Radeon over the last *couple* years :)

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Originally posted by: Matt2
Yeah I was expecting to see old school 32/64mb Radeons.
Well, you got a some topless women instead... OP might want to note that this site might not be exactly appropriate for work due to the adds. Just a thought.


 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
Hmm the X8xx CF 1600x1200 limitation no longer exists.

Interesting.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
12,053
2,271
126
Oh my...look at the Tomb Raider legends benchmark. FPS goes from 165 to 42(!!!) for the X1950XTX when enabling next-gen content. That's just ridiculous. I remember playing that game on my previous X1800XL. The graphics weren't even that impressive for it to take that much of a performance hit. The funniest thing though was being a TWIMTBP title, the next-gen content wasn't working properly with NVidia cards when the game first came out...go figure. :)
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
What surprised me is that this review actually shows a big gap in performance between the x1900xtx and the x1800xt at even moderate resolutions, something that wasn't apparent when the x1900 series first came out. A year ago most reviews showed only a moderate difference, and now the x1900 is almost 2x as fast in some games.
 
Mar 19, 2003
18,289
2
71
Originally posted by: thilan29
Oh my...look at the Tomb Raider legends benchmark. FPS goes from 165 to 42(!!!) for the X1950XTX when enabling next-gen content. That's just ridiculous. I remember playing that game on my previous X1800XL. The graphics weren't even that impressive for it to take that much of a performance hit. The funniest thing though was being a TWIMTBP title, the next-gen content wasn't working properly with NVidia cards when the game first came out...go figure. :)

I played through Tomb Raider Legend back when I had an X1900XT (about 6 months ago), and I personally found the extra shader effects in 'Next Gen' mode to be amazing, for the most part. (I think I posted a few screenshots here at the time.)

The trick to boost performance was to disable the Shadows option, which didn't even look that good to begin with. My frames literally doubled after that; I was able to run with everything else at max (including 4xAA) at 1680x1050 with almost no drops below 60fps.

I miss that video card, I'm using a 9700 Pro now...:p
(And speaking of which, I wish the roundup linked in the OP was a little more comprehensive than just "some PCI-E cards released since 2005"...)
 

A554SS1N

Senior member
May 17, 2005
804
0
0
lol, a review of current gen cards for virtually every game.... not really a review of radeon cards over the years!
 

StopSign

Senior member
Dec 15, 2006
986
0
0
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: Matt2
Yeah I was expecting to see old school 32/64mb Radeons.
Well, you got a some topless women instead... OP might want to note that this site might not be exactly appropriate for work due to the adds. Just a thought.
I don't see them :(
 

A554SS1N

Senior member
May 17, 2005
804
0
0
Originally posted by: StopSign
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: Matt2
Yeah I was expecting to see old school 32/64mb Radeons.
Well, you got a some topless women instead... OP might want to note that this site might not be exactly appropriate for work due to the adds. Just a thought.
I don't see them :(

Me neither :(
 

Cabages

Platinum Member
Jan 1, 2006
2,918
0
0
Originally posted by: munky
What surprised me is that this review actually shows a big gap in performance between the x1900xtx and the x1800xt at even moderate resolutions, something that wasn't apparent when the x1900 series first came out. A year ago most reviews showed only a moderate difference, and now the x1900 is almost 2x as fast in some games.

I noticed that too. Kinda makes me mad that I chose to go with the 1800 because I didnt think the difference would be that great.

And for some reason, Vegas looks like ****** on my system.