• 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.

X1900XTX vs 7800GTX/512 - Hi-res results

OV3RCLOCK3R

OV3RCLOCK3R

OV3RCLOCK3R

Permabanned
Joined
3 Jan 2005
Posts
2,010
Location
MANCHESTER
 
Last edited:
been removed, if they're the wnat I'm thinking of then they are basicly fake. Remember those X1800 slides from ATI- LOL!
 
Last edited:
Numbers seem alright to me. Remember that SLI AA takes a huge performance and there is probably a driver bug in their somewhere ;)

Other results seem plausible, given they are all based on one single GTX 512. the XTX averages about 25% faster than the 512 in most tests whihc is possible. Of course at those high IQ and high resolutions that has been tested the FPS counter is probably << 60fps, which is probably not everyones ideal frame rate for fluidic gaming.

I bet the GTX was probably tested on the crappiest mobo that ATi could have got aswell compared to the new RD580 chipset :D

EDIT: just looking at vr-zone. The XT is getting 48fps average in Fear at 1600x1200 4xAA 16xHQAF. A comparison, sees SLi 7800GTs at 550/1300 with settings 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF gives 49fps average. So the distance between the 512GTX and x1900xt in Fear is plausible.
 
Last edited:
I dunno...... although I dont like to agree with D "The Green Team" P..... 137fps on HL2: Lost Cost with all that eye candy ramped up does look a little high.
Also, fps graphs based on percentages make the baby jesus cry.
 
All ultra HQ results are BS though because the cards are doing completely different things. Nvidias 16xAA is a lot more intense than ATIs 14x which even by their number should be more like 12x or something but in anycase Nvidia's 16xAA is purdy as because it has a full 4X Super Scene AA as well as 4x MSAA.

And the R580 in many situations cannot physically be =much faster than the R520. It has the same vertex power, the same textureing power, the same pixel fill rate, much the same bandwidth, the same safe AF texturing power. So when you see something like 4xAA 16xAF on a standard game, it wont be much faster at all than a X1800.

We are only going to see what the R580 can do in a few synthetic 3dmark and shadermark benhcmarks that measure pure shader speed. Even then something like dynamic brahcing wont be any faster, infact possibly slower from what I understand.
 
D.P. said:
All ultra HQ results are BS though because the cards are doing completely different things. Nvidias 16xAA is a lot more intense than ATIs 14x which even by their number should be more like 12x or something but in anycase Nvidia's 16xAA is purdy as because it has a full 4X Super Scene AA as well as 4x MSAA.

And the R580 in many situations cannot physically be =much faster than the R520. It has the same vertex power, the same textureing power, the same pixel fill rate, much the same bandwidth, the same safe AF texturing power. So when you see something like 4xAA 16xAF on a standard game, it wont be much faster at all than a X1800.

We are only going to see what the R580 can do in a few synthetic 3dmark and shadermark benhcmarks that measure pure shader speed. Even then something like dynamic brahcing wont be any faster, infact possibly slower from what I understand.
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on!! :)

However I must comment from building both a 512MB GTX SLi system and 512MB X1900 Crossfire system that both Crossfire and SLi is pretty pointless on the such high-end cards as their are not powerful enough CPU's out.

In single card configuration the X1900 is definetely quicker on shader intensive games but for the most part it only just outperforms the 512MB GTX.

However something I did notice was that the visual quality of the ATI cards does indeed seem superior plus AVIVO function on the ATI cards is miles ahead of what NVIDIA can offer.

OcUK has X1800's, X1900's and 512MB GTX's in stock so buy whatever you wish but if it was me spending my money it would definetely go on either an X1800 or X1900 card and you only really need SLi or Crossfire if your gaming on a 24" or larger screen.
 
If the X1900 is that much better than the 7800GTX it begs the question why did they release the X1800 at all? I think a 20 % performance boost over a 512 7800gtx is about the very maximum. Interesting to see Nvidias response.
 
Oyster2 said:
If the X1900 is that much better than the 7800GTX it begs the question why did they release the X1800 at all? I think a 20 % performance boost over a 512 7800gtx is about the very maximum. Interesting to see Nvidias response.
Click to expand...

Its not that much better, he's just said in single card configuration it just out-performs the 512mb GTX, only in shader intensive games is it definately quicker, you just have the long wait for those to appear. :)
 
D.P. said:
And the R580 in many situations cannot physically be =much faster than the R520. It has the same vertex power, the same textureing power, the same pixel fill rate, much the same bandwidth, the same safe AF texturing power. So when you see something like 4xAA 16xAF on a standard game, it wont be much faster at all than a X1800.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :)
 
Another new card brings new false benchies. just like the release of the x1800xt saying up to 80% increase over the gtx. lol i still love it when a new card comes out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom