outperforms a part with higher theoretical raster capabilities. The R580 is going to do the same thing to the R520, especially in titles like FEAR, and by a margin that exceeds the clock speed differences of the two parts.

I would cite NVIDIA hardware but with the 7900s having increased texture addressing they're not good examples for this point I've been belaboring.

Mr Reynolds, I was respnding to a question by Steelski - you can go fvck yourself! Just because you don't like my speculations (that hit a little closer to the truth than you are obviously comfortable with) doesn't mean I can't post them. Go back to B3D and suck up to Baumann.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Mr Reynolds, I was respnding to a question by Steelski - you can go fvck yourself!

Hahaha too funny =)

 

[Capt Caveman]

For those all dissing ATI, the X1900XT is in stock and available for sale right now. Hard Pre-launch.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
For those all dissing ATI, the X1900XT is in stock and available for sale right now. Hard Pre-launch.

That is good to see and a welcome change from the past (though they have basically had since r520 launched to do this).

I'm not dissing ATi here either, I originally siad R580 would be no match for G71 and I have explained why I feel that way too. Not my fault if you interpret it different.

 

[Clauzii]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Is that card linked to above a GTX 512? The core and ram speeds look like a GT. Paying that much for a GT with more RAM would be insane

Its a 6800GTx2 on one card. Two GPU's on one card. nVidia didnt "scrape it together", Asus did. Certain people like to try and claim ATi cant compete with that for a single card, when NV didnt have anythint to do with it. More double standards.

Eh .. 7800GT..right?

 

[John Reynolds]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Mr Reynolds, I was respnding to a question by Steelski - you can go fvck yourself! Just because you don't like my speculations (that hit a little closer to the truth than you are obviously comfortable with) doesn't mean I can't post them. Go back to B3D and suck up to Baumann.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r580/index.php?p=02

Wow, those ATI engineers sure are stupid emphasizing arithmetic over texture performance for current and future games. They sure should've talked to you first.

What I can't figure out, though, is why FEAR performs so much better on R580 compared to R520, since, to quote you, it's all about texturing and texturing is what gamers need and demand.