1900XTX Still Lags in Latest Reviews

[Wreckage]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/asus-eax1900xtx.html

We selected the highest graphics quality settings in each game, identical for graphics cards from ATI and Nvidia, except for the Pacific Fighters flight simulator that requires vertex texturing for its Shader Model 3.0 rendering mode. Radeon X1000 doesn?t support this feature therefore we ran the game in Shader Model 2.0 in this case.

At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

The ASUS card is a copy of the reference design and is manufactured by Sapphire Technology, so it has a poor overclocking potential as is characteristic of products based on top-end chips.

Highs:

* Rich accessories
* High performance in most applications
* Excellent performance when FSAA and anisotropic filtering are in use
* Support for transparency antialiasing
* Future-proof with 512MB of graphics memory, efficient implementation of Shader Model 3.0, and with 48 pixel processors
* FSAA and HDR can be used simultaneously
* VIVO functionality
* Support for hardware decoding of H.264 and other HD formats (Avivo engine)
* Dual-link DVI

Lows:

* High power consumption level
* Produces more noise than the competing solution
* Slower than the competing solution in OpenGL and in applications that require high texture-mapping speed

A very comprehensive review by Xbit using 17 games.

 

[Howard]

Hey, I can do the same:

This card surely has a lot of advantages over its competitors and the card?s heart Radeon X1900 XTX very often delivers unrivalled performance

Although the graphics cards from the Radeon X1900 and GeForce 7900 families are peers in today?s gaming applications, the ASUS EAX1900XTX may become a leader in upcoming games. The programmers put ever more mathematic instructions into pixel shaders, so the 48 pixel processors of the R580 chip will be able to render complex scenes faster than the 24 pixel processors of the GeForce 7900 GTX.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

BAN HIM!

 

[fierydemise]

Wreckage did you miss Frackal's thread with the legit reviews article? Xbit as comprehensive as their reviews are leaves the driver settings at default (at least thats the impression I get because they don't say anything about changing driver settings) so since ATI defaults it's driver setting higher it is doing more work then the nVidia cards. Also despite talking about HDR+AA in the conclusion they don't benchmark it nor do they benchmark any games above 1600x1200 (as crusader pointed out in another thread not a resolution many enthusiasts play above). Not to discredit the xbit article as they are one of my favorite review sites but just pointing out a few things.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

Wow, are you looking for work at the INQ?
Nice edit... here's the full quote:

We were left with mixed feelings after we tested the ASUS EAX1900XTX/2DHTV/512M. This card surely has a lot of advantages over its competitors and the card?s heart Radeon X1900 XTX very often delivers unrivalled performance, e.g. with enabled full-screen antialiasing or in scenes with a lot of pixel shaders. At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Wreckage

At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

Wow, are you looking for work at the INQ?
Nice edit... here's the full quote:

We were left with mixed feelings after we tested the ASUS EAX1900XTX/2DHTV/512M. This card surely has a lot of advantages over its competitors and the card?s heart Radeon X1900 XTX very often delivers unrivalled performance, e.g. with enabled full-screen antialiasing or in scenes with a lot of pixel shaders. At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

pwnd

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Wreckage did you miss Frackal's thread with the legit reviews article?

It was from March. I am posting a newer review.

Xbit as comprehensive as their reviews are leaves the driver settings at default (at least thats the impression I get because they don't say anything about changing driver settings) so since ATI defaults it's driver setting higher it is doing more work then the nVidia cards.

I have yet to see any major site, claim a large visual difference in the default settings. I trust that these sites like Xbit, Rage3d, Tech Report, etc. know what they are talking about.

Also despite talking about HDR+AA in the conclusion they don't benchmark it

They did not benchmark VTF either. This is a true apples to apples test.

nor do they benchmark any games above 1600x1200 (as crusader pointed out in another thread not a resolution many enthusiasts play above). Not to discredit the xbit article as they are one of my favorite review sites but just pointing out a few things.

Someone pointed out in another thread that 1280x1024 was the standard. Although I do agree with much of what you said, this is a good review and there will probably never be a review that pleases everyone. I would like to see more widescreen resolutions, but this covers more games that any other site and give a nice overall picture.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: gersson
BAN HIM!

its the exact same thing frackal did with his thread

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: gersson
BAN HIM!

its the exact same thing frackal did with his thread

I was hoping somone would see the irony.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Wreckage did you miss Frackal's thread with the legit reviews article? Xbit as comprehensive as their reviews are leaves the driver settings at default (at least thats the impression I get because they don't say anything about changing driver settings) so since ATI defaults it's driver setting higher it is doing more work then the nVidia cards. Also despite talking about HDR+AA in the conclusion they don't benchmark it nor do they benchmark any games above 1600x1200 (as crusader pointed out in another thread not a resolution many enthusiasts play above). Not to discredit the xbit article as they are one of my favorite review sites but just pointing out a few things.

Actually, they didn't test with HQAF on either card...

ATI Catalyst:

* Catalyst A.I.: Standard
* Mipmap Detail Level: Quality
* Wait for vertical refresh: Always off
* Adaptive antialiasing: Off
* Temporal antialiasing: Off
* Quality AF: Off
* Other settings: default

Nvidia ForceWare:

* Image Settings: Quality
* Vertical sync: Off
* Trilinear optimization: On
* Anisotropic mip filter optimization: Off
* Anisotropic sample optimization: On
* Gamma correct antialiasing: On
* Transparency antialiasing: Off
* Other settings: default

Honestly, they pretty much dumbed down the settings to not really take advantage of the either of the cards' IQ benefits. No AAA, trSSAA, or HQAF... My personal settings are almost the exact opposite of what they used. I use v-sync, HQAF, AAA or trSSAA (depending on the card). I really don't think that many people run their high end cards at the settings they used for either card.

 

[Stoneburner]

Im still a bit disturbed as to what wreckage has invested in Nvidia. So nvidias' cards aren't quite as good as ati's this round, why does that hurt you so much? But as for passing misinformation and spamming nonsense, maybe you should get banned.


ANyway, image quality at playable settings should always be the goal. Im always baffled by main stream publications like maxpc or pc gamer that dont seem to get this.... Nvidia can run X game at 120 FPS rather than 110.... But x1900xtx can run HDR + AA on oblivion which is about the most amazing visuals you'll see until crysis.

 

[Ichigo]

Who the heck buys the XTX or GTX and leaves the quality settings at anything besides the maximum setting? What a pointless review.

 

[5150Joker]

LOL Trollage strikes again!

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Who the heck buys the XTX or GTX and leaves the quality settings at anything besides the maximum setting? What a pointless review.

QFT End of thread

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: gersson
BAN HIM!

its the exact same thing frackal did with his thread

I was hoping somone would see the irony.

Wreckage the difference between your thread and Frackal's is Frackal didn't selectively quote to try to turn an almost entirely positive article into a negative one. He offered a relatively accurate summary, a link to the article, one neutral quote and his analysis. You offer a series of quotes showing only the negative side of a positive article, I hope you understand the difference.

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Who the heck buys the XTX or GTX and leaves the quality settings at anything besides the maximum setting? What a pointless review.

QFT End of thread

2nded.

Real end of thread.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
LOL Trollage strikes again!

you = troll

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: gersson
BAN HIM!

its the exact same thing frackal did with his thread

No its not.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: gersson
BAN HIM!

its the exact same thing frackal did with his thread

No its not.

yes it is you both posted articles showing that red/green is better, with some iffy statements mixed in

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Wreckage the difference between your thread and Frackal's is Frackal didn't selectively quote to try to turn an almost entirely positive article into a negative one. He offered a relatively accurate summary, a link to the article, one neutral quote and his analysis.

ORLY?

A 7900GTX at 700mhz/1800mhz always gets beaten by a X1900XTX at stock

Note he said ALWAYS in the title. The review showed the GTX close in at least 3 out of the 6 games and winning 1.

As you can see from the review, the GTX, despite the overclock, gets trounced more or less in every game by around 20-25%.

Again not accurate, and "trounced" sounds neutral to me. :roll:

IMO people buying these cards (including myself) from nvidia based upon benchmarks with "quality" enabled are being fooled, because no one pays 500 bucks for a card only to leave it at lower quality image settings.

Fooled? another neutral comment I guess. 1 site several months ago has a different opinion than most the major sites and now it's the only one to refer to.

From what I've read ATI engineers focus quite a bit on low-impact at high image quality which might explain why their cards perform so much better.

Ah yes another neutral quote. Even without anything to back it up.

The Xbit labs tested more games at more resolutions. They also included more details into how they set up the test. The only thing Legit detailed was that they left the ATI card at default and changed a setting on the NVIDIA card.

 

[fierydemise]

Wreckage, do you understand the meaning of the word quote? He cited one quote from the article that was neutral, you cited a collection of quotes from the article that contradict the general tone of the article. You were both misleading about the article but you just used a lot of selective quoting to portray the article in a completely contradictory way while Frackal exaggerated there is a difference.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Wreckage, do you understand the meaning of the word quote? He cited one quote from the article that was neutral, you cited a collection of quotes from the article that contradict the general tone of the article. You were both misleading about the article but you just used a lot of selective quoting to portray the article in a completely contradictory way while Frackal exaggerated there is a difference.

So even though all I did was quote the article you think that's worse than his clearly biased opinion? I admit I used quotes from the article that I believed were relevant to my thread title, however I did not post anything untrue or write anything as clearly one sided as Frackal did.

I do enjoy the irony of how certain people think what he posted was fine and what I posted was a bannable offense. Even though all I did was quote the article while he was posting misleading and in many cases untrue statements.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Actually I would consider FS the most red biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the redfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

Actually I would consider Xbit the most green biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the greenfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

Oh, wait, they really did think the X1900XTX was a good card. I'm sorry your first post made me think that Xbit was saying the X1900 was inferior to the 7900GTX.

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Wreckage

At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

Wow, are you looking for work at the INQ?
Nice edit... here's the full quote:

We were left with mixed feelings after we tested the ASUS EAX1900XTX/2DHTV/512M. This card surely has a lot of advantages over its competitors and the card?s heart Radeon X1900 XTX very often delivers unrivalled performance, e.g. with enabled full-screen antialiasing or in scenes with a lot of pixel shaders. At the same time, GeForce 7900 GTX-based products will be a better choice and will provide a higher performance in scenes that require a high speed of texturing and in OpenGL applications.

What he said.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Wreckage, do you understand the meaning of the word quote? He cited one quote from the article that was neutral, you cited a collection of quotes from the article that contradict the general tone of the article. You were both misleading about the article but you just used a lot of selective quoting to portray the article in a completely contradictory way while Frackal exaggerated there is a difference.

So even though all I did was quote the article you think that's worse than his clearly biased opinion? I admit I used quotes from the article that I believed were relevant to my thread title, however I did not post anything untrue or write anything as clearly one sided as Frackal did.

I do enjoy the irony of how certain people think what he posted was fine and what I posted was a bannable offense. Even though all I did was quote the article while he was posting misleading and in many cases untrue statements.

What did I post that was untrue or misleading? I did exaggerate in the OP to catch people's eye (have since made that clear in the title), but according to that review, the XTX DOES win in every game except for Q4, which is what I said in the OP as well

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
So even though all I did was quote the article you think that's worse than his clearly biased opinion? I admit I used quotes from the article that I believed were relevant to my thread title, however I did not post anything untrue or write anything as clearly one sided as Frackal did.

You used quotes that were relevant to your misleading thread title and Frackal used statements that were relevant to his misleading title, but again Frackal portrayed the general tone of the article correctly you posted a selection of quotes that horribly misrepresents the article.

Actually screw this, I don't know why I'm arguing this. Hows this, You Win. Happy Now?