it's certainly not "blow the doors" as some might have you believe, but it does have a slight overall performance edge over the GT, and in some cases, even the GTX:
techreport review
it's certainly not "blow the doors" as some might have you believe, but it does have a slight overall performance edge over the GT, and in some cases, even the GTX:
techreport review
With the new patch it works fine on ATI X1000 series cards, HDR+AA that is. You just have to enable AA in CCC and HDR in the game. Please read up on and know what you're talking about before accusing people of lying. NVIDIA cards dont offer HDR+AA because of hardware issues- it is impossible for any driver/mod to enable HDR+AA for nVidia cards.
Fine then. Show us benchmarks where the 6600GT completely destroys the 9800XT in 3-4 games. And I mean destroy- remember, the 9800XT is approximately 72% faster in HL2, 1600x1200 4x/8x. So I want to see your proof.
No ATI's own documentation states that it is a hack and is unstable for many configurations at this time.
Known issues:
1. SuperAA with CrossFire in HDR mode is not enabled. If you have SupperAA enabled you will get the quality and performance of one card as opposed to two.
2. Rendering issues with grass shadows
3. On an ATI Radeon X1600XT CrossFire configuration, the game may intermittently crash if the resolution is set higher than 1600x1200
4. On an ATI Radeon X1900 series card, the game may crash while task-switching between the desktop and game (alt-tab)
Granted they will probably sort it out soon, but it's a bit premature to say that HDR + AA works flawlessly on the X1xxx series.
In Oblivion the X1800XT is in a whole other league than the 7900GT:
FIRINGSQUAD REVIEW
Oblivion 1600x1200 Foliage w/ HDR 0x/8x
X1800XT: 22.9
7900GT: 14.1
Oblivion 1600x1200 Mountains w/ HDR 0x/8x
X1800XT: 37.1 FPS
7900GT: 32.4 FPS
true, but i'm still of the opinion the foilage/grass shadows thing adds no benefit, and could even be a resolveable issue with nv (or it could simply lack the hardware support/horsepower)
that's hardly "another league", and add to that fact, the GT wins the indoor tests.
to be equitable tho and give credit where credit is due, x1k can do hdr+aa plus HQAF (which really DOES make a nice difference in this game), a combination not possible with nv's cards, and for that reason i would agree it's in "another league".
those owning and g70 really do not miss out compared to those owning x1k when talking performance, but i REALLY like the visuals afforded to those of us who can run hdr/aa/hqaf
I 6600 non-gt is slower than a 9800p, and a 6200 is slower than a 9600xt. If you dont believe me, then take a look at this:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index0507.html
I disagree. The R520 was a paper launch because you couldn't get it at all for several months from the time it was expected to come out. No one, no matter what (unless the odd prototype or review sample). The 7900 series was available generally when expected and when announced. To me paper launch is no availability or no availability after the initial supply. If you outsell your closest competitor by 4 to 1, and selling all you can make (if you're making a reasonable amount of product) then it's just demand exceeding supply. Not no supply. Really, if it is true that Nvidia is outselling ATI by 4 to 1 or even 3 to 1 or 2 to 1, and selling all they can make, what more can you expect? Can you serious say any other company wouldn't kill for a launch like this? Would ATI have any supply if their sales of the 1900 increased 4 fold or even 2 fold (assuming they don't have a huge build up of unsold inventory).
Not so simple. The 7800 series was one card at launch. A super high end card at that. The 7900 series is being split between a super high end and a high end. Nvidia sales of the 7900 chip may actually be much higher than sales for the 7800 even tho. the 7800 was more available. You can blame Nvidia for not having enuf chips for 2 series, but it's overly simplistic to compare a 1 chip/1 card launch with a 1 chip/2 card launch.
Nvidia could have ensured enuf supply of the GTX by not launching the GT, but then people would be bitching about not Nvidia only releasing a more affordable option.
I agree, which I have said in the past. However, the 7800GT launched a month after the 7800GTX. So by now, you can compare them. And again, the 7800GTX/GT were never out of stock like this, and were under MSRP. Not over MSRP like the 7900 series is now, with low availability. Its a step backwards from the absolute outstanding 7800 series launch. No two ways about it.
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,551
- 136
I think all of these arguments are a moot point because the graphics industry has never (at least I haven't found any) released any publicly available sales data. And I don't mean, we sold X dollars worth of video cards in Q4 type thing but breaking down sales of high end, mid and low end cards. Some guy talked to a few retailers, fine. I don't disagree with the guy in the OP's linked article saying the retailers stated they were getting more demand for nVidia cards. However, someone else can talk to a different set of retailers and say that they saw higher demand for ATI cards. The bottom line is without hard data, anyone can claim anything and it's impossible to prove them wrong.
I believe nVidia made like 2.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 and ATI did about 1.9 billion. ATI sells more integrated GPU's but nVidia has it's mobo chipset business. Overall both companies are amazingly close in terms of revenue. I do think nVidia makes a larger profit due to smaller die sizes on their discrete GPU's. More importantly, I'm not seeing a single penny from either companies profits so why the heck do I care who makes more money? Give me a great video card and I'll buy whoever has the best product for me and me only.
I believe nVidia made like 2.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 and ATI did about 1.9 billion. ATI sells more integrated GPU's but nVidia has it's mobo chipset business. Overall both companies are amazingly close in terms of revenue. I do think nVidia makes a larger profit due to smaller die sizes on their discrete GPU's. More importantly, I'm not seeing a single penny from either companies profits so why the heck do I care who makes more money? Give me a great video card and I'll buy whoever has the best product for me and me only.
I agree. I would really like to see sold numbers, not shipped numbers of each card. I think the 7800 series sold more than the 7900 series at this point in time. Primarly because it really had no competition. The X1800 was late, and it was a huge step up from a 6800U. The 7900GTX is not nearly as large of a step up from the 7800GTX, and ATi does have a comparable card to compete with the 7900s, which they didnt have with the 7800s. People really only had one choice for a high end card for several months, a 7800 series card.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Look, both Nvidia and ATI make tremendous top end cards. Each has advantages over the other. If the 4:1 Nvidia:ATI ratio is accurate, then we have to look at all the pro's and cons for each of the companies high end cards to see what appears to me more preferable. For example: Performance on a broad spectrum of games, noise, I.Q. , temps, drivers, control panels, price, etc. etc.
If the 4:1 ratio is accurate, there has to be a reason and I am not sure marketing or lack thereof is "completely" responsible. I'm certain it plays a part, but just becomes one of the factors. Unfortunately, there are too many dedicated fans in here, paid or not, to get all the BS out of the way to truly figure this out. I mean, if someone points out a benchmark in a game that shows one card over the other (usually a site they liked the results from), then another will go beyond the call of duty to disprove it (usually a site they like the results from). It really gets in the way of a good conversation.
But thats just the problem with the IF statment.
IF I was dating several super models I would be happy, very tired, but happy
IF we had wings we could fly
IF only I had picked those six correct numbers
See my point? We cant prove or disprove the 4:1 number so honestly it should be thrown out completly as its just not verifiable data and because of this is totally irrelevant to anything. Without hard numbers its nothing but marketing bs. Now if they release numbers and prove this then at that time we can figure this out. But right now its just total speculation.
IF I was dating several super models I would be happy, very tired, but happy
IF we had wings we could fly
IF only I had picked those six correct numbers
See my point? We cant prove or disprove the 4:1 number so honestly it should be thrown out completly as its just not verifiable data and because of this is totally irrelevant to anything. Without hard numbers its nothing but marketing bs. Now if they release numbers and prove this then at that time we can figure this out. But right now its just total speculation.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Originally posted by: dfloyd
But thats just the problem with the IF statment.
IF I was dating several super models I would be happy, very tired, but happy
IF we had wings we could fly
IF only I had picked those six correct numbers
See my point? We cant prove or disprove the 4:1 number so honestly it should be thrown out completly as its just not verifiable data and because of this is totally irrelevant to anything. Without hard numbers its nothing but marketing bs. Now if they release numbers and prove this then at that time we can figure this out. But right now its just total speculation.
And the "IF" holds a bit more water on the "yes it's accurate" side looking at stock levels on various online resellers. This is for GT's as well as GTX's. The GT is clocked very similarly to a 7800GTX but on a 90nm process. You know if yields were good at those clocks for the 110nm GTX, then there should be absolutely NO issue obtaining similar clocks on the 90nm process and yields should even be much higher.
But thats the problem your still saying if friend.
Until they DO we are just speculating and thats what I was trying to show you.
Until they DO we are just speculating and thats what I was trying to show you.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Then you explain stock levels then.
Also, i think we should get a look at the latest STEAM survey. Ima gonna look in a few.
EDIT: Just looked at the steam survey, and 7900users are under 800. Isn't very telling of other games, but at least we can see how many are playing Steam games.
Newegg X1900XTX stock (what I was able to add to my shopping cart as of 4/9/06 at 1pm. Link
Total of 229 X1900XTX's in various flavors.
Note: A few of the models were limited to 2 per customer so there may be a LOT more.
Also, i think we should get a look at the latest STEAM survey. Ima gonna look in a few.
EDIT: Just looked at the steam survey, and 7900users are under 800. Isn't very telling of other games, but at least we can see how many are playing Steam games.
Newegg X1900XTX stock (what I was able to add to my shopping cart as of 4/9/06 at 1pm. Link
Total of 229 X1900XTX's in various flavors.
Note: A few of the models were limited to 2 per customer so there may be a LOT more.
^ It's comments like these that make you a troll.
--------------
I don't see why this data is so hard to understand, NV outselling ATI 4:1 in the high end. Nvidia occupies all of the important, *volume* pricepoints with superior cards; the only thing ATI has is the best card: the X1900XTX (and the X1900XT). Unfortunately, those cards, while providing large profit margins, also sell in the lowest quantities.
The real bread and butter of companies are the $150-200 pricepoint and the $250-300 pricepoint. Nvidia has a stranglehold on those price ranges: the 6600GT was the old champ and the 7600GT is the new champ in the "budget gamer" price range, while the 7900GT hits a very sweet spot at $299 MSRP. The 7800GT was the previous gamers' choice at the $300 mark.
ATI has a huge problem with their product lineup right now: it's extremely porous, ill-conceived, and split between two (semi) generations. The X700 was never a real competitor to the 6600GT; The X1800XL was a solid card but for most of its life was overpriced compared to the 7800GT, and performance was back and forth for the two cards.
The X1800XT 256MB is actually a pretty good deal now (I'm seeing prices of ~$290 on Newegg), however gamers often like to go with the newest thing on the block, and the 7900GT performs about the same as the X1800XT anyways. Also, up here in Canada, for example, we're not seeing cheap prices on the X1800XT, and I'm sure rapid price cuts by ATI are not affecting other parts of the world as well.
So, basically ATI has the X1900XT and XTX, which are pretty much the fastest cards on the block. After that, they lose to Nvidia all the way down the line; price-reduced X1800XT's are competitive with 7900GT's but otherwise the 7900GT and 7600GT/6600GT are THE cards to get at their pricepoints.
-----------------
Here are some sample prices to show you how bad pricing is on new cards in Canada:
Sapphire X1900XT: $589 CDN ($512 US)
Sapphire X1800XL: $399 CDN ($347 US)
Sapphire X1800XT: $589 ($512 US! Not a typo - same as the X1900XT!)
XFX GeForce 7900GT: $439 ($381 US)
As you can see, these prices are way higher than US figures, except for the top card. In the case of the X1800XT, it's rare and the places that do stock it have not dropped prices on it inexplicably. New cards often come out at an exchange rate of 1.50 to the US dollar (7900GT's regular price here is $449), yet it hasn't been that high in years; it's down to 1.15 this year!
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter