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
ChanningM - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Where is the AA info and AF info on each test?You list 4x AA for the High End cards at 1600x1200. What about other levels of AA, and various levels of AF?
What about other resolutions? and varying levels of AA and AF at different resolutions and how they compare image quality wise? Okay, so the X1600XT loses at 1280x960 with no aa or af. What about at 1028x764 with AA and AF on? And how does that compare image wise?
Where is the discussion of the results? You just throw out graphs at me, and don't do a real disucssion of them.
In otherwords, where is the rest of the review?
Peldor - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
At this point, a fairly weak review from Anandtech, especially compared to the 7800GTX review when it appeared. Hot Hardware and Tech Report have a bit better coverage IMO.Looking at other reviews around the web, my conclusion is the X1800 cards are viable competitors in performance to the 7800 cards, but the street prices will have to come down near the 7800 cards to be a good value.
The X1600 cards look dead in the water when the 6600GT is under $150 and available in AGP and PCIe, while the 6800GT is far beyond it in the ~$250 segment.
The X1300 cards will only survive in the ~$100 and under market.
ATI is going to need that R580 sooner rather than later.
ChanningM - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
The format of the hardocp articles has grown on me, especially after reading there review + the anandtech + another.There are all kinds of AA and AF options for a reason. They look different. How do the affect peformance though? What works best?
That obviously varies by game, card and resolution. But anandtech and others just don't do the comparisons and I think that makes it difficult to compare. Especially when image quality differences between nvidia and ATI come into play with there various settings.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
We will have tables of all the data with all the numbers we ran across all the resolutions with 4xAA and 8xAF up shortly.Quite a bit of data was collected and it has taken some time to organize. You are absolutely right to want more, and we are working on getting it out the door as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Derek Wilson
jeffrey - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Derek,You really need to evaluate your situation at this website. You are listed as "author" of the "NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX Hits The Ground Running" and "ATI's Late Response to G70 - Radeon X1800, X1600 and X1300" articles. Both of these articles are not up to Anandtech standards and have prompted numerous posts for readers to visit other websites.
I am a long-time reader of the site and am only posting this because I don't want to go anywhere else. I just don't believe that your articles have been up to snuff. The posts for proofreading, wrong labels, incomplete data, etc keep appearing and back up my opinion.
If Anand did not finish your mentoring, please let him know. I know that you put a lot of time and effort into this site, but the two biggest articles of the year for GPU's have left me shaking my head in dissapointment. Please work more with Anand, or do your own homework and read some of his old reviews. If you need another person, or co-author to help you ...please swallow your pride and ask for it.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey
drifter106 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
What credentials do you have to make such an accusation? What indicators do you use to support such a statement? On the contrary, considering the time frame and the rush to provide us with information it is obvious for the coherent, that he has done a good job. Glad to see information provided that will futher support my next video card selection.erinlegault - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
That is exactly the point! He shouldn't be rushing. The Techreport and Xbit Labs and many others offer much more informative reviews.Do you want my credentials? It shouldn't matter a report is a report is a report. You don't have to have a PhD or be a CEO to have an opinion. Any person with a University or College degree knows how to write a report that is complete and accurate.
The fact of the matter is Anand's graphics reviews have been not up to par. Period.
Tamale - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
lol.. the 'fact' is that this 'opinion' isn't up to 'my standards'sounds like a real fact, folks.. this guy is serios business
Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/X1800_Serie...">http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/X1800_Serie...AdamK47 3DS - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I absolutly hate obvious marketing fluff!"16 ultra efficient extreme pipelines"
Those pipelines are about as extreme as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is extreme. Try harder next time Ati!