Radeon X1900GT review @ The Inquirer

[hemmy]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
No they are not going to own it. I am upgrading in that price range and I if I cant get a X1800XT I will go on up to the X1900XT as I am a huge Oblivion fan. Personally I think the X1900XT will drop to within that range once the X1800XT is phased out. And then, IMO, the 7900GTs will be in trouble

How cheap can ATI possibly sell their cards. Per sale at equal prices NVIDIA is making more money because their GPUs have significantly smaller dies and are def. cheaper to produce

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: hemmy

Originally posted by: dfloyd
No they are not going to own it. I am upgrading in that price range and I if I cant get a X1800XT I will go on up to the X1900XT as I am a huge Oblivion fan. Personally I think the X1900XT will drop to within that range once the X1800XT is phased out. And then, IMO, the 7900GTs will be in trouble

How cheap can ATI possibly sell their cards. Per sale at equal prices NVIDIA is making more money because their GPUs have significantly smaller dies and are def. cheaper to produce

Acording to NV's first quarter of fiscal 2007 revenues and margins, "NVIDIA grew share in the Performance DX9 and Combined DX9 desktop GPU segments from 79 percent to 83 percent and from 57 percent to 60 percent, respectively, from the fourth quarter of calendar 2005 to the first quarter of calendar 2006 as reported in Mercury Research's First Quarter PC Graphics Report 2006."

But this is another story.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Another round of benchmarks done under the default nVidia Quality settings no doubt.

To put things into perspective my 7800GT is slower than my X800XL in Serious Sam 2 when running under High Quality.

That's because your 7800GT is running in the SM3.0 mode while the X800XL is running in SM2.0 mode. Obviously there will be a performance difference there.

There is really a minimal difference in performance and quality between "Quality" and "High Quality". If you insist on running the NV on high quality, then you should run the ATI on high quality, also.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Another round of benchmarks done under the default nVidia Quality settings no doubt.

To put things into perspective my 7800GT is slower than my X800XL in Serious Sam 2 when running under High Quality.

That's because your 7800GT is running in the SM3.0 mode while the X800XL is running in SM2.0 mode. Obviously there will be a performance difference there.

There is really a minimal difference in performance and quality between "Quality" and "High Quality". If you insist on running the NV on high quality, then you should run the ATI on high quality, also.

High Quality is already the default texture setting in Ati drivers.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Another round of benchmarks done under the default nVidia Quality settings no doubt.

To put things into perspective my 7800GT is slower than my X800XL in Serious Sam 2 when running under High Quality.

That's because your 7800GT is running in the SM3.0 mode while the X800XL is running in SM2.0 mode. Obviously there will be a performance difference there.

There is really a minimal difference in performance and quality between "Quality" and "High Quality". If you insist on running the NV on high quality, then you should run the ATI on high quality, also.

High Quality is already the default texture setting in Ati drivers.

What about filtering and other stuff? The NV setting is for everything, not just texture.

 

[akugami]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/0...nnect3d_sapphire_radeon_x1900gt/1.html

X1900GT performs ok in some instances but overall, not the card I was expecting it to be. The question now remains, what will it do with a better HSF? We all know that it's based on the R580 which is a hot and hungry card. That relatively minuscule HSF might be holding it back from performing higher in the overclocking department. Unfortunatley even then, I get a feeling it's not going to beat the 7900GT considering the high overclokcability of the 7900GT.

 

[BFG10K]

That's because your 7800GT is running in the SM3.0 mode while the X800XL is running in SM2.0 mode

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. For one there are no extra effects with SM 3.0 since I don't run HDR or bloom on either card.

Secondly, online benchmarks show a 6800GT absolutely demolishing an X800XL, much less the beating a 7800GT would give it.

But that's because online reviews run at the default eye-sore quality setting rather than high quality and that was why I made the initial comment.

There is really a minimal difference in performance and quality between "Quality" and "High Quality".

This is a joke, right? A 30% performance drop or more is not at all unusual. The performance drop in the Serious Sam 2 demo I use is so big that nVidia goes from a 6800GT slaughtering my X800XL to my X800XL beating an overclocked 7800GT.

If I have time I'll put up a more detailed analysis of high quality vs quality. When you start investigating further the findings are simply amazing. Painkiller, Jedi Academy, Serious Sam 2, the list goes on.

My 400 MHz 16 pipe X800XL is faster in those games than my overclocked 20 pipe 7800GT is.

Interestingly OpenGL games tend to exhibit the biggest performance hit under high quality. I don't believe ATi's OpenGL ICD is actually a slow as common knowledge would have us believe, it's simply nVidia's default "quality" setting inflating their performance.

If you insist on running the NV on high quality, then you should run the ATI on high quality, also.

ATi's out of the box settings match nVidia's high quality settings. The default nVidia quality setting really has attrocious shimmering in many games especially the commonly benchmarked ones like Serious Sam 2 and Quake 4. In games like Chrome and Call of Duty the shimmering is so bad it's like a carpet of bees swarming on the ground.

The benchmarks done online with nVidia using the quality setting are invalid for this very reason as when you run under high quality (i.e. to get the level of IQ you get with ATi) you start seeing a whole different picture in terms of performance.

If you want a true comparison then reduce nVidia's scores by 20-30% and then take another look at the results.

What about filtering and other stuff? The NV setting is for everything, not just texture.

Again ATi's default settings are comparable to nVidia's high quality setting. nVidia's quality setting is grossly inferior to ATi.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Another round of benchmarks done under the default nVidia Quality settings no doubt.

To put things into perspective my 7800GT is slower than my X800XL in Serious Sam 2 when running under High Quality.

That's because your 7800GT is running in the SM3.0 mode while the X800XL is running in SM2.0 mode. Obviously there will be a performance difference there.

There is really a minimal difference in performance and quality between "Quality" and "High Quality". If you insist on running the NV on high quality, then you should run the ATI on high quality, also.

High Quality is already the default texture setting in Ati drivers.

What about filtering and other stuff? The NV setting is for everything, not just texture.

It's set to HQ for both textures and filtering