• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

x1800xt vs x1900xt

T

teknopath

Junior Member
I was recently convinced to change from buying a 7900GT and look at ATI.

20" Widescreen
Not a hardcore PC gamer but want things smooth and fast when i do play (COD2/FEAR/etc...)


Is the x1900xt worth the extra $200+?

Is the x1800xt good for 1600x1050?

Thanks

teknopath
 
I see you have a 20'' so you probably run @1600x1200 ..
X1900XT all teh way if it's economically viable.. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: teknopath
I was recently convinced to change from buying a 7900GT and look at ATI.

20" Widescreen
Not a hardcore PC gamer but want things smooth and fast when i do play (COD2/FEAR/etc...)


Is the x1900xt worth the extra $200+?

Is the x1800xt good for 1600x1050?

Thanks

teknopath
Click to expand...

I run a X1800XT o/c'ed to (685/789) and I mostly play BF2 and some FarCry. I run BF2 will all settings on High, 4XAA (I enabled Adaptive AA in the ATI Control Panel) along with 16x High Quality AF. I average between 55-80 fps running the same resolution you are. I honestly think the X1800XT is the best buy for the money right now, especially since they can be had for under $300. If you have the extra cash I would grab a 1900XT or XTX, but for me the X1800XT is more then enough.
 
Get the X1900XT in my sig. As for X1900XT vs X1800XT- in some games it's night and day, in other games you're lucky for 3-4 more FPS.
 
That ixbt table is very interesting. What exactly are the "HQ" benchmarks though? I would really like to know exactly how much performance is lost by using the HQ modes on Nvidia cards (without spending two hours doing my own benchmarks 😛), but the performance hits for some of those things are so big that I think the reviewers may mean something different by HQ.
 
Originally posted by: CP5670
That ixbt table is very interesting. What exactly are the "HQ" benchmarks though? I would really like to know exactly how much performance is lost by using the HQ modes on Nvidia cards (without spending two hours doing my own benchmarks 😛), but the performance hits for some of those things are so big that I think the reviewers may mean something different by HQ.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"I'd like to remind you, many games already face a cpu or a full system bottleneck, and as a result the most powerful graphics accelerators cannot show full potential even in 4AA/16AF modes. As such, we are introducing a new mode HQ (high quality) which means:

HQ: ATI Radeon X1xxx: 6AA plus Adaptive AA, plus 16AF High Qualify setting
HQ: NVidia Geforce 6xxx/7xxx: 8AA plus TAA (Transparency AA with gamma correction), plus 16AF.

This implies maximized load on the graphics accelerators. In other words, their power is used almost 100%. Even with the differences between AA/AF (implying between the 2 brands here), the quality enabled is equally good.

Those who are going to be complaining that you cannot compare varying AA modes, I say, the criteria remains the same: Maximum Image Quality. With ATI, better quality AF, with Nvidia, better quality AA. But believe me, without expanding/zooming and analyzing screenshots in detail, you will not be able to descern the difference in quality. As a result, we can compare different settings between the 2 graphics cards (as we are concerned with performance at maximum image quality either can offer for the end user)."

Source: At the top in Bold
 
hmm, so that's not what I thought it was. Why are they using 8xAA on the Nvidia cards? The best AA mode on those that works at all resolutions is 2x2 SSAA.
 
looking at those benches just now puts the x1800xt back on my shopping list... it isn't the overclocking champ that the 7900gt is, but generally gets better performance to start with, it looks like. plus ati has better AF.
 
X1800XT is the most bang for your buck, more so then a 7900GT. X1900XT if you can afford it. Just avoid the XTX as it is NOT worth the price difference IMO.
 
Hi:

Since you are in the market NOW, I'd opt for the ATI 1800XT and
wait for the next ATI GPU to go to their highest end card.
The time between an expensive 1900XT and the introduction of the next
"latest and greatest" ATI card may be too short now to make it worthwhile.

Happy trailz,
 
I think the x1800 and x1900 cards are as good as the nvidia offerings, even better if IQ is important.

But one thing to keep in mind is 3/4 of the 7900GT's and most Nvidia cards are stock overclocked out of the factory, and are somewhat faster than the benchmarks posted in this thread. For instance the stock speed is 450mhz on the core, but on newegg many of the cards are shipping in the 475-550mhz range, with OC's on the memory as well.

It throws a monkey wrench into the whole equation for sure.
 
Originally posted by: Twsmit
I think the x1800 and x1900 cards are as good as the nvidia offerings, even better if IQ is important.

But one thing to keep in mind is 3/4 of the 7900GT's and most Nvidia cards are stock overclocked out of the factory, and are somewhat faster than the benchmarks posted in this thread. For instance the stock speed is 450mhz on the core, but on newegg many of the cards are shipping in the 475-550mhz range, with OC's on the memory as well.

It throws a monkey wrench into the whole equation for sure.
Click to expand...

Check out the 3rd set of benchmarks I threw in. It has 7900GT overclocked to 550/1500. Of course if you want to make a comparison fair, you'd have to consider X1800XT overclocked to 700/1600 or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top