ATI's Late Response to G70 - Radeon X1800, X1600 and X1300
by Derek Wilson on October 5, 2005 11:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Budget Performance
For budget performance, we feel that 1024x768 is the proper target resolution. People spending near the $100 mark can't expect to acheive performance at high resolutions. But with current hardware, we can play games at moderate resolutions without loosing any features.
The X1300 is targeted at the budget market, but we focued on testing our X1300 Pro against slightly higher performing parts because of it's pricing. The X1300 does quite well versus the traditional low end 6200 TC and X300 parts, but can't really compete with the 6600 GT which is priced near the $149 MSRP of the X1300 Pro.
Under Doom 3 (and many OpenGL applications) NVIDIA holds a lead over ATI hardware. While it is understandable that the X1300 Pro isn't able to match preformance with NVIDIA's $150 6600 GT, the $250 MSRP X1600 XT laggs far behind as well. It is quite interesting to note that the X1600 closes that gap (and performs slightly better than the 6600 GT) when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled at this resolution. But at such low res, the better bet is to increase the setting to 1280x1024 with no AA where the 6600 GT maintains about a 20% performance lead. Doom 3 is also a fairly low contrast game, meaning that jagged edges are already hard to see.
Under Valve's Day of Defeat: Source, the latest resurrection of a past title by Valve (and also the first to feature HDR), The 6600 GT and X800 perform on par with what we would expect while the more expensive X1600 XT lags behind and the X1300 looks to perform where a budget card should. Enabling 4xAA and 8xAF on this game closes the gap between the 6600 GT and X1600 XT: they both run at about 48 fps under this setting, followed by the X800 at nearly a 43 fps average.
Far Cry provides a victory for the X1600 XT over the 6600 GT, but we still have the expensive X1300 Pro lagging it's closer cost competitor by a large margin.
Everquest II on very high quality mode shows the X1600 XT to lead this segment in performance. Current ~$100 parts are shown to perform horribly at this setting scoring single digit framerates. The X1300 Pro is definitely playable at very high quality at 1024x768 (which we would recommend over a lower quality setting at a higher resolution). Extreme quality still doesn't perform very well on any but the most expensive cards out there and really doesn't offer that much more interms of visual quality.
When testing Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, the new X1000 series of cards give a very good performance. This time around, the X800 and 6600 GT don't perform equally, and it looks as though the additions to the RV5xx architecture can make quite a difference depending on the game being played.
To see the continuing saga of the X1600 XT, we will take a look at midrange performace numbers at 1280x960.
For budget performance, we feel that 1024x768 is the proper target resolution. People spending near the $100 mark can't expect to acheive performance at high resolutions. But with current hardware, we can play games at moderate resolutions without loosing any features.
The X1300 is targeted at the budget market, but we focued on testing our X1300 Pro against slightly higher performing parts because of it's pricing. The X1300 does quite well versus the traditional low end 6200 TC and X300 parts, but can't really compete with the 6600 GT which is priced near the $149 MSRP of the X1300 Pro.
Under Doom 3 (and many OpenGL applications) NVIDIA holds a lead over ATI hardware. While it is understandable that the X1300 Pro isn't able to match preformance with NVIDIA's $150 6600 GT, the $250 MSRP X1600 XT laggs far behind as well. It is quite interesting to note that the X1600 closes that gap (and performs slightly better than the 6600 GT) when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled at this resolution. But at such low res, the better bet is to increase the setting to 1280x1024 with no AA where the 6600 GT maintains about a 20% performance lead. Doom 3 is also a fairly low contrast game, meaning that jagged edges are already hard to see.
Under Valve's Day of Defeat: Source, the latest resurrection of a past title by Valve (and also the first to feature HDR), The 6600 GT and X800 perform on par with what we would expect while the more expensive X1600 XT lags behind and the X1300 looks to perform where a budget card should. Enabling 4xAA and 8xAF on this game closes the gap between the 6600 GT and X1600 XT: they both run at about 48 fps under this setting, followed by the X800 at nearly a 43 fps average.
Far Cry provides a victory for the X1600 XT over the 6600 GT, but we still have the expensive X1300 Pro lagging it's closer cost competitor by a large margin.
Everquest II on very high quality mode shows the X1600 XT to lead this segment in performance. Current ~$100 parts are shown to perform horribly at this setting scoring single digit framerates. The X1300 Pro is definitely playable at very high quality at 1024x768 (which we would recommend over a lower quality setting at a higher resolution). Extreme quality still doesn't perform very well on any but the most expensive cards out there and really doesn't offer that much more interms of visual quality.
When testing Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, the new X1000 series of cards give a very good performance. This time around, the X800 and 6600 GT don't perform equally, and it looks as though the additions to the RV5xx architecture can make quite a difference depending on the game being played.
To see the continuing saga of the X1600 XT, we will take a look at midrange performace numbers at 1280x960.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
GoatMonkey - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
What?!?! But it's **EXTREME**kilkennycat - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
...there is an old saying. "Wait to see the whites of their eyes before shooting". Pre-orders mean nothing and delivery dates can change. Never ever order from a vendor that has a pre-order queue, unless you really don't care when you get the item. Who knows where you are in this queue? Few, if any of such vendors ever give you this information - for the obvious reason that thery don't want to risk losing the order. The first shipment might be 5 pieces and you are 20th on the list. Order product from vendors like Newegg or ZipZoomFly that sell only from available stock, but also have immediate auto e-mail notification when a sold-out item is back in stock... first come, first serve then of course, but at least the customer is never ever 'left hung out to dry'.I personally view vendors with pre-order queues as somewhat sleazy, but maybe my view is extreme. A pre-order queue is entirely to the benefit of the vendor and not the customer.
southpawuni - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Bad results from ATI.Look at the midrange.. I'm guessing most people around here buy that hardware (6800GT/7800GT)..
disappointing day for ATI.
Since the NV cards have been out, and are priced right.. I dont see much hope for ATI now.
bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I was expecting the new ATI cards to be a bit more competitive especially given that they'll be more expensive. Wow, what a shocker! The X1600 isn't even worth buying at less than or equal to 6600GT performance at 6800GT prices. What a bargain!!!segagenesis - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
They are simply arriving late to the game. I curious see how anyone will really want the X1800 XL over the 7800 GT, consideing the price.And why no show all the cards on each graph? Why is the 7800 GT missing on the Day of Defeat graph? Are we not trying to compare cards?
Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Simple - Image quality.It's been reported just about everywhere else that Nvidia lowered the image quality on the 7800 to gain speed. The image quality comparison in this review proves it.
Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Heh, modded down by the Nvidia fanboys already!How about this guys, enable HDR and AA in any game you would like on a 7800. Oops, can't do it!
Open your eyes and look at the AF charts in this review. ATI has better AF, period.
segagenesis - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
They looked like crap to me honestly. And where are you getting this crap about no AA/HDR on nVidia cards? Are you trying to troll? No wonder you got modded down.Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
It's not crap. A 7800 can't do HDR and AA at the same time. Read the HOCP review where they explain this.JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
It was mentioned in this article as well. However, HDR already kills performance, and HDR + AA is going to be unplayable on anything short of Crossfired X1800 XT cards. Then again, HDR at 1600x1200 really isn't dying for 4xAA support, and I think many people looking at HDR are running very high-end displays and GPUs.