Warp2Search.net » News » May 2004 » Radeon X800 XT

DriverHeaven takes a detailed look at ATI?s latest top of the range card ? the Radeon X800 XT.

The RADEON? X800 series of Visual Processing Units are the most advanced graphics processors ever created. Comprised of 160 million transistors, they built upon the highly acclaimed RADEON 9800 architecture and extend it by providing major increases in bandwidth, parallelism, efficiency, image quality, and programmability.



The result is a series of products that defines a new era of High Definition graphics. The performance of the new architecture is staggering, doubling anything on the market today

Radeon X800 XT

They also have a second review out! that looks at the Radeon X800 Pro as well as the Geforce 6800 Ultra and puts them head to head in a selection of tests to see which card is faster? the results may surprise you

tsunami Member Posts: 26 Joined: 2003-07-09

#53392 Posted on: 05/04/2004 04:32 PM I've seen quite a few benchmark comparisons between the 6800ultra and the x800pro and in every case, the x800 has the better performance. Looks like I'm going to be buying my first ATI card.

digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22

#53394 Posted on: 05/04/2004 05:03 PM It won't be my first, but it'll be the first time I ever bought a new generation card right when they came out! I've already been calling the local stores to see if they have an availability yet, Brent's review said they were ACTUALLY SHIPPING THE PROS OUT TODAY!!!! MUST upgrade! 8-)

Domingo Unregistered

#53395 Posted on: 05/04/2004 07:26 PM Yeah, from what I can tell both cards preform pretty similarly although ATI has a slight edge. I'm glad to see that both are viable options. I think the main thing ATI has going for it is how it doesn't require the massively strong PSU and extra space the Nvidia card does. That alone can be a big factor. Not sure how many people have noticed it, but ATI's cards also seem to scale better to slower systems. My 9800 Pro wasn't *that* much slower on a 1900+ compared to my current P4 3.2 wheras my friend's GeForce lacked some of that 'ooomph' on a slower machine. I just got my 9800 Pro about 7-8 months ago so I have no intention of buying either, but I like to see the performances being close like this. It gives me hope that whenever I *do* need a new card that I'll have options!

hinkle Unregistered

#53397 Posted on: 05/04/2004 07:52 PM Nothing to be surprised with this review, DH is heavyly ATI biased. Although when fast forwarding through the review I could swear that the 6800 was faster in most benches.

att72 Unregistered

#53398 Posted on: 05/04/2004 08:08 PM lets not get into the "this sites biased and that sites not" childish comments. On your comment regarding the 6800 wining most benches. Thats what makes you look foolish... the whole point with these new cards is that you should have them at 1600x1200 with as much AA/AF enabled as possible before its worth upgrading to them. And in those situations the R420 wipes the floor with the NV40.

FailedCRC Unregistered

#53404 Posted on: 05/04/2004 08:55 PM pah, it's not graphics that make a good game, it's gameplay anyone gaming in 1600x1200 is most likely destorying their eyes with a lame refresh rate anyway.

FailedCRC Unregistered

#53405 Posted on: 05/04/2004 08:56 PM on a side note, do dh want to f*** off with the flash graphs. when did jpeg / png compression stop being good enough?

The_truth Unregistered

#53411 Posted on: 05/04/2004 09:50 PM Forgetting driverheaven for a minute, the general theme seems to be that: The X800 is faster, smaller, lighter, less power hungry and cooler than the NV40. Plus its in shops NOW. Nvidia===>Owned.. again.

Domingo Unregistered

#53412 Posted on: 05/04/2004 09:58 PM You know - I've always thought the same thing! My monitor caps at 1280X1024 @ 70 and I'd say that's pretty standard for most people. When you go higher than that, you've either got a monitor that cost you quite a bit or is refreshing at 60...or even less? As long as I can play at 1024X768X32@85 I'm totally happy. Anything above 1280X1024 and text becomes painfully small, too...

The_truth Unregistered

#53418 Posted on: 05/04/2004 11:02 PM That sounds like the sort of excuse the nvidiots will be using to justify the NV40 in a few days time... LOL

Yakumo Junior Member Posts: 2 Joined: 2004-05-27

#53422 Posted on: 05/04/2004 11:26 PM except now it's ATI that is not performing up to spec, being that it is not fully dx9c compliant, no branching, only fp24 (still) it's doing better where it is cos it's still doing less work.

Jaybo Unregistered

#53435 Posted on: 05/05/2004 03:58 AM I don't know about all of this recent talk. No one is bothering to pat Nvidia on the back for getting themselves back on track. No one is noticing their improved AA. No one is mentioning how it can beat the ATI card in some tests including OpenGL performance which will make a big impact considering all the Doom3 engine games no doubt will be released. They are really, really close this round and everyone is all over the ATI card again. YES I love my 9700. No fanboyism here. The whole power supply thing is a complete non-issue for most of us at this board, and if you are short a dongle I bet they will include one or two splitters with the card or you can get one for nearly nothing. The first thing I said to myself when reading the numbers is 'whoah, pretty damn close.' If they are that close, and one offers a new feature the other doesn't have a replacement for (PS3) why is everyone still hating Nvidia? Don't they deserve at the very least a second look this time around? Temporal AA should not even be brought up since technically I am sure ATI or Omega will add it to all cards. It has its ups and downs. I may go ATI this round also but I just don't like it that it seems to be very biased out there this time. I say cheers to Nvidia for pushing a real power card up on retail shelves that gives you better IQ than past offerings while also possibly taking the performance crown.

The_truth Unregistered

#53445 Posted on: 05/05/2004 07:23 AM Yes i agree nvidia has improved in many ways. The 6800 is at least a viable product, unlike the FX. Its just that the X800 is so damn good. In isolation the 6800 is great, but once the X800 arrived here the 6800 really did start to look like a dinosaur. Its not just about FPS. The cards are half the weight for a start. They can be use in SFF cases, the 6800 cant. If the 2 cards were about the same size it would be much closer, but its rather embarassing for nvidia that the X800 is SO much more efficient. The openGL performance will improve, the drivers they used in the reviews are betas, there are already better ones out that close the gap somewhat and even though the X800 is a little behind in FPS terms it still has all the other advantages. In a few ways nvidia has closed the gap, but in many ATI has extended it as well. Its the best bit of computer hardware i have ever used, its that good.

The_truth Unregistered

#53446 Posted on: 05/05/2004 07:29 AM Thats total rubbish. The X800 kills the nv40 when you ramp up the AA and AF. DX9c has practically no IQ advantage over DX9b, its mostly about speed and the X800s DX9b is better than the nv40s DX9c anyway!! As for doing 'less work' well maybe, but thats because its more efficient, the IQ is still better anyway so whats your point??? Comments like yours are going to look more and more foolish as time goes on.

thomas997 Junior Member Posts: 12 Joined: 2003-04-21

#53451 Posted on: 05/05/2004 08:11 AM Yeah I have to agree with this. The x800 is just much more efficient. The heatsink is much smaller, no ramsinks at all, and a smaller board with what looks like less components. Nvidia takes the brute force method again, and you will see ATIs cards will have much nicer prices in the future. Just from differences in production costs. If Nvidia can get tile based rendering to work, then they wont need as much power as they are using now. I doubt they will go that way though. 6800 is good, x800 is better

thomas997 Junior Member Posts: 12 Joined: 2003-04-21

#53452 Posted on: 05/05/2004 08:18 AM Get a better monitor Sony 21" can do 85hz at 1600x1200 But right now I have an older monitor with the best refresh rate at 1024x768. So I stick with that and FSAA. Id probably prefer 1024 and fsaa, to 1600 no fsaa.

qsr Unregistered

#53453 Posted on: 05/05/2004 08:21 AM indeed i am so lame to use LCD monitor and play all games at 1280x1024 with great image quality and performance.

qsr Unregistered

#53454 Posted on: 05/05/2004 08:37 AM I would guess, because people must be tired of nvidia's cheating attempts.

MB Member Posts: 26 Joined: 2004-05-21

#53461 Posted on: 05/05/2004 01:43 PM I agree that the ATI card is more efficent in some ways. But for me that is no concern. I had enough bad experiences incl. my friends with ATI because of their crappy drivers and support for games. Nvidia was always far superior in that case. People have been using the argument "OpenGL will impove" since the GF4 and it never improved drastically. ATI isnt that good at OpenGL and I doubt it will change this time. Also there is still the 6800UE, which was in the reviews I read, on par or slighty/much faster than the X800XT. If the cooling works, and manufacturers will for sure make better cooling solutions, then Nvidia is the king this time for real hardcore gamers who always want the best. Oh yeah, it also looks like the Nvidia is able to be overclocked much more than the X800 from what ive seen. But its still funny to see all the fanATIcs who wont admit even for $100 that ATI isnt that great this time, ignoring the facts. Ill lean back, wait for my 6800UE and laugh at the children bashing each other.

JemyM Senior Member Posts: 130 Joined: 2003-02-13

#53477 Posted on: 05/05/2004 05:49 PM My 19" is capable of 72hz at 1940x1440!!! And I often run games in that resolution. Morrowind looks fantastic without any AA at all. If I even attempt running at 1024x768, it feels like the monitor smack me in my face. What a waste of space... and what a blurry mess.

The_truth Unregistered

#53481 Posted on: 05/05/2004 06:19 PM Sorry your buying the number 2 product, its that simple. ATI drivers are fine, i have no problems either at eork or at home. If you really want the 6800UE then fine but the XT is actually as fast or fast than that. The ATI drivers are still quite young for the X800, thge lastest ones, which the review sites didnt use are 10% better all round. One of our X800XTs will hit 600mhz..

Warp2Search.net » News » May 2004 » Radeon X800 XT