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
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Hence, the non-existence of 7600 and 7200 (or whatever) cards from NVIDIA. But ATI needed to get SM3.0 into budget and mid-range cards - not because it's tremendously useful, but because they're losing the marketing campaign on that item.Phantronius - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Wheres the fucking Battlefield 2 numbers?????Dudeeeeeee - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
What about testing this card with games we actually play? Good game...KayKay - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I read most of the r520 reviews this morning and I decided to read anandtech's review, since i trust yours over most others. I was rather disappointed with the layout and choice of tests.All around the web, the result i gathered was that the x1800xt was definitely better than the 7800gtx in a number of areas and if i had read anandtech's review first, would have been totally misled.
I am an NVIDIA user probably for LIFE but this review didn't seem to do ATI justice
bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Reviews aren't supposed to be favorable they're supposed to present facts so that WE the consumer can make informed purchase decisions. And right now, ATI doesn't present a good bang for the buck.KayKay - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
the review wasn't structured in a way to present a fair comparison of the cards is all im saying. look no further than some of the other websites that reviewed todays launchbob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
It was easy for me. What are you looking for? The X1xxx's were compared to the 7xxx's. Are you looking for an ATI landslide or are you looking for a comparison?Chadder007 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I was hoping that the X1600 would perform better, but for the price 6600GT and X800GTO >>>> X1600 parts. Sad. :(Griswold - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Probably the weakest review i've seen here at AT so far. The benches are more than just confusing. Some benches only show the XL, some only the XT and some both. Not good.DigitalFreak - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Agreed. I'm not a stickler for perfect grammer, but the grammer & spelling quality of AT articles has gone down hill tremendously in the past year!Seems you guys have just been throwing stuff together at the last minute to try and make a deadline. Anand - you need to step in here and get these guys back on track. It's hurting both your and your sites reputations.