Good reviews that compare perf 7900gtx to x1900xt ?

[you2]

Can someone provide a few links that compare the performance of these two cards?

I tried a simple google search and found a couple but there are so many forums with 7900gtx vs 1900xtx that I couldn't find very many.

Visually I think I like the 7900gtx better (gamespot comparision) but I can't remember what hte frame rate difference was between the two.

 

[Kromis]

There are a lot of benchmarks at firingsquad.com

Check'em out there.

 

[RussianSensation]

Anandtech
TechReport
Digit-Life
X-Bitlabs
FiringSquad

overall, both X1900XT and XTX cost less than 7900GTX. They outperform 7900 series in almost all shader intensive games as of late like COD2, Tomb Raider: legends, FEAR, Far Cry, Battlefield 2 and Oblivion. You can buy an aftermarket cooler and X1900 series card and it'll still be cheaper. They offer superior high quality AF, and can play a game with HDR and AA enabled at the same time, which nvidia cards cannot do. They also have AVIVO chipset which provides superior acceleration for H.264 format and high definition viewing in Windows Media Player.

They are louder than the Nvidia card and draw more power. The emit more heat. Some of these issues can be addressed with an aftermarket cooler like Sytrin Formula 1 or Zalman VF700 or Accelero. Unless you play OpenGL games, or intend to run Linux, the ATI card is the better buy.

If you'd like to save some $, you can always get 7900GT and voltmod it or X1800XT 512mb for $299 which isn't much slower (except in Age of Empires 3).

 

[you2]

Actually I ws thinking of the 7900gt but I wanted to see the graphs for all four cards (7900gtx, x1900xt, x1800xt, 7900gt) to see how big the diffence is between the high end and low end cards. I know that the x1900xt is faster but most of the reviews i'v seen seem to indicate it is only a few frames (not 20% or 30%). There was one rev iew that did a detail study of the four cards using oblivion but now I cna't find it Hum I think the techreport one is the other one i was looking for. Btw thanks for the links!

btw I'm asking because i'm doing 'research' for a new system I'm going to build 2nd week of may. Dont' really want to spend more than 300$ on a video card also I'm not into volt modding and such.

 

[firewolfsm]

The volt mod is VERY simple. I've never dont that, but with a VF700 and the volt mod my OCs got very high, I still have to update my sig.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Anandtech
TechReport
Digit-Life
X-Bitlabs
FiringSquad

overall, both X1900XT and XTX cost less than 7900GTX. They outperform 7900 series in almost all shader intensive games as of late like COD2, Tomb Raider: legends, FEAR, Far Cry, Battlefield 2 and Oblivion. You can buy an aftermarket cooler and X1900 series card and it'll still be cheaper. They offer superior high quality AF, and can play a game with HDR and AA enabled at the same time, which nvidia cards cannot do. They also have AVIVO chipset which provides superior acceleration for H.264 format and high definition viewing in Windows Media Player.

They are louder than the Nvidia card and draw more power. The emit more heat. Some of these issues can be addressed with an aftermarket cooler like Sytrin Formula 1 or Zalman VF700 or Accelero. Unless you play OpenGL games, or intend to run Linux, the ATI card is the better buy.

If you'd like to save some $, you can always get 7900GT and voltmod it or X1800XT 512mb for $299 which isn't much slower (except in Age of Empires 3).

I agree with some of the points, but the fact is buying aftermarket coolers can devoid the warranty. It can be unpleasant for tech-newbies who are risking a very expensive card to change the cooler.

Secondly looking at the xbitlabs review which is pretty recent
Note- they did not use HQ AF for ATi cards which would also have some performance hit and also NVs 16xAF looks better than ATis 16xAF not HQ. (check some oblivion screenshots)

BF2: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:92.9
7900GT-
FPS:66.5
X1800XT-
FPS:87.5
X1900XTX-
FPS:106.7
X1900XT-
FPS:104

Chronicle of Riddick: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:66.6
7900GT-
FPS:47.5
X1800XT-
FPS:44
X1900XTX-
FPS:55.6
X1900XT-
FPS:51.2

COD2: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:44.5
7900GT-
FPS:28.9
X1800XT-
FPS:36.7
X1900XTX-
FPS:42.3
X1900XT-
FPS:40.2

Doom3: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:62.4
7900GT-
FPS:47.5
X1800XT-
FPS:48.4
X1900XTX-
FPS:57.7
X1900XT-
FPS:54.6

Far Cry: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:83.8
7900GT-
FPS:64.4
X1800XT-
FPS:86.6
X1900XTX-
FPS:93.9
X1900XT-
FPS:88.8

Far Cry:16x12 HDR

7900GTX-
FPS:65.3
7900GT-
FPS:43.5
X1800XT-
FPS:34.3
X1900XTX-
FPS:54.2
X1900XT-
FPS:41.9

F.E.A.R: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS-
min:28
avg:47
7900GT-
FPS-
min:20
avg:34
X1800XT-
FPS-
min:22
avg:40
X1900XTX-
FPS-
min:25
avg:51
X1900XT-
FPS-
min:23
avg:48

Tie because the 7900GTX produces a higher minimum framerate by 3 fps which is quite important in this game while the X1900XTX produces a higher avg framerate by 4 fps.

HL2: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF
7900GTX-
FPS:90.8
7900GT-
FPS:73
X1800XT-
FPS:89.3
X1900XTX-
FPS:103.9
X1900XT-
FPS:97.7

HL2 lost coast: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:49.8
7900GT-
FPS:32.1
X1800XT-
FPS:32.7
X1900XTX-
FPS:42.7
X1900XT-
FPS:40.6

Project Snowblind: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS-
min:68
avg:89.4
7900GT-
FPS-
min:60
avg:67.8
X1800XT-
FPS-
min:58
avg:70.1
X1900XTX-
FPS-
min:62
avg:72.2
X1900XT-
FPS-
min:60
avg:68.9

Quake4: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS:114.3
7900GT-
FPS:94.5
X1800XT-
FPS:103.3
X1900XTX-
FPS:112.1
X1900XT-
FPS:107.1

Serious Sam2: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS-
min:1
avg:41.6
7900GT-
FPS-
min:1
avg:32.4
X1800XT-
FPS-
min:1
avg:35.8
X1900XTX-
FPS-
min:1
avg:38.3
X1900XT-
FPS-
min:1
avg:35.9

SC:CT 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS-
min:28.1
avg:55.1
7900GT-
FPS-
min:28.5
avg:41
X1800XT-
FPS-
min:38
avg:52
X1900XTX-
FPS-
min:62.2
avg:45.4
X1900XT-
FPS-
min:42.7
avg:58.9

AOEIII: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS-
min:31
avg:53.8
7900GT-
FPS-
min:28
avg:42.5
X1800XT-
FPS-
min:19
avg:29.3
X1900XTX-
FPS-
min:42
avg:57.6
X1900XT-
FPS-
min:42
avg:55.9

Warhammer Dawn of War: 16x12 4xAA 16xAF

7900GTX-
FPS-
min:35
avg:63.5
7900GT-
FPS-
min:29
avg:51.7
X1800XT-
FPS-
min:16
avg:48.4
X1900XTX-
FPS-
min:16
avg:49.5
X1900XT-
FPS-
min:11
avg:46.5

Then there is other games like pacific fighters/lock on modern combat where NV cards perform much better than ATi cards. Tomb Raider legends perform better on NV cards (after the driver release because the game had a bug with NV cards prior to its release).

NV - 9 wins
ATi - 5 wins
1 tie. (F.E.A.R)

Now if your anticipating games like PREY or quake wars ET or RTCW i suggest you grab the NV cards as they perform better on OpenGL/doom3 engine based games and produce better IQ in openGL games (ATi cant do SSAA in OpenGL titles).

The X1900XTX has 48 pixel shaders meaning it will do very well in shader intensive games. Such is Oblivion especially in foliage area. It also allows HDR plus AA but the performance hit could be too big when playing at res of 16x12 especially in todays games and upcoming titles. However the card only has 16 TMUs meaning games that use alot of TMUs would cripple the X1900XTXs performance. (The 7900GTX has 24 pxiel shaders and 24 TMus meaning its very balanced). But the gaming industry is going, pixel shaders are becoming more important.

In oblivion, the ATi cards perform better outdoor areas while NV cards perform better in indoor areas. However the game has glitches such as self shadowing and grass shadow on ATi cards, while same goes to NV although its not as bad as ATi. If you want to play oblivion i suggest the X1 series. Although the cooler is damn noisey (so too is the 7900GT stock cooler).

Hope this helps.

 

[you2]

Thanks Cookie monster. That helps a lot (esp the technical description of why/where they perform better). Hum so i guess the only other issue is deciding if 256MB will criplle the 7900gt on new games. (I'm leaning towards the nv for another reason - the motherboard will be an sli board so i could always upgrade to a second card next year if dx10 is not an issue). yes I could get a crossfire board but I havent' found a good one for $120 and that solution will run hot and eat a lot of power.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Make sure you change the stock cooler on the 7900GT because its loud. Zalman Vf900 would be great, and would potentially allow OC up to 550~/1600~ without the voltmod. That is 7800GTX 512mb performance.

If your playing at a res of 12x10 you will be just fine. The 512mb might help out during HDR with high res, but NV cards doesnt really benefit from it that much.

However without OCing, the 7900GT runs cool and consumers 48W~ during load. That is one third of what the X1900XTX consume during load. Noise is the problem though.

So if your planning to grab the 7900GT, make sure you get EVGA card. Great warranty and i think they allow OCing under their warranty if memory serves me right. Also make sure to fix the noise problem, and SLi is more mature than crossfire. Sli right now gives performance boost of 60~80%.

Now you mention it, i wonder if NV will bring SLi2. SLi has been around for 2 years now?

 

[you2]

Hum. My planned resolution right now is 1600x1200 with a drop back to 800x600 when needed. (fp2001 lcd). Eventually - this year or next or whenever I'll upgrade to a 24inch FP. Not sure which - have the 2405@ work and it is too contrasty to me (but it does have good blacks whch suck on the 2001). Not sure how the 2407 is. Samsung has a good 24inch lcd and there are some good stuff comming out next year). Anyways my planned resolution is 1600x1200 when the card supports it. Does 2x7900gt mean 512mb (i.e, the software splits the image across both cards right?). Yea I'm leaning towards the evga 7900gt/7900gtx - a bit depends on what happens price wise in the next 2-3 weeks. I sort of had hope for a price war between ati/nv - ati dropped the price of the x1900xt to 450 and the 1800xt to 280 - had hope nv would do the same

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are going to be overclocking, I agree with CookieMonster that 7900GT is a good card. However, without overclocking, X1800XT 512mb is considerably better in almost every respect.

I also think VF900 is overpriced. I'd get Sytrin KuFormula 1 or VF700 ($25) - which is still better than stock 7900gt cooler. Compared to 7800GTX of $400 4 months ago or $600 X1800XT 6 months ago, either of these cards is a fine choice. There might be X1900GT or GTO or XL card coming out soon though. That is something to be on the lookout for.

 

[Cookie Monster]

You cant go wrong with either choices. 7900GT SLi is still 256mb because they dont share the ram, however this doesnt really affect performance. SLi rocks as you start raising the res and AA/AF. Have fun with your new card when you get it!

 

[you2]

Hum - is it my imagination or does the 1800xt blow away the 7900gt ?

 

[Munky]

The x1800xt at stock speeds is faster than the 7900gt. This is no surprise, since the 7900gt is basically the same specs as the 7800gtx, which was also slower than the x1800xt. If you are planning to run games at 1600 res or higher, then I'd suggest a x1900xt(x), or dual 7900gt's. The 7900gtx is overall slower, has less features, and currently more expensive than the x1900 series, so I wouldnt recommend it.

Some more benches...

 

[Elfear]

I compiled the results of six review sites comparing the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX. Here is the chart.

Remember too that the X1900XTX has a better feature package (HQ AF, HDR + AA, software voltage adjustments, etc.) but it is a bit louder and requires a slighty better PSU than the 7900GTX.

 

[you2]

ok thanks. Maybe there will be a nice sale in the next 3 weeks.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
You cant go wrong with either choices. 7900GT SLi is still 256mb because they dont share the ram, however this doesnt really affect performance. SLi rocks as you start raising the res and AA/AF.

But once you start upping the res and AA/AF, the 256mb becomes a problem. That is where 512mb starts to really shine. This image shows FEAR memory usage at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/16xAF on a 256mb card. Look at how the system memory shoots up at the higher resolutions, whereas on the 512mb card, it doesn't budge. Naturally, this is not something the standard FEAR benchmark will show. So, Pureoverclock used FRAPS to play through a level and here is what they said:

Though the results show huge performance differences they simply cannot fully describe what I felt while playing the game. With 256Mb it was absolutely unplayable with stuttering at every turn, sometimes the screen would not refresh for half a second. This was blatant cache thrashing in action. In comparison the 512Mb card was behaving as it should, no stuttering at all. The average frame rate was low and it wasn?t very enjoyable, but it was a thousand times better than with the 256Mb card. The average frame rates for both cards are as follows:

256MB: 12.9 fps
512MB: 24.6 fps

By the way, tests were run with a 7800GT (both a 256mb and a 512mb version). With power-hungry games like FEAR and Oblivion, you're going to see texture data being forced into system ram instead of video ram if you only have a 256mb card and play at 1600x1200 with AA/AF. How much slower is system ram vs video ram? Don't know. But in the FEAR test, it was almost 100% slower (and the HL2: LC 20x15 was similar, but the Q4 one wasn't).

 

[you2]

Hum - so x1900xt or x1800xt. From teh benchmarks the 1800xt @ 250 seems a better bet than x1900xt @ 420 - everyone agree ?

 

[Praxis1452]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814131005

Use the Iloveati coupon code for $50 off and the $20 rebate for $350 you can get a X1900XT+Shipping+tax. The 7900gt won't get to X1900XT speeds without a voltmod for sure if it even gets there and the X1k series has a better feature set. Otherwise either the 7900gt or the X1800XT but really warranty won't matter since your going to have to volt mod for the gt and aftermarket cooler for the X1800XT.

 

[you2]

Hum... that's 370.