7900GT or X1900XT

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Elfear
What would you like to hear specifically?

how about some high res 1920 x 1080 pics and summary of hdr w/ and w/o aa (and maybe w/ + w/o ssaf too) pics and framerates in oblivion for starters? i'd love to see what i'm missing out on, without resorting to installing a x1900 myself

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Problem is Joe Blow (contrary to what you may think, not everyone is an engineer or knows how to measure voltages) with a 7900 GT MUST do a half assed conductive paint volt mod just to get high end performance out of it thus voiding the warranty and possibly killing the card. With a X1900 XT it gives that same high end performance out of the box, thus there is no need to OC or soft mod even though that option is always there. It's funny you accuse me of having "subjective" opinions yet I've already proven you a fool above.

a fool lol..if i'm a fool what does it make the person who stated that a 700MHz clocked 7900 is outperformed by the X1900 only to cite an article where it won 3/5 (okay 2/4 lol) tests? and no i dont think everyone is an engineer, as evident in this thread but i think a majority of the general population knows how to draw a line from 1 point to another (all the skills required to do the volt mod).

anyhow, let me ask you a better question since you're onto this "voiding warranty" bit. Whats the difference if you kill a card softmodding it and killing a card with some hardmodding that is easily undoable? in the end, they are both dead and both "voids the warranty". again maybe you might want to take a pause from watching nvidia stock soar, but as i stated first very succinctly: oc: 7900gt, save some $$$ / no oc: x1900xt . what are you trying to prove again lol?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so which do i keep? the X1900 was $100 more ($285 v. $385 including sales tax), and benches much faster. but i do like the $100. and lets face it, high end graphics cards fall off the top of the market faster than chevy's from the planned obsolesence era. i do have a 20" widescreen LCD, so the extra pushing power is useable. and the ati tends to have better image quality (if you can tell a difference between the super AA modes you deserve a prize).

So if you are gaming at around 1680x1050 the peformance difference between the 2 is not enough for the extra cost.

Keep the GT and blow the extra $100 on Hookers and booze.

Or invest the $100 and upgrade to second GT later.

GT + $100 cash > XT.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Problem is Joe Blow (contrary to what you may think, not everyone is an engineer or knows how to measure voltages) with a 7900 GT MUST do a half assed conductive paint volt mod just to get high end performance out of it thus voiding the warranty and possibly killing the card. With a X1900 XT it gives that same high end performance out of the box, thus there is no need to OC or soft mod even though that option is always there. It's funny you accuse me of having "subjective" opinions yet I've already proven you a fool above.

a fool lol..if i'm a fool what does it make the person who stated that a 700MHz clocked 7900 is outperformed by the X1900 only to cite an article where it won 3/5 (okay 2/4 lol) tests?

You just keep digging deeper and deeper. Here's exactly what I said:

A 700 mhz massively OC'd GT won't beat an XT clocked at XTX speeds: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1945659,00.asp

And I was right, it doesn't beat it. At best it ties it in that review but this is of course ignoring the hottest game on the market Oblivion where the XT/XTX has an even bigger advantage. Another fact that needs to be taken into consideration is that most GT's won't reach that 700 mhz mark and as others have pointed out, they'll top out in the 650+ range. Not to mention running their card at 1.5v on air just to achieve a decent OC is asking for trouble in the long term.

anyhow, let me ask you a better question since you're onto this "voiding warranty" bit. Whats the difference if you kill a card softmodding it and killing a card with some hardmodding that is easily undoable?

The difference is that if joe blow spreads conductive ink across his pcb and doesn't know how to measure the voltage change, he's doing it blindly. With the ATi software voltage control at least you know what you're setting your card at. Reliability is a major factor for OC'ing and the more data you have the better.

in the end, they are both dead and both "voids the warranty". again maybe you might want to take a pause from watching nvidia stock soar, but as i stated first very succinctly: oc: 7900gt, save some $$$ / no oc: x1900xt . what are you trying to prove again lol?

It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

Well considering many ATI cards lack a lifetime warranty which is usually voided by overclocking or using an aftermarket cooler, your point seems lost.

Of course that extra $100 won't help the XT with stencil shadows, transparency AA, OpenGl, driver bloat, heat, power draw, etc.

But I guess if the only game you WILL EVER play is Oblivion, it's worth it to buy a $400 video card for a few extra FPS and a Beta hack patch to make it work with those extra features. :roll:

 

[otispunkmeyer]

if you wanna overclock, or you just want solid gaming in quiet cool package get the 7900gt and save some $$$

if you want brute force to push your games along, not too bothered about noise or heat (not that the 7900's cooler is silent mind) and some overclocking room. then the x1900xt

and whatever anyone says, if you use High quality mode on the NV card, and turn off the optimizations, it will still play great and look great.


i personally would probably get the x1900 (i really wanna try one) but if you have that overclocking itch......the 7900 could be some serious fun

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so which do i keep? the X1900 was $100 more ($285 v. $385 including sales tax), and benches much faster. but i do like the $100. and lets face it, high end graphics cards fall off the top of the market faster than chevy's from the planned obsolesence era. i do have a 20" widescreen LCD, so the extra pushing power is useable. and the ati tends to have better image quality (if you can tell a difference between the super AA modes you deserve a prize).

So if you are gaming at around 1680x1050 the peformance difference between the 2 is not enough for the extra cost.

Keep the GT and blow the extra $100 on Hookers and booze.

Or invest the $100 and upgrade to second GT later.

GT + $100 cash > XT.

@ 1280x1024 The XT is worth the extra cost. 1680x1050 will GREATLY benefit from the X1900XT, especially in future games, he wants to keep the card for a while.

Anyone who argues XT isnt worth the extra $100 is an extreme fanboy.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

Well considering many ATI cards lack a lifetime warranty which is usually voided by overclocking or using an aftermarket cooler, your point seems lost.

Of course that extra $100 won't help the XT with stencil shadows, transparency AA, OpenGl, driver bloat, heat, power draw, etc.

But I guess if the only game you WILL EVER play is Oblivion, it's worth it to buy a $400 video card for a few extra FPS and a Beta hack patch to make it work with those extra features. :roll:

Few FPS? lol................... XT performs at LEAST 40-50% better in Oblivion than the 7900GT.

 

[Yreka]

It cracks me up.


ATI Fans = 7900GT voltmod is a hackjob, halfassed way to do things. Ham-fisted joe blow will be coloring all over the back of his card with the conductive pen, breaking off components as he goes. The oblivion HDR+AA Chuck mod is a "patch", working as intended, should have been included in the game.

Nvidia Fans = The 7900GT Volt mod is an elegant solution sometimes seen gracing the PCB's of your finest R&D labs. The "Chuck" mod is a beta, hack, half-assed patch. Dosnt make any image difference anyway.


I swear, some of you guys should go into politics :laugh:

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: Yreka
It cracks me up.

Indeed. LOL.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Yreka
It cracks me up.


ATI Fans = 7900GT voltmod is a hackjob, halfassed way to do things. Ham-fisted joe blow will be coloring all over the back of his card with the conductive pen, breaking off components as he goes. The oblivion HDR+AA Chuck mod is a "patch", working as intended, should have been included in the game.

Nvidia Fans = The 7900GT Volt mod is an elegant solution sometimes seen gracing the PCB's of your finest R&D labs. The "Chuck" mod is a beta, hack, half-assed patch. Dosnt make any image difference anyway.


I swear, some of you guys should go into politics :laugh:

Actually if I didnt know any better I'd say the fate of the universe hinged on who won this argument.

Personally Nvidia will get my cash whenever I upgrade again since their cards tend to run cooler and quieter then Ati's solutions and since I value quietness and lack of heat it fits my bill, and it generally gets around the same performance. Altho I am gonna get flamed and slammed for my opinion now.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

Well considering many ATI cards lack a lifetime warranty which is usually voided by overclocking or using an aftermarket cooler, your point seems lost.

Unfortunately the obvious is lost on you Trollage: The XT doesn't need any sort of volt mod or OC to give much higher performance than a 7900 GT. On the other hand the GT must have it's warranty voided just to achieve comparable performance to an XT so your point about warranty is moot. Not to mention there are ATi cards with lifetime warranty (and they cost less than their GTX equivalents).

Of course that extra $100 won't help the XT with stencil shadows, transparency AA, OpenGl, driver bloat, heat, power draw, etc.

Transparency SSAA is equivalent to Adaptive QAA while Transparency MSAA is inferior to Adaptive PAA. OGL performance difference in the latest games isn't much to brag about. The only decent game the nVidia cards pull ahead in is Quake 4..yawn. The best part is ATi users don't have to worry about buggy drivers like nVidia users do. The nVidia user dilemma: Gee should I use 84.17 for FEAR today or 84.25 for Oblivion or should I swap out my driver yet again to avoid the horrible stuttering and crap performance in Tomb Raider legends. I'll take CCC "bloat" (~17 MB memory usage) over nVidia's crappy drivers anyday.

But I guess if the only game you WILL EVER play is Oblivion, it's worth it to buy a $400 video card for a few extra FPS and a Beta hack patch to make it work with those extra features. :roll:

Too bad nVidia can't support it's users with "hacks" that enable HDR+AA in Oblivion eh?

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
You just keep digging deeper and deeper. Here's exactly what I said:

A 700 mhz massively OC'd GT won't beat an XT clocked at XTX speeds: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1945659,00.asp

And I was right, it doesn't beat it. At best it ties it in that review but this is of course ignoring the hottest game on the market Oblivion where the XT/XTX has an even bigger advantage. Another fact that needs to be taken into consideration is that most GT's won't reach that 700 mhz mark and as others have pointed out, they'll top out in the 650+ range. Not to mention running their card at 1.5v on air just to achieve a decent OC is asking for trouble in the long term.

The difference is that if joe blow spreads conductive ink across his pcb and doesn't know how to measure the voltage change, he's doing it blindly. With the ATi software voltage control at least you know what you're setting your card at. Reliability is a major factor for OC'ing and the more data you have the better.

It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

Hmm, lets play your hypothetical scenario game:

From the review, stock XFX 7900GT XXX 3dmark06 scores = 5411. My 7900GT (775/875) Score: 6582. That's an ~21% increase in performance. Extrapolating this to equote a similar performance gain in the other noted article benchmarks would yield it #1 in 3/4 benchmarks (funny thing it was still #1 in HL2:LC even at stock speeds hehe). This again is done with a conductive ink pen, that volt mods the board to 1.4V, connecting 2 points together over a 1 inch area lol that is a go/no go afair (ever heard of binary digital programming).

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

Well considering many ATI cards lack a lifetime warranty which is usually voided by overclocking or using an aftermarket cooler, your point seems lost.

Unfortunately the obvious is lost on you Trollage: The XT doesn't need any sort of volt mod or OC to give much higher performance than a 7900 GT. On the other hand the GT must have it's warranty voided just to achieve comparable performance to an XT so your point about warranty is moot. Not to mention there are ATi cards with lifetime warranty (and they cost less than their GTX equivalents).

Of course that extra $100 won't help the XT with stencil shadows, transparency AA, OpenGl, driver bloat, heat, power draw, etc.

Transparency SSAA is equivalent to Adaptive QAA while Transparency MSAA is inferior to Adaptive PAA. OGL performance difference in the latest games isn't much to brag about. The only decent game the nVidia cards pull ahead in is Quake 4..yawn. The best part is ATi users don't have to worry about buggy drivers like nVidia users do. The nVidia user dilemma: Gee should I use 84.25 for FEAR today or 84.xx for Oblivion or should I swap out my driver yet again to avoid the horrible stuttering and crap performance in Tomb Raider legends. I'll take CCC "bloat" (~17 MB memory usage) over nVidia's crappy drivers anyday.

But I guess if the only game you WILL EVER play is Oblivion, it's worth it to buy a $400 video card for a few extra FPS and a Beta hack patch to make it work with those extra features. :roll:

Too bad nVidia can't support it's users with "hacks" that enable HDR+AA in Oblivion eh?

OWNED!!!!!

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
You just keep digging deeper and deeper. Here's exactly what I said:

A 700 mhz massively OC'd GT won't beat an XT clocked at XTX speeds: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1945659,00.asp

And I was right, it doesn't beat it. At best it ties it in that review but this is of course ignoring the hottest game on the market Oblivion where the XT/XTX has an even bigger advantage. Another fact that needs to be taken into consideration is that most GT's won't reach that 700 mhz mark and as others have pointed out, they'll top out in the 650+ range. Not to mention running their card at 1.5v on air just to achieve a decent OC is asking for trouble in the long term.

The difference is that if joe blow spreads conductive ink across his pcb and doesn't know how to measure the voltage change, he's doing it blindly. With the ATi software voltage control at least you know what you're setting your card at. Reliability is a major factor for OC'ing and the more data you have the better.

It's asinine to suggest anyone buy a card just to void it's warranty right away by volt modding it and possibly destroying it in the process when they could get top end performance out of a competing solution for $100 more that requires no soft mod or OC and has superior features (HQ AF + HDR AA). Or to put it more succinctly: DUH!

Hmm, lets play your hypothetical scenario game:

From the review, stock XFX 7900GT XXX 3dmark06 scores = 5411. My 7900GT (775/875) Score: 6582. That's an ~21% increase in performance. Extrapolating this to equote a similar performance gain in the other noted article benchmarks would yield it #1 in 3/4 benchmarks (funny thing it was still #1 in HL2:LC even at stock speeds hehe). This again is done with a conductive ink pen, that volt mods the board to 1.4V, connecting 2 points together over a 1 inch area lol that is a go/no go afair (ever heard of binary digital programming).

It's painfully obvious you're losing an argument when you have to resort to pointing out 3dmark06 scores and then "extrapolating" it to gaming performance. If someone is really out to OC, this is by far the best way to do it: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=440151&page=1&pp=30 No messy conductive ink required.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ST

Hmm, lets play your hypothetical scenario game:

From the review, stock XFX 7900GT XXX 3dmark06 scores = 5411. My 7900GT (775/875) Score: 6582. That's an ~21% increase in performance. Extrapolating this to equote a similar performance gain in the other noted article benchmarks would yield it #1 in 3/4 benchmarks (funny thing it was still #1 in HL2:LC even at stock speeds hehe). This again is done with a conductive ink pen, that volt mods the board to 1.4V, connecting 2 points together over a 1 inch area lol that is a go/no go afair (ever heard of binary digital programming).

It's painfully obvious you're losing an argument when you have to resort to pointing out 3dmark06 scores and then "extrapolating" it to gaming performance.

It's painfully obvious you have no argument in the first place resorting to only articles and speculation for your information instead of first hand experience.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Yreka
It cracks me up.

you have no idea how much i'm laughing my ass off here at work : see my new sig

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Yreka
It cracks me up.

you have no idea how much i'm laughing my ass off here at work : see my new sig

Laughing or frothing at the mouth? Obviously you care enough to bother putting me in your sig.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The XT doesn't need any sort of volt mod or OC to give much higher performance than a 7900 GT.

Nope the XT needs a $100 or more to do that, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Transparency SSAA is equivalent to Adaptive QAA while Transparency MSAA is inferior to Adaptive PAA.

Only in your world. Many reviews have stated that NVIDIA's AA is superior to ATI's

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
OGL performance difference in the latest games isn't much to brag about.

That's right you spent all your money on a video card, just to play one game. Well sucks to be you. When Enemy Territory and Prey come out and Oblivion gets deleted from most peoples hard drives I guess you can finally go outside and play.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The best part is ATi users don't have to worry about buggy drivers like nVidia users do. The nVidia user dilemma: Gee should I use 84.17 for FEAR today or 84.25 for Oblivion or should I swap out my driver yet again to avoid the horrible stuttering and crap performance in Tomb Raider legends. I'll take CCC "bloat" (~17 MB memory usage) over nVidia's crappy drivers anyday.

I did not know you were having such trouble with NVIDIA's new drivers? As good as they are they won't work on your ATI card. It's a shame that ATI can't render that Shadows correctly in Tomb Raider and many other games, but with all of the heat and noise coming from your computer, shadows may be the least of your problems.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Too bad nVidia can't support it's users with "hacks" that enable HDR+AA in Oblivion eh?

With all of the problems that hack has been causing, I'm sure NVIDIA would not want to sink to that level anyways.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The XT doesn't need any sort of volt mod or OC to give much higher performance than a 7900 GT.

Nope the XT needs a $100 or more to do that, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Transparency SSAA is equivalent to Adaptive QAA while Transparency MSAA is inferior to Adaptive PAA.

Only in your world. Many reviews have stated that NVIDIA's AA is superior to ATI's

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
OGL performance difference in the latest games isn't much to brag about.

That's right you spent all your money on a video card, just to play one game. Well sucks to be you. When Enemy Territory and Prey come out and Oblivion gets deleted from most peoples hard drives I guess you can finally go outside and play.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The best part is ATi users don't have to worry about buggy drivers like nVidia users do. The nVidia user dilemma: Gee should I use 84.17 for FEAR today or 84.25 for Oblivion or should I swap out my driver yet again to avoid the horrible stuttering and crap performance in Tomb Raider legends. I'll take CCC "bloat" (~17 MB memory usage) over nVidia's crappy drivers anyday.

I did not know you were having such trouble with NVIDIA's new drivers? As good as they are they won't work on your ATI card. It's a shame that ATI can't render that Shadows correctly in Tomb Raider and many other games, but with all of the heat and noise coming from your computer, shadows may be the least of your problems.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Too bad nVidia can't support it's users with "hacks" that enable HDR+AA in Oblivion eh?

With all of the problems that hack has been causing, I'm sure NVIDIA would not want to sink to that level anyways.

The hack? No, its just a fix. Since nVidia has to stoop down so low to pay developers to not enable ATI-only features (Oblivion=TWIMTBP game, developers said no HDR+AA), ATI has to enable those features.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The hack? No, its just a fix. Since nVidia has to stoop down so low to pay developers to not enable ATI-only features (Oblivion=TWIMTBP game, developers said no HDR+AA), ATI has to enable those features.

WOW!!! ROFLMAO!!!

/popcorn

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The hack? No, its just a fix.

Unsupported by both ATI and the game developer.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The XT doesn't need any sort of volt mod or OC to give much higher performance than a 7900 GT.

Nope the XT needs a $100 or more to do that, a fool and his money are soon parted.

To do what? Have superior drivers, HQ AF, HDR+AA and a warranty?

Only in your world. Many reviews have stated that NVIDIA's AA is superior to ATI's

Ah Trollage you make it all too easy:

There are advantages for all of the different transparent/adaptive anti-aliasing modes. Transparency multisampling works well in situations where maintaining frame rate is important, while also having a positive impact on image quality, while Performance Adaptive AA provides a higher quality output. Obviously, the higher quality output comes with a larger performance deficit than transparency multisampling.

When comparing transparency supersampling with transparency multisampling, the differences in performance and, more importantly, image quality are quite large. This is because there a lot of additional detail that is getting sampled by NVIDIA's transparency supersampled anti-aliasing alogithm. The resultant image quality output is almost exactly the same as the output deliverd by ATI's quality adaptive anti-aliasing technique.

Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/0...nsparency_adaptive_aa_explained/5.html

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
OGL performance difference in the latest games isn't much to brag about.

That's right you spent all your money on a video card, just to play one game. Well sucks to be you. When Enemy Territory and Prey come out and Oblivion gets deleted from most peoples hard drives I guess you can finally go outside and play.

So you're privy to ET:QW and Prey benchmarks already? You must be a beta tester or an insider to know how they're going to perform and even if they're going to be worth buying. Or are you using the magical Trollage crystal ball?

I did not know you were having such trouble with NVIDIA's new drivers? As good as they are they won't work on your ATI card. It's a shame that ATI can't render that Shadows correctly in Tomb Raider and many other games, but with all of the heat and noise coming from your computer, shadows may be the least of your problems.

Unfortunately my wife is the one stuck with nVidia's subpar drivers and image quality on her laptop using the nVidia 6800 Go Ultra.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Unfortunately my wife is the one stuck with nVidia's subpar drivers and image quality on her laptop using the nVidia 6800 Go Ultra.

I didn't know that "Extelleron" had a laptop.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Unfortunately my wife is the one stuck with nVidia's subpar drivers and image quality on her laptop using the nVidia 6800 Go Ultra.

I didn't know that "Extelleron" had a laptop.

LOL that's pretty good but you still didn't address the part where you claimed nVidia's TRAA was superior and I proved you wrong (as usual).