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
The Performance Breakdown
Here we're going to take a quick look at overall performance of the X1900 XTX compared to the X1800 XT and to the 7800 GTX 512. This will give us a good idea at the outset of what we are going to see in terms of performance from the new part from ATI. Obviously having individual numbers for multiple resolutions over multiple settings is more conducive to proper analysis of the performance characteristics of the hardware, but for those who just want the bottom line here it is. This is a look at 2048x1536 with 4xAA performance in order to see a snapshot of performance under high stress.
The resounding victory of the X1900 XTX over the 7800 GTX 512 in almost every performance test clearly shows how powerful a part we are playing with. Clearly NVIDIA has been dethroned and will have a difficult time regaining its performance lead. But the more these two companies can leap-frog eachother, the happier we get.
The only real loss the X1900 suffers to the 7800 GTX 512 is in Black and White 2. We've complained about the poor performance of BW2 under ATI hardware for months now, and apparently ATI have located a bug in the application causing the performance issue. They have a patch, which we are currently evaluating, that improves performance. ATI are saying that Lionhead will be including this fix in an upcoming game patch, and we are excited to see something finally being done about this issue.
Of course, with the BW2 test in question, that puts the ATI Radeon X1900 XTX firmly and without question in place as the worlds fastest consumer level graphics product.
Here we're going to take a quick look at overall performance of the X1900 XTX compared to the X1800 XT and to the 7800 GTX 512. This will give us a good idea at the outset of what we are going to see in terms of performance from the new part from ATI. Obviously having individual numbers for multiple resolutions over multiple settings is more conducive to proper analysis of the performance characteristics of the hardware, but for those who just want the bottom line here it is. This is a look at 2048x1536 with 4xAA performance in order to see a snapshot of performance under high stress.
Hold your mouse over the links below to see the quick performance breakdown of the Radeon X1900 XTX at that resolution:
The resounding victory of the X1900 XTX over the 7800 GTX 512 in almost every performance test clearly shows how powerful a part we are playing with. Clearly NVIDIA has been dethroned and will have a difficult time regaining its performance lead. But the more these two companies can leap-frog eachother, the happier we get.
The only real loss the X1900 suffers to the 7800 GTX 512 is in Black and White 2. We've complained about the poor performance of BW2 under ATI hardware for months now, and apparently ATI have located a bug in the application causing the performance issue. They have a patch, which we are currently evaluating, that improves performance. ATI are saying that Lionhead will be including this fix in an upcoming game patch, and we are excited to see something finally being done about this issue.
Of course, with the BW2 test in question, that puts the ATI Radeon X1900 XTX firmly and without question in place as the worlds fastest consumer level graphics product.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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 $400 or so.
DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
we have looked at world of warcraft in the past, and it is possible we may explore it again in the future.Phiro - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
"The launch of the X1900 series no only puts ATI back on top, "Should say:
"The launch of the X1900 series not only puts ATI back on top, "
GTMan - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
That's how Scotty would say it. Beam me up...DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
thanks, fixedDrDisconnect - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Its amusing how the years have changed everyone's perception as to how much is a reasonalble price for a component. Hardrives, memory, monitors and even CPUs have become so cheap many have lost the perspective of what being on the leading edge costs. I paid 750$ 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.