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.
103 Comments
View All Comments
TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Oh, I had completely ignored that one because I heard something about their graphs being horrible and hard to read. But I'll take a look at it, thanks!TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
And now I remember it was PC Perspective that had the horrible graphs.Sorry, my head isn't working properly today, I'm afraid. :(
fishbits - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Maybe a late, light review was supposed to be a witty jab at ATI? :Photdog453 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I agree. But, some review sites are still touting Quake3 as a benchmark for some components (mainly CPUs now, but still)... they use games that stress the component well, not really the games you and I may be playing. Kind of ironic, I know.Honestly, when was the last time any of us fired up Doom3, except to benchmark something? It was a horrible game. Simply horrible. Scripted events do not a good game make. But from a technical, omg, point of view, it made cards cry. So they use it *shrug*
Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Is that right? Or the titles were wrongly exchanged?hoppa - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Am I missing something here? The article states that the hardware is quite powerful and a good deal, yet to me the benchmarks look absolutely miserable. The X1ks are on the bottom of nearly every chart, and in some cases, even lower than their predecessors (X800)! What the hell!JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Actually, the conclusion states that the hardware appears quite powerful - especially the X1800 XT - but that the price is too high. I saw several places where the article comments on price, so if you got the impression that it's a "good deal" let me know where and I'll edit it. :)Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
On the high end comparison - Day of Defeat, it is missing the X1800XT performance bar.Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
For the 1600x1200 chart...JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Fixed - it was 59.5 FPS, if you read the text.