Radeon X1800XT is now dead

[Rivx]

Where is this 128 memory bus coming from? I keep reading this yet when I go look at specs i see 256.
http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1800/specs.html

 

[Munky]

The 128-bit memory bus I mentioned was in reference to the nv30 (geforce FX 5800). The x1800's have a 256-bit mem bus.

 

[Overgloc]

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

 

[Stumps]

umm to my recollection the only time the NV30 offered "decent" performance was in DX8.1 when compared to the R300, even then it was generally slower...as for DX9 well the NV30 was pathetic, any old 9700pro can run Doom3 or HL2 at a reasonable frame rate when using DX9..pity the same can't be said for the 5800U...and then we get to the price which was the big issue in Australia, the 5800U was generally twice as expensive as a 9700pro.

summary, NV30 was really really crap

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Overgloc
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

Well, my opinion of vr-zone just hit rock bottom... who made up that specs table?

...........................................x1900gt...............7900gt
pixel shader units.............12......................24........ try 36, noobs
pixel shader processor...36.......................48........ again, the answer is 72

:roll:

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Overgloc
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

Well, my opinion of vr-zone just hit rock bottom... who made up that specs table?

...........................................x1900gt...............7900gt
pixel shader units.............12......................24........ try 36, noobs
pixel shader processor...36.......................48........ again, the answer is 72

:roll:

HKEPC also has 12/36 for the x1900gt and 24/48 for the 7900GT. These numbers sound right to me? Which card are you saying has 36/72? I thought even the x1900xt was only 16/48? Tho. I am referring to pixel pipelines and pixel shaders. Are you referring to something else?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: golem

DeathReborn: I was just wondering if the core for the x1900gt is cheaper to produce than a core for a x1800xt because it's smaller.

Edit. I don't know for a fact that it's smaller or not. Just wondering if this was the reason they were replacing the x1800xt with a seemingly slower part.

it is larger. but, they can use cores that don't meet validation for x1900xt, due to either some transistors in a quad being completely unworkable or the transistors not being able to run all the way at 625 mhz. so, while the cores are larger and would normally cost more, they can actually cost less because it allows ati to sell more parts off of a wafer.

 

[Zenoth]

I think it's actually a good move by ATi.

Let's focus on present, and forget about past mistakes (yes, I said mistakes, and yes, I bought one of their mistake, because I had a 30% rebate, it's pretty much the only reason, and even though I do like my XL, I can't help but tell myself I could have had one of those shiny R580 ones).

So, ya, nice one ATi (if it's indeed true).

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Overgloc
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

Well, my opinion of vr-zone just hit rock bottom... who made up that specs table?

...........................................x1900gt...............7900gt
pixel shader units.............12......................24........ try 36, noobs
pixel shader processor...36.......................48........ again, the answer is 72

:roll:

HKEPC also has 12/36 for the x1900gt and 24/48 for the 7900GT. These numbers sound right to me? Which card are you saying has 36/72? I thought even the x1900xt was only 16/48? Tho. I am referring to pixel pipelines and pixel shaders. Are you referring to something else?

I'm just going by the number they have for the gt. Technically, the gt has 24 pixel shaders, but each shader has 2 ALU's. Likewise, Ati cards since the 9700p also have 2 ALU's in each shader, but the x1900gt has 36 shaders in total, which means 72 ALU's. The 12/36 figure refers to 36 pixel shaders and 12 texture units. But vr-zone apparently got the numbers mixed up, or they just dont know what they're talking about.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bull Dog

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hey this completes the circle of reference to the NV30 for the X1800.

Not quite. The R520, unlike the NV30, actually offered decent performance.

Edit: Added a comma.

The NV30 offered "decent" performance.

Compared to what? It was slower than the r300, but that wasnt its only problem. The whole architecture was flawed, from a 128-bit memory bus to horrible DX9 performance. The r520 had only these similarities to the nv30:
1. Late to market
2. Short lifespan
3. Louder cooler than the competition
The actual design of the gpu was superior to what the competition had at the time. The same can't be said about the nv30.

Please the NV30 had "decent" performance for the time and dont give me this DX9 crap. Try Oblivion or the Unreal 3 engine on an R300 and tell me how DX9 performs in all of its glory.

And dont forget the economic impact of the NV30, ATI hasnt exactly been tearing it up since its flop with the X1800.

Might as well try Oblivion on a 6800gt, and also tell me how it performs in all its SM3, HDR, and soft shadows glory. DX9 was only one of many problems of the nv30, but it was a problem nevertheless.

The thing is, the X1800XT at the time of its launch (and even when it became available in retail) offered not just decent performance, but excellent performance. I bought one for $650 in Dec 05, and I was not at all disappointed with its performance for the price I paid in comparison to NV's top card at the time. The only things that the X1800XT had in common with the 5800 Ultra was its lateness to market and consequently short lifespan. I've said this before (and I'll say it again), the bad rap that the X1800XT got from the media and enthusiasts was not deserved IMO. The 5800, even had it launched earlier, would have been a disappointing card. Whereas the X1800XT was just late...

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

The thing is, the X1800XT at the time of its launch (and even when it became available in retail) offered not just decent performance, but excellent performance. I bought one for $650 in Dec 05, and I was not at all disappointed with its performance for the price I paid in comparison to NV's top card at the time. The only things that the X1800XT had in common with the 5800 Ultra was its lateness to market and consequently short lifespan. I've said this before (and I'll say it again), the bad rap that the X1800XT got from the media and enthusiasts was not deserved IMO. The 5800, even had it launched earlier, would have been a disappointing card. Whereas the X1800XT was just late...

:thumbsup:

I've always wondered why the X1800XT got such a bad rap as a poor card. Yes it was very late, but the performance was killer. Look at benchmarks right before the X1900 series came out (probably recent ones too) and the X1800XT was very competitive with the 512MB 7800GTX and was smoking the 256MB version. Performance was not an issue with that card.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Overgloc
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

they have the 7900GT with 48 PS in their table

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Overgloc
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

Well, my opinion of vr-zone just hit rock bottom... who made up that specs table?

...........................................x1900gt...............7900gt
pixel shader units.............12......................24........ try 36, noobs
pixel shader processor...36.......................48........ again, the answer is 72

:roll:

HKEPC also has 12/36 for the x1900gt and 24/48 for the 7900GT. These numbers sound right to me? Which card are you saying has 36/72? I thought even the x1900xt was only 16/48? Tho. I am referring to pixel pipelines and pixel shaders. Are you referring to something else?

I'm just going by the number they have for the gt. Technically, the gt has 24 pixel shaders, but each shader has 2 ALU's. Likewise, Ati cards since the 9700p also have 2 ALU's in each shader, but the x1900gt has 36 shaders in total, which means 72 ALU's. The 12/36 figure refers to 36 pixel shaders and 12 texture units. But vr-zone apparently got the numbers mixed up, or they just dont know what they're talking about.

Actually ATI has 1 ALU and 1 mini ALU but yes I agree that technically saying that 7900gt has 48 shader pipes is far stretched...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Overgloc
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3577 1900GT Vs 7900GT

Well, my opinion of vr-zone just hit rock bottom... who made up that specs table?

...........................................x1900gt...............7900gt
pixel shader units.............12......................24........ try 36, noobs
pixel shader processor...36.......................48........ again, the answer is 72

:roll:

HKEPC also has 12/36 for the x1900gt and 24/48 for the 7900GT. These numbers sound right to me? Which card are you saying has 36/72? I thought even the x1900xt was only 16/48? Tho. I am referring to pixel pipelines and pixel shaders. Are you referring to something else?

I'm just going by the number they have for the gt. Technically, the gt has 24 pixel shaders, but each shader has 2 ALU's. Likewise, Ati cards since the 9700p also have 2 ALU's in each shader, but the x1900gt has 36 shaders in total, which means 72 ALU's. The 12/36 figure refers to 36 pixel shaders and 12 texture units. But vr-zone apparently got the numbers mixed up, or they just dont know what they're talking about.

Actually ATI has 1 ALU and 1 mini ALU but yes I agree that technically saying that 7900gt has 48 shader pipes is far stretched...

Yes, "mini" in the sense that it has a smaller instruction set. That's not to say it cant do an ADD as fast as the full ALU. It just cant do a MADD.

 

[Cookie Monster]

X1900GT

12 Pixel pipelines
36 Pixel shaders
12 TMUs
12 ROPs
8 VS

7900GT

24 pixel pipelines
24 pixel shaders
24 TMUs
16 ROPs
8VS