LordBritish
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,062
Which is better: 1900XT or 7800GTX 512mb?
If price and availability was not a factor which one would you get?
If price and availability was not a factor which one would you get?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
bobzdar said:I'm just hoping that nvidia and ati eventually pull their heads out and make sli/crossfire motherboards compatible with both, then the decision will be a lot easier.
heatlesssun said:As a single card yes, the X1900 is a little better in most cases, some times a lot better.
Where the question becomes far less clear cut is dual GPU configs.
Two 512 GTX will always be better than one X1900. And if you already have an SLI mobo, you'd have to consider the cost and hassel of another mobo for CrossFire. Of course, if you're building or buying a system from scratch, then this doesn't matter. Two X1900's are better than two 512 GTX's
It's hard to tell if F.E.A.R is representative of all the games coming down road, we need a few more Next Generation games to come out to see if this will be the case. There are some games where ATI's architecture does really well, F.E.A.R is one of them, X3: The Reunion I would say is another.sabrewolf732 said:Well, with the price and availability of 7800gtx 512's it would still be cheaper for dual x1900s and a crossfire board than sporting 2x 512 gtx's. In some games there's simply no competition (like fear). Nvidia just gets assrape, and if all the 7900 is is 33% more pipes and 33% more core clock speed, nvidia still won't take fear from the 1900. Also, fear should be a large indication of games to come. So, it seems like the 7900 is gonna rape the x1900 in older games (as if cards aren't fast enough in older games?) and the x1900 will be a bit faster in newer games (like fear, ut07, oblivion etc). That's how I see it
coldpower27 said:It's hard to tell if F.E.A.R is representative of all the games coming down road, we need a few more Next Generation games to come out to see if this will be the case. There are some games where ATI's architecture does really well, F.E.A.R is one of them, X3: The Reunion I would say is another.
If current 7800 GTX 512 SLI is a performance indicator though, 7900 GTX SLI should beat the X1900 XT Crossfire even in F.E.A.R.
SSlaytanic said:wait for 7900
I'm just hoping that nvidia and ati eventually pull their heads out and make sli/crossfire motherboards compatible with both, then the decision will be a lot easier.
It's hard to tell if F.E.A.R is representative of all the games coming down road, we need a few more Next Generation games to come out to see if this will be the case. There are some games where ATI's architecture does really well, F.E.A.R is one of them, X3: The Reunion I would say is another.
If current 7800 GTX 512 SLI is a performance indicator though, 7900 GTX SLI should beat the X1900 XT Crossfire even in F.E.A.R.
Scali said:I'd go with the 7800GTX (or 7900 when it's out).
The 1900XT still lacks some features that the 7800 has, which put it at a disadvantage with rendering techniques such as HDR. There were also some limitations with vertex texturing on the 1900XT, I believe.
I don't care too much about the speed in current games. Both cards are extremely fast, and there isn't a game that can slow them down yet. I just think the 7800 is better prepared for the future.
Shadow27 said:The x1900xt lacks nothing from the 7800gtx you mentioned, actually it does more. HDR+AA. The x1900 series also feature the Fetch4 missing on the x1800 series.
Here: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=OTUz
The x1900 is the better card.
Scali said:Lack of FP16 blending is why the X1800 is slaughtered in 3DMark06.
But if you have proof of vertex texture support and FP16 (or better) blending support on X1900, I'd like to see it. I haven't found it anywhere.
Jbirney said:Hmmm first I have heard of this... curious do you have any data to support this???
Jbirney said:However I think the 1900xt is better prepaid as it looks like having more Shading power will be more helpful than having FP16 (or better) blending... but just a guess
Codename: R580
Process technology: 90 nm
over 400 mln transistors (G70 contains 302 mlns)
FC package (flip-chip, flipped chip without a metal cap)
256 bit memory interface
Up to 1 GB of GDDR-3 memory
PCI Express 16x
48 pixel processors
16 texture units
Calculating, blending, and writing up to 16 full (color, depth, stencil buffer) pixels per clock
8 vertex processors
FP32 processing throughout the pipeline (vertices and pixels)
SM 3.0 support (Shaders 3.0) including dynamic branching in pixel and vertex processors.
Attention: there is no vertex texture fetch.
Effective branching
Support for FP16 format: full support for output into a frame buffer in FP16 format (including any blending operations and even MSAA). FP16 texture compression, including 3Dc+.
Attention: no support for hardware filtering during FP16 texture sampling.
New RGBA (10:10:10:2) integer data type in a frame buffer for higher quality rendering without FP16.
New high-quality algorithm for anisotropic filtering (a user is given a choice between a faster or higher-quality anisotropy options), improved trilinear filtering
Support for "double-sided" stencil buffer
MRT (Multiple Render Targets rendering into several buffers)
Memory controller with a 512-bit internal ring bus, two 256-bit contradirectional rings, (4 memory channels, programmable arbitration).
Efficient caching and a new more effective HyperZ implementation
Trimlock said:
Trimlock said:the fetch4 feature is their work around for it, if a developer ever wants to add it they can, and honestly we will probably never see these features in full bloom in any game
Scali said:Not officially...
Scali said:I'm not sure. More shader power isn't really a substitute for FP16 blending, let alone vertex texturing.
Scali said:And it also says that it still doesn't support vertex texture fetch.
Jbirney said:Ok just was wondering as I have heard rumblings that said the reasons that some of the ATI cards were slow are due to different things...but no one is sharing any real data sooo
Jbirney said:Oh and I am not saying it is, just that from reading Tim S, John C and other developers recent posting, they are all saying that you will see games ALU to Texture ratio increasing for the ALUs. Now none of them are going to say what that that ratio is, so maybe ATI 3:1 is a good choice, maybe its not. But we have games out today FEAR/CS:CT that really have high ALU:TEX ratios...
Jbirney said:There is a documented work around that ATI says is faster for both thier cards and NV if you care....
That is because it isn't better. I wouldn't trade my X1800 or X1900 for any 7800 line card on the market.BBA said:BUT: After I played a little Quake4 online with max settings...I don't know...it was damn sweet, I can't see the GTX being any better, and the XTX still has a major performance increase in the next release of cat drivers coming up soon...
That is a good idea!BBA said:I think I'll convince him to ebay his BFG and buy an XTX.
0V3RC10CK3D said:As soon as ATi catches up
Endurancevm said:The X1900 series is a better card.
Endurancevm said:I would get the X1900 in both cases, single and dual. The 7800 although fast enough for current games is still older technology.
Scali said:Yes, but what does that have to do with FP16 blending or texture filtering?