The Performance Breakdown

Here we're going to take a quick look at overall performance of the X1900 XTX compared to the X1800 XT and to the 7800 GTX 512. This will give us a good idea at the outset of what we are going to see in terms of performance from the new part from ATI. Obviously having individual numbers for multiple resolutions over multiple settings is more conducive to proper analysis of the performance characteristics of the hardware, but for those who just want the bottom line here it is. This is a look at 2048x1536 with 4xAA performance in order to see a snapshot of performance under high stress.



Hold your mouse over the links below to see the quick performance breakdown of the Radeon X1900 XTX at that resolution:



The resounding victory of the X1900 XTX over the 7800 GTX 512 in almost every performance test clearly shows how powerful a part we are playing with. Clearly NVIDIA has been dethroned and will have a difficult time regaining its performance lead. But the more these two companies can leap-frog eachother, the happier we get.

The only real loss the X1900 suffers to the 7800 GTX 512 is in Black and White 2. We've complained about the poor performance of BW2 under ATI hardware for months now, and apparently ATI have located a bug in the application causing the performance issue. They have a patch, which we are currently evaluating, that improves performance. ATI are saying that Lionhead will be including this fix in an upcoming game patch, and we are excited to see something finally being done about this issue.

Of course, with the BW2 test in question, that puts the ATI Radeon X1900 XTX firmly and without question in place as the worlds fastest consumer level graphics product.

Hardware Features and Test Setup Battlefield 2 Performance
Comments Locked

120 Comments

View All Comments

  • tuteja1986 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    wait for firing squad review then :) if you want AAx8
  • 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..
  • SpaceRanger - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    All the second to last section describes in the Image Quality. There was no explaination on power consumtion at all. Was this an accidental omit or something else??
  • Per Hansson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Yes, please show us the power consumption ;-)

    A few things I would like seen done; Put a low-end PCI GFX card in the comp, boot it and register power consumption, leave that card in and then do your normal tests with a single X1900 and then dual so we get a real point on how much power they consume...

    Also please clarify exactly what PSU was used and how the consumption was measured so we can figure out more accuratley how much power the card really draws (when counting in the (in)efficiency of the PSU that is...
  • peldor - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    That's a good idea on isolating the power of the video card.

    From the other reviews I've read, the X1900 cards are seriously power hungry. In the neighborhood of 40-50W more than the X1800XT cards. The GTX 512 (and GTX of course) are lower than the X1800XT, let alone the X1900 cards.
  • vaystrem - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Anyone else find this interesting??

    Battlefield 2 @ 2048x1536 Max Detail
    7800GTX512 33FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 32.9FPS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 29FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Day of Defeat
    7800GTX512 18.93FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 35.5PS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 35FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Fear
    7800GTX512 20FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 36PS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 49FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Quake 4
    7800GTX512 43.3FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 42FPS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 73.3FPS


  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Becareful here ... these max detail settings enabled superaa modes which really killed performance ... especially with all the options flipped on quality.

    we're working on getting some screens up to show the IQ difference. but suffice it to say that that the max detail settings are very apples to oranges.

    we would have seen performance improvements if we had simply kept using 6xAA ...
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    to further clarify, fear didn't play well when we set AA outside the game, so it's max quality ended up using the in game 4xaa setting. thus we see a performance improvement.

    for day of defeat, forcing aa/af through the control panel works well so we were able to crank up the quality.

    I'll try to go back and clarify this in the article.
  • vaystrem - Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - link

    I'm not sure how that justifies what happens. Your argument is that it is the VERY highest settings so that its ok for the 'dual' 1900xtx to have lower performance than a single card alternative? That doesn't seem to make sense and speaks poorly for the ATI implementation.
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    The XTX especially in Crossfire does seem to give a fair boost in a number of tests over the XT and XT in Crossfire.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now