It's not a rumour anymore, the ATI 8500XT is out. Question is, where will it rank among the GF4 Ti family. It'll definately knock off the Ti4200, and maybe even the Ti4400, but will it outrun the Ti4600? Maybe with good drivers and a little OC'ing perhaps? Let's hear what ya'll think. As for me, I was born to Radeate, not to Detonate, if you know what I mean. The R300's round the corner, NV30 beware!
ATI 8500XT - Where do you place it?
- Thread starter ironique
- Start date
any reviews yet?
Where to buy, and how much?
I didn't even know there was another 8500 coming out.
zs
Where to buy, and how much?
I didn't even know there was another 8500 coming out.
zs
Should clearly beat out the GF3 Ti500, but it'll likely fall behind the GF4 Ti4200 in most cases.
Still, it has a few saving graces such as DVD, 2D, multimedia capabilities, better FSAA etc that'll leave it competing reasonably well against the Ti4200 despite the fact it may not perform quite as well on average.
Personally, I find it quite surprisng that ATi is going with Gigabyte to launch the 8500XT rather then producing it themselves.
Still, it has a few saving graces such as DVD, 2D, multimedia capabilities, better FSAA etc that'll leave it competing reasonably well against the Ti4200 despite the fact it may not perform quite as well on average.
Personally, I find it quite surprisng that ATi is going with Gigabyte to launch the 8500XT rather then producing it themselves.
I agree with you ElFenix, though it would be nice to see some good reviews.:| Non-ATI manus have always used cheaper RAM and lower clocks than the real ATI cards, so you may not gain any speed increase if it's Giga making them.
:Q I wouldn't expect it to beat GF4TI4200, and the ATI Radeon8500LE is likely to be far better clocks for cash!
I tend to think differently. I've been looking at reviews here as well as a couple of other sites that I can't remember right now, where the 8500 w/ 128MB (not the down-clocked LE) actually outperforms the Ti4200 in some tests thanks to improved drivers! (I'm talking 1600x1200 coz I don't intend to play games at anything less than this) And where the Ti is ahead, it's by a marginal gap of at most 10fps, which isn't so noticable when your hitting 70+ fps. With that in mind, & the fact that the XT's clocked just under the Ti4600, I'd place the XT squarely above Ti4200 and maybe above the Ti4400. Also, reviews (I'll post the other sites as soon as I remember them) show that the AIW 8500 w/ 128MB (not the down-clocked DV version) shows some performance gain over the standard 8500 w/ 64MB which could be evidence of small hardware tweaks courtesy of ATI. If this is the trend then the XT might be more than just a higher clocked 8500. Only time, and reviews will tell. Check out some specs about the XT and the R300 (Radeon 10000!) here
But rem Furor, ATI and nVidia are always playing leap frog with their driver tweaks.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 6 months though.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 6 months though.
Couldn't find any info other than expected clocks on the Radeon8500XT, looks more like an o/c 8500 @ 300/600, should get nearer but not past GF4TI4200 if that's the case. And the specs on your second link refer to the Radeon8800 not the 8500XT. The 8500 can outperform the lower clocked 128MB ver of GF4TI4200 in very few tests, but where the 8500 runs very near it's limit, the GF4TI4200 clocks to GF4TI4400 levels easily. Don't get me wrong, I like ATI and the Radeon cards, they were by far the best 6 months ago. I just don't follow them with blind faith, the GF cards are far better (except naff TVout) and are a LOT cheaper here in the UK (and Europe & Australia for that matter). If people don't notice 10FPS when at 70FPS then why do people pay more for CL2.0 over CL2.5 where the diff isn't even 10FPS!I found a link with some interesting info on the XT - theoretical expected performance. The site is here It places the XT just about where you've placed it, Austin. And another good point is that the XT is probably close to maxed-out at 300/600 whereas the Ti4400 can comfortabley outpace the Ti4600 when overclocked. Interestingly enough, the XT specs on that site seem to be equal to or better than the Ti4400 specs so why the lower performance? I aslo have previosly noticed that the standard 8500 is clocked at 275/550 while the Ti4200's clocked at 225/500. What exactly gives Nvidia the edge here?
As for the XT, let's wait and see what it offers in practice. We may have to rely on the R250 or R300 to match-up with the mighty TIs. Competition has never hurt the consumer! Let the battles continue. So long as Ati release their subsequent cards with decent drivers and don't make the same blunder as they did with the standard 8500, we may have ourselves a new temporary king of the 3D before the end of the year - and before the mighty Nvidia awakens again!!!
About the NV30 and the R300, read this article (bottom of the page). What do you think?
As for the XT, let's wait and see what it offers in practice. We may have to rely on the R250 or R300 to match-up with the mighty TIs. Competition has never hurt the consumer! Let the battles continue. So long as Ati release their subsequent cards with decent drivers and don't make the same blunder as they did with the standard 8500, we may have ourselves a new temporary king of the 3D before the end of the year - and before the mighty Nvidia awakens again!!!
About the NV30 and the R300, read this article (bottom of the page). What do you think?
Look deeper then specs, I don't have much time or I'd go into more detail but suffice to say that nVidia's memory controller is quite a bit more advanced then that of ATi's at the moment. With similar theoretical bandwidth figures, I'd go so far as to say the nVidia board would have roughly 2GB/s more real world bandwidth to play with.
Of course the memory controller is only one aspect in two architectures that difern in many ways, but an aspect that carries great weight in terms of 3D Gaming performance.
Base specs alone don't always reveal terribly much.
I want to revise my above opinion though, I've been doing some tests with the newer .6071's and it seems they've improved performance more then I initially realzed... boosting the Retail 275/275 64MB R8500 to performance just below that of the Ti4200 generally and occasionally matching it.
Revised opinion: 8500XT should outperform the Ti4200 in most games, and in a very small handful of games it may outperform the Ti4400 by ~2FPS or so.
I'll take ATi's pseudo super-sampling over nVidia's multisampled AA any day.
Much better image quality, and no issues with antialiasing alpha textures as in the case with nVidia's implementation.
And no ridiculous blur filter like nVidia applies on their much hyped QuinCunx AA.
Granted ATi's implementation leads to slightly more bandwidth usage, and significantly greater texture storage in DRAM which leads to a slower performing AA algorithym... but personally I'm more then willing to sacrifice performance for image quality.
Often times it takes anisotropic + FSAA from nVidia to match ATi's pure AA in image quality so I MUCH prefer ATi's implementation.
Multisampling has potential, and in theory I think it capable of nearly matching supersmapling in image quality, but nVidia's present implementation leaves a lot to desire IMHO.
Ironic...
ATi FSAA: Image quality over Speed.
nVidia FSAA: Speed over image quality.
Yet when we go to their respective anisotropic filtering algorithym it becomes the opposite.
ATi: Anisotrophy: Speed over image quality.
nVidia: Image quality over speed.
Totally off topic for a monet....
I'll be irritated if ATi names the R300 anything other then Radeon 9XXX. Their present naming scheme is excellent, easily understandable and realistic.
7XXX=DirectX 7.
8XXX=DirectX 8.
Last three numers equate to relative performance within that generation.
Much nicer then nVidia's GF4 MX's in which you've got MX420's being beaten by GF2 GTS cards.
GF1 DDR's beating GF2 MX's. etc etc.
nVidia's naming scheme is confisuing as hell to consumers and makes it quite difficult for the uninformed to learn what is faster then what, and what offers a better feature set.
The rumours that R300 may be R1000, and R250 may be R9000 is quite disappointing.
Erm, default core/mem freqs on the retail 8500 are 275/275. I got a bargain bin 8500 that I tested at 285/330. I tried 300 core but it locked and never tried anything between before replacing the stock HSF for a larger HS for quiet. I have little doubt that if a fan was used it could do at least 300/330. I'm sure there are plenty of folks over at rage3d that are already running theirs past the XT. So the question is how significantly better a core the XT has. That is, can it be o'erclocks from its defaults? Otherwise its a bit of a yawn.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter