17 replies to this topic

[NC Derek]

http://www.gamespot....2842/index.html

man oh man impressive but expenssive. 649 bucks for the 1900xtx

[Novahawk]

sry but that review is so gay... first of all, on page 2... Half Life 2 Lost Coast, Max Settings, 16000x1200 4xAA/8xAF and they only compared it to the 1800 and the 7800 which is only 256, and not the 512 one.. so yeah.. how about they compare it to the 512 one?

EDIT: oh yeah forgot to coment on the 16000 pixels.. man gamespot must have some very WIDE screens.. 16000 by 1200.. man... and im not flaming you derek but there is another reason to why i hate gamespot...

Edited by Novahawk, 24 January 2006 - 08:14 PM.

[NC Derek]

haha yeah youre right. i could care less, i didnt write it. i just put it out there bc gamespot prob puts it in simplest terms. i always run my games on 1600x1200. i tried 2050x1600 and sh*t started doing weird things haha.

[wyte mafia]

yawn...

[ShLoNkY]

That was a typo. "1600x1200." I agree that it was not a very good review. However, the x1900 xx are going to be fast as hell.

Heres a Good review

Edited by ShLoNkY, 25 January 2006 - 03:31 PM.

[S.W.A.T. 2.0]

Another good review

It's a pretty nice card, a lil' better than anything Nvidia has right now (although not by all that much). The thing is that ATI's specs are misleading. This card doesn't have 48 pixel pipelines like I thought, it's only got 16. It's got 48 Pixel Shader Pipelines. That's a big difference...While this card is clocked higher than the Nvidia 7800 GTX, card, the Nvidia card has 50% more pixel pipelines. The new 7900 series which will have 32 pixel pipelines on the GTX, which should really put a hurtin' on the 1900 XTX. Clock speeds are all well and good, but if your card can process data alot faster than it can move it around it doesn't do you any good...

And honestly both of these cards are probably alot faster than most CPU's anyways. The CPU is going to be a bottleneck, they say you need at LEAST an Athlon 64 3500+ to get much benefit out of the 1900 series...more along the 3800+ speed would be better. Honestly, unless you want to play at a super high resolution (greater tahn 16x12) with all AA/AF, none of the super high end cards are worth the money right now...

[DarkShadow]

Yeah but your missing one big thing, the 7800 and whatnot are better in a pair with SLI, ATI is trying to bring nvidia's SLI performance into one card, thats the big picture.

I still f*ckin think duel cores on one card is something people should do.

[NC Derek]

Yeah but your missing one big thing, the 7800 and whatnot are better in a pair with SLI, ATI is trying to bring nvidia's SLI performance into one card, thats the big picture.

I still f*ckin think duel cores on one card is something people should do.

yeah they just need to get their coolong straightened out. im an ATI fan but man...my 9800xt is always between 71-84c

[Cyprus]

Im gonna make my own computer this summer, you think i should buy this or a 7800gtx? Maybe the price for this will go down this summer??

[S.W.A.T. 2.0]

Wait and see what technology is out before you decide. The 7900 series will be out by then, and ATI may have a few new choices as well.

At the moment if you had to go with anything (price not an issue) I'd say go with this 1900XTX, but when the 7900GTX comes out my opinion MAY change (we'll see, but I'm optomistic).

And you can't really claim that ATI is trying to get the performance of SLI in one card...they just started with Crossfire. I think that MSI is working on a dual GPU card right now (or maybe it's already out...I can't remember).

Once again, all the cards I've mentioned are overkill for your basic 16x12 gaming...if you were on a budget I'd get a 6800GS and unlock/overclock it to Ultra speeds. Then you've essentially got a 6800 Ultra which will play any game out now and look very purdy doing it for about $180.

Until games become much more GPU demanding I don't see a need to upgrade my card. I'll be waiting for more pixel pipelines and GDDR4 memory (which should start out clocked at about 2.4GHz, as opposed to the 1.5GHz the new 1900 is reaching).

[ShLoNkY]

I wouldn't say the best cards out there is overkill........ My system @16x12 with max AA and AF on an HDR map gets about 12 fps with an x800XT and AMD64 @ 2.4 ghz. 12 fps is unplayable as far as I'm concerned. My system gets plenty of FPS under normal conditions with 4x AA. But untill you can really max everything out and get over 100fps, there is no such thing as overkill.

[S.W.A.T. 2.0]

I wouldn't say the best cards out there is overkill........ My system @16x12 with max AA and AF on an HDR map gets about 12 fps with an x800XT and AMD64 @ 2.4 ghz. 12 fps is unplayable as far as I'm concerned. My system gets plenty of FPS under normal conditions with 4x AA. But untill you can really max everything out and get over 100fps, there is no such thing as overkill.

Anything over about 60fps your eye can't detect the difference in, so that's irrelivent. For me at least, spending an extra $400 to have max AA/AF enabled isn't a really big deal though. I'm running 16x12 with the exact two components and a TON of custom models (which slows down the game alot) and I'm still hitting 70-100 fps. I don't have max AA/AF, but to me that doesn't really matter...

*edit* maybe not the "exact" same components. I'm running an Athlon 64 3400+ and an X800 XT PE.

Edited by S.W.A.T. 2.0, 26 January 2006 - 08:34 PM.

[ShLoNkY]

Yeah but I average about 70-80 fps during normal gameplay but can drop down to less than 30 when a ton of sh*t is goin down. (tons of nades and some smoke with 10 people on the screen) A faster card and this wouldnt be an issue. Right now my x800xt is plenty fast. Dont get me wrong, what we both have kicks plenty of ass and $500 or 600 is a lot to spend. Faster is always better though A faster processor would prolly be a better investment for someone with a 6800 or x800xx type card. (I might get a 4000+ and shoot for 3.0ghz after OC)

Edited by ShLoNkY, 26 January 2006 - 09:52 PM.

[S.W.A.T. 2.0]

I'd hold off on a new processor as well. AMD is not making any new chips for S939. Their new socket, AM2 or MA2 or something like that is coming out soon. It will support DDR2 and has a few other bells and whistles. I'd just wait for that instead.

[NC Derek]

I'd hold off on a new processor as well. AMD is not making any new chips for S939. Their new socket, AM2 or MA2 or something like that is coming out soon. It will support DDR2 and has a few other bells and whistles. I'd just wait for that instead.

its M2....and yeah im waiting for the new AMD processors, for cheapr vid cards, and for direct x 10

[ShLoNkY]

Or you could keep waiting forever for the next best thing and never upgrade. Ima wait till they come out with Pentium VIIs with DDRIV cuz that sounds like a nice number.

[NC Derek]

youre a donkey no no your a dumbass.

[S.W.A.T. 2.0]

Or you could keep waiting forever for the next best thing and never upgrade. Ima wait till they come out with Pentium VIIs with DDRIV cuz that sounds like a nice number.

No, but I'm going to wait until the point where I can't play my games at a decent resolution/speed. What's the point for me to go from an X800 XT PE to a 7800 GTX? I'm happy with my performance right now. When games start coming out that run at a max of 40 or so FPS or something like that THEN I'll bite the bullet and upgrade.

Also, it would be nice to get a built in PPU with my mobo or GFX card...