NV and ATi both have successful launches this week

[Ackmed]

NV launched the 7950GT this week. With prices and availability pretty good. newegg has 4 showing, all in stock, from $300 to $320. MSRP is $300-$350 according to the AT review.

Likewise, ATi had a good launch as well this week, with the X1950XTX. With prices and availability pretty good too. newegg has 7 showing, all in stock. From $450 to $480. With a MSRP of $450.

A recent poll on these forums show most people prefer the type of launch ATi did. Reviews out a few weeks before the cards launch. Not by too much however. Whichever way you prefer, both launches went well. The good supply of cards, prevented the price gouging that used to be common place in a video card launch. Which everyone will probably agree, is a good thing. Hopefully prices will drop even more, as they have after other recent successful launches.

 

[tuteja1986]

X1900XTX $331.99 @ newegg = kicks the 7950GT 🙂

X1900XT 512MB $299 @ newegg + $29 3rd party cooler = Kick the 7950GT but in every possible way 🙂

X1900XT 256MB $239 @ newegg also kicks 7950GT but :!

So why would someone pay $320 for a 7950gt i say :~

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1900XTX $331.99 @ newegg = kicks the 7950GT 🙂

X1900XT 512MB $299 @ newegg + $29 3rd party cooler = Kick the 7950GT but in every possible way 🙂

X1900XT 256MB $239 @ newegg also kicks 7950GT but :!

So why would someone pay $320 for a 7950gt i say :~

Good question

As for the OP, I have nothing else to add, my thoughts exactly

 

[hmorphone]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Whichever way you prefer, both launches went well. The good supply of cards, prevented the price gouging that used to be common place in a video card launch. Which everyone will probably agree, is a good thing. Hopefully prices will drop even more, as they have after other recent successful launches.

Kudos to both of them :thumbsup:

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1900XTX $331.99 @ newegg = kicks the 7950GT 🙂

X1900XT 512MB $299 @ newegg + $29 3rd party cooler = Kick the 7950GT but in every possible way 🙂

X1900XT 256MB $239 @ newegg also kicks 7950GT but :!

So why would someone pay $320 for a 7950gt i say :~

Let me see:

Well, first don't compare the X1900 256 version to the 7950. The only reason to go with a 7950 over a 7900 is to get the extra RAM.

Now I agree that the X1900XT is faster than the 7950GT, but there are other things to consider:

(1) Silence - The $320 7950GT uses XFX's silent cooler. So if one wants a silent VC that is very fast, then only logical choice is the XFX's 7950GT. (The other 7950GT's are $299)
(2) Power consumption and heat - If one is significantly concerned with how much power his system can handle or heat is an issue, the 7950GT is the better choice here.
(3) Warranty - XFX, BFG, EVGA all offer lifetime warranties compared to Sapphire's 2-yr warranty (Built by ATI offers only a 1-yr warranty).
(4) EVGA's Step-up program - Buy a 7950GT now and hope that the G80 cards come out in the next 90 days.

Let me just say that I plan to buy a new VC this weekend and I'm probably going with a X1900XT 512 over the 7950GT. I don't need a silent card and don't really care about EVGA's step-up. I figure a 2-yr warranty is long enough. But I do have some concern over the heat and cooling solution of a X1900XT. If I put a 3rd party cooler on, that's an added price that's not required by a 7950GT.

So I defintiely can see whay someone might want the 7950GT. Now if you just want the fastest card for the money, the X1900XT is the only logical choice IMO.

 

[Ackmed]

Why not compare the X1900XT 256MB version to the 7950GT? What should it be compared to? Its cheaper, and faster than the 7950GT overall. Someone should at least look at the option of buying a XT, instead of the GT.

1. Yes, there is a silent 7950GT. Didnt see that coming, very good for people in the market for a totally silent card.
2. Yes the 7950GT uses less power. Does it really matter? I suppose for the same people who want a silent card, for an HTPC. To me, it wouldnt make a bit of difference. Heat? The XT exhausts the air out of the case. No 7950GT does that, its all kept inside the case. Hot air out = good.
3. Powercolor also has a lifetime warranty. Not that it matters to me, overclocking voids all warranties, but eVGA's I believe.
4. Not so easy. As we've seen in the last launch, that didnt work well for lots of people. eVGA actually stopped it, restarted it, and had a mess on their hands.

But as you said, there are several reasons to getr a 7950GT for some people. Also like you said, I wouldnt be one of them. The X1900XT 256MB is cheaper, faster, and has better IQ. Its also louder, uses more watts, and runs hotter. The easy choice to me would be the XT. Even the X1900XTX is right around $300. About the same price, or cheaper than the 7950GT.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I guess Nvidia didnt see the X1900XT 256 coming.

This can result into NV forcing to drop prices.
Hence its good for us!

They seriously need to drop prices to match ATi. (But then again, ATi has REALLY been cutting prices on those expensive R580s. Im wondering if ATi isnt suffering from lack of profit or even facing losses compared to other Qaurters.)

 

[Gstanfor]

The X1900XT 256MB is cheaper, faster, and has better IQ.

Speaking of IQ, I came across an interesting comparison of R520 (x1800) vs G70 (7800) in ackmeds favorite game BF2. IQ remains the same between R520 & R580 as well as G70 & G71, so its still a perfectly valid comparison.

The IQ comparison was done by Tertsi - the same guy responsible for 3mood (a doom3 IQ enhancer for nvidia cards). It's in the form of a mouseover.

Link

There are also some nice AOE3 images I could post.

 

[josh6079]

Why didn't they use 16xAF for either card? If they are going to go to the extent of disabling Cat A.I. and moving slider bars to HQ why stop at AF? I like the mouse over features and such, but it seems like that comparison was trying to concentrate more on Nvidia's strength--AA while discarding ATI's--AF. Why not put it at 8xAA/6xAA, 16xAF/16xHQAF, Cat A.I. disabled/High Quality, 16x12?

 

[Gstanfor]

I have no idea. But its not like they used different settings and there are and have been plenty of "professional" reviews that only use 4x AA and 4x/8x AF.

 

[Ackmed]

That shows AA. Most reviews are pretty split on AA quality at 4x for both NV and ATi. With TRAA looking better overall than AAA. I agree with this, I think TRAA does look better on certain things, such as fences. NV does look better in those screen shots. Not that I know who he is. I am not saying anything is wrong with the shots, I like to stick to trusted sites. FS had screen shots for BF2 as well, and gave the nod to ATi. They're down now, with videos instead. Enhancment for NV cards? Hmm.

Do they show the benefit of HQ AF, or the less shimmering of ATi cards in BF2? No. Do they show 6xAA for ATi? No. NV cant do it, and it sure cant do 8xAA in any sort of playable frames. ATi easily has the IQ advantage for me in BF2, with 6xAA, HQ AF, and less shimmering. But hey, Ive actually used cards extensively.

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Why not compare the X1900XT 256MB version to the 7950GT? What should it be compared to? Its cheaper, and faster than the 7950GT overall. Someone should at least look at the option of buying a XT, instead of the GT.

Compare it to the 7900GT. The only reason one should go with a 7950 GT over the less expensive 7900GT is if they wanted a 512 card. So if they're looking at the 7950, I'm assuming they want a 512 card. That's my only point there.

I definitely agree that the X1900XT 256 is the absolute best deal out right now for $200+ cards. The problem is that some people want a card with 512 MB RAM right now, so that rules the 256 version out.

One more point on warranty. While PowerColor does offer a lifetime warranty, their cards are priced much higher than the BBATI and Sapphire cards. I'm not debating the merits of a lifetime warranty, just stating that PC's lifetime warranty is kind of a joke considering the price premium their cards carry.

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
I guess Nvidia didnt see the X1900XT 256 coming.

This can result into NV forcing to drop prices.
Hence its good for us!

They seriously need to drop prices to match ATi. (But then again, ATi has REALLY been cutting prices on those expensive R580s. Im wondering if ATi isnt suffering from lack of profit or even facing losses compared to other Qaurters.)

Realize that only the Sapphire card, and only at Newegg, is teh price so cheap. All of the other X1900XT 256's are closer to $300.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I have no idea. But its not like they used different settings and there are and have been plenty of "professional" reviews that only use 4x AA and 4x/8x AF.

I'm not saying it is unprofessional and it certainly is good to have comparisons like that. I just don't see the sense in not setting the AF to at least 16xAF since the performance hit for 16xAF is next to nill, especially on those cards--the X1800 and 7800. I can understand using 4xAA for both since that is the highest setting that both can do and therefore is the highest fairly comparible setting for each card. My point is, so is 16xAF. Both can do it, rather freely as well.

I know that it is a good comparison, just not as extensive as it could be.

How do you do mouse-overs?

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: josh6079
I can understand using 4xAA for both since that is the highest setting that both can do and therefore is the highest fairly comparible setting for each card.

Actually, that X1800XT can do 6xAA. Which cleans it up even further. Which was one of my points to gastanfor. He mentioned BF2 being my fav game (and it is), and AA quality. I can run 6xAA, which is better than 4xAA, and NV doesnt give me that option. 8xAA on NV was far too slow for me.

As I stated, most reviews are pretty split on this subject of 4xAA quality. Here is what HardOCP had to say about it in their GX2 evaluation;

Now, we looked into this further by taking screenshots and zooming into them in Photoshop at 300x their normal size. What we found is still at 2X AA ATI is ever so slightly better, the colors just seem more blended and less ?harsh? than NVIDIA has. However, at 4X AA they looked damn near identical.

So to gamers who are not going to be zooming into static images in Photoshop but are just going to be playing the game AA image quality looks the same in-game. Just make sure you enable ?Gamma Correct AA? from the driver control panel.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA4MywxMSwsaGNvbnN1bWVy

Which brings up an interesting point. Wonder if the link dropped has gamma corrected AA enabled. I dont recall if HQ turns it on, but I dont think so.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
That shows AA. Most reviews are pretty split on AA quality at 4x for both NV and ATi. With TRAA looking better overall than AAA. I agree with this, I think TRAA does look better on certain things, such as fences. NV does look better in those screen shots. Not that I know who he is. I am not saying anything is wrong with the shots, I like to stick to trusted sites. FS had screen shots for BF2 as well, and gave the nod to ATi. They're down now, with videos instead. Enhancment for NV cards? Hmm.

Do they show the benefit of HQ AF, or the less shimmering of ATi cards in BF2? No. Do they show 6xAA for ATi? No. NV cant do it, and it sure cant do 8xAA in any sort of playable frames. ATi easily has the IQ advantage for me in BF2, with 6xAA, HQ AF, and less shimmering. But hey, Ive actually used cards extensively.

Well, Tertsi isn't biased against ATi, as I'm sure you'll see if you comb through his site, and would have made 3mood work with ATi as well, but, apparently, a substandard OpenGL implimentation and a certain shader replacement wriiten by a compost loving ati employee hampered his efforts...

 

[Ackmed]

So you ignored the rest of my points? You brought up IQ, and BF2. NV cant do 6xAA, they cant do HQ AF, and they have worse shimmering. To me ATi easily has the IQ advantage in BF2. And as I pointed out, most sites are pretty split on AA quality. Such as HardOCP, and FiringSquad, both links I dropped.

 

[Gstanfor]

nvdia don't *need* 6xAA when they have 8x and the shimmering can be fixed. As for your much touted AF advantage I don't see much evidence for it in the screenshots (regardless of them only being 8x - the difference should still be visible). I don't know if Tertsi enabled gamma correct AA or not, but I fail to see why he wouldn't, and you can see more detail in the grass in the nvidia shot than with the ati shot.

 

[Ackmed]

Dont need 6x? Please. 8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res. There is a HUGE hit on performance. Shimmering cannot be fixed, it can be reduced. At a cost of frames. HQ AF was not enabled, its plainly obvious. You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

More links that say 4xAA quality is virtually the same;

With 4X anti-aliasing enabled, the "jaggies" in the scene are cleaned up considerably, but it's extremely difficult to perceive any real differences in the images, even while zoomed, although the cables on the crane seem slightly more defined on the Radeon. We've also included a sample using ATI's 6X AA mode, which was the best overall. (NVIDIA doesn't support this mode.)

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Ike0069

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1900XTX $331.99 @ newegg = kicks the 7950GT 🙂

X1900XT 512MB $299 @ newegg + $29 3rd party cooler = Kick the 7950GT but in every possible way 🙂

X1900XT 256MB $239 @ newegg also kicks 7950GT but :!

So why would someone pay $320 for a 7950gt i say :~

Let me see:

Well, first don't compare the X1900 256 version to the 7950. The only reason to go with a 7950 over a 7900 is to get the extra RAM.

Now I agree that the X1900XT is faster than the 7950GT, but there are other things to consider:

(1) Silence - The $320 7950GT uses XFX's silent cooler. So if one wants a silent VC that is very fast, then only logical choice is the XFX's 7950GT. (The other 7950GT's are $299)
(2) Power consumption and heat - If one is significantly concerned with how much power his system can handle or heat is an issue, the 7950GT is the better choice here.
(3) Warranty - XFX, BFG, EVGA all offer lifetime warranties compared to Sapphire's 2-yr warranty (Built by ATI offers only a 1-yr warranty).
(4) EVGA's Step-up program - Buy a 7950GT now and hope that the G80 cards come out in the next 90 days.

Let me just say that I plan to buy a new VC this weekend and I'm probably going with a X1900XT 512 over the 7950GT. I don't need a silent card and don't really care about EVGA's step-up. I figure a 2-yr warranty is long enough. But I do have some concern over the heat and cooling solution of a X1900XT. If I put a 3rd party cooler on, that's an added price that's not required by a 7950GT.

So I defintiely can see whay someone might want the 7950GT. Now if you just want the fastest card for the money, the X1900XT is the only logical choice IMO.

I will give you power and Slient cooler but EVGA and Warranty means crap all to me since i live in australia. ATI standard warranty is 3 years not 1year or 2 year like you state. ATI does offer standard 3 year warranty in AUstralia. USA is lucky with thoes Nvidia exclusive deals... but not rest of the world.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: josh6079
I can understand using 4xAA for both since that is the highest setting that both can do and therefore is the highest fairly comparible setting for each card.

Actually, that X1800XT can do 6xAA. Which cleans it up even further.

You misread. I said that 4xAA is the highest setting that both can do. I'm well aware that ATI has a 6x level and Nvidia an 8x. I was stating that 4x is the highest level of AA that both can do without going to a level that is authentic to one or the other.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Dont need 6x? Please. 8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res. There is a HUGE hit on performance. Shimmering cannot be fixed, it can be reduced. At a cost of frames. HQ AF was not enabled, its plainly obvious. You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

More links that say 4xAA quality is virtually the same;

With 4X anti-aliasing enabled, the "jaggies" in the scene are cleaned up considerably, but it's extremely difficult to perceive any real differences in the images, even while zoomed, although the cables on the crane seem slightly more defined on the Radeon. We've also included a sample using ATI's 6X AA mode, which was the best overall. (NVIDIA doesn't support this mode.)

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

8xAA far from playable? Thats absolute rubbish Ackmed! I ought to know - I use it as my standard AA setting and I can assure my games are very playable indeed, even on my single 7900GT, with the 6800GT not as far behind as most would like to believe.

Why wouldn't HQ AF be enabled in that shot - he *disabled* catalyst AI which (supposedly) removes all ATi optimizations and he set high quality mode as well - you can see that imprinted into the image... If HQ AF isn't now on then obviously all ati optimizations are not switched off (won't that be a fun kettle of fish if proven true)?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Dont need 6x? Please. 8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res. There is a HUGE hit on performance. Shimmering cannot be fixed, it can be reduced. At a cost of frames. HQ AF was not enabled, its plainly obvious. You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

More links that say 4xAA quality is virtually the same;

With 4X anti-aliasing enabled, the "jaggies" in the scene are cleaned up considerably, but it's extremely difficult to perceive any real differences in the images, even while zoomed, although the cables on the crane seem slightly more defined on the Radeon. We've also included a sample using ATI's 6X AA mode, which was the best overall. (NVIDIA doesn't support this mode.)

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

Thats you. Some people here espeically GX2 users can utlise 8xS on some new games, and almost all the old ones.

Link

They used 8xTSS on both HL2 and BF2. Not to mention that theyve used AA on GRAW unlike the other cards benched.

I think 8xS is quite usable.

 

[josh6079]

You can use AA on GRAW? I thought it wasn't really AA? To my knowledge it was an "edge smoother" that just made everything blurry enough to disregard the jaggies?

Why wouldn't HQ AF be enabled in that shot - he *disabled* catalyst AI which (supposedly) removes all ATi optimizations and he set high quality mode as well...

HQAF isn't something that automatically gets turned on once Cat A.I. is disabled. You have to manually turn it on, even if everything else has been set to "High Quality" and even if the Cat A.I. has been disabled.

 

[Gstanfor]

Well, if there truly is a difference I'm sure ackmed ought to be able to produce a screenshot with HQAF in it for us (while keeping the other parameters the same!!!)