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
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.