NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Mmmm can't say that I'm really impressed with Ati's offering. Ok the x1800XT is pretty much faster then the 7800GTX but it isn't even here and will probably be a lot more expensive then the GTX. The x1800XL is on par with the 7800GT but it's more expensive. Ati really did a number on itself by taking so long to get these cards on the market. I think it's just gonna be too late. Oh well, on to the next architectural releases off Nvidia and Ati 
So X1800XT wins in most Direct3d, loses in OpenGL... no tests yet with mystical new drivers from nvidia... X1800XT seems to have more intriguing features
Looks like nice scores..... How many months away though?
I think I just might stick with my nvidia card on principle alone....
I think I just might stick with my nvidia card on principle alone....
X1800XT beats all of nVidia's cards except SLI'd 7800GT/X series. In your face Rollo?
Can't wait to see how a Crossfire'd X1800XT setup will do.
But of course, ATI lost in Doom 3 and other OpenGL-based apps. As always.
Can't wait to see how a Crossfire'd X1800XT setup will do.
But of course, ATI lost in Doom 3 and other OpenGL-based apps. As always.
Wow, ATi's new AF looks much better than NV's.
Both set to the highest quality setting; http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image...I4MDE0MEFCVGlYSnBoRUNfOF8xMl9sLmpwZw==
Looking along the left of the wall, its pretty obvious. As well as the walk way over the tracks.
Both set to the highest quality setting; http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image...I4MDE0MEFCVGlYSnBoRUNfOF8xMl9sLmpwZw==
Looking along the left of the wall, its pretty obvious. As well as the walk way over the tracks.
So is the Radeon X1800 XT going to be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever, or the previous poster was just being too optimistic about ATi?
"The fancy-pants Radeon X1800 XT gets a soul-compressing wedgie from the GeForce 6800 Ultra."
ouch. albeit in a OGL game, but still.... ouch...
Now that article is showing the GTX winning in most of the benches even with 4AA/8AF...
It doesn't seem like enough of a difference to upgrade
It doesn't seem like enough of a difference to upgrade
Perhaps one of the reviews mentioned why but.....
I didn't see any overclocking experiments with the new cards, am I missing something? Perhaps the XL could overtake the GT with more juice.
I didn't see any overclocking experiments with the new cards, am I missing something? Perhaps the XL could overtake the GT with more juice.
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
From Beyond3D:
According to public reports ATI noticed that as late as July, issues occurred that prevented the R520 core being clocked close to its target speeds, which is consistent with leakage issues. Curiously, the issue was not consistent across all their 90nm products - ATI had already delivered Xenos to Microsoft using the same 90nm process R520 does, and other derivatives of the R520 line suffered the same issue (RV530) but others did not (RV515) - the fact R520 and RV530 share the same memory bus, while RV515 and Xenos have different memory busses is not likely to be coincidental in this case. ATI were open about talking about the issue they faced bringing up R520, sometimes describing the issue in such detail that only Electronic Engineers are likely to understand, however their primary issue when trying to track it down was that it wasn't a consistent failure - it was almost random in its appearance, causing boards to fail in different cases at different times, the only consistent element being that it occurs at high clockspeeds. Although, publicly, ATI representatives wouldn't lay blame on exactly were the issue existed, quietly some will point out that when the issue was eventually traced it had occurred not in any of ATI's logic cells, but instead in a piece of "off-the-shelf" third party IP whose 90nm library was not correct. Once the issue was actually traced, after nearly 6 months of attacking numerous points where they felt the problems could have occurred, it took them less than an hour to resolve in the design, requiring only a contact and metal change, and once back from the fab with the fix in place stable, yield-able clockspeeds jumped in the order of 160MHz.
Ouch!!!
According to public reports ATI noticed that as late as July, issues occurred that prevented the R520 core being clocked close to its target speeds, which is consistent with leakage issues. Curiously, the issue was not consistent across all their 90nm products - ATI had already delivered Xenos to Microsoft using the same 90nm process R520 does, and other derivatives of the R520 line suffered the same issue (RV530) but others did not (RV515) - the fact R520 and RV530 share the same memory bus, while RV515 and Xenos have different memory busses is not likely to be coincidental in this case. ATI were open about talking about the issue they faced bringing up R520, sometimes describing the issue in such detail that only Electronic Engineers are likely to understand, however their primary issue when trying to track it down was that it wasn't a consistent failure - it was almost random in its appearance, causing boards to fail in different cases at different times, the only consistent element being that it occurs at high clockspeeds. Although, publicly, ATI representatives wouldn't lay blame on exactly were the issue existed, quietly some will point out that when the issue was eventually traced it had occurred not in any of ATI's logic cells, but instead in a piece of "off-the-shelf" third party IP whose 90nm library was not correct. Once the issue was actually traced, after nearly 6 months of attacking numerous points where they felt the problems could have occurred, it took them less than an hour to resolve in the design, requiring only a contact and metal change, and once back from the fab with the fix in place stable, yield-able clockspeeds jumped in the order of 160MHz.
Ouch!!!
What's the bet that the third party IP in question was the much vaunted Fast-14 math logic that ATi supporters felt would make such a difference to ATi's designs? It certainly seems to have made a difference, though perhaps not the one ATi and its supporters were hoping for... Meanwhile, nVidia has been quietly benefitting from Artithmatica's CellMath librarys for close on 2.5 years now... :laugh:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=172
to HACP
Hard to read, looks like X1800 wins one or two more actually, not by much unfortunately
to HACP
Hard to read, looks like X1800 wins one or two more actually, not by much unfortunately
But most seem to be using an overclock NV card to compare. One has a 7800GT at 450 core, faster than the GTX stock speed.
I dont have a problem with them having an overclocked card in there, as you can buy them that way. However, they need to have stock speeds as well, because not all cards are sold as overclocked. Comparing a card thats overclocked 50Mhz, to one thats not, is hardly even.
Can Anand do a test of the Radeon x1800XT with the same memory and core speeds as the Geforce 7800GTX? I'd like to see which one is more effecient. ATI had to really crank up the core and memory speeds by alot to achieve these speeds.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter