High End and Future Ultra High End Performance

On the high end, the X1800 XL is a solid competitor to the 7800 GT. In some cases, the X1800 XL is able to compete with the 7800 GTX, but not enough to warrant pricing on the same level. The X1800 XT will not be out for at least a month, and while it does offer good competition to the 7800 GTX, we do want to caution everyone to wait until the part is shipping before embracing it.

Once again, Doom 3 shows NVIDIA to lead the way in performance, this time even with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled. Even the 6800 GT is able to best ATI's new flagship, the X1800 XT.

High-End Card Comparison - Doom 3


The X1800 XT falls just short of the NVIDIA 7800 GTX at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF with a score of 59.5 fps. The X1800 XL and XT are good competitors to the 7800 GTX and 7800 GT parts at this resolution under Day of Defeat. We run with all the quality options on the highest setting (including reflect all).

High-End Card Comparison - Day of Defeat


The X1000 line tend to do very well in Far Cry, and the high end parts are no exception. This time around, the defeat isn't that staggering, as the 7800 series seems to keep up well.

High-End Card Comparison - Far Cry


With Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, the X1800 XT dominates. The X1800 XL is competive with the 7800 GTX in this benchmark, which is appropriate based on expected pricing.

High-End Card Comparison - Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory


Looking at the ultra high end, Doom 3 once again favors the NVIDIA line of parts.

High-End Card Comparison - Doom 3


High-End Card Comparison - Day of Defeat


High-End Card Comparison - Far Cry


High-End Card Comparison - Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory


High-End Card Comparison - Everquest II


Mid-Range Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

103 Comments

View All Comments

  • TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Oh, I had completely ignored that one because I heard something about their graphs being horrible and hard to read. But I'll take a look at it, thanks!
  • TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    And now I remember it was PC Perspective that had the horrible graphs.

    Sorry, my head isn't working properly today, I'm afraid. :(
  • fishbits - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Maybe a late, light review was supposed to be a witty jab at ATI? :P
  • hotdog453 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    I agree. But, some review sites are still touting Quake3 as a benchmark for some components (mainly CPUs now, but still)... they use games that stress the component well, not really the games you and I may be playing. Kind of ironic, I know.

    Honestly, when was the last time any of us fired up Doom3, except to benchmark something? It was a horrible game. Simply horrible. Scripted events do not a good game make. But from a technical, omg, point of view, it made cards cry. So they use it *shrug*

  • Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Is that right? Or the titles were wrongly exchanged?
  • hoppa - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Am I missing something here? The article states that the hardware is quite powerful and a good deal, yet to me the benchmarks look absolutely miserable. The X1ks are on the bottom of nearly every chart, and in some cases, even lower than their predecessors (X800)! What the hell!
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Actually, the conclusion states that the hardware appears quite powerful - especially the X1800 XT - but that the price is too high. I saw several places where the article comments on price, so if you got the impression that it's a "good deal" let me know where and I'll edit it. :)
  • Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    On the high end comparison - Day of Defeat, it is missing the X1800XT performance bar.
  • Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    For the 1600x1200 chart...
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Fixed - it was 59.5 FPS, if you read the text.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now