• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

***OFFICAL X1900 XT REVIEW THREAD***

Its only faster than the R520/G70 in pixel shader heavy games. Well we all expected this, but the G71 probably will be fast through ALL benchmarks.

However, i want more benchmarks because it lacks a more thorough benchmark like xbitlabs. More games, power consumption, noise, etc.
 
Nice refresh... I'm still counting on my X800 Unlocked at 560/560 to carry me till the new designs come out this fall. Mmmm DX10 and hardware accelerated aero glass!
 
Holy technical jargon batman! :Q

That was enough babbling for my eyes to glaze over...

Also, goddamn horrible graphs...so hard to see differences, etc.

But at least some good games tested.

Frankly, it looks to me like the X1800XT is going to become an awesome value, even better than it is now IMO.

If there's enough X1800XTs left to sell, i can see them being dumped out at fantastic prices.

Otherwise, the X1900XT looks like a great card.

I think it's pretty obvious ATi's 16 pp scheme is going to get raped by the G71 though...hopefully they'll keep prices cheaper accordingly 🙂
 
Their graphs either aren't accurate or their percentages are off...

From the FEAR test.

X1900 XT is 17% faster than X1800 XT at the highest resolution with IQ on, X1900 XTX over 46% faster than GTX 512. Yay for lots of ALUs!
Click to expand...

at 1024x768, the GTX looks like it gets about 70ish and the XTX gets about 90. Well, I don't see how 20 more FPS than 70 is "over 46% faster".

 
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Their graphs either aren't accurate or their percentages are off...

From the FEAR test.

X1900 XT is 17% faster than X1800 XT at the highest resolution with IQ on, X1900 XTX over 46% faster than GTX 512. Yay for lots of ALUs!
Click to expand...

at 1024x768, the GTX looks like it gets about 70ish and the XTX gets about 90. Well, I don't see how 20 more FPS than 70 is "over 46% faster".
Click to expand...

They said at the highest res. At 1920x1200 it looks like roughly 45 vs 30. That's about 50% just like they said.
 
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: videoclone
I'm more interested in a 7900GTX VS a X1800XTX that would be a nice review.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but that will be a while.
Click to expand...

:Q

May just be forever, unless they've started production of the X1800s again :laugh:

 
According to the guys at Beyond3d the 1900xt/x has lower voltage settings on the core and mem than the x1800xt, likely to make it more appealing to OEM's (power/heat/noise/cooling issues) so it's quite possible that with some added voltage you can really OC these cards, esp the mem since it's 1.1ns meaning it should easily push 1800mhz.

I'm hoping ASUS or Sapphire will have an "OC'd" version of this card and you can simply flash you current 1900xt/x to these speeds. There's a pretty good chance of this.
 
Originally posted by: n7
Holy technical jargon batman! :Q

That was enough babbling for my eyes to glaze over...

Also, goddamn horrible graphs...so hard to see differences, etc.
Click to expand...

QFT!!! i thot i was the only one 😕
 
Originally posted by: nitromullet
These guys ever heard of numbers?
Click to expand...

also QFT

wtfuxxor i want to compare hard digits. not the height of the bar and approximating numbers on dinky graphs. rawr!
 
The FC benchmark is apparently BS. The GTX 512 was MUCH faster in this game than all the other cards like 7800 GTX, especially in high resolutions. Less than 40 fps in 1600*1200? ROFL sure.
 
In most game benchmarks GTX 512 is losing to X1800XT.. by large margins (compared to X1900 vs X1800). The selected benchmarks/games and settings (i.e. AA/AF) are somewhat questionable. Well, the author sort of admitted it (needs software to really shine.. etc.), but I think this review shows only half of the picture, at best. I'll wait for AT's review.
 
Definetly a poor choice of graphics to show their testing. Anyone else notice the CoD2 and FX-60 problem? I wonder if its the chip or they just too lazy to figure it out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top