ATI's New Leader in Graphics Performance: The Radeon X1900 Series
by Derek Wilson & Josh Venning on January 24, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Details of the Cards
There are actually 4 products being launched today, three of which we were able to get our hands on for this article. We have actually spotted all three of these cards we tested around the internet today, so availability is immediate, and we couldn't be happier. As for pricing, ATI's MSRPs are as follows:
Radeon X1900 XTX -- $650
Radeon X1900 CrossFire Edition -- $600
Radeon X1900 XT -- $550
The CrossFire Edition version of the X1900 is clocked the same as the X1900 XT except for its I/O connectors and compositing engine. The X1900 XT weighs in with some very high clock speeds, especially for the number of pixel pipelines it supports. If you are worried about the CrossFire card bringing down the XTX, don't be. The XTX only sees about a 4% increase in core clock speed and a 7% increase in memory clock speed over the stock X1900 XT.
So, while the price gap between the XTX, XT, and CrossFire versions of the card would seem to indicate sizeable performance differences, we can definitively say that this is not the general case. The XTX is only marginally faster even on paper, and, as we will see, in the real world, real performance is what matters. Our advice is to save your money and go with the cheaper XT. 18% more cost for at best 7% more performance is all that the XTX gives.
There are actually 4 products being launched today, three of which we were able to get our hands on for this article. We have actually spotted all three of these cards we tested around the internet today, so availability is immediate, and we couldn't be happier. As for pricing, ATI's MSRPs are as follows:
Radeon X1900 XTX -- $650
Radeon X1900 CrossFire Edition -- $600
Radeon X1900 XT -- $550
The CrossFire Edition version of the X1900 is clocked the same as the X1900 XT except for its I/O connectors and compositing engine. The X1900 XT weighs in with some very high clock speeds, especially for the number of pixel pipelines it supports. If you are worried about the CrossFire card bringing down the XTX, don't be. The XTX only sees about a 4% increase in core clock speed and a 7% increase in memory clock speed over the stock X1900 XT.
| ATI X1000 Series Features | ||||
Radeon X1900 XT(X) |
Radeon X1600 |
Radeon X1800 XL |
Radeon X1800 XT |
|
| Vertex Pipelines | 8 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
| Pixel Pipelines | 48 |
12 |
16 |
16 |
| Core Clock | 625(650) |
590 |
500 |
625 |
| Memory Size | 512MB |
256MB |
256MB |
512MB |
| Memory Data Rate | 1.45GHz (1.55GHz) |
1.38GHz |
1GHz |
1.5GHz |
| Texture Units | 16 |
4 |
16 |
16 |
| Render Backends | 16 |
4 |
16 |
16 |
| Z Compare Units | 16 |
8 |
16 |
16 |
| Maximum Threads | 512 |
128 |
512 |
512 |
So, while the price gap between the XTX, XT, and CrossFire versions of the card would seem to indicate sizeable performance differences, we can definitively say that this is not the general case. The XTX is only marginally faster even on paper, and, as we will see, in the real world, real performance is what matters. Our advice is to save your money and go with the cheaper XT. 18% more cost for at best 7% more performance is all that the XTX gives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
Live - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Thanks for the explanation! Derek I think this merits a mention in the review.NullSubroutine - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
perhaps a flash system where you can pick the card within the benchmark and it will show it on the line graph. just simply activate/deactivate feature.bldckstark - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
I have to agree that a group color for the multi-GPU setups would be helpful on the bar graphs. The outline you used to denote negative gains would work well for this. Then ATI and Nvidia bars would still have a different major color, but the multi-GPU setups could have a yellow outline. E.G. ATI = red, ATI X-fire = Red w/ yellow outline, Nvidia = blue, Nvidia SLI = blue w/ yellow outline.Rock Hydra - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
I don't know if you meant this or not, on the page mentioning the new crossfire board. There is url, I don't know if it was intended to be active or plain text, but I thought I would just bring that to your attention.DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
thanks, fixedemilyek - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Good article.You have two typos in your article.
In the system specs you have OZC Powerstreams instead of ...stream
When you use the words 'eek out' as a verb that means 'squeeze out', it is spelled 'eke'-- 'eke out'.
DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
I had no idea there was a correct spelling for eke ...thanks
beggerking - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
Did anyone notice it? the breakdown graphs doesn't quite reflect the actual data..the breakdown is showing 1900xtx being much faster than 7800 512, but in the actual performance graph 1900xtx is sometimes outpaced by 7800 512..
DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
We didn't aggregate performance of each card under each game.for the percent improvment breakdown we only looked at 2048x1536 with 4xAA which clearly shows the x1900xtx in the lead.
our reasoning is that this is the most stressful stock test we throw at the cards -- it shows what the cards can handle under the highest stress.
beggerking - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
umm.. what about 8xAA or higher? or lower resolution? w/wo AA?if you don't aggregate performance, then won't the graphic be misleading?
isn't max quality the most stressful test ?