View Full Version : 7900gtx or x1900xtx
penguin463
08-19-06, 08:45 AM
Which is better?
*ducks as fanboys at both sides hurl rocks at eachother*
I am just wondering, because I have always been an nvidia fan, but am considering ATI, simpl because i haven't ever done so before.
the xtx looks betetr to me simply becaus it is cheaper. but i am assuming that it is of the same quality...
anyone got any input?
Please tell me you're not asking this? I know I'm tired...but there's SO MUCH info on this on WAY TOO many forums already. Here, I'll simplify it. Get the ATI part, k? ;) Now go search!
Me personally, Having had both, I like the NV cards. I think SLI is mre accepted if you have any plans on going that way, and ATI is in the mix of its AMD merger and supposidly is going to go dongleless down the road. Not as many people use crossfire, and NV's new boards are better than the past ones. As far as IQ if there is any difference, I havent noticed when playing. You may see soe in still pictures where parts are zoomed in on in the worst possible scenarios, but to see them in game is near impossible. The money saved on the GTX card could be used elsewhare and NV isnt going to change as ATI will to a single pipeline configuration. How that will affect their drivers I'm not sure, but there is a difference in a whole new rendering structure that I wonder how that will work out. I guess if I had a chouce I would get the NV 7950 card righ tnow at its price performance point, how the R600 will do I will wait and see. I personally dont have money for the latest/greatest and go woth an older gen like my current 7800GT which plays everything I have fine and hoppefully will get a second one cheap inthe coming months. Not quite as easy to do for crossfire if thats in your plans.
the image quality on the x1900xtx is way better
Well you can pick up an x1900xtx for about $100 less than a 7900gtx from what I've seen (low 300's vs. low 400's). Given that and the fact that they run games about equally, I'd say go for the 1900.
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/9324
Hard to talk about image quality when sites like this go over specific frames looking for issues. I am sure if NV had bad IQ issues they wouldnt be selling cards the way they do, nor would I have one. I wouldnt own a NV5XXX card because they were garbage. No site will say either has a massive advantage or even a blatantly noticable difference during gameplay. Unless someone shows me screenshots showing this big IQ difference I see them as even right now.
Also here:
http://www.tech-hounds.com/review17/ReviewsPage3.html
Where they are specificly looking for differences... they are negligible at best and at a standstill frame you need to look hard to see the difference and in some cases NV has the better IQ. Lets call it a wash and go from there, unless I am way off track and someone can show me different which I dont think is going to happen it comes down to which is a better performer for the money.
Internal
08-21-06, 10:37 PM
"The money that could be saved buying an GTX".
Whatever you are smoking, please pass it this way.:)
With mail-in rebates a 1900xt can be had for $280 and without rebates about $320.
A xtx can be had without rebates $350-$360 and with rebates $330.
Go to newegg and choose nvidia, then choose $200-300 and then $300-$400 and see what $200-$300 and then $300-$400 will get you vs. ati.
Not only that the x1900xt gets better numbers in most games people care about.
Dan0512
08-21-06, 11:47 PM
Not only that the x1900xt gets better numbers in most games people care about.
QFT, no better way to put it.
dan
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/9324
Hard to talk about image quality when sites like this go over specific frames looking for issues. I am sure if NV had bad IQ issues they wouldnt be selling cards the way they do, nor would I have one. I wouldnt own a NV5XXX card because they were garbage. No site will say either has a massive advantage or even a blatantly noticable difference during gameplay. Unless someone shows me screenshots showing this big IQ difference I see them as even right now.
Also here:
http://www.tech-hounds.com/review17/ReviewsPage3.html
Where they are specificly looking for differences... they are negligible at best and at a standstill frame you need to look hard to see the difference and in some cases NV has the better IQ. Lets call it a wash and go from there, unless I am way off track and someone can show me different which I dont think is going to happen it comes down to which is a better performer for the money.
the difference cannot be seen in screenshots
the difference cannot be seen in screenshots from websites
the difference cannot be seen just because you choose to love one companies cards ALL THE TIME, noone always has the best card.
the difference can be felt and seen if you've played many games you love on a 7800gtx and a x1800xt and then a 7900gt and a x1900
the difference can be seen if you have owned the best from both and can compare yourself with your own eyes, but I guess you'd have to break down and buy an ATI card once in while to do that lol
nvidiaOCmaster
08-22-06, 01:22 AM
X1900XT of course, its much, much faster and the image quality is awesome.
the image quality on the x1900xtx is way better
the difference can be felt and seen if you've played many games you love on a 7800gtx and a x1800xt and then a 7900gt and a x1900
X1900XT of course, its much, much faster and the image quality is awesome.
I used a 7800GTX for 6 months. Then I went 7800GTX SLI. Then I went X1900XT. The ATI part proved almost as fast in FEAR with AA than the 7800GTX SLI. More importantly, image quality in movement improved dramatically. Gone were the jittery ceilings and scissor-splitting stairs.
In their place? Smooth textures.
But don't just take my word for it. Take yet another word for it. About 3 months ago, I swore off gaming as it took up too much of my time. I spent my time enjoying a new hobby...mountain biking. :)
A couple weeks ago Core 2 came out. And I caved like a fat kid looking at chocolate. The 7900GT I picked up turned out to be the 1/1000 (yeah right) that had issues. After returning it for an X1900XT, I've finally been able to put the screws to my E6300. Netting 3150Mhz on default Vcore and a touch of MCH/FSB voltage. If my RAM didn't crap out at 900Mhz, I might get more. The other major differences you can read about in the top three quotes.
It's faster than a 7900GT/7800GTX.
It's prettier than a 7900GT/7800GTX.
It's almost as cheap as the 7900GT/7800GTX.
If this doesn't appease you, hit me up with a PM and I'll be happy to provide more info, etc.
Thanks, cheers, and happy trails,
Jod ;)
EDIT: One caveat...and it's a big one! The 370 million transistors will roast your rig. My system temp has increased with stock cooler...with the VF900, it went up even more. And even still the VF900 hits 80C on load. I have an Accelero on the way which should take care of that. If you get this care...you MUST have 120's in the rear or you WILL get hot. Keep this in mind!!
the image quality on the x1900xtx is way better
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_image_quality_showdown_august06/
Nice image quality showdown.. Interesting results with lots of screenies.
Thanks...reading that and the cooler showdown now. In the article, I saw this:
Unannounced upcoming ATI graphics card
Is that the 1950?
Ys it is. Supposedly very fast and very HOT!
according to guru 3d its 650/2000 the first 2ghz effective memory card ever ! and its only gonna be $399 they reported temps of 69c same as x1900xt/xtx
Temps might show the same, but they also report that the redid the cooler to be more effective.
yeah we should put that cooler on the x1900xt ... but yeah they are hot, they dont bother my system much if any becuase of the stacker 810 case.
Neural Net
08-23-06, 10:48 AM
I don't know what kind of test that is, but I can say that even a X1600 has better image quality than either of those shots. I wouldn't go off articles, it's always better to compare the cards yourself.
I don't know what kind of test that is, but I can say that even a X1600 has better image quality than either of those shots. I wouldn't go off articles, it's always better to compare the cards yourself.
Neural Net
08-23-06, 12:21 PM
May I also add, how can nVidia fanboys claim higher IQ even in this article, look at these two images, the first one from an ATI card, the second from a nVidia.
ATI
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_image_quality_showdown_august06/images/14.jpg
NVIDIA
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_image_quality_showdown_august06/images/09.jpg
Now, look at the ammo counter. Oh dear. Also, despite there being more visual detail shown in the nVidia shots, the card either doesn't run HL2 properly, or the whole article is photoshopped. Which is more crucial, being able to see a few twigs, or being able to count your ammo?
Also, I would not compare IQ using still shots, that is completely stupid. You don't stand still in a game, the best way to compare IQ would be to take video at least 720p quality and then compare the two.
I'm not saying ATI is amazing nVidia sucks or vice versa, all I'm saying is that these articles are stupid. Do not rely on them, it's hazardous to your health. :beer:
Thats my point in posting it. Given that any writer can skew it at this point to make either brand seem superior or inferior depending on who he likes, its really just too close to make a simple call as to which is better. If you were comparing the 9800XT to the FX 5950 Ultra I would say the 9800XT spanked it till it cried for it's mama. All I can say is between the 2 makers what drives me now is the price. i have seen this shimmering and have been able to correct it by either a simple driver adjustment like no negative LOD bias or turning on the Conformant texture clamp so that I had no issues. Simmilarly I have had issues in games with ATI in the past that I have been able to correct as well. Some games I blame the developers. Clearly the Doom engine was made for NV where halflife was made for ATI and as such the other vendor will have some issues with these game engines which over time usually get worked out. Its silly to not buy whats just plain best for the money. If I had a chouce between a X1900XT for $200 and a 7900GTX for $400, thats a no brainer, and vice versa. Right now if I was buying a brand new card the deal at WOOT for a 7900GS for $139 would be at the top of my list.
www.woot.com
Thats sick performance for the money right there.
LMFAO @ the ammo picture.
YES!! Newegg just dropped off my Accelero. Ordered on Monday, delivered on Tuesday...cheapest UPS shipping too.
Neural Net
08-23-06, 04:59 PM
You know, it is so refreshing to go on a forum and not see ZOMG but ATi/nVidia roolz and nVidia/ATi sux.
Nandro, we're pretty much making the same point, I would go for the cheaper card, simply because there is currently less difference in IQ in the latest generation of cards.
One thing people forget is that IQ includes much more than the Graphics card. It includes the quality of the monitor: the dot pitch, the contrast, response time, colour calibration, etc. Unless you have got a nicely specced LCD screen, it won't matter what card you have because in my opinion, the monitor you use makes the biggest difference in IQ.
:)
BossBorot
08-23-06, 05:04 PM
Price performance wins the day who gives a crap about the other stuff.
Price performance wins the day who gives a crap about the other stuff.
It has always been like that except when NV had the crappy FX cards, they could crank out some frames, but they looked like they were on an atari 800.
Evilsizer
08-24-06, 01:18 AM
Price performance wins the day who gives a crap about the other stuff.
indeed just like this new x1950xtx
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/375/1/
LIKE OMG LOOK ITS GDDR4 WITH A PRICE TAG $399US (see page 2)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.