Raged3D's X1900 REVIEW!!

[Cookie Monster]

Link

The X1900 series represents a nice boost over the short lived X1800 series. The X1900 builds on the strong foundation set by the X1800 series but provides an overall more balanced design (increase in pixel shaders) in accelerating today?s games yet also leaving room for greater potential performance in running future games. Best part about the launch is availability. ATI is so confident in availability that they are making available the whole line of X1900s at once, XTX, XT, Crossfire and AIW!

So how does the new line stack up? The XTX on average performs 15.5% faster than the X1800XT and the 1900XT at 11.8%. We can see the impact of increasing the pixel shaders as the X1900XT actually has a lower speed on the memory side compared to the X1800XT. I wouldn?t get a X1800XT unless you can find it cheap on the market. The X1900XTX is definitely not worth the extra $100 premium as it?s only 3.2% faster than the X1900XT.

Compared to the competition the GTX 512 holds up fairly well and if you only play games based on Doom3 engine then that should be your choice. Really though the GTX 512 is basically not available for purchase which makes the X1900 that much better. The X1900 really flexes it muscles with all the bells and whistles on and leaves the GTX 512 behind. The X1900 clearly surpasses the GTX 256.

The X1900 is an all around solid product from ATI that really is bringing them back on track. It can only get better as driver enhancements leave room for improvement because the architecture is still relatively new. ATI continues to put tremendous amount of resources into drivers which has given us solid Catalyst drivers each and every month. The X1900 provides performance, stability, CrossFire capability, high resolution gaming, HDR with AA, high quality video processing technology and crisp display output. Couldn?t ask for more well except for a lower price !

 

[nib95]

Good review, weird website layout, on my screen it comes out all weird and disconnected.
I find it strange that the GTX 512mb performed better then the X1900 in HL2: LC with all bells and whistles activated. Considering the game was optimised for the ATI cards and all.

Driver solution?

 

[Ackmed]

Ratchet has been doing great reviews for a while. Its a shame that most will call him bias, simply because of the website it comes from. When in fact, he is really impartial, and does a great job. He uses settings that most do not, such as 1920x1200 which I personally really like, as its my res. He also uses TRAA and AAA lots of times as well. Derek needs to take a page from him on those points.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Ratchet has been doing great reviews for a while. Its a shame that most will call him bias, simply because of the website it comes from. When in fact, he is really impartial, and does a great job. He uses settings that most do not, such as 1920x1200 which I personally really like, as its my res. He also uses TRAA and AAA lots of times as well. Derek needs to take a page from him on those points.

Yeah I agree he does really good reviews. The only thing I wish he'd add is a bigger lineup of games that are different from the standard ones every other website does. Games like King Kong (hi res version), racing games, MMORPG like D&D Online etc.

 

[nib95]

There's some really odd differneces in the screenshots of similar games between the X1900 and the 7800 GTX 512mb.
In many the X1900 is darker, and in the Far Cry screens for instance, the Nvidia does the tree reflections totally different!
GTX does the whole smeared blur reflection technique, and ATI does the sparkly particle relective look.

Do you guys think these are supposed to occur due to hardware differences or do you guys think its to do with the drivers and could change in future?

 

[5150Joker]

Could be the drivers or the settings he used. If you look at the splinter cell shots the one for the XTX is really dark as well.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Ratchet has been doing great reviews for a while. Its a shame that most will call him bias, simply because of the website it comes from. When in fact, he is really impartial, and does a great job. He uses settings that most do not, such as 1920x1200 which I personally really like, as its my res. He also uses TRAA and AAA lots of times as well. Derek needs to take a page from him on those points.

Ratchet is not biased, and is a great reviewer.

The guys at Rage3d wanted him gone for reviewing nVidia cards.

 

[Frostwake]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Ratchet has been doing great reviews for a while. Its a shame that most will call him bias, simply because of the website it comes from. When in fact, he is really impartial, and does a great job. He uses settings that most do not, such as 1920x1200 which I personally really like, as its my res. He also uses TRAA and AAA lots of times as well. Derek needs to take a page from him on those points.

Yeah rage3d has been making some excellent reviews, they said about everything that needed to be said, and the results look very unbiased... the one site with ati biased reviews is driverheaven, not rage3d like most people (nvidia fans) think

 

[nRollo]

Edited for mistake.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Ratchet has been doing great reviews for a while. Its a shame that most will call him bias, simply because of the website it comes from. When in fact, he is really impartial, and does a great job. He uses settings that most do not, such as 1920x1200 which I personally really like, as its my res. He also uses TRAA and AAA lots of times as well. Derek needs to take a page from him on those points.

Yeah I agree he does really good reviews. The only thing I wish he'd add is a bigger lineup of games that are different from the standard ones every other website does. Games like King Kong (hi res version), racing games, MMORPG like D&D Online etc.

I agree. I have read that the Gamers Edition of King Kong brings a high-end SLI system to its knees. I would like to buy it.. but Im afraid I wouldnt be able to run it very well. A review on it would be great.

But more games would be better, and not the standard lot most usually use. I do however like that you can click a game, and see exactly what settings he used. And that he shows how he benchmarked with the console command used. You can replicate his process, and bench yours and compare it to him. I like that idea. All too often, reviewers dont even tell you what version of the game they are using, and nothing close to what the game was set to.

He is my favorite "up and coming" reviewer, if there is such a thing though. He is moving in the right direction, at least to me.

 

[n7]

Wow, awesome review.

Really nicely laid out too, though the graphs were a bit small.

Very nice format though.

 

[akugami]

Very good review. While no review is perfect, about the only thing really missing is showing the min/max/avg framerate comparison that some (like HardOCP) do for each setting of a game.

 

[BFG10K]

Rage3D's GPU reviews are the best in the business. The reviewer is extremely competent with benchmarking games and the results are really useful, especially the high resolution benchmarks and the ability to mix-and-match settings with ease.

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Hmmm they have the 512 7800GTX winning every setting of BF2. I thought that was one the other site have ATI winning.

Like to cast my vote AGAINST Rollo for mod, he's the last person that should get this job. Repeatedly I'm amazed at the low level of his posts, biased opinion and bad attitude.

 

[smthmlk]

Originally posted by: DidlySquatLike to cast my vote AGAINST Rollo for mod, he's the last person that should get this job. Repeatedly I'm amazed at the low level of his posts, biased opinion and bad attitude.

this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Mods?

Back on topic: Ratchet does great reviews (probably the best), I liken him to a small patch of grass on a vast desert plane that is rage3d :/ He's definitely not biased, and spends a lot of time on his reviews (instead of releasing some rushed ****** the minute the NDA is lifted). It's always worth waiting for his review before making any final judgements on a card, IMO.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Rollo
Hmmm they have the 512 7800GTX winning every setting of BF2. I thought that was one the other site have ATI winning.

Like to cast my vote AGAINST Rollo for mod, he's the last person that should get this job. Repeatedly I'm amazed at the low level of his posts, biased opinion and bad attitude.

Now that's a pre-emptive strike if I've ever seen one. I'm glad the State of the Union Address inspired at least somebody. And the "vote" has never come up for you to cast, nor is it likely to.

That being said, I don't think that's right, Rollo. Looking at the charts, it shows the 512GTX "losing" at 19x12 and 20x15 on 0xAA, and 16x12, 19x12, 20x15 with 4xAA. But yeah, I do remember another site showing a larger win for ATI in BF2. The thing about BF2 is that there's just so many ways to bench it. It greatly depends on the map, # of bots/players, etc. There's just no good standard, which makes it hard to compare between different benchmarks.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: nib95
There's some really odd differneces in the screenshots of similar games between the X1900 and the 7800 GTX 512mb.
In many the X1900 is darker, and in the Far Cry screens for instance, the Nvidia does the tree reflections totally different!
GTX does the whole smeared blur reflection technique, and ATI does the sparkly particle relective look.

Do you guys think these are supposed to occur due to hardware differences or do you guys think its to do with the drivers and could change in future?

i dunno but look at how much better the birds look in that far cry shot with the ati card. i at first thought that was a glitch on the nv pic, then i realized they're supposed to be birds

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

That being said, I don't think that's right, Rollo. Looking at the charts, it shows the 512GTX "losing" at 19x12 and 20x15 on 0xAA, and 16x12, 19x12, 20x15 with 4xAA. But yeah, I do remember another site showing a larger win for ATI in BF2. The thing about BF2 is that there's just so many ways to bench it. It greatly depends on the map, # of bots/players, etc. There's just no good standard, which makes it hard to compare between different benchmarks.

Yeah, I messed up, have corrected.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: nib95
There's some really odd differneces in the screenshots of similar games between the X1900 and the 7800 GTX 512mb.
In many the X1900 is darker, and in the Far Cry screens for instance, the Nvidia does the tree reflections totally different!
GTX does the whole smeared blur reflection technique, and ATI does the sparkly particle relective look.

Do you guys think these are supposed to occur due to hardware differences or do you guys think its to do with the drivers and could change in future?

Good eye... I think the difference in light/dark is just a NV/ATI thing. I noticed when I got my ATI card that everything looked really deep and more colorful overall. Honestly, I think this fact alone is why most people say that ATI has better IQ, not the AF.

my thoughts on the Farcry screen caps:

1) I think the reflections in the water are more "correct" on the GTX. I like the rippled water effect of the ATI somewhat in certain places, but there seems to be something really weird going on, especially in the rear cove.

2) WTF is up with NV's AA? I never did play FarCry on my GTX, but I don't remember anything else ever looking that crappy with AA enabled.

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Rollo
Hmmm they have the 512 7800GTX winning every setting of BF2. I thought that was one the other site have ATI winning.

Like to cast my vote AGAINST Rollo for mod, he's the last person that should get this job. Repeatedly I'm amazed at the low level of his posts, biased opinion and bad attitude.

put the pipe down and step away from the keyboard

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Ratchet has been doing great reviews for a while. Its a shame that most will call him bias, simply because of the website it comes from. When in fact, he is really impartial, and does a great job. He uses settings that most do not, such as 1920x1200 which I personally really like, as its my res. He also uses TRAA and AAA lots of times as well. Derek needs to take a page from him on those points.

Ratchet is not biased, and is a great reviewer.

The guys at Rage3d wanted him gone for reviewing nVidia cards.

Agreed. Their forums are way off, but Ratchet does a good job.

 

[n7]

Actually, the forums at R3D have way less biased BS on them than we have here :laugh:

Pretty sad IMO...

But on topic, seriously, i really liked the background they used for the review...looked damn nice

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: n7
Actually, the forums at R3D have way less biased BS on them than we have here :laugh:

Pretty sad IMO...

But on topic, seriously, i really liked the background they used for the review...looked damn nice

Errr yeah.

Every other word on the Rage forums is "nVidiot".

 

[otispunkmeyer]

all i can say is the graphs are really well done, nice to sort the wheat from the shaff......im only interested in 4aa 16xaf performance....great review

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: n7
Actually, the forums at R3D have way less biased BS on them than we have here :laugh:

Pretty sad IMO...

But on topic, seriously, i really liked the background they used for the review...looked damn nice

Errr yeah.

Every other word on the Rage forums is "nVidiot".

it's really a paradox cause there are a lot more of them here

 

[John Reynolds]

I'd like to steal whoever does the page layouts for Rage3D these days. And, yea, Mark does a great job with his reviews, though he needs to lay off testing Pacific Fighters since that's my turf.