Final Words

The numbers really do speak for themselves: the X1900XTX is an incredible part. In the end, the difference in performance between the X1900XT and XTX versions was so small that it's hard for us to see how anyone could justify spending another hundred dollars to have someone at a factory eke out that extra little bit of performance. ATI's justification for the X1900 XTX is that it is a pre-overclocked X1900 XT with a $100 manufacturers stamp of approval.

ATI stand behind their position that the X1900XTX isn't going to be another X800 XTPE, but will be a full production part with plenty of availability through its lifetime. Our first reaction is, with the voice of Chris Rock echoing in our ears: "what do you want, a cookie?" But then reality sets in and we are happy to take what we can get... as long as ATI actually delivers on their promises.

But what an excellent position from which to start following through on everything: the R580 launch is a resounding success in our eyes. Availability at launch, 4 new parts based on a huge and powerful chip, a triumphant return to the top with the new fastest graphics card available, and enough power to make the high quality features of the architecture more than useable. ATI couldn't have asked for anything better, and they certainly would not have been in a good position if they had come up with anything less.

There was some question over whether the X1900 CrossFire would be a let down with it's XT clock speeds, but the difference between reality and the theoretical performance of 2 X1900 XTX parts in CrossFire is even smaller than the difference between the performance of an X1900 XTX and an X1900 XT. If there's anything worth seriously questioning it is why anyone thinks that 4% core overclock combined with a 7% memory overclock is worth $100 to anyone.

One of the interesting non-performance related aspects of this launch is that ATI is phasing out the X1800 series. Their future roadmaps seem to leave a gap in the price range from $200 to $500, so it will be quite interesting to watch what ATI tries to fill the hole with this time around. Maybe we'll see some X1600 GTO parts with unlockable R520/R580 cores. Or maybe we'll see another product launch. Only time will tell.

Image Quality, Feature Tests, and Power
Comments Locked

120 Comments

View All Comments

  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    this is where things get a little fuzzy ... when we used to refer to an architecture as being -- for instance -- 16x1 or 8x2, we refered to the pixel shaders ability to texture a pixel. Thus, when an application wanted to perform multitexturing, the hardware would perform about the same -- single pass graphics cut the performance of the 8x2 architecture in half because half the texturing poewr was ... this was much more important for early dx, fixed pipe, or opengl based games. DX9 through all that out the window, as it is now common to see many instructions and cycles spent on any given pixel.

    in a way, since there are only 16 texture units you might be able to say its something like 48x0.333 ... it really isn't possible to texture all 48 pixels every clock cycle ad infinitum. in an 8x2 architecture you really could texture each of 8 pixels with 2 textures every clock cycle forever.

    to put it more plainly, we are now doing much more actual work with the textures we load, so the focus has shifted from "texturing" a pixel to "shading" a pixel ... or fragment ... or whatever you wanna call it.

    it's entirely different then xenos as xenos uses a unified shader architecture.

    interestingly though, R580 supports a render to vertex buffer feature that allows you to turn your pixel shaders into vertex processors and spit the output straight back into the incoming vertex data.

    but i digress ....

  • aschwabe - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    I'm wondering how a dual 7800GT/7800GTX stacked up against this card.

    i.e. Is the brand new system I bought literally 24 hours ago going to be able to compete?
  • Live - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    SLI figures is all over the review. Go read and look at the graphs again.
  • aschwabe - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Ah, my bad, thanks.
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Go check out the review on hardocp.com. They have benchies for both the GTX 256 & GTX 512, SLI & non SLI.
  • Live - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    No my bad. I'm a bit slow. Only the GTX 512 SLI are in there. sorry!
  • Viper4185 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Just a few comments (some are being very picky I know)

    1) Why are you using the latest hardware with and old Seagate 7200.7 drive when the 7200.9 series is available? Also no FX-60?

    2) Disappointing to see no power consumption/noise levels in your testing...

    3) You are like the first site to show Crossfire XTX benchmarks? I am very confused... I thought there was only a XT Crossfire card so how do you get Crossfire XTX benchmarks?

    Otherwise good job :)
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    crossfire xtx indicates that we ran a 1900 crossfire edition card in conjunction with a 1900 xtx .... this is as opposed to running the crossfire edition card in conjunction with a 1900 xt.

    crossfire does not synchronize GPU speed, so performance will be (slightly) better when pairing the faster card with the crossfire.

    fx-60 is slower than fx-57 for single threaded apps

    power consumption was supposed to be included, but we have had some power issues. We will be updating the article as soon as we can -- we didn't want to hold the entire piece in order to wait for power.

    harddrive performance is not going to affect anything but load times in our benchmarks.
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    See my comment above. They are probably running an XTX card with the Crossfire Edition master card.
  • OrSin - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Are gamers going insane. $500+ for video card is not a good price. Maybe its jsut me but are bragging rights really worth thats kind of money. Even if you played a game thats needs it you should be pissed at the game company thats puts a blot mess thats needs a $500 card.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now