Firing squad x1900 review

[kdd]

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1900_xt_preview/page10.asp

Interesting review, especially noting that the x1800xl is now faster than the 256mb gtx in many games on the later ati cat's, including my fave bf2.

 

[chaparral]

Why the xt1900 IL-2 Sturmovik tests so low..Even the xt1800xt is 6fps to 10fps ahead of the xt1900xt-x

 

[Big.Wayne]

Probably because the drivers are completely fubared!!

It does take some time for the drivers to become stable/tweaked etc.

 

[TheMooN]

Why the xt1900 IL-2 Sturmovik tests so low..Even the xt1800xt is 6fps to 10fps ahead of the xt1900xt-x

Yes I must admit I was a little perplexed as that is my main on-line gaming blat at the moment .

 

[Goksly]

beta drivers / unoptimised etc... ATI seem to have got the product out on time, but could have done with a bit more testing / software tuning

 

[Vogon]

Well for a start its in lower res, and secondly, all the reviews with IL2 benchies never do the proper test (black death track, as thats the most stressfull track), and never tell you what settings, none of them actually seem to use the perfect setting for instance.
The review on Guru3D has IL2 benchies too ... showing higher res, but no mention of settings, in their test the nod goes to the X1900, others show an X1800XT Xfire set-up to be faster.
Also they aren't using the new test Dll's which are available to try and will be in the next patch

Also dont forget that IL2 is a CPU intensive game too, so that can skew the results even more ...

I can tell you every IL2 test in review's I have seen is totally wrong anyways

 

[chaparral]

Well for a start its in lower res, and secondly, all the reviews with IL2 benchies never do the proper test (black death track, as thats the most stressfull track), and never tell you what settings, none of them actually seem to use the perfect setting for instance.
The review on Guru3D has IL2 benchies too ... showing higher res, but no mentuion of settings, in their test the nod goes to the X1900, others show an X1800XT Xfire set-up to be faster.
Also they aren't using the new test Dll's which are available to try and will be in the next patch

Also dont forget that IL2 is a CPU intensive game too, so that can skew the results even more ...

I can tell you every IL2 test in review's I have seen is totally wrong anyways

Lower res.. It's being tested up to 2048x1536

It's can't be because it's cpu limited or the 7800gtx 512mb wouldn't get almost 30fps more at 1600x1200.

 

[Xplo]

Loving the Battlefield 2 2048x1536x32 4xAA 16xAF @ 85.5 fps on the x1900xtx, the 6800gt struggles to pull even 10fps, and thats still a wicked card. ATi done well here.

 

[Vogon]

Lower res.. It's being tested up to 2048x1536

It's can't be because it's cpu limited or the 7800gtx 512mb wouldn't get almost 30fps more at 1600x1200.

Ah well that will teach me not to scroll down ... but I wouldn't take to much notice of it TBH.
Without giving the actual settings or track they used (and going by those figures it doesn't look like they used perfect or the black death track) its all a bit of a lottery.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

48 shaders was a waste. i was expecting a 2 fold increase in speed. ati need to work harder.

 

[ACESHIGH]

Well the X1900XT / XTX cards do a very nice job. Should get better as the drivers mature & as games become even more shader-heavy, i would imagine.

Its also interesting to see how well the X1800XT / XL cards do in comparison to the X1900 series & 7800GT / GTX cards.

(seriously considers getting an X1800XT !?!)