New contender?

[SneakyStuff]

XGI? Their Volari card beats a 9700 pro? I have NEVER heard of "XGI" Take a look, interesting read. :beer:

EDIT: Hmm, well evidently their card stunk up the place on the HALO benchmark, but scored higher than a Radeon 9800XT on Aquamark. But I wonder how their little venture will end up once ATI and nVidia's nextgen cards arrive?

 

[Dman877]

The more competition the better for me . Looks like they have a ways to go though, bad IQ and VERY inconsistent performance.

 

[SneakyStuff]

yea, they said the card was speedy, but image quality on 3dmark03 was pretty poor.

 

[SunnyD]

XGI = major graphics bugs, doesn't even run some games, immature drivers, and overall slower than a Radeon 9600.

I believe XGI is a joint venture between Trident and SiS or something right? Low end goods.

 

[Viper96720]

It sucks worse than a two dollar hooker.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
XGI? Their Volari card beats a 9700 pro?

if you call hacked to hell drivers with horable image quality issues leading to an occasional win, ya it beats it.

 

[SneakyStuff]

their expectation of being the market leader in 2007 seems, far-fetched.

 

[titananandtech]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
XGI? Their Volari card beats a 9700 pro? I have NEVER heard of "XGI" Take a look, interesting read. :beer:

EDIT: Hmm, well evidently their card stunk up the place on the HALO benchmark, but scored higher than a Radeon 9800XT on Aquamark. But I wonder how their little venture will end up once ATI and nVidia's nextgen cards arrive?

Didn't they make their drivers render at half height and then scale it to fit the screen on some games?

Stick with nvidia, ati, and intel if you want graphics drivers that work. Who cares if it beats the 9700 Pro in some cases if in just as many cases it doesn't work at all? I'd rather have a pokey old 5600 that plays everything I throw at it than a Volari that won't allow me to run half my applications.

 

[SneakyStuff]

AYE, these suckas sound a bit too cocky, i'll stick with ATI / nVidia

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
their expectation of being the market leader in 2007 seems, far-fetched.

im gonna raise the BS flag also

 

[SneakyStuff]

So the consensus is, poor drivers, poor quality, HIGH SPEED CRAP! where can I get one!?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
Didn't they make their drivers render at half height and then scale it to fit the screen on some games?

ya there were rendering halo at 320x480 and just stretching that out to 640x480, alising was horrid and the performance still sucked.

 

[PCTweaker5]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
their expectation of being the market leader in 2007 seems, far-fetched.

Fo shizzle!

 

[VIAN]

New contender? They've been talked about for months. When their card was reviewed, XGI was label as sh|t. And still even with newer driver revisions, it still perfroms exceptionally bad with all the raw power it has.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
XGI = major graphics bugs, doesn't even run some games, immature drivers, and overall slower than a Radeon 9600.

I believe XGI is a joint venture between Trident and SiS or something right? Low end goods.

 

[bandana163]

Nice review
As good as it gets

 

[Insomniak]

They appear to have hardware potential, while their driver support completely sucks. If they had drivers on par with Nvidia or ATi, I'd bet from the specs the V8 Duo Ultra or whatever their high end part is, would match wits with a 9600XT pretty well. As it stand though, I think they've got major driver issues.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
Didn't they make their drivers render at half height and then scale it to fit the screen on some games?

ya there were rendering halo at 320x480 and just stretching that out to 640x480, alising was horrid and the performance still sucked.

That would be rendering half the width and stretching it width-wise.

 

[McArra]

I'd even get a 5200U or 9600 before that crap.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Highs:

Beautiful looks;
VIVO support;
Rich software bundle.

Lows:
Low performance;
Low 3D image quality;
Problems with the drivers;
Optimizations for selected applications;
Loud noise;
High heat dissipation;
Big weight;
Bulky PCB design;
Two connectors on the system PSU;
High price.

 

[RussianSensation]

From same review:
"Note: These results should be seen as preliminary. XGI's card and drivers are still in the beta stage. Currently, the driver only uses a bilinear filter in UT2003." (not triliniar which hampers the performance somewhat)

Keep reading:
"In UT2003 Antalus Flyby the XGI Volari Duo V8 Ultra performs in the range of ATI´s and NVIDIA´s top models. Since this benchmark has little to do with the real gameplay performance in the game, the following results made with custom timedemos are much more meaningful."

And the results with real custom gameplay benchmark:

2x Less Performance than 9800 Pro
Another Custom Bench --- 2x Less Performance again

As for Aquamark 3 you can play that all you want by yourself and brag about it matching 9800 Performance.

In Halo and Wolfenstein? Absolutely smoked. In X2 it gets smoked again. Oh yeah on top of that fact that it costs more than $200, doesnt support anything higher than 4AA and 6AF....pfffffffffff garbage......contender? reconsider that hypothesis.

 

[Conscript]

Originally posted by: Viper96720
It sucks worse than a two dollar hooker.

A $200 hooker is pretty bad...I can't even imagine what'd you'd get for $2... no doubt though the XGI isn't THAT bad... ;p