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
Final Words
Today's launch would have been more spectacular had ATI been able to have parts available immediately. Of course, that doesn't mean that their parts aren't any good. As we can easily tell from the feature set, ATI has built some very competitive hardware. The performance numbers show that the X1000 series are quite capable of handling the demand of modern games, and scaling with AA and AF enabled are quite good as well.The one caveat will be pricing. The 7800 GTX is already available at much less than where the X1800 XT is slated to debut. Granted, the 7800 GTX fell from about $600 to where it is today, but the fact of the matter is that until ATI's new parts are in the market for a while and settle into their price points they won't be viable alternatives to NVIDIA's 6 and 7 series parts.
After market forces have their way with ATI and prices come out more or less on par with performance characteristics, the new X1000 lineup will have quite a bit of value, especially for those who wish to enable AA/AF all the time. While the X1800 XL can be competitive with the 7800 GT, it won't matter much if the street price remains at near the level of the 7800 GTX.
Yes, the X1800 XT is a very powerful card, but it won't be available for some time now. With its 512MB of onboard RAM, the X1800 XT scales especially well at high resolutions, but we would be very interested in seeing what a 512MB version of the 7800 GTX would be capable of doing. Maybe by the time the X1800 XT makes it to market we will have a 512MB 7800 GTX as well.
In the midrange space, the X1600 XT performs okay against the 6600GT, but it is priced nearer the 6800 GT which performs much better for the money. Again, testing the lower clocked or smaller RAM parts would give us a much better idea of the eventual value of the X1600 series of parts.
Until we test the extremely low end X1300 parts, we can't tell how competitive ATI will be in the budget space. It certainly is easier to make a card perform worse, but again the question is the price point ATI can afford to set for their parts.
As far as new features go, we are quite happy with the high quality anisotropic filtering offered by ATI and we hope to see NVIDIA follow suit in future products as well. As for ATI's Adaptive AA, we prefer NVIDIA's Transparency AA in both quality and performance. Unfortunately, Transparency AA is only available on NVIDIA's 7 series hardware while Adaptive AA is able to run on all recent ATI products.
In case we haven't made it quite clear, the bottom line is price. The X1600 and X1300 cards will have to sell for much less than they are currently listed in order to be at all useful. API support is on par, but as developers get time with hardware we will be very interested to see where the performance trend takes us. The features both parts offer are quite similar with the only major advantage in ATI's court with their angle independent AF mode. CrossFire won't be here for at least another month or two, but when it does we will certainly revisit the NVIDIA vs. ATI multi-GPU competition. The newer version of CrossFire looks to fix many of the problems we have with the current incarnation.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
mlittl3 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I'll tell you how it is a win. Take a 8 less pipeline architecture, put it onto a brand new 0.90nm die shrink, clock the hell out of the thing, consume just a little more power and add all the new features like sm3.0 and you equal the competition's fastest card. This is a win. So when ATI releases 1,2,3 etc. more quad pipes, they will be even faster.I don't see anything bob. Anandtech's review was a very bad one. ALL the other sites said this was is good architecture and is on par with and a little faster than nvidia. None of those conclusions can be drawn from the confusing graphs here.
Read the comments here and you will see others agree. Good job, ATI and Nvidia for bringing us competition and equal performing cards. Now bob, go to some other sites, get a good feel for which card suits your needs, and then go buy one. :)
bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I read the other sites as well as AT. Quite frankly, I trust AT before any of the other sites because their methodology and consistancy is top notch. HardOCP didn't even test a X1800XT and if I was an avid reader of their site I'd be wondering where that review was. I guess I don't see it your way because I only look for bang for the buck not which could be better if it had this or had that. BTW, I just got some free money (no, I didn't steal it!) today so I'm going to pick up a 7800GT. :)Houdani - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
One of the reasons for the card selections is due to the price of the cards -- and was stated as such. Just because ATI is calling the card "low-end" doesn't mean it should be compared with other low-end cards. If ATI prices their "low-end" card in the same range as a mid-range card, then it should rightfully be compared to those other cards which are at/near the price.But your point is well taken. I'd like to see a few more cards tossed in there.
Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Derek, I don't know if you have the time for this, but a review at other website showed a huge difference in performance at the Fear Demo. Ati was in the lead with substantial advantage for the maximum framerates, but near at minimum.http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/radeon-x1000/...">http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/radeon-x1000/...
As Fear points towards the new generation of engines, it might be worth running some numbers on it.
Also useful would be to report minimum framerates at the higher resolutions, as this relates to good gameplay experience if all goodies are cranked up.
Houdani - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Well, the review does state that the FEAR Demo greatly favors ATI, but that the actual shipping game is expected to not show such bias. Derek purposefully omitted the FEAR Demo in order to use the shipping game instead.allnighter - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Is it safe to assume that you guys might not have had enough time with these cards to do your usuall in-depth review? I'm sure you'll update for us to be able to get the full picture. I also must say that I'm missing the oc part of the review. I wanted to see how true it is taht these chips can go sky hig.> Given the fact that they had 3 re-spins it may as well be true.TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
...an Anandtech review.But it's a bit thin, I must say. I'm still missing overclocking results and Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2 results. How come no hardware site has tested the cards in Battlefield 2 yet?
From my point of view, Doom III, Splinter Cell, Everquest II and Far Cry are the least interesting games out there.
Overall it's a good review as you can expect from the absolutely best hardware site there is, but I hope and expect there will be another, much larger review.
Houdani - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
The best reason to continue benchmarking games which have been out for a while is because those are the games which the older GPUs were previously benched. When review sites stop using the old benchmarks, they effectively lose the history for all of the older GPU's, and therefore we lose those GPUs in the comparison.Granted, the review is welcome to re-benchmark the old GPUs using the new games ... but that would be a significant undertaking and frankly I don't see many (if any) review sites doing that.
But I will throw you this bone: While I think it's quite appropriate to use benchmarks for two years (maybe even three years), it would also be a good thing to very slowly introduce new games at a pace of one per year, and likewise drop one game per year.
mongoosesRawesome - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
they have to retest whenever they use a different driver/CPU/motherboard, which is quite often. I bet they have to retest every other article or so. Its a pain in the butt, but thats why we visit and don't do the tests ourselves.Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Techreport has Battlefield 2 benchmarks, as Fear, Guild Wars and others. I liked the article, recommend that you read also.