ATI Radeon X800 XL 512 a waste of money

[MBrown]

Look

 

[dug777]

Oops

that was a mistake

sounds like a 256mb 9200SE to me

 

[imported_DaveA]

beyond3d: http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/512/
guru3d: http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/211/
techreport: http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/radeon-x800xl-512mb/index.x?pg=1
ET: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1812469,00.asp
hexus: http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMTYw


my opinion:

x800 xl was a bad choice to put 512MB on, should of used the x850 xt. atleast that card can handle 1600x1200 with 6xFSAA 16xAF where i think 512MB could come in handy.

 

[mamisano]

I can see a lot of OEMs snatching them up, like Dell and the like, offering 512MB of video. Just not worth it in the scope of things.... kinda like the Radeon 9800 256mb.

 

[hans030390]

hahahaha lol

nice job ATI

 

[dug777]

actually that looked pretty good in hl2

and ultra with no stuttering in d3 sounds nice

pity it's so pricey

 

[McArra]

A complet waste

 

[Lonyo]

A waste from a user perspective.
A winner from a money making perspective.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
A waste from a user perspective.
A winner from a money making perspective.

Yep. Lots of people are going to be all giggly with 512MB on their card when they could've paid less for more performance (X800XT). At least it's not as ridiculous as the 6200 512MB :roll:

 

[exar333]

but look! the public likes a 256MB FX5200!! so why not sell the ppl that dont know anything a 512MB as well? lets have a 1024MB FX5200!!! "1024, thats gotta be fast!!"

hehe

 

[kylebisme]

I'd bet the x800xl would play Doom3 on ultra quality without any swapping, but then the swapping isn't very bad on a 256mb card and ultra doesn't look much different than high anyway. However, you give developers more memory to use and they will work with it; so we are bound to see games that can take advantage of more than 256mb of video ram before to long.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I'd bet the x800xl would play Doom3 on ultra quality without any swapping, but then the swapping isn't very bad on a 256mb card and ultra doesn't look much different than high anyway. However, you give developers more memory to use and they will work with it; so we are bound to see games that can take advantage of more than 256mb of video ram before to long.

Definitely, I think the argument is that games that would require 512MB will most likely have fillrate/bandwidth requirements out of the XL's reach and that's where the mismatch occurs. There's no stopping it though - soon we may have 512MB cards at all performance levels.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: mamisano
I can see a lot of OEMs snatching them up, like Dell and the like, offering 512MB of video. Just not worth it in the scope of things.... kinda like the Radeon 9800 256mb.

Uh oh! You mentioned the 256MB version of the 9800 in a partially negative tone. Countdown till Apoppin jumping in this thread to defend the card as the greatest thing since sliced bread......3.......2......

 

[imported_OrSin]

Just my old 2 cents.

Why do we have cards with even 256 MB. The only reaosn is that lazy ass developers can make game run with less. When Doom 3 came out every was running out to buy better video cards ($300+) to play a $50 game. Reviews sites starting Doom as a benchmarks. But no one ever siad " what the fck, ID make a game we like and can play without getting buying more equipment". Now I'm dating my self, but I remember development used to brag that thier game worked on low end cards, now they are bragging that thier game taxes even the most high end cards. This is crazy.

Ok my rant is done. Now I'm off to newegg to an 800xl damn bastards

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: OrSin
Just my old 2 cents.

Why do we have cards with even 256 MB. The only reaosn is that lazy ass developers can make game run with less. When Doom 3 came out every was running out to buy better video cards ($300+) to play a $50 game. Reviews sites starting Doom as a benchmarks. But no one ever siad " what the fck, ID make a game we like and can play without getting buying more equipment". Now I'm dating my self, but I remember development used to brag that thier game worked on low end cards, now they are bragging that thier game taxes even the most high end cards. This is crazy.

Ok my rant is done. Now I'm off to newegg to an 800xl damn bastards

It's called a "killer app". Something that makes buying a new piece of hardware worth it. They come around every once in a while just to move things along.

Every other high end game can scale down well....EQ2, AoEIII(supposedly), HL2. D3 was just the designated come-on-let's-get-people-off-those-gf2mx400s-already game.

 

[Pete]

Hate to break it to you, but your rant doesn't really mesh with reality. 6xMSAA can use upwards of 100MB for the framebuffer alone, before textures and vertices and everything else a game needs to store in the video card's memory. From B3D's review:

A rendering resolution of 1600x1200 with 32-bit colour uses about 30MB of frame buffer space, applying 4x FSAA increases that to an order of about 75MB; ATI also has a 6x FSAA mode which at these levels uses in excess of 100MB of frame buffer space.

And game art is just getting more detailed, which means more MBs. There's really no getting around it.

As for this card, it's pricey. It's a bargain compared to a $900 6800U, but 50% more just for HL2? Not worth it, IMO.

 

[imported_DaveA]

so just what happend to 3dc?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
but look! the public likes a 256MB FX5200!! so why not sell the ppl that dont know anything a 512MB as well? lets have a 1024MB FX5200!!! "1024, thats gotta be fast!!"

hehe

Exactly. At least with this card, when they pay their money, they're getting a pretty fast card (an X800XL). With the 256MB FX5200 and 512MB FX6200, those were essentially crap cards. Oh yeah, let's not forget the ATI 9200 SE 256MB. What a stinker.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: DaveA
so just what happend to 3dc?

Nothing. It's alive and well. But it only applies to normal maps. And even then, developers will probably use the extra compression for higher-quality normal maps and not to reduce memory requirements.

 

[Chosonman]

I like Anandtech's candidness in its review. I know now which site to trust when it comes to product reviews. (I think the guy from guru3D was paid off)

Let's see... a twice as fast 6800 Ultra 256 MB or a X800 XL 512 MB? for the same price?

I've always owned Nvidia cards and returned every ATI card I bought. This just give me more reason not to like ATI.

 

[Chosonman]

I'm still pissed off ATI tried to sell the 9800 Pro for $250 while I could get a 6800 NU for $270 or a 6600GT for $200. Bunch of price gougers.

(I would have bought a 9800 Pro for $170 back then. That's what is was worth.)

 

[user1234]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
but look! the public likes a 256MB FX5200!! so why not sell the ppl that dont know anything a 512MB as well? lets have a 1024MB FX5200!!! "1024, thats gotta be fast!!"

hehe

yeah, it reminds me a friend told me he got a new video card, he wasn't sure which one (it was a 9800p) but it had 256 MB so he thought it was as good as the top of the line cards...

 

[user1234]

Originally posted by: OrSin
Just my old 2 cents.

Why do we have cards with even 256 MB. The only reaosn is that lazy ass developers can make game run with less. When Doom 3 came out every was running out to buy better video cards ($300+) to play a $50 game. Reviews sites starting Doom as a benchmarks. But no one ever siad " what the fck, ID make a game we like and can play without getting buying more equipment". Now I'm dating my self, but I remember development used to brag that thier game worked on low end cards, now they are bragging that thier game taxes even the most high end cards. This is crazy.

Ok my rant is done. Now I'm off to newegg to an 800xl damn bastards

it does actually work on low end cards, but just like the huge price difference between low end and high end, so is the difference in the visual quality of the game, which is what I guess people are willing to pay for (see DVDs and HDTVs). But if you expect to get the same quality on a low end card then you're out of your mind (unless you're ok with watching a slide show)

 

[Quasmo]

this is clearly a bad decision by ATI

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Chosonman
I like Anandtech's candidness in its review. I know now which site to trust when it comes to product reviews. (I think the guy from guru3D was paid off)

Let's see... a twice as fast 6800 Ultra 256 MB or a X800 XL 512 MB? for the same price?

I've always owned Nvidia cards and returned every ATI card I bought. This just give me more reason not to like ATI.

You sir, are very ignorant, and bias.

Cookie for you!