ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
The additional tests that we've run help to solidify our assessment of ATI's situation with the X1000 line. Our tests show that the high end ATI cards handle enabling antialiasing better than NVIDIA cards overall. The X1600 XT fairly consistently performs much worse than the 6800 GT and a little better than the 6600 GT. The X1300 Pro doesn't perform nearly as well as the 6600 GT in our tests (though it costs nearly the same), doesn't perform at playable framerates over 1024x768 in high quality modes, and enabling antialiasing is simply not an option.
The X1800 XT will be good competition for the 7800 GTX, besting it in many cases when antialiasing is enabled at higher resolutions. The X1800 XL competes fairly well with the 7800 GT, but the NVIDIA card generally comes out on top in the tests that we ran. OpenGL games are still a hurdle for all the ATI cards to overcome, but it seems as if the X1600 XT is more highly capable of mitigating the impact of a non-Microsoft API on performance.
The true bottom line of the goodness of these cards with respect to their NVIDIA counterparts is price. The MSRP data that we have (which is all we have to go on so far) is absolutely a deal breaker. At every step along the way, the NVIDIA parts that perform at or near the level of the ATI X1000 series cards look like they will have a $50 to $100 price advantage. As the NVIDIA parts have had the market to themselves for a while, their prices have managed to settle. ATI won't be able to benefit from the high prices that we usually see at a product launch because their parts just aren't worth the price premium.
But that's not all the coverage that we have planned for the new ATI parts. Stay tuned for some more in-depth Shader Model 3.0, image quality, and market analysis soon.
The additional tests that we've run help to solidify our assessment of ATI's situation with the X1000 line. Our tests show that the high end ATI cards handle enabling antialiasing better than NVIDIA cards overall. The X1600 XT fairly consistently performs much worse than the 6800 GT and a little better than the 6600 GT. The X1300 Pro doesn't perform nearly as well as the 6600 GT in our tests (though it costs nearly the same), doesn't perform at playable framerates over 1024x768 in high quality modes, and enabling antialiasing is simply not an option.
The X1800 XT will be good competition for the 7800 GTX, besting it in many cases when antialiasing is enabled at higher resolutions. The X1800 XL competes fairly well with the 7800 GT, but the NVIDIA card generally comes out on top in the tests that we ran. OpenGL games are still a hurdle for all the ATI cards to overcome, but it seems as if the X1600 XT is more highly capable of mitigating the impact of a non-Microsoft API on performance.
The true bottom line of the goodness of these cards with respect to their NVIDIA counterparts is price. The MSRP data that we have (which is all we have to go on so far) is absolutely a deal breaker. At every step along the way, the NVIDIA parts that perform at or near the level of the ATI X1000 series cards look like they will have a $50 to $100 price advantage. As the NVIDIA parts have had the market to themselves for a while, their prices have managed to settle. ATI won't be able to benefit from the high prices that we usually see at a product launch because their parts just aren't worth the price premium.
But that's not all the coverage that we have planned for the new ATI parts. Stay tuned for some more in-depth Shader Model 3.0, image quality, and market analysis soon.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
If AT is going to cover that in a later article, then the observations ARE NOT short sighted. Since we're picking nits, if the other sites are giving you ALL the information you require, why do you insist on bagging on AT? Just go to get your info, make your decision, and STFU.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Because, unlike you, I like to compare the results between all my favorite sites. Maybe you're not mature enough to understand the reasons for that, so I'll fill you in: Humans make mistakes, so trusting one persons judgement or methodology is not an intelligent decision in the real world.Also, it makes no mention in the article that near-term games are to be tested in a future update of this sort. Yes, I expect they'll be around once retail boards are reviewed, but if they plan on continuing tests on IQ, shader abilities, etc then what sense does it make to pass judgement until those tests are complete?
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Did you not read tfranzese's post that you replied to? Scroll up about 1/2 inch. That quote is from the article. Your quote, , says you like to sample different websites to get whole picture yet you bag on one site (AT) that doesn't give you enough info. If you go to different sites to get the whole picture, why bag on any of them? You're still getting all of the info you need.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
LOL...oops..you made that quote yourself. I can't believe you quoted but yet you still imply that AT isn't going to do any furthur testing in the areas you would like to see tested. I quit..lol!tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
The further testing I am referring to are with near-term titles, not SM3.0 analysis. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying or I'm not being clear enough.I also do believe it's short-sighted to judge an architecture before all the tests are complete. Right now I know IQ and SM3.0 examinations are coming up, but it looks like they're done with the game benchmarks until the suite is updated and retail boards are available.
Anyway...
Sure, I can get the majority of my data from a collection of sites, but if I voice my criticism I could hope that someday I may only have to visit three sites instead of ten to confirm and compare results and analysis. Not that I didn't enjoy reading all those articles during my downtime at work.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Naw, we're not done. And while it's true that http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=x1800&p...">you can purchase an X1800XL, we're still missing the X1800 XT. $440 or so for the XL http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=7800%20gtx&...">isn't much cheaper than a 7800 GTX, and while the X1800 XT might be faster overall, the 7800 GTX beats the XL in nearly every test.
Also, one big question mark that still remains is SLI vs. Crossfire performance. SLI is here now and working for the 7800 cards. X1800 XT is still a month out, and Crossfire X1800 XT... who knows? Three months, maybe more? After the delays of the X800 Crossfire parts, I'm not even ready to venture a guess on X1800 CF. :|
DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
We will test the near term games along with SM3.0 as many people have asked us for this. Let us know if you need anything else.DigitalFreak - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
What about running EQ2 with AA turned on via the setting in EQ2.ini? I would assume that the results would be similar to the other tests though.Benching the Call of Duty 2 demo would be cool as well. A couple of sites have seen a performance increase when using a 512MB card vs a 256MB one. May actually be the first game where 512MB is worth having.
tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Donka!phaxmohdem - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I know all my "gaming" monitors at home run at 1280x1024 What gives with the benchmarks of this uncommon? resolution? Thats 81,920 extra pixels unaccounted for in the graphs for many of us running 17 and 19 inch LCD's.