Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
yes, you provide a very narrow view indeed...
You want to look at 1280x1024? Ok here you go:
Battlefield 2142 - 1280x1024 - 4AA/16AF
8800GTS 320 = 82.2 (min 58)
X1900XT = 62.1 (min 53)
This is the problem with comparing 1280x1024. Both cards easily deliver playable resolution when minimum framerates are in the 50s. Since majority of people here have said they bought it to play at 1280x1024 on their LCD (limited to 60 frames), neither card is the winner in this game. That is why in my original post I chose high resolutions because in some of these games 8800GTS can handle 1600x1200 or more.
Company of Heroes - 1280x1024, 16AF
8800GTS 320 = 56.9 (min 19.8)
X1900XT = 74.3 (min 35.4)
Gothic 3 - 1280x1024, 16AF
8800GTS 320 = 26.8 (min 13)
X1900XT = 31.3 (min 19)
Neverwinter Nights 2 - 1280x1024, 4AA/16AF
8800GTS 320 = 18.9 (min 11)
X1900XT = 19 (min 11)
Supreme Commander - 1280x1024, 4AA/16AF
8800GTS 320 = 67.9 (min 59)
X1900XT = 50.2 (min 46)
Again by numbers, 8800GTS is the winner, but either card is more than adequate for a strategy type game that is not as sensitive to framerates as a first-person shooter.
Still the 8800GTS 320mb doesn't look that good vs. X1900XT even at 1280x1024.
Also I own an Nvidia card myself and am totally indifferent about the brands but it's very interesting how X800 series beat out 6800 series, X1900 series beat out 7900/7950 series and ATI has basically been faster since 9700Pro, yet Anandtech forums are filled with Nvidia fanboys that continue to favour Nvidia no matter what.