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

  • blahoink01 - Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - link

    Considering the average framerate on a 6800 ultra at 1600x1200 is a little above 50 fps without AA, I'd say this is a perfectly relevant app to benchmark. I want to know what will run this game at 4 or 6 AA with 8 AF at 1600x1200 at 60+ fps. If you think WOW shouldn't be benchmarked, why use Far Cry, Quake 4 or Day of Defeat?

    At the very least WOW has a much wider impact as far as customers go. I doubt the total sales for all three games listed above can equal the current number of WOW subscribers.

    And your $3000 monitor comment is completely ridiculous. It isn't hard to get a 24 inch wide screen for 800 to 900 bucks. Also, finding a good CRT that can display greater than 1600x1200 isn't hard and that will run you $400 or so.
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    we have looked at world of warcraft in the past, and it is possible we may explore it again in the future.
  • Phiro - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    "The launch of the X1900 series no only puts ATI back on top, "

    Should say:

    "The launch of the X1900 series not only puts ATI back on top, "
  • GTMan - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    That's how Scotty would say it. Beam me up...
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    thanks, fixed
  • DrDisconnect - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Its amusing how the years have changed everyone's perception as to how much is a reasonalble price for a component. Hardrives, memory, monitors and even CPUs have become so cheap many have lost the perspective of what being on the leading edge costs. I paid 750$ for a 100 MB drive for my Amiga, 500$ for a 4x CR-ROM and remember spending 500$ on a 720 X 400 Epson colour injet. (Yeah I'm in my 50's) As long as games continue to challenge the capabilities of video cards and the drive to increase performance continues the top end will be expensive. Unlike other hardware (printers, memory, hardrives) there are still perfomance improvements to be made that the user will perceive. If someday a card can render so fast that all games play like reality, then video cards will become like hardrives are now.
  • finbarqs - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Everyone gets this wrong! It uses 16 PIXEL-PIPELINES with 48 PIXEL SHADER PROCESSORS in it! the pipelines are STILL THE SAME as the X1800XT! 16!!!!!!!!!! oh yeah, if you're wondering, in 3DMark 2005, it reached 11,100 on just a Single X1900XTX...
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    semantics -- we are saying the same things with different words.

    fill rate as the main focus of graphics performance is long dead. doing as much as possible at a time to as many pixels as possible at a time is the most important thing moving forward. Sure, both the 1900xt and 1800xt will run glquake at the same speed, but the idea of the pixel (fragment) pipeline is tied more closely to lighting, texturing and coloring than to rasterization.

    actually this would all be less ambigous if opengl were more popular and we had always called pixel shaders fragment shaders ... but that's a whole other issue.

  • DragonReborn - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    I'd love to see how the noise output compares to the 7800 series...
  • slatr - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    How about some Lock On Modern Air Combat tests?

    I know not everyone plays it, but it would be nice to have you guys run your tests with it. Especially when we are shopping for $500 dollar plus video cards.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now