Final Words

The numbers really do speak for themselves: the X1900XTX is an incredible part. In the end, the difference in performance between the X1900XT and XTX versions was so small that it's hard for us to see how anyone could justify spending another hundred dollars to have someone at a factory eke out that extra little bit of performance. ATI's justification for the X1900 XTX is that it is a pre-overclocked X1900 XT with a $100 manufacturers stamp of approval.

ATI stand behind their position that the X1900XTX isn't going to be another X800 XTPE, but will be a full production part with plenty of availability through its lifetime. Our first reaction is, with the voice of Chris Rock echoing in our ears: "what do you want, a cookie?" But then reality sets in and we are happy to take what we can get... as long as ATI actually delivers on their promises.

But what an excellent position from which to start following through on everything: the R580 launch is a resounding success in our eyes. Availability at launch, 4 new parts based on a huge and powerful chip, a triumphant return to the top with the new fastest graphics card available, and enough power to make the high quality features of the architecture more than useable. ATI couldn't have asked for anything better, and they certainly would not have been in a good position if they had come up with anything less.

There was some question over whether the X1900 CrossFire would be a let down with it's XT clock speeds, but the difference between reality and the theoretical performance of 2 X1900 XTX parts in CrossFire is even smaller than the difference between the performance of an X1900 XTX and an X1900 XT. If there's anything worth seriously questioning it is why anyone thinks that 4% core overclock combined with a 7% memory overclock is worth $100 to anyone.

One of the interesting non-performance related aspects of this launch is that ATI is phasing out the X1800 series. Their future roadmaps seem to leave a gap in the price range from $200 to $500, so it will be quite interesting to watch what ATI tries to fill the hole with this time around. Maybe we'll see some X1600 GTO parts with unlockable R520/R580 cores. Or maybe we'll see another product launch. Only time will tell.

Image Quality, Feature Tests, and Power
Comments Locked

120 Comments

View All Comments

  • tuteja1986 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    wait for firing squad review then :) if you want AAx8
  • beggerking - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Did anyone notice it? the breakdown graphs doesn't quite reflect the actual data..

    the breakdown is showing 1900xtx being much faster than 7800 512, but in the actual performance graph 1900xtx is sometimes outpaced by 7800 512..
  • SpaceRanger - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    All the second to last section describes in the Image Quality. There was no explaination on power consumtion at all. Was this an accidental omit or something else??
  • Per Hansson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Yes, please show us the power consumption ;-)

    A few things I would like seen done; Put a low-end PCI GFX card in the comp, boot it and register power consumption, leave that card in and then do your normal tests with a single X1900 and then dual so we get a real point on how much power they consume...

    Also please clarify exactly what PSU was used and how the consumption was measured so we can figure out more accuratley how much power the card really draws (when counting in the (in)efficiency of the PSU that is...
  • peldor - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    That's a good idea on isolating the power of the video card.

    From the other reviews I've read, the X1900 cards are seriously power hungry. In the neighborhood of 40-50W more than the X1800XT cards. The GTX 512 (and GTX of course) are lower than the X1800XT, let alone the X1900 cards.
  • vaystrem - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Anyone else find this interesting??

    Battlefield 2 @ 2048x1536 Max Detail
    7800GTX512 33FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 32.9FPS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 29FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Day of Defeat
    7800GTX512 18.93FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 35.5PS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 35FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Fear
    7800GTX512 20FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 36PS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 49FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Quake 4
    7800GTX512 43.3FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 42FPS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 73.3FPS


  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Becareful here ... these max detail settings enabled superaa modes which really killed performance ... especially with all the options flipped on quality.

    we're working on getting some screens up to show the IQ difference. but suffice it to say that that the max detail settings are very apples to oranges.

    we would have seen performance improvements if we had simply kept using 6xAA ...
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    to further clarify, fear didn't play well when we set AA outside the game, so it's max quality ended up using the in game 4xaa setting. thus we see a performance improvement.

    for day of defeat, forcing aa/af through the control panel works well so we were able to crank up the quality.

    I'll try to go back and clarify this in the article.
  • vaystrem - Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - link

    I'm not sure how that justifies what happens. Your argument is that it is the VERY highest settings so that its ok for the 'dual' 1900xtx to have lower performance than a single card alternative? That doesn't seem to make sense and speaks poorly for the ATI implementation.
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    The XTX especially in Crossfire does seem to give a fair boost in a number of tests over the XT and XT in Crossfire.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now