Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
How do these compare to the x1900GTs with their 12 pipes in gaming?
From what I can tell, it's really kind of a toss-up. The GT is clocked at 575MHz while the AIW is clocked at 500 - a 15% difference; while the AIW has 16 pipes (a 25% difference). So as far as raw computing goes, the AIW wins. But the GT has faster clocked memory (1200MHz vs 960MHz) which I think is enough of a difference to tip the balance in favor of the GT in most cases, especially with AA enabled. However, there may be particular games/scenarios (e.g. no AA) which are more shader intensive than bandwidth intensive, and in those games I'd expect the AIW to win.
The use of AntiAliasing is quite a bandwidth burden, and tends to bring the AIW down substantially in benchmarks. In many games the AIW is capable of keeping up with the X1800XT or even the X1900XT with AA disabled, but turning on AA drops the AIW framerate by 30% or more compared to the others. E.g. in F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200, the X1900 AIW gets 52FPS vs. 50FPS for the X1800XT with AA disabled, but enabling AA drops the AIW to 25FPS but the X1800XT gets 39FPS.
source
I couldn't find any benchmarks that showed the same comparisons (AA vs non-AA) with the GT, but in the reviews that I did find, the GT seemed to come close to the X1800XT in many games with 4xAA enabled.
Of course, overclocking the AIW to equivalent/higher speeds, as many people seem to have done successfully (even to X1900XT speeds), would put it over the GT.
