xx1900xx or 7900 gtx,

B

boomheadshot45

Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
736
i am building a computer soon and i was wondering which one to go with, the xx1900xx or 7900 gtx, which one is better, please don't flame each other this is to help me not start a war, Nvidia vs. Ati tonight at 7:00 o' clock (oh me i'm so funny, inside joke the movie waiting see it now!)
 
Plenty of threads around. Each does better in some aspect in particular benches, Ati has slightly better image quality (subjective) but SLI is much easier and beneficial and faster if you can go that route. Single card to single card, the GTX is MUCH much more quiet and runs very cool (38-40C idle in warm room). It's your pick. Both are great cards.
 
If money was no issue I would get the x1900. I've owned plenty of both ATI and nvidia(along with 3dfx, rendition, kyro-whoever made that, too tired to remember) and out of the modern card makers ATI has the best image quality hands down. I'm still thinking about that 7900 just because I'm on a budget. But I have a very sensitive eye so I will just wait until I can afford it probably.
 
Devnull said:
If money was no issue I would get the x1900. I've owned plenty of both ATI and nvidia(along with 3dfx, rendition, kyro-whoever made that, too tired to remember) and out of the modern card makers ATI has the best image quality hands down. I'm still thinking about that 7900 just because I'm on a budget. But I have a very sensitive eye so I will just wait until I can afford it probably.
Click to expand...


That would be PowerVR. :cool:

Lot of old school mentions there....good stuff. I agree Ati has slightly better image quality, but I have tested both and it's not that big of a difference, especially with high quality on nvidia.
 
It seems like in all the latest benchmarks, the x1900 series is pulling away from the 7900 series. Oblivion is the most taxing game out there right now and ATI pulls off a big win at the moment (single card). I love my new 7900gt, but I must admit that seeing these new benchmarks has me disappointed. If I had the money for a top end card, there's no doubt it'd be the x1900xt.

Adrian
 
Devnull said:
If money was no issue I would get the x1900. I've owned plenty of both ATI and nvidia(along with 3dfx, rendition, kyro-whoever made that, too tired to remember) and out of the modern card makers ATI has the best image quality hands down. I'm still thinking about that 7900 just because I'm on a budget. But I have a very sensitive eye so I will just wait until I can afford it probably.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the out of the 2 cards he asked about, the ATI is cheaper.
 
from what i have seen lately ATI is has the performance lead slightly in most games.
 
how loud is the xx1900xx, i have heard thats its pretty loud.Is a there a big difference in image quality between the xx1900xx and 7900 gtx
 
I personally own a x1900xtx. Yeah I spent the extra cash for the card but GODDAMN it's worth it.

I paired mine with the following:

MSI RD480 aka Radeon Xpress 200 Crossfire chipset
ATI x1900xtx card
1GB Kingston HyperX PC3500 LL RAM
AMD 939 Athalon 64FX 53
Enermax 550W true power PSU

I even had the overdrive utility running the card way beyond spec and I HARDLY even hear the fan go up to TOP speed not even once since I've owned it while playing games. The MYTH that the card is loud is HOGWASH. When you first boot the card you will hear the fan at it's TOP speed then it drops down to a low drone. I do admit it's a hair louder then my proc fan (88mm @ 3200RPM) but it's nothing that bothers me while playing games with speakers.

Just make sure you get a good proc because you really don't harness the card's true potential with a slow proc. If anything I suggest a 3500+ or higher AMD or Intel 3.4 GHZ.

Just to give you a taste of what to expect:
COD2 = 1600 X 1200 ALL EFFECTS 2X aa 16X af
SOURCE/HL2/CSS/DOD = 2048 X 1536 ALL EFFECTS 4X aa 16X af
BF2 = 1600 X 1200 ALL EFFECTS 2x aa 16xx af
DC/BF1942 = 2048 X 1536 ALL EFFECTS 8X aa 16X af
OBLIVION = 1024 X 768 ALL EFFECTS ULTRA 4X aa 16X af

Psyko M.
 
boomheadshot45 said:
how loud is the xx1900xx, i have heard thats its pretty loud
Click to expand...
The X1900 cards can get loud in a poorly ventilated case or a warm room. They are generally reasonably quiet, other than at boot-up. Heavy gaming will kick the fan up a gear, but it's hardly loud. Noticeable, definitely - playing with the sound off wouldn't be a good idea! I haven't yet felt the need to fit my Maze4 or get an alternative cooler, but summer's coming and may change that ;)
boomheadshot45 said:
Is a there a big difference in image quality between the xx1900xx and 7900 gtx
Click to expand...
Difference? Yes. Big? Not really, apart from the shimmering which crops up on nV cards. I believe you can pretty much eliminate this, at the cost of some performance. It really depends on whether you notice subtle differences and how fast-paced the game is. For me, the difference is plain to see.

If you need an über-quiet computer then get the 7900, otherwise the Radeon is ultimately the better card. Of course, it's possible to get an X1900XTX and an aftermarket cooler for the cost of a 7900GTX :D
 
I would go with the 7900gtx. Like everyone said, they are very quiet, they run really cool. I own a 7900gtx and it owns every game besides oblivion, but I don't even play that game. I tried it for like an hour and uninstalled it cause I'll never play it again. Waste for me anyways. Anyways as far image quality goes between the x1900xtx and the 7900gtx, you will not even be able to tell. i've seen screen shots of both up really close on high resolution and I couldn't even tell. Don't get me wrong, they are both great cards, I just like the nvidia driver control panel better than anti and the game profiles are easier to deal with. I like that nvidia has some advanced settings to make grass, trees, chan-link fences, etc look good from a distance (barely to no jaggies there). Plus I got my PNY 7900gtx overclocked to 690/880. I get like 11,600 In 3dmark05 and over 6,000, can't remember in 06. I know ati may get more in 06 i'm not sure cause i think its more optimized for 06 so you can't really go my 3dmarks, you have to look at your games. Anyway, its up to you which card you get.
 
PSYKOMANTIS said:
OBLIVION = 1024 X 768 ALL EFFECTS ULTRA 4X aa 16X af
Click to expand...
Good for you. There has been so much BS about people running it at "30+ FPS all the time" at stupid resolutions with 4xAA and max details, using a single X1900/7900. I don't find performance to be consistently smooth at any resolution, but the biggies really put the hurt on my card. Do you find 10x7 noticeably smoother than 12x10? During my testing (outside area with heavy forest), I got the same fps. Only moving up to 16x12 killed my framerate.
 
Dutt1113 said:
I like that nvidia has some advanced settings to make grass, trees, chan-link fences, etc look good from a distance (barely to no jaggies there).
Click to expand...

So do I - It's called Transparency AA. But....drum roll...Radeon X1K cards also support this, albeit under the slightly different name of 'Adaptive AA'. I use it in CoD2, and can confirm it works a treat.

But yeah, either card is going to provide some great gaming.
 
If I had it to do over again I would go for the XTX. I dont notice the few extra fps he is getting, but after trying my friends XTX, It just looks a bit better. I own a 7900GT
 
X1900 is better in modern games than it´s competition. That alone made my choice easyer.

I have zero regrets about my X1900XT, great card for its price. Got VF900-CU incoming also ;)
 
I didn't have the balls to throw 75 more bucks at an xtx when i got my gtx at the time so I just decided to go for the gtx. Now i see that you can get a xtx for like 430 after MIR, but I'm not going to go through the hassle of selling my card again just to turn around and buy an xtx. I don't know if its just my luck or what but everytime I do that the other card always drops in price. I would like to have an xtx, but I'm going to wait about 6 months or so, or when the dx 10 cards start coming out. When I upgrade, I like to get at least a 50-75% peformance increase over my old card, in this case it will be over a 7900gtx. That might take a while.
 
rincewind said:
Good for you. There has been so much BS about people running it at "30+ FPS all the time" at stupid resolutions with 4xAA and max details, using a single X1900/7900. I don't find performance to be consistently smooth at any resolution, but the biggies really put the hurt on my card. Do you find 10x7 noticeably smoother than 12x10? During my testing (outside area with heavy forest), I got the same fps. Only moving up to 16x12 killed my framerate.
Click to expand...

I run primarily 30-60 FPS outside, and FULL 60+ FPS inside at those settings.
1280 X 1024 was just too slow for me.
Besides I'd rather have framerate and good quality over resolution now that I have the hardware to produce those results.
Especially with a game like Oblivion, you have to make sure EVERY swipe of your sword counts without FPS LAG.
 
I wasn't really impressed with oblivion. Yeah the graphics are good, but when you swing a sword or weapon at a goblin or something, it doesn't even show that you hit it. You just keepig swinging until it falls down.
 
Dutt1113 said:
I wasn't really impressed with oblivion. Yeah the graphics are good, but when you swing a sword or weapon at a goblin or something, it doesn't even show that you hit it. You just keepig swinging until it falls down.
Click to expand...

Learn how to play the game before insulting it. Opponents have a health meter and they react when you hit them. Once you get used to it, the combat system is pretty friggin amazing and super fun. It took me a while to really get accustomed to it, but now that I'm 10 hrs or so into the game, I'm in love with it. There's a reason it's got ridiculously good reviews across the web.

This game pretty much made me upgrade and it was so worth it. I run 1680x1050 with HDR and medium/high details on my 7900gt and it's pretty smooth. But yeah, anyone who says they run 1920x1200, 4xAA or something like that with ultra details at 30+ fps all the time on a single card is full of shit. Tweaking does make all the difference in this game though.

Adrian
 
PSYKOMANTIS said:
I run primarily 30-60 FPS outside, and FULL 60+ FPS inside at those settings.
1280 X 1024 was just too slow for me.
Besides I'd rather have framerate and good quality over resolution now that I have the hardware to produce those results.
Especially with a game like Oblivion, you have to make sure EVERY swipe of your sword counts without FPS LAG.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was just the area I tested. Think I'm going to do a more detailed test (I did the last one blind, then when I didn't notice any difference I tested with debug display on). I'm finding 1280 fine for the most part, but a little less choppiness in 'busy' areas would be nice. I have no problems dropping down to 1024 (though I will go no lower on a 22" monitor) if it gives a smoother ride. I'm not really finding combat a problem, but the enjoyment of looking for ruins is definitely diminished :D
 
asmielia said:
Learn how to play the game before insulting it. Opponents have a health meter and they react when you hit them. Once you get used to it, the combat system is pretty friggin amazing and super fun. It took me a while to really get accustomed to it, but now that I'm 10 hrs or so into the game, I'm in love with it. There's a reason it's got ridiculously good reviews across the web.
Click to expand...

Too right, although there is the odd occasion when the AI messes up. But we're straying off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top