Nice little comparison of 7800 GTX512 vx x1800 XT512

[compgeek89]

Anandtech:
7800 GTX 512mb - 7 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - 0 wins
"What is significant is the 7800 GTX 512's ability to outperform every other card out there in almost every test we ran."

Guru3d.com:
7800 GTX 512mb - 9 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - 0 wins
"Obviously this is the fastest product on the market available today"

Bit-Tech.net:
7800 GTX 512mb - 4 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - 0 wins
"In newer DirectX 9.0c titles that have come out over the last few weeks and months, we have seen that the GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB is considerably faster than the Radeon X1800XT 512MB."

ExtremeTech.net:
7800 GTX 512mb - 6 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - An "iffy" 1 win (COD2 performance issues)
"the new GeForce 7800 GTX 512 is the fastest video card on the market. The speed boost over ATI's also-excellent Radeon X1800 XT varies from about 5% to as much as 40%"

Firingsquad.com:
7800 GTX 512mb - 7 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - 0 wins
"In benchmark after benchmark the GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB consistently finishes about 20-30% faster than the GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB, and sweeps all tests against its intended competition, the RADEON X1800 XT 512MB."

XBitLabs.com
7800 GTX 512mb - 20 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - 0 wins
"NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX 512 outperformed RADEON X1800 XT 512MB even in those tasks where its predecessor, GeForce 7800 GTX failed: I am talking about the games with numerous complex shaders and about the gaming modes with full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. The only exception appeared Colin McRae Rally05 race simulator, although ATI solution won in only one resolution there. In all other gaming tests, including 3DMark05, GeForce 7800 GTX 512 proved to be an undefeated leader. Moreover, the performance growth we have just seen allows playing games in 1600x1200 resolution with HDR color representation mode."


7800 GTX 512mb - 53 wins
x1800 XT 512mb - 1 iffy win

 

[g3pro]

Whoa! :-O

 

[route66]

*stating the obvious*

That is why you pay more for the GTX....

 

[compgeek89]

So many people saying the GTX512 is barely any better than the x1800 XT

Just kinda clears that up.

 

[route66]

Looks more like flamebait...

 

[compgeek89]

If facts are flamebait then by all means get the flamethrowers out.

I just hope any flamers get banned.

 

[route66]

You're not saying anything people didn't already know. You're just trying to cause trouble.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: route66
You're not saying anything people didn't already know. You're just trying to cause trouble.

Thats not true.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: route66
*stating the obvious*

That is why you pay more for the GTX....

Yep.

Also take note that not one of these reviews used adaptive or tranparency AA. Using these, the gap is much closer. Why any reviewer wouldnt at least use these in some tests is beyond me. Or why you wouldnt use AF at all. AT didnt use it, what were they thinking? Someone who is going to pay $700+ for a video card is probably going to crank up all the settings they can, and use the new featuers.

 

[Munky]

You forgot this one:
http://www.hothardware.com/hothardware.com_non_ssl/viewarticle.aspx

512gtx: 4 wins
1800xt: 2 wins

Looks like you still lose FEAR and Farcry...

 

[compgeek89]

OK, so one site of 7 says the XT wins FEAR and FC

Make that 57 : 2-3

 

[Powermoloch]

I don't see the connection here, why pay more for a few more fps ???

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Powermoloch
I don't see the connection here, why pay more for a few more fps ???

It's for bragging rights mostly. I prefer cards that give you more fps than what you paid for.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: Powermoloch
I don't see the connection here, why pay more for a few more fps ???

Here at AT its 10 fps or more extra in every game but SCCT

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
OK, so one site of 7 says the XT wins FEAR and FC

Make that 57 : 2-3

This one site is the only one that tested with any AF (16x in this case), no other review tested with AF and didn't go higher than 4x AA.

Now throw in AAA and TRAA and the GTX512 might not be that fast anymore

btw you should add ties to your scores, if the GTX wins with 0.1 FPS then it really isn't a win (margin of error). Cap it to within 5 FPS or use percentages (better result probably).

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: nts

Originally posted by: compgeek89
OK, so one site of 7 says the XT wins FEAR and FC

Make that 57 : 2-3

This one site is the only one that tested with any AF (16x in this case), no other review tested with AF and didn't go higher than 4x AA.

Now throw in AAA and TRAA and the GTX512 might not be that fast anymore

btw you should add ties to your scores, if the GTX wins with 0.1 FPS then it really isn't a win (margin of error). Cap it to within 5 FPS or use percentages (better result probably).

Just what I posted, and was thinking.

Why oh why do reviewers stick with the same old crappy "4x/8x" mold. I know they have guidelines, but come on. I have used 16x for years.

They tell us about AAA and TRAA, yet dont provide any screens to compare quality, or benches to show the impact over normal AA, or which card handles them better? Thats just plain silly to me, and a crappy review.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, the GTX512 doesn't just have 512MB of memory. It's clocked higher as well. The competitor would really be ATI's PE edition, ie, a higher clocked X1800XT.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: nts

Originally posted by: compgeek89
OK, so one site of 7 says the XT wins FEAR and FC

Make that 57 : 2-3

This one site is the only one that tested with any AF (16x in this case), no other review tested with AF and didn't go higher than 4x AA.

Now throw in AAA and TRAA and the GTX512 might not be that fast anymore

btw you should add ties to your scores, if the GTX wins with 0.1 FPS then it really isn't a win (margin of error). Cap it to within 5 FPS or use percentages (better result probably).

And we're back to 5150joker's point. (which he got flamed for)

 

[Nextman916]

Well if the x1800xt is only 10-20fps slower i would much rather take that card over the 512mb gtx and save 150 dollars.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Well if the x1800xt is only 10-20fps slower i would much rather take that card over the 512mb gtx and save 150 dollars.

Then you have the 7800GT 10-20FPS slower then the 1800xt for $150 less, then you have the 6800GS 10-20FPS slower then the 7800GT for $150 less.... where do you stop?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Well if the x1800xt is only 10-20fps slower in games where I'm already getting 100+ fps i would much rather take that card over the 512mb gtx and save 150 dollars.

Fixed

The lead of the 512MB 7800GTX isn't that pronounced in situations where fps are <60fps except in a few games.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Well if the x1800xt is only 10-20fps slower in games where I'm already getting 100+ fps i would much rather take that card over the 512mb gtx and save 150 dollars.

Fixed

The lead of the 512MB 7800GTX isn't that pronounced in situations where fps are <60fps except in a few games.

Especially when you concider its primitive IQ and feature set - LOL.

 

[Nextman916]

I would stop at my happy fps range at a happy resolution. If the x1800xt produced about 60fps in a game at a certain resolution i would be happy even if the 7800gtx 512mb averaged 80fps. I would like at least 40-50fps in my games which a gs woul not produce.

 

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: nts
btw you should add ties to your scores, if the GTX wins with 0.1 FPS then it really isn't a win (margin of error). Cap it to within 5 FPS or use percentages (better result probably).

Agreed.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: route66
*stating the obvious*

That is why you pay more for the GTX....

Yep.

Also take note that not one of these reviews used adaptive or tranparency AA. Using these, the gap is much closer. Why any reviewer wouldnt at least use these in some tests is beyond me. Or why you wouldnt use AF at all. AT didnt use it, what were they thinking? Someone who is going to pay $700+ for a video card is probably going to crank up all the settings they can, and use the new featuers.

Perhaps you should be a reviewer instead? You seem to have a hard-on for bagging any reviews any time that doesn't show ATi in a positive light, so maybe you can be the "Fair and Balanced" voice of reason when it comes to that, eh?