Tomshardware review is up and giving ATI the Crown...

[Genx87]

I dont think anybody is saying the cards performance is pathetic. I cant imagine how anybody could say that. But the feature set is wholly pathetic as all it is an R300X2 for the most part.

F Buffer is more or less a marketing gimic. Hell AFAIK the Fbuffer in the 9800 was never enabled in drivers. I bet it is the same here.

 

[ZimZum]

Anand's Review

 

[FluxCap]

ATI looks to offer more bang for the buck again. I can stay on ATI for another 2+ years at least. Might be time to fire up the credit card. 🙂

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Oh boy, so now to have competing graphics cards we should be doing it on a clock for clock basis? Those same arguments seemed to hollow doing P4 vs Athlon comparisons. Why don't you go tell both ATI and NVidia's engineers that they have to agree on an identical way of getting their performance? 😉

You missed the point there skeezix. The point is that NV cards will gain more performance from overclocking than ATi's cards will. Who the hell ever said anything about comparing on a clock for clock basis? That information was thrown out there for the benefit of people to whom OC headroom might be a factor.

Also, these reviews are very contradictory - notice that here at Hardware Analysis:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710.3/

I'm not sure I put much faith in either review. Tom is using a custom timedemo for his UT2K4 benchmarks (which for all we know could involve staring at a wall), and HA is doing a botmatch. I do find one thing troubling, how is it that in Tom's review at 4xAA/0xAF the cards are all scoring sub-100FPS at 1600x1200, but on the HA review ATI scores ~110, and the 6800 is almost 130? That and the odd ~30FPS drop that the X800XT takes when going from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200. Does that make ANY sense? Esp. when its counterpart 6800U only seems to be losing 3FPS?
[/quote]

Like I said, I'm having trouble finding consistency across these different reviews, which is why I'm having trouble trying to come to any kind of conclusions about who "wins", if anyone.

That is simply childish.

I agree, being Canadian is very childish.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Like I said, I'm having trouble finding consistency across these different reviews, which is why I'm having trouble trying to come to any kind of conclusions about who "wins", if anyone.

Well, Anand's review is up, don't look for any help there. These benchmarks appear to be going all over the place. The highest performer on Anand's benches in UT2K4@4xAA8xAF appears to be the X800XT with 50 odd FPS.

Oh well, it's the same story it was with NV30 vs R300: ATI wins with AA/AF and most D3D games, NV wins with non-AA/AF and OpenGL games.

I agree, being Canadian is very childish.

So is being an ignorant ass. 🙂

 

[Acanthus]

By all rights with those specs the X800XT shouldve SLAUGHTERED the 6800U, i dont know whats going on but with a clock advantage that huge something is holding the card back.

Few things to note:

1. toms noticed their cards were overclocked on arrival from ATi Via BIOS, he had to clock them back to normal.

2. NVIDIA is running higher precision on shaders, while this doesnt impact IQ much, it does negatively impact NVs performance.

3. The geforce 6800 seems to take a large hit from its new AF implementation, this should be fixed in later driver updates.

4. The 6800 seems to still use "brilinear" filtering unless the application specifically calls for tri.

5. The numbers over 100fps could very well be cpu limited for either card.

6. ATis drivers are essentially the same as the R9800 drivers, so dont expect much in the way of optimisation, as compared to nvidias completely new architecture having room for optimization.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: ZimZum


Wrong

Wrong. From Toms:

"Although the X800 cards can now process longer and therefore more complex shader programs than the R9800XT, they are still limited to 24-bit floating-point precision and ShaderModel 2.0."

From the Hard Ocp conclusion:
When it comes right down to it the X800Pro matches or beats the GeForce 6800Ultra in game performance and IQ. Compare the price, performance, and IQ of the ATI Radeon X800Pro with the GeForce 6800Ultra, and the X800Pro definitely stacks up as the better value than the 6800Ultra

Seeing as both cards perform basically within a few percentage points of one another. I dont think its an accurate description to call the X800 "pathetic".

You're comparing the 6800U to the X800Pro for some reason.

The 6800GT is in the same price bracket with the X800Pro, and beats it in most applications, all though like every other bench out there it's by a hair's breadth. I think the 6800GT is going to be the card to beat for price/performance.

 

[Axon]

Originally posted by: Marsumane

Originally posted by: Axon
Ownd.

Not at all! If u look at the end of firingsquad's review, the cards are mixed on who wins. Personally, I say its a price war! There is no clear winner. There are still variables to consider here. First off, ATI's drivers are probably better for this round due to it being based on the previous archetecture so nv prob has more tweaking then ati does. Next to consider, is temoral AA. Who knows what this will bring to image quality. On the other hand, PS3.0 may give some to image quality, but probably more to performance then image quality. And then of course there is the psu req to consider. (~65 vs ~120)

Then there is the biggest picture. Most people wont spend 500+ on a gpu. They simply wont when the slightly worse model is cheaper and 90% as good. So what im saying, is that both have their ups and downs and u wont go wrong buying into any of them!

Personally, i find it rediculous how everyone is just bumping up their cards by so little in clock speeds (ati's platinum and nv's extreme)

Relax. It was a joke.

I agree there is no clear winner.

I'll take the ATi simply for power concerns.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Oh well, it's the same story it was with NV30 vs R300: ATI wins with AA/AF and most D3D games, NV wins with non-AA/AF and OpenGL games.

Actually, from what I'm seeing, Nvidia only suffers under AF. With just AA on, they tend to stay right with or slightly ahead of ATi's offerings.

So is being an ignorant ass. 🙂

Canadian...ignorant ass...I really don't care how you refer to them, but we should just use Canadian so everyone can understand what we're talking about here.

 

[LTC8K6]

By all rights with those specs the X800XT shouldve SLAUGHTERED the 6800U, i dont know whats going on but with a clock advantage that huge something is holding the card back.

Drivers? 😀

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
By all rights with those specs the X800XT shouldve SLAUGHTERED the 6800U, i dont know whats going on but with a clock advantage that huge something is holding the card back.

Few things to note:

1. toms noticed their cards were overclocked on arrival from ATi Via BIOS, he had to clock them back to normal.

2. NVIDIA is running higher precision on shaders, while this doesnt impact IQ much, it does negatively impact NVs performance.

3. The geforce 6800 seems to take a large hit from its new AF implementation, this should be fixed in later driver updates.

4. The 6800 seems to still use "brilinear" filtering unless the application specifically calls for tri.

5. The numbers over 100fps could very well be cpu limited for either card.

6. ATis drivers are essentially the same as the R9800 drivers, so dont expect much in the way of optimisation, as compared to nvidias completely new architecture having room for optimization.

Good list. I hope number 3 is spot on (and in theory should be, since the implementation is brand new), but who knows.

And as Chsh1ca and myself discussed earlier, yeah, the cards are not competing on a clock for clock basis. Nvidia is about 25-30% more efficient per clock than the X800 series, but one would expect that with a from scratch core.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

By all rights with those specs the X800XT shouldve SLAUGHTERED the 6800U, i dont know whats going on but with a clock advantage that huge something is holding the card back.

Drivers? 😀

Its the same core as the 9800, only everything is doubled, and they tossed some high performance ram on there, then went .13 and low-k, and clocked it up.

The drivers are essentially the same. Even the same FSAA and AF methods.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, it is May. So I figure the CAT 4.5's are due from ATI.

It's possible that later silicon will run faster as well for both cards.

I would guess that both NV and ATI still have things up their sleeves to bring out.

 

[Genx87]

Anandtechs review was rather interesting. It appears the NV40 drivers are rather immature at lower resolutions. This will change over time. I also thought the review was basically a dead heat for the most part and it comes down to personal preference. Some people dont want the power consumption while people like myself if the performance is equal will pay for the feature set.

Interesting to note Anandtech noted June for release dates.

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Wrong. From Toms:

"Although the X800 cards can now process longer and therefore more complex shader programs than the R9800XT, they are still limited to 24-bit floating-point precision and ShaderModel 2.0."
.

Wouldnt be the first time Toms Hardware got something wrong.
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r420_x800/index.php?p=2

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: ZimZum

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Wrong. From Toms:

"Although the X800 cards can now process longer and therefore more complex shader programs than the R9800XT, they are still limited to 24-bit floating-point precision and ShaderModel 2.0."
.

Wouldnt be the first time Toms Hardware got something wrong.
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r420_x800/index.php?p=2

It's not for the whole pipe bro - shaders are still done in FP24. That's why the X800 series doesn't qualify for the SM3.0 spec.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anyone want to bet the X800 enjoys more OEM wins from the likes of DELL?


Sure it will in the .5% of dell computers that ship with a highend card 🙂

As a Dell Salesperson, I would like to note that about 30-50% of the computers I sell come equipped with a 9800 Pro. You can get it on the 4600 series and above.

And I would say that if you only count sales of computers that are the 4600 series and above, the number would be closer to 75%.

It's all about educating customers. Most of the people that come in are straight up nvidia fan boys, because thats what they've been using in thier machines forever. They are fully prepared to buy the GFfx 5200 instead of the 9800 Pro. Fine for some people, but most of them, when you start asking what kind of games they're going to play end up with the 9800 after I throw some benchmarks around. Alot of regular people out there still think that the CPU speed is the determining factor on game speed, and given two cards of the same it is, but they don't realize that different VPU cores and speeds matter.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Nice performance but pathetic features. Basically combined two R300s and slapped higher performance memory on it. While I give the performance crown to ATI when AA+AF is enabled it leaves a rather hollow feeling in my gut doing it.

you lost the war so shut up about it

 

[Wag]

The question for me is, "Which card will win the price-performance war"?

I don't really care which card is best, I'm looking for the best overall value in this new generation.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anyone want to bet the X800 enjoys more OEM wins from the likes of DELL?


Sure it will in the .5% of dell computers that ship with a highend card 🙂

As a Dell Salesperson, I would like to note that about 30-50% of the computers I sell come equipped with a 9800 Pro. You can get it on the 4600 series and above.

And I would say that if you only count sales of computers that are the 4600 series and above, the number would be closer to 75%.

It's all about educating customers. Most of the people that come in are straight up nvidia fan boys, because thats what they've been using in thier machines forever. They are fully prepared to buy the GFfx 5200 instead of the 9800 Pro. Fine for some people, but most of them, when you start asking what kind of games they're going to play end up with the 9800 after I throw some benchmarks around. Alot of regular people out there still think that the CPU speed is the determining factor on game speed, and given two cards of the same it is, but they don't realize that different VPU cores and speeds matter.

I call BS, Intel extreme graphics, and FX5200s are about half of your sales, as well as that integrated rage 8MB pos on your servers 😉

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anyone want to bet the X800 enjoys more OEM wins from the likes of DELL?


Sure it will in the .5% of dell computers that ship with a highend card 🙂

As a Dell Salesperson, I would like to note that about 30-50% of the computers I sell come equipped with a 9800 Pro. You can get it on the 4600 series and above.

And I would say that if you only count sales of computers that are the 4600 series and above, the number would be closer to 75%.

It's all about educating customers. Most of the people that come in are straight up nvidia fan boys, because thats what they've been using in thier machines forever. They are fully prepared to buy the GFfx 5200 instead of the 9800 Pro. Fine for some people, but most of them, when you start asking what kind of games they're going to play end up with the 9800 after I throw some benchmarks around. Alot of regular people out there still think that the CPU speed is the determining factor on game speed, and given two cards of the same it is, but they don't realize that different VPU cores and speeds matter.

Anyone with a decent amount of gaming experience would know better than to buy from Dell. If you buy from a large OEM, you deserve to suffer.

 

[Genx87]

As a Dell Salesperson, I would like to note that about 30-50% of the computers I sell come equipped with a 9800 Pro. You can get it on the 4600 series and above.

And I am sure you sell 100% of Dells computers.

Simple fact is Dells largest customers are corporate and well if the corporate spending is anything like what we do here. All those oem machines are coming with an ATI 7500 as the video card. Quadros in the engineering workstation.

And I would say that if you only count sales of computers that are the 4600 series and above, the number would be closer to 75%.

Sure if we only counted sales of 9800 Pros it would be 100%. A little skewing of the numbers works wonders.


It's all about educating customers. Most of the people that come in are straight up nvidia fan boys, because thats what they've been using in thier machines forever. They are fully prepared to buy the GFfx 5200 instead of the 9800 Pro.

Yup it is, you go on your crusade and save the world! Try selling a 9800 Pro to my company and you will be laughed off the phone.

 

[Genx87]

you lost the war so shut up about it

Oh please do tell me how I lost the war.

 

[TimisoaraKill]

Both companies put very strong cards in the market this time , good news for us , as somebody say this time it will be more a "price war" than a performance war .
How ever i must give 'thumbs up' to ATI for the design because is realy amazing how with a smaler card , one molex and single slot HSF is able to equal or beat the Nvidia huge card .

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The drivers are essentially the same. Even the same FSAA and AF methods.

No, did you not read the HardOCP section on Temporal AA? To say this is simply an R9800 core with faster ram and double the pipes is a bit of an understatement, but your trivialization can be viewed both ways. Doesn't it say something about the longevity of the core if (as according to you) it can be simply doubled in everything and still compete with NV's latest offering?

At any rate, I think it's slightly inaccurate at best to say it's an identical core with simply more pipes.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anandtechs review was rather interesting. It appears the NV40 drivers are rather immature at lower resolutions. This will change over time. I also thought the review was basically a dead heat for the most part and it comes down to personal preference. Some people dont want the power consumption while people like myself if the performance is equal will pay for the feature set.

For your average gamer type who may not have a 450W+ PSU, the attraction will lend itself to ATI. Keep in mind that many people will still have to factor into the price of purchase the cost of getting a better PSU, and starting at ~$70 for a cheap 450W that takes a $299 card to $369. In terms of price😛erformance for those of us who would have to upgrade, it's really a no brainer that ATI will win every time.

Interesting to note Anandtech noted June for release dates.

Yeah, it's been discussed before that ATI only announces a month in advance of availability.

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I call BS, Intel extreme graphics is about half of your sales, as well as that integrated rage 8MB pos on your servers

Just because Dell overall sells mostly integrated graphics to business, doesn't mean that he personally as a salesman isn't selling more high-end home machines. 😉
I do agree with you though, Dell's 8MB integrated Rage BS graphics in their servers suck. 😀

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Anyone with a decent amount og gaming experience would know better than to buy from Dell.

Nah, that's not true, I know plenty of gamer types who have dell rigs, for one overriding reason. Parents who buy their kids computers generally just ask their kid to price out a Dell or IBM. Unfortunately, I'm not fortunate enough to have parents with that much cash kicking around. 😀