Previewing ATi's Radeon X800 XT & X800 Pro

Giant_Panda writes "A few short weeks ago, it looked like NVIDIA was back on track as they were able to overtake ATi and reclaim the 3D performance crown with their GeForce 6800 Ultra. Now, it seems like ATi has fired back with a killer card of their own. HotHardware just posted a preview of the new 12-Pipe ATi Radeon X800 Pro ($399) and 16-pipe ATi Radeon X800 XT ($499). The X800 XT seems to be faster then even the new GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme cards that were rumored to exist on a few sites this past weekend and the X800 Pro is a great performer as well. (Other sites have just posted previews: TechReport, Hexus, Lost Circuits)"

Comments

Looks like no more soft-mods

[AsTrONoT]

Seems like they're cutting the traces on the extra pipes when creating the 12-pipe Pro version. Not that soft-mods were universally successful anyway.

Big advantage for ATI

[phasm42]

I think a real big advantage for ATI is the fact that their card doesn't take up two slots, require a monstrosity of a heat sink and fan, and recommend/require a 450W power supply like the '6800 does. Even if the new ATI card wasn't as fast as the 6800, I wouldn't consider buying a video card like that. And I've always considered myself a fan of Nvidia cards (I used to hate the "ATI OS" that ATI's old drivers used to install -- it was very invasive). ATI has produced a very competitive card performance-wise, while keeping the same form factor and with a reasonable (relatively speaking) level of power consumption and heat dissipation.

Proper Linux drivers?

[gnuman99]

Are we going to have proper set of Linux drivers? Correct implementation of OpenGL?

I know that ATI has their little RPMs going, but the reason I have switched to using nVidia is because of the crap that went on with ATI and lack of Linux support. And now, they finaly released some drivers, but no support for older cards, and no way to actually install it properly on a Debian system.

nVidia at least allows for distribution of their drivers

This is the only reason why I switched to nVidia. I don't see how anyone using Linux can support the bad support for Linux from ATI (as compared to nVidia, of course).

As to the card itself, well, I think nVidia and ATI was always close enough :) Sometimes competition works, and ATI & nVidia are prime examples of that.

PS. Please, don't troll me about the free drivers. I want/need real drivers, and not some partial implementation.

Re:Too much hype over having the "best" card?

[onion2k]

The performance might be similar at the top end, but there is a difference that could swing it in favour of ATI. Power consumption on the X800 cards is a lot lower than the nVidia alternative (its actually lower than ATI's own 9800 cards). Less power for the same performance means lower temperatures, and quieter slower fans..

Hmm...

[Burgundy Advocate]

As much as I want to like this card, I fear that they've taken a wrong turn on the path they plan to persue.

As a 3D developer, one of the most exciting things that has come about recently is Shader Model 3.0. It allows you to get greater effects with less operations using some new developments. However, it requires a 32 bit precision. Read more about it here.

ATI has chosen to continue with it's 24-bit precision architecture. While fine for most applications, some of the exciting new developments require this newer spec technology. I'm sure that it will be interoperable, but all that speed may end up being wasted while computing certain operations.

I'm left wondering why I would buy a brand spankin' new card video card when it doesn't support the newest APIs all that well. Oh well, I guess I get to stick with nVidia...

L33t nuu Video cardz...

[Punk Walrus]

Honestly, how much video power do you need? I still use an NVidia 16mb card on most of my games. I only got a new FX5200 for my newest computer because it was the "most bang for under $80" that I saw. 128mb! Far out! But UT2K4 is running fine on my 64mb NVidia GForce4, which I see I can now get for about $39. Do I need to run it at 1600 x 1200? No. 1024 x 768 is fine. How finely graned do I need to see the wall, anyway? I just need to see my attackers! I don't stand around and watch the face of my assailant and marvel at the rendering detail of the nose and mustache, because if I'm that close, I think I'm already pwn3d! No no, I am a class A cowards, and I prefer to shoot at them far away, thank you, and as long as I can see them well enought to aim and fire with decent accuracy, I don't care if it's an attacker with the pixelation of a 1970s Bally Midway style Space Invader.

I'd love to see some program that does "reverse VRAM reclaiming" so those of us who don't need 128mb of video RAM power can get some of that ram back for compiling or something.

Okay... that WAS geeky.

Not worth the upgrade

[SilentChris]

I was talking with people on another board (hardware mavens), and for most of us with a late model card from last generation (Radeon 9800, any of the competing nVidia cards), the X800 really isn't worth it.

A good denominator is fpspb (frames per second per buck, a made up value from Tom's Hardware. For the cash, you can squeeze a lot more out of a $200 Radeon Pro 9800 (especially with overclocking) than you can with anything else right now. You're only talking a marginal difference of fps between this generation and last at high (1600x1200) resolutions, and an almost non-existant difference at "normal" resolutions. The $200-300 extra price premium isn't worth those extra frames.