• 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.

X1900 Thread - no nonsense

Bito said:
At least they all come with the same 1.1ns memory....for now, according to that article.
Click to expand...


Seems like you willbe able to overclcok the memory loads but wont be able to do much with the core clocks.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Well by the looks of it, if the x1900 is at best a couple of frames quicker, then you must be insane to spend £400 on it when the x1800 is only £281, but as i said thats only 1x review, lets wait and see what tomorrow brings with reviews from the likes of Anandtech etc...
Click to expand...

yes but it's worth baring in mind that X1800 is stressed silicon with excess clockspeeds and voltage, most cards will be dead in a year or two. ;)
 
Well, one could point to ATI reducing their warranties to 1 year, last year as evgidence these cards are maxed out and stressed. But I don't think there['s any basis for them definately "being dead in a year or 2". But there is a definate lifespan, asbout 6 monthsago there was nothing but "my 9800 pro died" threads, it was really odd.
 
D.P. said:
So in the most shader intensive game in existence, the X1900XTX, the highest clocked version is 17% faster than the GTX512. Not what I would call impressive. Anyway, time to read on.

EDIT: All the graphs just look plain wrong and don't add up.
Click to expand...
The card is probably limited by bandwidth - remember the X1800 XT is only faster than the GTX 512 with AA/AF enabled, and tests have shown that lowering memory clock speeds has a significant effect even without AA/AF.

There's 3 times the PS ALUs to feed but no more bandwidth. Also, Rys (of *****.net) seems to think the driver isn't properly optised yet.

"I've recently written a set of (really quite simple, since I'm no 3D programmer) shaders that profile the hardware, and you can see some cases where either the driver or hardware (or both) have a hard time figuring out what to do to make it run as fast as it theoretically should, and efficiency is down compared to R520 (even though the shader executes faster).

It seems like there's some improvement still to come in the part of the driver that assembles shaders being sent to the hardware so that they execute efficiently given what's there to process them.

In short, I sometimes find it really hard to make R580 run at maximum speed with short, simple shaders that should assemble nicely for the ALU arrangement, that run at maximum efficiency on R520"

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=680934&postcount=77
 
But the drivers are never that great on new cards it always takes at least 2 or 3 new releases of drivers to get the best out of your new card.

Nothing new their......
 
D.P. said:
Theres an error in the hex review under FEAR, the text totally doesn't add up with the graph- they must have there numbers the wrong way round.

The text syas this:
But the graph clearly shows that the X1800 is 46% slower than the GTX512, with the GTX512 at the most 17% slower than the X1900XT.

So in the most shader intensive game in existence, the X1900XTX, the highest clocked version is 17% faster than the GTX512. Not what I would call impressive. Anyway, time to read on.

EDIT: All the graphs just look plain wrong and don't add up.
Click to expand...

The Fear graphs seem ok to me. The text is describing the trend in the bar graphs not the line graphs. The line graphs are the ones without AA and AF.

Your not going to pay $649 for a vid card and not use AA and AF :D
 
Fx-Overlord said:
The Fear graphs seem ok to me. The text is describing the trend in the bar graphs not the line graphs. The line graphs are the ones without AA and AF.

Your not going to pay $649 for a vid card and not use AA and AF :D
Click to expand...

That makes more sense. But That really just means that ATis ringbus memory manger is great, if AA & Af are needed to make the R580 shine then it is not the added shaders that are doing the job. And those Farcry numbers don't match what other eviews get for the X1800 and 7800 512Mb
 
D.P. said:
That makes more sense. But That really just means that ATis ringbus memory manger is great, if AA & Af are needed to make the R580 shine then it is not the added shaders that are doing the job. And those Farcry numbers don't match what other eviews get for the X1800 and 7800 512Mb
Click to expand...

I agree with the FC figures. They seem very very peculiar to me. After reading the introduction, where it is stated that they had troubles with COD2, Chronical of Riddick and need for speed, i wonder if FC also is exhibiting strange behaviour for nvidia. I guess i'll have to wait until 3pm to find out and read the other reviews.

/curses to 2pm job interview :(
 
Yeah, seems like they had a lot of problems. Must be an unstable card or driver they had, very unusual.

/curses 2pm lectures...
 
sweet Just placed my order

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ (Socket 939) - Retail (ADA3800BVBOX) (CP-134-AM)

Asus A8N-E nForce4 Ultra (Socket 939) PCI-Express Motherboard (MB-088-AS)

and most importantly

Connect3D ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB GDDR3 AVIVO TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - Retail (3056) (GX-047-CO)

thanks for all your advise and tips, i like to play BF2 at really high res as ive got a 21 inch monitor so jumping from my X800 XTPE to the x1900 xt should see some nice gains

Cheers Cougs
 
D.P. said:
Theres an error in the hex review under FEAR, the text totally doesn't add up with the graph- they must have there numbers the wrong way round.

The text syas this:
But the graph clearly shows that the X1800 is 46% slower than the GTX512, with the GTX512 at the most 17% slower than the X1900XT.

So in the most shader intensive game in existence, the X1900XTX, the highest clocked version is 17% faster than the GTX512. Not what I would call impressive. Anyway, time to read on.

EDIT: All the graphs just look plain wrong and don't add up.
Click to expand...

Not impressive... eh?

Right so let me get this straight. The card is 17% faster then the GTX 512mb, will be cheaper then the GTX 512mb and will be readily available.

Do please point out if im missing something as that does sound impressive.

Or would you be a nvidia fanboy that means in your mind it doesnt matter if it was 4323465% faster then the next nvidia card it still wouldnt be impressive?
 
Couger123 said:
sweet Just placed my order

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ (Socket 939) - Retail (ADA3800BVBOX) (CP-134-AM)

Asus A8N-E nForce4 Ultra (Socket 939) PCI-Express Motherboard (MB-088-AS)

and most importantly

Connect3D ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB GDDR3 AVIVO TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - Retail (3056) (GX-047-CO)

thanks for all your advise and tips, i like to play BF2 at really high res as ive got a 21 inch monitor so jumping from my X800 XTPE to the x1900 xt should see some nice gains

Cheers Cougs
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity wheres the x1900 on the site. Its not under where it should be, im just curious as i wanna see the price.

Also wont it be cpu limited with a 3800? or am i just being daft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom