ATI's Late Response to G70 - Radeon X1800, X1600 and X1300
by Derek Wilson on October 5, 2005 11:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Mid-Range Perforamnce
The X1600 XT costs much more than the 6600 GT and performs only slightly better in some cases. It's real competition should be something more along the lines of the 6800 GT which is able handle more than the new midrange ATI part. $249 for the X1600 XT compared to $288 for the 6800 GT shows the problem with the current pricing.
As we can easily see, the 6800 GT performs quite a bit better than the X1600 XT. From what we see here, the X1600 XT will need to fall well below the $200 mark for it to have real value at these resolutions with the highest settings. The 6600 GT is the clear choice for people who want to run a 1280x1024 LCD panel and play games comfortably with high quality and minimal cost.
Looking at Doom 3, it's clear that the X1600 XT falls fairly far behind. But once again, when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled the X1600 performs at the level of the 6600 GT.
Eventhough this game is based on the engine that powered Half-Life 2 (and traditionally favored ATI hardware), the X1600 XT isn't able to surpass the 6600 GT in performance. The game isn't playable at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, but for what it is worth the X1600 XT again scales better than the 6600 GT.
Far Cry and Everquest II are the only two games that show X1600 XT performing beyond the 6600 GT at 1280x960 with no AA or AF. Even though these games scale better with AA and AF enabled on ATI's newest hardware, the framerates are not playable (with the exception of Far Cry). We should see a patch from Crytek in the not too distant future that expands HDR and SM3.0 features. We will have to revisit Far Cry performance when we can get our hands on the next patch.
The X1600 performs exactly on par with the X800 in this test. Both of these ATI midrange cards outpace the 6600 GT from NVIDIA, though the 6800 GT is 50% faster than the X1600 XT. Again, cost could become a major factor in the value of these cards.
Splinter Cell is a fairly demanding game and the X1600 XT and 6600 GT both perform at the bottom of the heap in this test. Of course, ultra high frame rates are not necessary for this stealth action game, but the game certainly plays more smoothly on the 6800 GT at 51 fps. The 6800 GT also remains playable with AA/AF enabled while the X1600 and 6600 GT do not.
The X1600 XT costs much more than the 6600 GT and performs only slightly better in some cases. It's real competition should be something more along the lines of the 6800 GT which is able handle more than the new midrange ATI part. $249 for the X1600 XT compared to $288 for the 6800 GT shows the problem with the current pricing.
As we can easily see, the 6800 GT performs quite a bit better than the X1600 XT. From what we see here, the X1600 XT will need to fall well below the $200 mark for it to have real value at these resolutions with the highest settings. The 6600 GT is the clear choice for people who want to run a 1280x1024 LCD panel and play games comfortably with high quality and minimal cost.
Looking at Doom 3, it's clear that the X1600 XT falls fairly far behind. But once again, when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled the X1600 performs at the level of the 6600 GT.
Eventhough this game is based on the engine that powered Half-Life 2 (and traditionally favored ATI hardware), the X1600 XT isn't able to surpass the 6600 GT in performance. The game isn't playable at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, but for what it is worth the X1600 XT again scales better than the 6600 GT.
Far Cry and Everquest II are the only two games that show X1600 XT performing beyond the 6600 GT at 1280x960 with no AA or AF. Even though these games scale better with AA and AF enabled on ATI's newest hardware, the framerates are not playable (with the exception of Far Cry). We should see a patch from Crytek in the not too distant future that expands HDR and SM3.0 features. We will have to revisit Far Cry performance when we can get our hands on the next patch.
The X1600 performs exactly on par with the X800 in this test. Both of these ATI midrange cards outpace the 6600 GT from NVIDIA, though the 6800 GT is 50% faster than the X1600 XT. Again, cost could become a major factor in the value of these cards.
Splinter Cell is a fairly demanding game and the X1600 XT and 6600 GT both perform at the bottom of the heap in this test. Of course, ultra high frame rates are not necessary for this stealth action game, but the game certainly plays more smoothly on the 6800 GT at 51 fps. The 6800 GT also remains playable with AA/AF enabled while the X1600 and 6600 GT do not.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
GoatMonkey - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
What?!?! But it's **EXTREME**kilkennycat - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
...there is an old saying. "Wait to see the whites of their eyes before shooting". Pre-orders mean nothing and delivery dates can change. Never ever order from a vendor that has a pre-order queue, unless you really don't care when you get the item. Who knows where you are in this queue? Few, if any of such vendors ever give you this information - for the obvious reason that thery don't want to risk losing the order. The first shipment might be 5 pieces and you are 20th on the list. Order product from vendors like Newegg or ZipZoomFly that sell only from available stock, but also have immediate auto e-mail notification when a sold-out item is back in stock... first come, first serve then of course, but at least the customer is never ever 'left hung out to dry'.I personally view vendors with pre-order queues as somewhat sleazy, but maybe my view is extreme. A pre-order queue is entirely to the benefit of the vendor and not the customer.
southpawuni - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Bad results from ATI.Look at the midrange.. I'm guessing most people around here buy that hardware (6800GT/7800GT)..
disappointing day for ATI.
Since the NV cards have been out, and are priced right.. I dont see much hope for ATI now.
bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I was expecting the new ATI cards to be a bit more competitive especially given that they'll be more expensive. Wow, what a shocker! The X1600 isn't even worth buying at less than or equal to 6600GT performance at 6800GT prices. What a bargain!!!segagenesis - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
They are simply arriving late to the game. I curious see how anyone will really want the X1800 XL over the 7800 GT, consideing the price.And why no show all the cards on each graph? Why is the 7800 GT missing on the Day of Defeat graph? Are we not trying to compare cards?
Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Simple - Image quality.It's been reported just about everywhere else that Nvidia lowered the image quality on the 7800 to gain speed. The image quality comparison in this review proves it.
Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Heh, modded down by the Nvidia fanboys already!How about this guys, enable HDR and AA in any game you would like on a 7800. Oops, can't do it!
Open your eyes and look at the AF charts in this review. ATI has better AF, period.
segagenesis - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
They looked like crap to me honestly. And where are you getting this crap about no AA/HDR on nVidia cards? Are you trying to troll? No wonder you got modded down.Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
It's not crap. A 7800 can't do HDR and AA at the same time. Read the HOCP review where they explain this.JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
It was mentioned in this article as well. However, HDR already kills performance, and HDR + AA is going to be unplayable on anything short of Crossfired X1800 XT cards. Then again, HDR at 1600x1200 really isn't dying for 4xAA support, and I think many people looking at HDR are running very high-end displays and GPUs.