-
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.
x1900gt details!!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Praxis1452
Platinum Member
Seems like ATI is always ahead of nvidia but noone recognizes it.
Extelleron
Diamond Member
Hm..... really?
X1900XTX > 7900GTX AND lower price
X1900XT => 7900GTX AND MUCH lower price
X1800XT > 7900GT AND Lower price (256MB version)
X1800GTO => 7600GT AND similar price ($198 AR in my sig)
??????
SpeedZealot369
Platinum Member
Guys, I meant in terms of like they're moves. Nvidia Sli first, crossfire follows. Like that.
Extelleron
Diamond Member
X1800XT is an easy OC to 695/1600 and above, competes with Oc'ing 7900GT unless you're overvolting. Remember MAYBE 3-4% of the population will ever even overclock, and at stock, the X1800XT is way better than the 7900GT.
BassBomb
Diamond Member
ati doesnt drop price as easy as nvidia does, there are some at MSRP but the thing is most cards are vendor overclocked so they charge a premium for it, sinc enot many cards are available i cant say u can easily find cards avaialable and at MSRP, but look at whats available? none are stock clocked
SolMiester
Diamond Member
Still have to get the x1900xt master card to run crossfire, why do ATI continue with this approach, its crazy!, buy a more powerfull card just to cripple it for dual gpu operation?!.
IMO, thats why Nvidia are the better gpu manufacturers, ATI just keep dropping the ball!
Edit Spelling
IMO, thats why Nvidia are the better gpu manufacturers, ATI just keep dropping the ball!
Edit Spelling
DeathReborn
Platinum Member
Since it's still a R580 Core it costs the same as the X1900XT/XTX to produce, just because a quad is broken doesn't make it cheaper to produce unless the quad is not present. The X1900GT if it does come out at that price will be either losing money at launch or cutting it pretty close to breaking even.
I really don't think they will have much trouble finding partially broken cores as they havew probably been stockpiling them but they may sell out fast. The real problem will arrise if they do sell out, with the size of the die I don't think they get many cores per wafer and supply could become limited.
Does this kill off the X1900XL idea or is it the replacement for it? Either way it looks good for the consumer, not so rosey for ATI's coffers.
You'd think they'd have used the Masterless Xfire setup but perhaps the X1900's would send too much data over the PCI-e bus.
Praxis1452
Platinum Member
I was mocking him... but btw
X1800XT>7900gt. stock. How many people overclock out of the majority? X1800XT cheaper than the 7900gt. X1800Xt availability. 7900gt oos.
There you go since that's the price point we are talking about.
coldpower27
Golden Member
No you still have the very expensive 352mm2 R580 die but maybe ATI can pull what Nvidia did with the NV40 -> NV41 -> NV42
First make it based on R580 as time goes on design a native 36/12 SKU for X1900 GT, then later on shrink it to the 80nm node for even increased savings. However in it's current incarnation it is an expensive product to make.
Crossfire Master Card, blah so much wasted potential in the Master Card compare to the X1900 GT.
jiffylube1024
Diamond Member
That is exactly my point. ATI's X1900 dies are HUGE and it costs them a ton of money to make them, and the X1900GT, disfunctional quad or not, is no cheaper to make.
Pure speculation. Unfortunately, unless you're an ATI employee you have no way of knowing how much ATI is actually making on their chips. They won't sell a card for a loss or to break even; they're going to make some money, even if their margins aren't as high as Nvidia (and with double the die size vs 7900 GT and GTX, ATI won't have nearly the margins). These aren't video game consoles we're talking about here, GPU manufacturers need to make money.
Probably does kill off the X1900XL. The X1900XL/X1900GTO/X1900GT were all rumoured cards to have 12 pipes/36 pixel shaders, so it's pretty much just finally settling on a name. And GT is a good choice, because unlike the crappy X800GT, the X1900GT, with those specs, will compete with the 7900GT.
[/quote]
ATI has a lot of work to do with Crossfire and I don't think they will fix it this generation (ie the need for a Master card). X1900GT crossfire probably won't be possible without using an X1900XT master card (a very expensive proposition). I don't think ATI will have masterless Xfire until R600, where it is rumoured to use masterless Xfire (last I heard, anyways).
Right now ATI's Crossfire solution is showing itself to be a quickly-conceived answer to SLI, not a well thought out counterblow.
Except that if they're just using R580 cores with a broken quad, currently they're getting nothing for them, and this would mean they make some money even off of defective cores. Of course, if they find themselves having to lock perfectly good quads on non-defective cores, then they'll be losing money. Otherwise, seems to me it's a bit of an eBay launch - selling off your old, broken crap so you at least get something for it.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
7600GT > X1800GTO cheaper and mass availability, equalish in performance
6800GS/7600GS? > X1600XT
6600GT > X1600pro
6600DDR2 > X1300pros
The low/mid end (much larger than the high end) is completely dominated by NVs 6600/6800 series cards namely, 6600DDR2, 6600GT, 6800GS, 6800nu etc. From here on IGP dominates the low end pretty much.
imported_halcyon
Junior Member
I'd be surprised if HIS doesn't come out with a IceQ III based card (a heatpipe based 'old style' Arctic Cooling look-a-like). They already demoed such a card for the X1900XT(x) range at CeBit.
coldpower27
Golden Member
Let me see the comparison
Trying to use Newegg, ZipZoomfly, and MonarchPC
X1900 XTX 489US vs 7900 GTX 519US,
7900 GTX wins Power Consumption decently 30W - 40W, Quieter HSF, Less Costly to Produce
X1900 XTX wins in features such as HDR + AA, Oblivion Performance/Image Quality, B&W 2.
Overall to tough to call, I would give the X1900 XTX the edge performance wise.
X1900 XT 439US vs nothing, no competitor in this space.
Winner X1900 XT 😛
X1800 XT 512 309US vs 7900 GT 349US
7900 GT wins Power Consumption, by a great factor, 40W - 50W diff. Less costly to produce, less RAM and lower grade of 1.4ns vs 1.2ns.
X1800 XT typically wins performance wise due to better memory bandwidth management
7900 GT 349US vs X1800 XT 256 279US
7900 GT will still win the power consumption by not as much likely, Still more expensive to make then 7900 GT due to the die size and memory grade.
Unkown how performance is affected, ATI is more affected by the transistion to 512MB from 256MB of video memory. Not enough information to make a determination.
X1800 GTO 229US vs 7600 GT 189US
7600 GT wins Power Consumption, by 15W - 20W, way less costly to make due to 128Bit PCB and 125 mm^2 die size vs 256Bit PCB and 288mm^2 die. Much more compact a card as well. The 7600 GT is also a decent bit cheaper as well.
I would give the win to 7600 GT here.
6800 GS 169US vs X1600 XT 149US (Obsolete comparison 6800 GS No longer in Stock)
Nvidia has worse costs here 210mm^2 die vs 149mm^2, as well as the need to use a 256Bit PCB, though no Low-k dielectric offsets this somewhat. It has better performance then the X1600 XT thankfully. It has higher power consumption of 12W - 15W which isn't too bad though.
X1600 XT 149US vs 7600GS 129US
Nivida has better costs here on the die and lower cost on the memory, performance comparison varies, some games 7600GS does better, some the X1600 XT does better.
7600 GS has a mild edge here.
6600 GT 128 114US vs X1600 Pro 256 109US
Pretty tight, they both perform very similarily, as well as having comparable die sizes, the 6600 GT has a more expensive memory type though only half as much. I would say this comparison is pretty even, though the X1600 is more feature rich here.
6600 DDR2 94US vs X1300 Pro 89US
The 6600 outperforms the X1300 however at a greater cost to the die size, both have equal cost on the memory side though. The X1300 is more feature rich in this category. The 6600 DDR2 has a tiny bit better power consumption thanks to low clocks.
Anything below this and it starts to get pretty tight.....
No I will probably have to make addendums to this post as it's not complete.
Trying to use Newegg, ZipZoomfly, and MonarchPC
X1900 XTX 489US vs 7900 GTX 519US,
7900 GTX wins Power Consumption decently 30W - 40W, Quieter HSF, Less Costly to Produce
X1900 XTX wins in features such as HDR + AA, Oblivion Performance/Image Quality, B&W 2.
Overall to tough to call, I would give the X1900 XTX the edge performance wise.
X1900 XT 439US vs nothing, no competitor in this space.
Winner X1900 XT 😛
X1800 XT 512 309US vs 7900 GT 349US
7900 GT wins Power Consumption, by a great factor, 40W - 50W diff. Less costly to produce, less RAM and lower grade of 1.4ns vs 1.2ns.
X1800 XT typically wins performance wise due to better memory bandwidth management
7900 GT 349US vs X1800 XT 256 279US
7900 GT will still win the power consumption by not as much likely, Still more expensive to make then 7900 GT due to the die size and memory grade.
Unkown how performance is affected, ATI is more affected by the transistion to 512MB from 256MB of video memory. Not enough information to make a determination.
X1800 GTO 229US vs 7600 GT 189US
7600 GT wins Power Consumption, by 15W - 20W, way less costly to make due to 128Bit PCB and 125 mm^2 die size vs 256Bit PCB and 288mm^2 die. Much more compact a card as well. The 7600 GT is also a decent bit cheaper as well.
I would give the win to 7600 GT here.
6800 GS 169US vs X1600 XT 149US (Obsolete comparison 6800 GS No longer in Stock)
Nvidia has worse costs here 210mm^2 die vs 149mm^2, as well as the need to use a 256Bit PCB, though no Low-k dielectric offsets this somewhat. It has better performance then the X1600 XT thankfully. It has higher power consumption of 12W - 15W which isn't too bad though.
X1600 XT 149US vs 7600GS 129US
Nivida has better costs here on the die and lower cost on the memory, performance comparison varies, some games 7600GS does better, some the X1600 XT does better.
7600 GS has a mild edge here.
6600 GT 128 114US vs X1600 Pro 256 109US
Pretty tight, they both perform very similarily, as well as having comparable die sizes, the 6600 GT has a more expensive memory type though only half as much. I would say this comparison is pretty even, though the X1600 is more feature rich here.
6600 DDR2 94US vs X1300 Pro 89US
The 6600 outperforms the X1300 however at a greater cost to the die size, both have equal cost on the memory side though. The X1300 is more feature rich in this category. The 6600 DDR2 has a tiny bit better power consumption thanks to low clocks.
Anything below this and it starts to get pretty tight.....
No I will probably have to make addendums to this post as it's not complete.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
