Should I get Radeon X1900XTX or Nividia's 7900GTX?

2006-04-03 14:58:20

#26

oakley_addic: Member; +2|6938

I am currently playing on 6800GT OC and when i had to replace it i tried out the x850 pro and there is a huge difference in shadowing that you would notice right away, as far as i know ATI still does not support shader 3.0 which makes huge difference on the realism of the game...
As said above i am also a huge fan of nVidia and that experience just proved me same thing again.
Also nVidia driver a lot nicer to work with, card interface is more friendly, options are easier to find....

......You want less headache and more fps, by nVidia

2006-04-03 16:20:24

#27

Lib-Sl@yer: Member; +32|6999|Wherever the F**k i feel like

is the 7900 gonna support HDTV movies on windows vista movies?

2006-04-03 17:06:14

#28

Snipedya14: Dont tread on me; +77|6981|Mountains of West Virginia

Let me clear a few things up.

While the x8-- series and below do not support SM 3.0, the newer cards do. They also support HDR. Not to be confused with the HDTV blah blah.

ATIs drivers are not shit, (although i use Omegas)

And anyone that uses a single brand for all of his/her card choices is stupid. I buy what the best card is for my current situation, wether is be Nvidia or ATI.

2006-04-03 21:05:38

#29

sixshot: Decepticon Geek; +50|6962|Planet Seibertron ;)

Adding some "unbiased" bits into the pile of rubble here...

I won't badger on which one to get. But I will testify that ATi's drivers aren't always "crap." They're just made different. In my times of using ATi's Catalyst drivers on my trusty R9800 Pro, I have never gotten a single problem regarding game performance or anything. Anything that probably would need a driver update in order to work right has worked flawlessly 99% of the time of running a variety of games. While things have changed in terms of how one control and set options to the drivers, nonetheless the drivers themselves are stable and usable in virtually all cases. If the drivers from ATi are substandard to your levels, I suggest stating why and how instead of proclaiming it w/o any hint of reason.

And in contrary to ATi's quality to drivers, nVIDIA is no different when it comes to drivers that simply work (or don't work). There are problems that plagued a small percentage of users out there, especially those on the workstation and 3D modeling front. So it's not just ATi that has its share of problems when it comes to finding out what bugs there are and how to fix it without compromising performance. So in the end, neither company is better than the other for driver quality and stability. However, the difference that separates the two is how you set your options up. Some like it ATi's method over nVIDIA. Others quite the opposite. From there on, it becomes a matter of personal preferences and experiences with those CUIs, or Control User Interfaces.

nVIDIA's CUI basically encapsulate everything into a single tab extended by a tree-driven menu that slides out on the left side. Many would find this to be direct and the control system integrates well with the drivers. There's no additional download so there's one less step in the process.

ATi's CUI is a bit different, where you are given either an all-in-one install package that installs everything related and within Catalyst or a two-part installation process that involves downloading the drivers and the Catalyst Control Center, ATi's CUI program. And due to how ATi's CCC is programmed, you have to download and install .NET Framework to get it to run. How that'll run is really subjective at this point. ATi's CUI does centralize everything into a stand-alone application, rather than fumbling through the Display Properties and clicking buttons after tabs and so forth. On the other hand, ATi's CCC is coded in .NET which not only may inhibit performance but also has a larger install-base (meaning, it eats up more HD space in general).

Each drivers have their pros and cons. You go with what you prefer. But if you do not like the drivers due to its CUI, suck it up and deal with it. Either cards will perform extremely well and you're better off worrying about how to adapt to another user interface than what brand it is.

2006-04-03 21:08:04

#30

iceman785: Member; +93|6959|Alaska, mother fucker.

should get the PCI-E 7900 if you got a PCI slot, kick ass card right there

2006-04-03 21:33:05

#31

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,056|7058|PNW

If you already have an x8 or a 6x00, wait for the next gen like the NV G80 and ATI's response. It is always wise to skip one or two generations between each upgrade. You won't be upset, as they'll have better support for future games.

Also, if you are planning on eventually going for a Physics adaptor, check to make sure whatever game you're going to be playing supports that engine (i.e., UT2007), and don't buy it until whatever game that is comes out. I am probably going to go with the BFG one, but I'll wait to see if they come out with a 256MB version.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-03 21:36:28)

2006-04-04 00:28:01

#32

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7003

i agree w/ u unamednewbie. unless he earns a lot of money then go for it

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-04-04 00:50:51

#33

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7043|Hell, p.o box 666

deject wrote:
A single X1900XT (don't waste your money on the XTX, totally not worth it) is faster than a 7900GTX. On the other hand, nVidia's SLI performs better with the second card, and is easier to setup than Crossfire.

Bottom line: Single card: X1900XT, Dual card: 7900GTX

X1900XT isnt faster than single 7900GTX, proof your posting. I´ve not seen any benchmarks where the X1900XT is faster... Neither the XTX.

ATM 7900GTX 512MB is the fastest card aviable.

2006-04-04 01:34:10

#34

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,056|7058|PNW

fon|sl4y3r wrote:
deject wrote:
A single X1900XT (don't waste your money on the XTX, totally not worth it) is faster than a 7900GTX. On the other hand, nVidia's SLI performs better with the second card, and is easier to setup than Crossfire.

Bottom line: Single card: X1900XT, Dual card: 7900GTX
X1900XT isnt faster than single 7900GTX, proof your posting. I´ve not seen any benchmarks where the X1900XT is faster... Neither the XTX.

ATM 7900GTX 512MB is the fastest card aviable.

People like the X1900's because of the slightly-improved image quality. They prefer that over a bit of framerate defeat from NVIDIA every other game. Driver/game support should be considered in your choice of purchases.

Comparisons and arguments between NVIDIA and ATI products are like balancing the differences between a pair of Godly Whale plates and King's Haste swords from Diablo I.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-04 01:35:11)

2006-04-04 02:21:25

#35

alf.ha: Member; +5|7026|Berlin/Germany

Does anyone know at what time the g80 will be released? I heard different stories about that and hope it will be available soon.

2006-04-04 02:59:04

#36

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,056|7058|PNW

alf.ha wrote:
Does anyone know at what time the g80 will be released? I heard different stories about that and hope it will be available soon.

General consensus is sometime later this year. NVIDIA recently missed a tape out, which further strengthens this belief. The G80's capabilities are explained here.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-04 03:02:06)

2006-04-04 05:31:15

#37

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7043|Hell, p.o box 666

agreed unnamednewbie13... Graphicsquality is way better with a ATI card. But to be honest, who does set its quality and stuff to the extreme?! I think a average fps is much more important then 16xAAF and HDRstuff

2006-04-04 09:01:08

#38

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7022|Salt Lake City

fon|sl4y3r wrote:
deject wrote:
A single X1900XT (don't waste your money on the XTX, totally not worth it) is faster than a 7900GTX. On the other hand, nVidia's SLI performs better with the second card, and is easier to setup than Crossfire.

Bottom line: Single card: X1900XT, Dual card: 7900GTX
X1900XT isnt faster than single 7900GTX, proof your posting. I´ve not seen any benchmarks where the X1900XT is faster... Neither the XTX.

ATM 7900GTX 512MB is the fastest card aviable.

Then you need to stop exclusively reading NV sponsored web sites. The X1900XT/X and 7900GTX are pretty close in performance, trading wins in various games. However, the X1900XT/X does tend to show a little better performance when the graphics settings get a bit higher.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bfg … /page6.asp

2006-04-04 09:01:40

#39

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7022|Salt Lake City

fon|sl4y3r wrote:
deject wrote:
A single X1900XT (don't waste your money on the XTX, totally not worth it) is faster than a 7900GTX. On the other hand, nVidia's SLI performs better with the second card, and is easier to setup than Crossfire.

Bottom line: Single card: X1900XT, Dual card: 7900GTX
X1900XT isnt faster than single 7900GTX, proof your posting. I´ve not seen any benchmarks where the X1900XT is faster... Neither the XTX.

ATM 7900GTX 512MB is the fastest card aviable.

Then you need to stop exclusively reading NV sponsored web sites. The X1900XT/X and 7900GTX are pretty close in performance, trading wins in various games. However, the X1900XT/X does tend to show a little better performance when the graphics settings get a bit higher.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bfg … /page6.asp

2006-04-04 16:16:05

#40

Ballistix5: Member; +36|7061|Forster NSW

Well iv got a 7800GTX And I would recomend the X1900XTX Its just bigger and better I think

I remember sombody saying they registered 20000 3dmarks with the X1900XT so the XTX has gotta be better again

2006-04-04 23:43:41

#41

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7043|Hell, p.o box 666

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
fon|sl4y3r wrote:
deject wrote:
A single X1900XT (don't waste your money on the XTX, totally not worth it) is faster than a 7900GTX. On the other hand, nVidia's SLI performs better with the second card, and is easier to setup than Crossfire.

Bottom line: Single card: X1900XT, Dual card: 7900GTX
X1900XT isnt faster than single 7900GTX, proof your posting. I´ve not seen any benchmarks where the X1900XT is faster... Neither the XTX.

ATM 7900GTX 512MB is the fastest card aviable.
Then you need to stop exclusively reading NV sponsored web sites. The X1900XT/X and 7900GTX are pretty close in performance, trading wins in various games. However, the X1900XT/X does tend to show a little better performance when the graphics settings get a bit higher.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bfg … /page6.asp

ehm, wrong!!!
Trust me m8, I´ve tested both ATI 1900 cards, single 7900GTX and SLI 7900GTX (Nvidia referenceboards)each with my X2 4800 and 64 4000+. The single 7900GTX is at least 5% faster than X1900XTX without qualitysetting. A 7900GTX-SLI is about 20-25% faster then the ATI card. If you turn up the quality like 16xAAF and stuff, the diffrence is like nothing and the ATI-cards got something like 2-3FPS more ingame.

2006-04-04 23:54:49

#42

-_{MoW}_-Assasin: Member; +13|7015|Australia

as i said before, they are both the highest end cards, buy whatever is cheaper, the performance is both top notch, and, i dont think IQ will be a problem, coz youll prob be running at high res and high quality

2006-04-05 00:48:12

#43

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7003

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
as i said before, they are both the highest end cards, buy whatever is cheaper, the performance is both top notch, and, i dont think IQ will be a problem, coz youll prob be running at high res and high quality

lol no one listened to ur posts b4

2006-04-05 07:17:03

#44

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7022|Salt Lake City

fon|sl4y3r wrote:
Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
fon|sl4y3r wrote:

X1900XT isnt faster than single 7900GTX, proof your posting. I´ve not seen any benchmarks where the X1900XT is faster... Neither the XTX.

ATM 7900GTX 512MB is the fastest card aviable.
Then you need to stop exclusively reading NV sponsored web sites. The X1900XT/X and 7900GTX are pretty close in performance, trading wins in various games. However, the X1900XT/X does tend to show a little better performance when the graphics settings get a bit higher.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bfg … /page6.asp
ehm, wrong!!!
Trust me m8, I´ve tested both ATI 1900 cards, single 7900GTX and SLI 7900GTX (Nvidia referenceboards)each with my X2 4800 and 64 4000+. The single 7900GTX is at least 5% faster than X1900XTX without qualitysetting. A 7900GTX-SLI is about 20-25% faster then the ATI card. If you turn up the quality like 16xAAF and stuff, the diffrence is like nothing and the ATI-cards got something like 2-3FPS more ingame.

No, it's not wrong. Also, who in the hell spends $500-600 on a video card to not run with the higher graphical settings? That test also wasn't meant to show SLI performance, it was showing single card performance.

2006-04-05 07:37:24

#45

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7043|Hell, p.o box 666

Seems like your´re little ATI-addicted?!
Me, myself and I have tested the ATI X1900XT, ATI X1900XTX and the Nvidia-Referenceboard G71 7900GTX 512MB (not SLI) on my own Systems. 7900GTX is faster thrust me. The qualitysettings only show a better result for ATI because of a trick in the catalystdriver (wich is still beta for the X1900).

Neither want to talk about results with crossfire and SLI (SLI [owned] Crossfire)

If you take the official drivers for both brands, the Nvidia perfomance is 1337 in nearly every setting.

Either m8, I cant imagine that you´ve tried all this cards for yourself like I did, so you only refer to sources you like to read, no offence btw.

2006-04-05 07:50:56

#46

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7022|Salt Lake City

fon|sl4y3r wrote:
Seems like your´re little ATI-addicted?!
Me, myself and I have tested the ATI X1900XT, ATI X1900XTX and the Nvidia-Referenceboard G71 7900GTX 512MB (not SLI) on my own Systems. 7900GTX is faster thrust me. The qualitysettings only show a better result for ATI because of a trick in the catalystdriver (wich is still beta for the X1900).

Neither want to talk about results with crossfire and SLI (SLI [owned] Crossfire)

If you take the official drivers for both brands, the Nvidia perfomance is 1337 in nearly every setting.

Either m8, I cant imagine that you´ve tried all this cards for yourself like I did, so you only refer to sources you like to read, no offence btw.

I have not personally used the cards myself, but I moderate on a hardware web site, and have done so for several years. So information also comes from first hand users. I also do not use a single site to determine such things, I read a number of web sites, and every one I have read comes out about the same as the site I posted, in that the cards trade wins in different games.

You would seem to be the nvidiot in this case. I currently own an ATi product for my main system, but currently have an NV product in my secondary system, and have owned several over the years.

The 7900GTX is not faster than the X1900XTX in all games and all settings. As I noted, NV wins in some, ATi in others.

With SLI being a couple of years old, I would expect it to be a bit more mature, but SLI doesn't slaughter Crossfire across the board either; lest we not forget the issues SLI had when it first appeared, and a few bugs that it still has.

Perhaps another link from one of the best know hardware sites on the internet, and one of your own countrymen.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/09/ … age11.html

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-04-05 07:52:33)

2006-04-05 07:59:40

#47

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7043|Hell, p.o box 666

I was just about to post a link

http://www2.tomshardware.de/graphic/200 … to-10.html

Like I´ve said the results doesnt differ in wide space, but on the most tests Nvidia is faster, even with high qualitysettings or 1600x1200.

To end this: I´ve posted my personall exp with those cards. On my systems wich I post again on below.

1st system
AMD X2 4800+
Asus A8N-SLI-Deluxe PCI-E32
2x Asus N7800GTX extreme 256 MB
4096 MB Kingston DDR400
2x Seagate 160GB S-ATA
Creative X-FI Fatal1ty
Thermaltake Kandalf

2nd system
AMD A64 4000+
Asus A8N-SLI-Deluxe
2x Leadtek 7800GT 256MB
2048MB Corsair DDR400
1x Seagate 200GB S-ATA
Creative Audigy2
Thermaltake Armor

3rd system
AMD A64 3200+
Gigabyte GA K8NS-Ultra
1x Leadtek 7800GS 256 MB
2048MB Kingston DDR400
1x Seagate 160GB S-ATA
onBoard rulez Soundcard
a cheap miditower

Last edited by fon|sl4y3r (2006-04-05 08:00:03)

2006-04-05 15:05:52

#48

-_{MoW}_-Assasin: Member; +13|7015|Australia

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
as i said before, they are both the highest end cards, buy whatever is cheaper, the performance is both top notch, and, i dont think IQ will be a problem, coz youll prob be running at high res and high quality
lol no one listened to ur posts b4

I still dont think theyre listening now, looks like a Fanboy Turf War

2006-04-05 18:17:50

#49

OwNEr_230: Member; +0|6884

7900...for sure...

2006-04-05 18:26:15

#50

washow: Get out of MY JET!!!; +23|6998

whichever you buy, it will work fumping awesome in bf2 (same for every other games and it will most likely last you years)

but XTX's too dang expensive..

but i guess you got money eh?

if i were you i'd go with 7900 just because i can SLI it up in the future (yea.. crossfire.. but it sucks)

BF2S Forums Should I get Radeon X1900XTX or Nividia's 7900GTX?

deject wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

deject wrote:

alf.ha wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

deject wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

deject wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

deject wrote:

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:

Board footer