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
Mid-Range Perforamnce
The X1600 XT costs much more than the 6600 GT and performs only slightly better in some cases. It's real competition should be something more along the lines of the 6800 GT which is able handle more than the new midrange ATI part. $249 for the X1600 XT compared to $288 for the 6800 GT shows the problem with the current pricing.
As we can easily see, the 6800 GT performs quite a bit better than the X1600 XT. From what we see here, the X1600 XT will need to fall well below the $200 mark for it to have real value at these resolutions with the highest settings. The 6600 GT is the clear choice for people who want to run a 1280x1024 LCD panel and play games comfortably with high quality and minimal cost.
Looking at Doom 3, it's clear that the X1600 XT falls fairly far behind. But once again, when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled the X1600 performs at the level of the 6600 GT.
Eventhough this game is based on the engine that powered Half-Life 2 (and traditionally favored ATI hardware), the X1600 XT isn't able to surpass the 6600 GT in performance. The game isn't playable at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, but for what it is worth the X1600 XT again scales better than the 6600 GT.
Far Cry and Everquest II are the only two games that show X1600 XT performing beyond the 6600 GT at 1280x960 with no AA or AF. Even though these games scale better with AA and AF enabled on ATI's newest hardware, the framerates are not playable (with the exception of Far Cry). We should see a patch from Crytek in the not too distant future that expands HDR and SM3.0 features. We will have to revisit Far Cry performance when we can get our hands on the next patch.
The X1600 performs exactly on par with the X800 in this test. Both of these ATI midrange cards outpace the 6600 GT from NVIDIA, though the 6800 GT is 50% faster than the X1600 XT. Again, cost could become a major factor in the value of these cards.
Splinter Cell is a fairly demanding game and the X1600 XT and 6600 GT both perform at the bottom of the heap in this test. Of course, ultra high frame rates are not necessary for this stealth action game, but the game certainly plays more smoothly on the 6800 GT at 51 fps. The 6800 GT also remains playable with AA/AF enabled while the X1600 and 6600 GT do not.
The X1600 XT costs much more than the 6600 GT and performs only slightly better in some cases. It's real competition should be something more along the lines of the 6800 GT which is able handle more than the new midrange ATI part. $249 for the X1600 XT compared to $288 for the 6800 GT shows the problem with the current pricing.
As we can easily see, the 6800 GT performs quite a bit better than the X1600 XT. From what we see here, the X1600 XT will need to fall well below the $200 mark for it to have real value at these resolutions with the highest settings. The 6600 GT is the clear choice for people who want to run a 1280x1024 LCD panel and play games comfortably with high quality and minimal cost.
Looking at Doom 3, it's clear that the X1600 XT falls fairly far behind. But once again, when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled the X1600 performs at the level of the 6600 GT.
Eventhough this game is based on the engine that powered Half-Life 2 (and traditionally favored ATI hardware), the X1600 XT isn't able to surpass the 6600 GT in performance. The game isn't playable at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, but for what it is worth the X1600 XT again scales better than the 6600 GT.
Far Cry and Everquest II are the only two games that show X1600 XT performing beyond the 6600 GT at 1280x960 with no AA or AF. Even though these games scale better with AA and AF enabled on ATI's newest hardware, the framerates are not playable (with the exception of Far Cry). We should see a patch from Crytek in the not too distant future that expands HDR and SM3.0 features. We will have to revisit Far Cry performance when we can get our hands on the next patch.
The X1600 performs exactly on par with the X800 in this test. Both of these ATI midrange cards outpace the 6600 GT from NVIDIA, though the 6800 GT is 50% faster than the X1600 XT. Again, cost could become a major factor in the value of these cards.
Splinter Cell is a fairly demanding game and the X1600 XT and 6600 GT both perform at the bottom of the heap in this test. Of course, ultra high frame rates are not necessary for this stealth action game, but the game certainly plays more smoothly on the 6800 GT at 51 fps. The 6800 GT also remains playable with AA/AF enabled while the X1600 and 6600 GT do not.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
Gigahertz19 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
On the last page I will quote"With its 512MB of onboard RAM, the X1800 XT scales especially well at high resolutions, but we would be very interested in seeing what a 512MB version of the 7800 GTX would be capable of doing."
Based on the results in the benchmarks I would say 512MB barely does anything. Look at the benchmarks on Page 10 the Geforce 7800GTX either beats the X1800 XT or loses by less then 1 FPS. SCALES WELL AT HIGH RESOLUTIONS? Not really, has the author of this article looked at their own benchmarks included? When the resolution is at 2048 x 1536 the 7800GTX creams the competition except in Farcry where it loses by .2FPS to the X1800XT and Splinter Cell it loses by .8FPS so basically it's a tie in those 2 games.
You know why Nvidia does not have a 512MB version because look at the results...it does shit. 512Mb is pointless right now and if you argue you'll use it for the future then will till future games use it and then buy the best GPU then, not now. These new ATI's blow wookies, so much for competition.
NeonFlak - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
"In some cases, the X1800 XL is able to compete with the 7800 GTX, but not enough to warrant pricing on the same level."From the graphs in the review with all the cards present the x1800xl only beat the 7800gt once by 4fps... So beating the 7800gt in one graph by 4fps makes that statement even viable?
FunkmasterT - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
EXACTLY!!ATI's FPS numbers are a major disappointment!
Questar - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Unless you want image quality.bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
And the difference is worth the $100 eatra dollars PLUS the "lower" frame rates? Not good bang for the buck.Powermoloch - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Not the cards....Just the review. Really sad :(yacoub - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
So $450 for the X1800XL versus $250 for the X800XL and the only difference is the new core that maybe provides a handful of additional frames per second, a new AA mode, and shader model 3.0?Sorry, that's not worth $200 to me. Not even close.
coldpower27 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Perhaps a up to 20% performance improvement, looking at pixel fillrate alone.
Shader Model 3.0 Support.
ATI's Avivo Technology
OpenEXR HDR Support.
HQ Non-Angle Dependent AF User Choice
You decide if that's worth the 200US price difference to you, Adaptive AA, I wouldn't count as apparently through ATI's driver all R3xx hardware and higher now have this capability not just R5xx derivatives, sort of like the launched with R4xx feature Temporal AA.
yacoub - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
So even if these cards were available in stores/online today, the best PCI-E card one can buy for ~$250 is still either an X800XL or a 6800GT. (Or an X800 GTO2 for $230 and flash and overclock it.)I find it disturbing that they even waste the time to develop, let alone release, low-end parts that price-wise can't even compete. Why bother wasting the development and processing to create a card that costs more and performs less? What a joke those two lower-end cards are (x1300 and x1600).
coldpower27 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
The Radeon X1600 XT is intended to replace the older X700 Pro, not the stop gap 6600 GT competitors, X800 GT, X800 GTO, which only came into being because ATI had leftoever supplies of R423/R480 & for X800 GTO only R430 cores and of course due to the fact that X700 Pro wasn't really competitive in performance to 600 GT in the firstp lace, due to ATI's reliance on Low-k technology for their high clock frequencies.I think these are sucessful replacements.
Radeon X850/X800 is replaced by Radeon X1800 Technology.
Radeon X700 is replaced by Radeon X1600 Technology.
Radeon X550/X300 is replaced by Radeon X1300 Technology.
X700 is 156mm2 on 110nm, X1600 is 132mm2 on 90nm
X550 & X1300 are roughly around the same die size, sub 100mm2.
Though the newer cards use more expensive memory types on their high end versions.
They also finally bring ATI's entire family as having the same feature set, something that hasn't been seen ever before by ATI I believe. I mean having a high end, mainstream & budget core based on the same technology.
Nvidia achieved this item first with the Geforce FX line.