ATI's Late Response to G70 - Radeon X1800, X1600 and X1300
by Derek Wilson on October 5, 2005 11:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Test Setup and Power Performance
Our testing methodology was to try and cover a lot of ground with top to bottom hardware. Including the X1300 through the X1800 line required quite a few different cards and tests to be run. In order to make it easier to look at the data, rather than put everything for each game in one place as we normally do, we have broken up our data into three separate groups: Budget, Midrange, and High End.
We used the latest drivers we had available which are both beta drivers. From NVIDIA, the 81.82 drivers were tested rather than the current release as we expect the rel 80 drivers to be in the end users hands before the X1000 series is easy to purchase.
All of our tests were done on this system:
ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55
1GB DDR400 2:2:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStreams PSU
The resolutions we tested range from 800x600 on the low end to 2048x1536 on the high end. The games we tested include:
Before we take a look at the performance numbers, here's a look at the power draw of various hardware.
As we can see, this generation draws about as much power as previous generatation products under load at the high end and midrange. The X1300 Pro seems to draw a little more power than we would like to see in a budget part. The card also sports a fan that is just as loud as the X1600 XT. Considering that some of the cards we tested against the X1300 Pro were passively cooled, this is something to note.
Our testing methodology was to try and cover a lot of ground with top to bottom hardware. Including the X1300 through the X1800 line required quite a few different cards and tests to be run. In order to make it easier to look at the data, rather than put everything for each game in one place as we normally do, we have broken up our data into three separate groups: Budget, Midrange, and High End.
We used the latest drivers we had available which are both beta drivers. From NVIDIA, the 81.82 drivers were tested rather than the current release as we expect the rel 80 drivers to be in the end users hands before the X1000 series is easy to purchase.
All of our tests were done on this system:
ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55
1GB DDR400 2:2:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStreams PSU
The resolutions we tested range from 800x600 on the low end to 2048x1536 on the high end. The games we tested include:
- Day of Defeat: Source
- Doom 3
- EverQuest 2
- Far Cry
- Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
- The Chronicles of Riddick
Before we take a look at the performance numbers, here's a look at the power draw of various hardware.
As we can see, this generation draws about as much power as previous generatation products under load at the high end and midrange. The X1300 Pro seems to draw a little more power than we would like to see in a budget part. The card also sports a fan that is just as loud as the X1600 XT. Considering that some of the cards we tested against the X1300 Pro were passively cooled, this is something to note.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Hence, the non-existence of 7600 and 7200 (or whatever) cards from NVIDIA. But ATI needed to get SM3.0 into budget and mid-range cards - not because it's tremendously useful, but because they're losing the marketing campaign on that item.Phantronius - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Wheres the fucking Battlefield 2 numbers?????Dudeeeeeee - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
What about testing this card with games we actually play? Good game...KayKay - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I read most of the r520 reviews this morning and I decided to read anandtech's review, since i trust yours over most others. I was rather disappointed with the layout and choice of tests.All around the web, the result i gathered was that the x1800xt was definitely better than the 7800gtx in a number of areas and if i had read anandtech's review first, would have been totally misled.
I am an NVIDIA user probably for LIFE but this review didn't seem to do ATI justice
bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Reviews aren't supposed to be favorable they're supposed to present facts so that WE the consumer can make informed purchase decisions. And right now, ATI doesn't present a good bang for the buck.KayKay - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
the review wasn't structured in a way to present a fair comparison of the cards is all im saying. look no further than some of the other websites that reviewed todays launchbob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
It was easy for me. What are you looking for? The X1xxx's were compared to the 7xxx's. Are you looking for an ATI landslide or are you looking for a comparison?Chadder007 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I was hoping that the X1600 would perform better, but for the price 6600GT and X800GTO >>>> X1600 parts. Sad. :(Griswold - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Probably the weakest review i've seen here at AT so far. The benches are more than just confusing. Some benches only show the XL, some only the XT and some both. Not good.DigitalFreak - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Agreed. I'm not a stickler for perfect grammer, but the grammer & spelling quality of AT articles has gone down hill tremendously in the past year!Seems you guys have just been throwing stuff together at the last minute to try and make a deadline. Anand - you need to step in here and get these guys back on track. It's hurting both your and your sites reputations.