ATI's New Leader in Graphics Performance: The Radeon X1900 Series
by Derek Wilson & Josh Venning on January 24, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
Battlefield 2 has been a standard for performance benchmarks here in the past, and it's probably one of our most important tests. This game still stands out as one of those making best use of the next generation of graphics hardware available right now due to its impressive game engine.
One of the first things to note here is something that is a theme throughout all of our performance tests in this review. In all our tests we find that the X1900 XTX and X1900 XT perform very similar to each other, and in some places differ only by a couple of frames per second. This is significant considering that the X1900 XTX costs about $100 more than the X1900 XT.
Below we have two sets of graphs for three different settings: no AA, 4xAA/8xAF, and maximum quality (higher AA and AF settings in the driver). Note that our benchmark for BF2 had problems with NVIDIA's sli so we were forced to omit these numbers. We can see how with and without AA, both ATI and NVIDIA cards perform very similar to each other on each side. Generally though, since ATI tends to do a little better with AA than NVIDIA, they hold a slight edge here. With the Maximum quality settings, we see a great reduction in performance which is expected. Something to keep in mind is that in the driver options, NVIDIA can enable AA up to 8X, while ATI can only enable up to 6X, so these numbers aren't directly comparable.
Battlefield 2 has been a standard for performance benchmarks here in the past, and it's probably one of our most important tests. This game still stands out as one of those making best use of the next generation of graphics hardware available right now due to its impressive game engine.
One of the first things to note here is something that is a theme throughout all of our performance tests in this review. In all our tests we find that the X1900 XTX and X1900 XT perform very similar to each other, and in some places differ only by a couple of frames per second. This is significant considering that the X1900 XTX costs about $100 more than the X1900 XT.
Below we have two sets of graphs for three different settings: no AA, 4xAA/8xAF, and maximum quality (higher AA and AF settings in the driver). Note that our benchmark for BF2 had problems with NVIDIA's sli so we were forced to omit these numbers. We can see how with and without AA, both ATI and NVIDIA cards perform very similar to each other on each side. Generally though, since ATI tends to do a little better with AA than NVIDIA, they hold a slight edge here. With the Maximum quality settings, we see a great reduction in performance which is expected. Something to keep in mind is that in the driver options, NVIDIA can enable AA up to 8X, while ATI can only enable up to 6X, so these numbers aren't directly comparable.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
Josh Venning - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
:-)GTMan - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
How long until we see lower end parts.My guesses:
X1900XL replaces X1800XL
X1700 replaces X1600
Sledgehamer70 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Has anyone else noticed that the X1900XTX only out performs over all in the 1920 x 1440 settings? It is a 50/ 50 split for the most part in 1280 x 960 and 1600 x 1200. So once again everyone and there mom wont be seeing the same numbers as these guys! So misleading!Yeah I know its looking ahead to the future, but looking on themarket only 5%-2% of gamers run games at these specs... I will give ATI credit that they made a good card "Finally" but lets compare apples to apples, they should take the combined scores and average them out and see what the overall outcome is... im sure ATI will still ead but by not as much as it portray's!
DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
again, if you want a card to run at low resolutions, the 6800 GS or x800 gto are probably much better and more cost effective ways to go.why does everyone want to swat a fly with a baseball bat?
Wellsoul2 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Hmm..1280x1024 would seem to be a useful resolution since many use19 in and 17 in LCD's.
Seriously, No way can I afford this card but I would like to see it
compared to the 1800XL card at this resolution.
(I'm hoping the 1800XL price drops so I can pick up an ATI shader3
card for less than $250 which is my price point)
Yay for ATI..but ATI still has no mid priced card with shader3.0 :-(
beggerking - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
well, the definition of "resolution most people run" change constantly. I understand you are using 4x AA, but 8xAA is right around the corner, as well as higher resolution.I don't see this kind of performance advantage for x1900xtx on any other setting than the one you used for performance advantage, therefore that graphic is perhaps, a personal/biased view that will not stand against time.
vladik007 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Are they really out of their mind ? I've never bought console before but these PC components prices are gonna drive me out of the market.And i thought my 6800GT for $400 was absurd price to pay.... wow
nullpointerus - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
I have an idea. Maybe you could buy something less expensive. For example, a $200 card should be able to play modern games albeit with lower image quality than the more expensive cards. But don't tell anyone! I want to keep this a secret.poohbear - Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - link
rofl nullpointerus u crack me up. So true man, LETS keep it a secret.;)poohbear - Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - link
rofl nullpointerus u crack me up. So true man, LETS keep it a secret.;)