So what do you all think?

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Ackmed
The "downfall" of this thread, would be because of posts like this. Its not ontopic, and its trolling/baiting. Try reading the new sticky.

It is on topic, I responded to "what do you think".

The downfall of the thread just started with your post.. you could not resist facing the reality of what I told you in my post.

Too bad Ackmed.
Its my view, and more or less fairly accurate. Shame you dont like it, but ce la vie.

Sorry, but no. It wouldnt have happened, if you hadnt posted the trolling/baiting post.

It was what do you think about the card, not how the thread would go. You're another user I will gladly ignore from here on out.

Nice approach to things.. :disgust:

Either way, all you admitted to was that I succeeded in baiting a troll..
kind of a sad admission if you ask me.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: Genx87
southpawuni:

One thing that has never come out of ATI is where is the rebuild of their OGL driver they promised over a year ago with the release of Doom 3?

Just not a good 12 months for that company when it comes to releasing anything.

Yes, most people were expecting a ATI comeback.. I was looking specifically for this faster OGL performance that would be a huge boon to ATI now that Q4 is coming out in 2 weeks. As well the interest in Quake Wars appears to be growing, and if Q4 is a hit.. it should skyrocket.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Is it me or is it just quite sub-par in performance. ATI lost even more here (performance wise) than in X800 vs 6800.

I don't see my 7800GT having troubles keeping up at all. I say good buy for me. THank goodness the ATI fanboi in me didn't wait another 2 months.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Speaking for myself I am greatly looking forward to seeing what a 1800XL setup CrossFired will do, although I have to admit the idea of an ATi mobo makes me quite sketchy. If they would make it work on NF4 then I think that would be the ideal solution for me.

A new high end part with the option to enable decent AF= Very Hot IMO.

 

[lifeguard1999]

I vote yes, the R520 is a good release. It is even with what NVidia is producing. That means competition. That means prices will come down. We all win!

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Is it me or is it just quite sub-par in performance. ATI lost even more here (performance wise) than in X800 vs 6800.

I don't see my 7800GT having troubles keeping up at all. I say good buy for me. THank goodness the ATI fanboi in me didn't wait another 2 months.

On 2nd thought I think Anandtech's benchies are quite preliminary and in all honesty they can suck my balls. I hate it when we get benchies but they're like half done or something. There's like virtually no useful data there. We need to see 1280x1024, 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 benchies with AA, AF or whatever, then maybe with HDR, etc etc... We need to be able to see how these GPUs scale with resolution and also scale with image quality. Then I need to see some overclocking tests. X1800XL should be pitted against an X800XL, its replacement. X1800XT needs to go against a X850XTPE. Thus, both 7800GTXs and 7800GT as well as their SLIed versions need to go in. 6800GT/Ultra should be in there too for previous generation comparison...

Oh and oh yea the X1800XT is not all THAT bad from what I see on other sites now. IT might be quite tied. However, I said pwnedprobably only because trhe X1800XL cant really compete with a 7800GT.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Its a faster card overall than the GTX, but not by much. No significant leads? Have you even looked at the F.E.A.R. benches?

From AT's article:

"We were interested in testing the FEAR demo, but after learning that the final version would change the performance characteristics of the game significantly, we decided it would be best to wait until we had a shipping game. From what we hear, the FEAR demo favors ATI's X1000 series considerably over NVIDIA hardware, but performance will be much closer in the final version."

BF2 is much faster as well.

depends on whose review you read. techreport has xt avg @73.8 and gtx @64.5 (1600 4x/hi filtering), so it's not that much faster. also how much diff the xtra memory makes at higher res/aa/af..

there are things i like about the ati offering, but even ignoring the delay/availability issue, i don't see how you can call them a clear cut winner (especially given the pricepoints we will be at when it finally arrives..

Yes its late, and you cant buy it right now. You will be able to in about a month, so they say.

You left off the part where ATi's AF is MUCH better than NV's, and the ability to use HDR+AA is also something NV's cards cannot do, except in the Source engine so far. And... its has 512mb ram, not 256mb. Lets see the prices of the 512mb 7800's when they ship.

actually all nv has to do is go back to the gf5 method of doing af and it will be comparable frankly i'm surprised with the power of these cards they haven't done so. kudos to ati for going that route.

and yea, the price issue will be interesting regarding the 512mb version of gtx..

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I vote NOT.

*look at sig*

awwwwwww

Gimme HDR+MSAA benchmarks and I'll vote then.

What was the point of this? Did you read the new sticky?

 

[rbV5]

Pros: I see some definate bright spots, like the HQ AF and Dual, Dual Link DVI connectivety and plenty of potential, nice feature set.

Cons: Where is it? Expensive, and seemngly poor showing from the mid/low range hardware.

I'd like to see more of the feature set tested, and pressure on ATI to get AVIVO's feature set enabled and working.

Looks like I'll be getting an new ATI motherboard before a new ATI video card initially. (provided they appear at some point)

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Though one positive for the X1800 is that is will perform better than the 7800 in very intense shader-heavy games (i.e. F.E.A.R. and it seems to have the edge on HDR . . . but we'll have to wait and see . . .

FEAR is a beta demo. I wouldnt count that in ATI's corner until the final product is released.

I was basing that off more from Shadermark than the FEAR results since Techreport indicated that Shadermark showed the X1800 series to be faster with the most intense shaders.

I wonder if X1800 vertex processing advantage will be manifested in future games . . .

 

[KevinH]

Well.

Seeing's that Q4 is the only game I'm going to be playing...7800 it is for me...

 

[johnnqq]

i hope the 7600 kicks ass (the x1600xt certainly doesn't).

 

[IeraseU]

Nice feature set, great video capabilities with built in h2.64 decoding at launch, and transcoding promised before 2006. Performance is a bit lower then I expected however, and there is no availability at this point.

 

[latino666]

Not. With the prices they are sold at the competition is a better choice. For me that is what it all comes down to, the $. Why pay for something that cost the same as the competitions but performs worse?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1

Originally posted by: Genx87

Though one positive for the X1800 is that is will perform better than the 7800 in very intense shader-heavy games (i.e. F.E.A.R. and it seems to have the edge on HDR . . . but we'll have to wait and see . . .

FEAR is a beta demo. I wouldnt count that in ATI's corner until the final product is released.

I was basing that off more from Shadermark than the FEAR results since Techreport indicated that Shadermark showed the X1800 series to be faster with the most intense shaders.

I wonder if X1800 vertex processing advantage will be manifested in future games . . .

If memory serves me correctly, Shadermark is an ATI benchmark tool.

 

[nitromullet]

I really don't understand all the thumbs down the X1800XT is getting...

Aside from it's lack of availability (which isn't a surprise), it looks like a really sweet card. The performance is great and I like the step they've taken with AF. The way I see it, if NV hasn't addressed the shimmering and AF quality issues by Nov, I might get really tempted to sell one of my GTX's and give the XT a whirl. Another really tempting factor is the 512MB, since this looks like it will finally have benefits soon. I'll have to see what happens with the retail version of FEAR, Quake 4, and Quake Wars though before I decide anything. If this year rounds out to be heavily OpenGL, then NV would definitely be the way to go.

...I guess I'm kind of on the fence about this, but as a video card the XT is most certainly HOT... It really just depends on availability and price.

 

[Lyfer]

My simple answers:

X1800XT = dumb name, too many X's, performance is ait
X1800Xl/X1600xt/X1300/ = suck ass, this sh!t is gargabe unless its found for some rediculous cheap price ($~100ish)

 

[SumYungGai]

You peoples' expectations are way too high. This generation is barely any different from the last few.

And look at the newest Geforce line, they only put out the high end cards! If they put out 7200s and 7600s, it would be crap. ATi basically HAD to put them out because they have all of the newest tech with the AVIVO and whatnot. As far as I know, the 7800 doesn't even have ANY new stuff to it!

I agree that it was late, but at least it's good and decent, and has some neat stuff, as well as good image quality.

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If memory serves me correctly, Shadermark is an ATI benchmark tool.

I thought it was just a DirectX9 pixel-shader benchmark. . .

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: SumYungGai
You peoples' expectations are way too high. This generation is barely any different from the last few.

And look at the newest Geforce line, they only put out the high end cards! If they put out 7200s and 7600s, it would be crap. ATi basically HAD to put them out because they have all of the newest tech with the AVIVO and whatnot. As far as I know, the 7800 doesn't even have ANY new stuff to it!

I agree that it was late, but at least it's good and decent, and has some neat stuff, as well as good image quality.

nVidia doesn't have to put out a new midrange: they don't have any new features because there's not much more to have (at this particular moment). 6600GT's already have video processors (the working ones) and SM3.0...what more can they add? ATi had to release a whole new lineup along the mid because their previous versions don't have comparable features.

Your argument seems to be that ATi should be congratulated on finally having these features and nVidia should be lambasted for having them all along. That's pretty thin.

 

[obeseotron]

I was hoping for more from ATI, not that the x1800 doesn't seem good, but it's still not tempting for me to ditch my 6800gt (flashed to ultra) for either the x1800xt or 7800gtx, especially with an AGP motherboard that would need to go also. The x1800xt seems to be faster and especially so in some of the newer demos, but not that much and most GTX cards are being sold at 460 or 470Mhz and not the stock 430 that the XT is being comared to in the benchmarks. Availablity, pricing and the relative stability of the SLI platform are pretty convincing pro-nvidia arguments. I still don't understand why ATI needed to make 2 completely different designs for r500 and r520, obviously some differences would have been necessary but building 2 state of the art gpus at the same time has gotta be taxing.

 

[SumYungGai]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

nVidia doesn't have to put out a new midrange: they don't have any new features because there's not much more to have (at this particular moment).

The only difference I see between last generation's ATi and Nvidia's GeForce is SM3.0.

6600GT's already have video processors (the working ones) and SM3.0...what more can they add?

Maybe VIVO functionality, better filtering, etc. And if you're talking about that PureVideo thing here, well that whole thing sucks, because I can't even get the s­hit to work right, and you have to pay for a full version.

ATi had to release a whole new lineup along the mid because their previous versions don't have comparable features.

Comparable features being... SM3.0? (which would be a "feature" (singular))

Your argument seems to be that ATi should be congratulated on finally having these features and nVidia should be lambasted for having them all along. That's pretty thin.

Dude, what have you been reading? Or not reading... ATi has better image quality and filtering hands down. AND it has a much wider range of workable HDR tech.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Its a faster card overall than the GTX, but not by much. No significant leads? Have you even looked at the F.E.A.R. benches? BF2 is much faster as well.

Yeah, yeah, and NV trumps them in Doom 3 and Source engine games (surprisingly enough).

It's called a wash - overall, the two cards are on par.

Yes its late, and you cant buy it right now. You will be able to in about a month, so they say.

They also said we could buy it today. They said that not 24 hours ago. I'm pretty much through taking anything *they say* seriously.

You left off the part where ATi's AF is MUCH better than NV's, and the ability to use HDR+AA is also something NV's cards cannot do, except in the Source engine so far. And... its has 512mb ram, not 256mb. Lets see the prices of the 512mb 7800's when they ship.

Wait, what can't you do with the X1800s? Oh right, play games, because they're not on shelves. I'm sorry, but that argument trumps all.

And you can't go multi-card. And you don't get TAA.

And you are right - The 7800s seem to do very well against the 512MB X1Ks. Should be interesting to see where performance settles when the cards have equal onboard memory.

Overall, my position is unchanged. This late in the party without a volume launch, ATi had to bring more to the table than just catch-up. They didn't. This generation is settled.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
My simple answers:

X1800XT = dumb name, too many X's, performance is ait
X1800Xl/X1600xt/X1300/ = suck ass, this sh!t is gargabe unless its found for some rediculous cheap price ($~100ish)

The sh!t cards are where they make most of their money, off Joe Shmoe Knownot and little old grannies.

The X1800XT is a nice looking card, the IQ is better than the 7800s, and it runs faster in everything but OpenGL. Slapping 512 MB on a GTX may help it catch up in some of the newer games.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Well i guess quake4 is going to favor Nvidia, and imagine all those people needing a graphics card to play quake4.

Peformance isnt so great, and when we see the results in 2045x1600, the GTX has a slight advantage, either leading in performance or closing the gap by 1~2fps.

And whats up with the 7 series doing so well in source games? but its a fact that more people use Nvidia cards to play half life2 or CS source, etc. The steam survey did infact show this, and could be why valve is optimising it for Nvidia.