• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

7800 GT to X1800 XT 512MB

Associate
Joined
6 Nov 2005
Posts
1,675
Location
Oxford
Hi. If I can get around 200 for my 7800 GT do you think the extra £100 is worth it to upgrade to a X1800XT. I no the performence is better but im more intrested in the image quility of the ATI card. Never owned an ATI card so im abit curious.

Thanks
 
i'd go for the X1800XT tbh, especially at the price of £293 incl vat!! :) image quality is better, I've played a few games on my mates computer with a x1800XT and it is very noticable. I'm planning to ditch my 7800GT and go for the X1800Xt as well! :p
 
The performance is better but it wont be killer but as you said IQ is what you want.
Althoiugh some people will tell you the X1800XTs IQ is miles better than the 7800s there isn't too much truth in that but there certainly are differences.

Shader precision wise there is no difference at all. there used to be differences between Nv and ATI because ATI ran at a medium depth and Nv could run at High or low depths to provide better IQ where it is needed and faster speed when it is needed. For most things 16buit is plenty but in some situations it absoluterly will not do. Trouble is developers and drivers over used the 16bit mode. The 6800 ran 32bit all the time while the X800/X850 ran in 24bit so most of the time shader IQ was identical and very ocasionly ATI suffered from the lower bit deph. But nowadays there is no differnec e in shaders.

texturing wise, the AF texturing engine in the X1800 is superior to that of the 7800 as it is angle independent like the GF4/5800/5900 etc were. Nvidia copied ATI with their R9700 and started using angle dependent AF in the 6800 cards and up and this has lowered the texturing quality. With the X1800, ATI have gone back to the angle independent method. So ATI has better texturing quality.


With AA, this is very close between the two. ATI have long been regarded has offering better AA quality but this isn't true any more. Most reviews say Nvidia have better AA quality, you will also find many blind tests done where people in forums vote for the image they think is the best. I have seen this done 3-4 times on different forums, the Nvidia card always wins by a fair margin.

Compare these crossfire/SLI AA shots
ATI 14X
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hi...e/ati_super_aa_vs_nvidia_sli_aa/images/11.jpg

To Nvidia 16x
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hi...e/ati_super_aa_vs_nvidia_sli_aa/images/12.jpg


The ATI is very poor in comparison. Specially the Alpha AA. Nothing comes close to Nvidias 8X a and 16XAA because of the supe scene quality on NV hardware. Of course ATI's AA is faster in the x1800 so you may have situatiosn where the X18000 will allow 4XAA while your GT will only give 2X.
 
D.P. said:
Of course ATI's AA is faster in the x1800 so you may have situatiosn where the X18000 will allow 4XAA while your GT will only give 2X.

That is another thing swaying me towards ATI. They always seem to do better at high res ( not that important for me as I play at 1280/1024 ) and higher AA and AF. I also tend to get splitting of light sources ( not sure how well ive discribed that ) with nvidia cards. Any one get this with ATI?

Thanks for the info btw
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
The performance is better but it wont be killer but as you said IQ is what you want.
Althoiugh some people will tell you the X1800XTs IQ is miles better than the 7800s there isn't too much truth in that but there certainly are differences.

Shader precision wise there is no difference at all. there used to be differences between Nv and ATI because ATI ran at a medium depth and Nv could run at High or low depths to provide better IQ where it is needed and faster speed when it is needed. For most things 16buit is plenty but in some situations it absoluterly will not do. Trouble is developers and drivers over used the 16bit mode. The 6800 ran 32bit all the time while the X800/X850 ran in 24bit so most of the time shader IQ was identical and very ocasionly ATI suffered from the lower bit deph. But nowadays there is no differnec e in shaders.

texturing wise, the AF texturing engine in the X1800 is superior to that of the 7800 as it is angle independent like the GF4/5800/5900 etc were. Nvidia copied ATI with their R9700 and started using angle dependent AF in the 6800 cards and up and this has lowered the texturing quality. With the X1800, ATI have gone back to the angle independent method. So ATI has better texturing quality.


With AA, this is very close between the two. ATI have long been regarded has offering better AA quality but this isn't true any more. Most reviews say Nvidia have better AA quality, you will also find many blind tests done where people in forums vote for the image they think is the best. I have seen this done 3-4 times on different forums, the Nvidia card always wins by a fair margin.

Compare these crossfire/SLI AA shots
ATI 14X
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hi...e/ati_super_aa_vs_nvidia_sli_aa/images/11.jpg

To Nvidia 16x
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hi...e/ati_super_aa_vs_nvidia_sli_aa/images/12.jpg


The ATI is very poor in comparison. Specially the Alpha AA. Nothing comes close to Nvidias 8X a and 16XAA because of the supe scene quality on NV hardware. Of course ATI's AA is faster in the x1800 so you may have situatiosn where the X18000 will allow 4XAA while your GT will only give 2X.




Looking at them pictures..
Half the left tree branches and half the right tree branches in the ATi picture is missing...
No wonder the ati cards are faster with high AA.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
The performance is better but it wont be killer but as you said IQ is what you want.
Althoiugh some people will tell you the X1800XTs IQ is miles better than the 7800s there isn't too much truth in that but there certainly are differences.

Shader precision wise there is no difference at all. there used to be differences between Nv and ATI because ATI ran at a medium depth and Nv could run at High or low depths to provide better IQ where it is needed and faster speed when it is needed. For most things 16buit is plenty but in some situations it absoluterly will not do. Trouble is developers and drivers over used the 16bit mode. The 6800 ran 32bit all the time while the X800/X850 ran in 24bit so most of the time shader IQ was identical and very ocasionly ATI suffered from the lower bit deph. But nowadays there is no differnec e in shaders.

texturing wise, the AF texturing engine in the X1800 is superior to that of the 7800 as it is angle independent like the GF4/5800/5900 etc were. Nvidia copied ATI with their R9700 and started using angle dependent AF in the 6800 cards and up and this has lowered the texturing quality. With the X1800, ATI have gone back to the angle independent method. So ATI has better texturing quality.


With AA, this is very close between the two. ATI have long been regarded has offering better AA quality but this isn't true any more. Most reviews say Nvidia have better AA quality, you will also find many blind tests done where people in forums vote for the image they think is the best. I have seen this done 3-4 times on different forums, the Nvidia card always wins by a fair margin.

Compare these crossfire/SLI AA shots
ATI 14X
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hi...e/ati_super_aa_vs_nvidia_sli_aa/images/11.jpg

To Nvidia 16x
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hi...e/ati_super_aa_vs_nvidia_sli_aa/images/12.jpg


The ATI is very poor in comparison. Specially the Alpha AA. Nothing comes close to Nvidias 8X a and 16XAA because of the supe scene quality on NV hardware. Of course ATI's AA is faster in the x1800 so you may have situatiosn where the X18000 will allow 4XAA while your GT will only give 2X.

tbh if you can see any difference between those pictures you are on drugs
 
kdd said:
tbh if you can see any difference between those pictures you are on drugs

:eek: u mad, me thinks u is eer on em to be honest ! lol, half the stuffs missing out image 11 !, look at the plants on floor, also major thing is, the tiled roof directly in front of player, much more detail on pic 12, I have no idea which one is which tho, ati or nvidia, but pic 12 for the win by far
 
Combat squirrel said:
:eek: u mad, me thinks u is eer on em to be honest ! lol, half the stuffs missing out image 11 !, look at the plants on floor, also major thing is, the tiled roof directly in front of player, much more detail on pic 12, I have no idea which one is which tho, ati or nvidia, but pic 12 for the win by far
Oh i'm sorry i missed that...
 
I can tell the difference.

The ATI has finer lines, meaning it looks like things are missing, as there thinner.

The telephone lines are a good example.

The ones further away are harder to see like they should be, while on pic 12 there solid lines.

This is the kind of difference, noticable, but not really enough to say wow.
 
kdd said:
tbh if you can see any difference between those pictures you are on drugs
I am indeed but i doubt that's what's causing me to see the shrubs dissapearing etc. in the ati one. I'd say that there is much more graphical options turned on in the Nvidia display.
 
Hmm I would say keep the 7800gt. You won't get £200 for a used one anyway. You can buy them new for £211.

I have owned twin 7800gtx before and now just a single x800gto2 (didn't use the SLI setup) and I can't tell the difference between the two. Mind you I notice that most sites show you image quality difference in still shots. How many time in games to you just stand around looking for the slightest fault?!
 
The other thing is if you use the AI thing IQ nose dives on ATI cards and it is very hard to turn that option off. If you look at some of the ATI screen shots, espeically ones where there is a lot of blending go on, say there is a big fire/explosion, you will see lots of artifacts on the ATI card is AI has been used.
So IQ is not really that much better, AF texturing is definitely better but this is completely not noticible in motion. + AF is overused anyway and gives an unatural look above 4AF, in real life textures do blur into the distance.
 
Got my self excited about an upgrade now but looking at the pics I cant make my mind up, theres things I like and dislike about both.

oweneades said:
Hmm I would say keep the 7800gt. You won't get £200 for a used one anyway. You can buy them new for £211.

You will be supprised at what silly people will pay :p
 
ive just gone from a 6800GS XXX to a X1800XT. At the moment its not been worth it, but the most taxing game ive got on my pc is probably city of heroes. Ive got quake 4 coming so hopefully that will allow it to stretch its legs.
 
Back
Top Bottom