ATI Confirms Next Generation PC GPU "Leverages XBOX 360 Design"
 

Blig Merk wrote:
Leverages to nothing. The X1900XL has the 48 shader processors and it
is just barely faster in a few benchmarks than the 7800GTX which has
been out since fall last year. The only game that is significantly
faster with the X1900XL is FEAR and there is a lot of speculation that
is just due to the shader coding used in FEAR. The 7900GTX with unified
pixel vertex pipes comes out in a few weeks and it will shove X1900XL
back to being just a contender again. The shader processor path
apporach is not proving to be any big advantage and looks like it might
be weaker in the months ahead.

I have rarely seen such factual anamolies in a 9-line post.

There's no X1900XL. Not yet, any way. X1900XT and X1900XTX are both
512 meg cards with very impressive performance numbers. They chomp
down 7800GTX 256meg (in part because the 512meg is becoming some sort
of an advantage) and are also mostly ahead of the paper-launched
7800GTX-512 meg parts (that are selling for $750, if they can be found
anywhere). In comparison X1900XT is now available for $470-480 at
some places.

FEAR is a 'The way it's meant to be played' game. The fact that it
works well on X1900XT cards has a lot to do with its higher ALU:Tex
ratio (something, which most new games will employ, including Oblivion)
X1900XT are designed to make use of situations where the math
operations in shaders far outweigh the texture usage.

The 7900GTX is not based on unified architecture. It's very likely that
even G80 (the next-gen nVidia chip) is also not unified. It doesn't
mean that it'd be a bad performer or that the unified architecture is
absolutely necessary. I am just correcting another mistake in the
original post.

Finally here are some comparison numbers between X1900XT, 7800GTX-256
and 7800GTX-512 respectively.. 1600x1200 4xaa 16xaf

HL2:Lost Coast 80.2 65.2 78.9
Battlefield 2 109.7 68.6 89.4
Quake 4 72.8 65.2 85.3
FEAR 49 27 37
CoD2 34.9 26.4 32.3
Serious Sam 2 69.5 47.7 75.1
Far Cry HDR 84.5 64.3 84.2

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...00_xt_preview/

When you add in features like FP-Blending+AA (which 7800GTX can't
do and 7900GTX won't either), angle-independent AF and of course
the forward looking shader:texture ratio, X1900XT at $480 is the best
graphic card one can find in the $350+ range.
--
Noman

ATI Confirms Next Generation PC GPU "Leverages XBOX 360 Design"
 

"noman" wrote in message
...
Blig Merk wrote:
Leverages to nothing. The X1900XL has the 48 shader processors and it
is just barely faster in a few benchmarks than the 7800GTX which has
been out since fall last year. The only game that is significantly
faster with the X1900XL is FEAR and there is a lot of speculation that
is just due to the shader coding used in FEAR. The 7900GTX with unified
pixel vertex pipes comes out in a few weeks and it will shove X1900XL
back to being just a contender again. The shader processor path
apporach is not proving to be any big advantage and looks like it might
be weaker in the months ahead.

I have rarely seen such factual anamolies in a 9-line post.

There's no X1900XL. Not yet, any way. X1900XT and X1900XTX are both
512 meg cards with very impressive performance numbers. They chomp
down 7800GTX 256meg (in part because the 512meg is becoming some sort
of an advantage) and are also mostly ahead of the paper-launched
7800GTX-512 meg parts (that are selling for $750, if they can be found
anywhere). In comparison X1900XT is now available for $470-480 at
some places.

FEAR is a 'The way it's meant to be played' game. The fact that it
works well on X1900XT cards has a lot to do with its higher ALU:Tex
ratio (something, which most new games will employ, including Oblivion)
X1900XT are designed to make use of situations where the math
operations in shaders far outweigh the texture usage.

The 7900GTX is not based on unified architecture. It's very likely that
even G80 (the next-gen nVidia chip) is also not unified. It doesn't
mean that it'd be a bad performer or that the unified architecture is
absolutely necessary. I am just correcting another mistake in the
original post.

Finally here are some comparison numbers between X1900XT, 7800GTX-256
and 7800GTX-512 respectively.. 1600x1200 4xaa 16xaf

HL2:Lost Coast 80.2 65.2 78.9
Battlefield 2 109.7 68.6 89.4
Quake 4 72.8 65.2 85.3
FEAR 49 27 37
CoD2 34.9 26.4 32.3
Serious Sam 2 69.5 47.7 75.1
Far Cry HDR 84.5 64.3 84.2

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...00_xt_preview/

When you add in features like FP-Blending+AA (which 7800GTX can't
do and 7900GTX won't either), angle-independent AF and of course
the forward looking shader:texture ratio, X1900XT at $480 is the best
graphic card one can find in the $350+ range.
--
Noman

Thank you for this post. You saved me a lot of writing :)

Tony

ATI Confirms Next Generation PC GPU "Leverages XBOX 360 Design"
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:58:22 GMT, (John Lewis)
wrote:

FEAR is a 'The way it's meant to be played' game. The fact that it
works well on X1900XT cards has a lot to do with its higher ALU:Tex
ratio (something, which most new games will employ, including Oblivion)

Regurgitated techno-babble....

It's a techno-babble which explains the performance discrepancies
between X1900XT and 7800GTX class cards for a game that oddly
proclaims the nVidia TWIMTBP slogan.

The 7900GTX is not based on unified architecture. It's very likely that
even G80 (the next-gen nVidia chip) is also not unified. It doesn't
mean that it'd be a bad performer or that the unified architecture is
absolutely necessary.

However, the way you have phrased the last few sentences
you are trying to imply otherwise............ Anyway, maybe you
should also repeat David Kirk's words on this particular subject,
just to show that you are totally unbiased.

I am not implying anything, except that 7900GTX will not have unified
architecture (and very likely G80 won't either).

To debate which architecture is better is outside the scope of this
thread.

Finally here are some comparison numbers between X1900XT, 7800GTX-256
and 7800GTX-512 respectively.. 1600x1200 4xaa 16xaf

Do you run all your games in this mode ? Must have your nose pressed
to the screen counting the perfectly-aliased pixels - kinda cramps the
shooting-style. Probably running on an LCD too. Hope you like the
lag-smear.

Normally, if you buy a $400+ card, it's to handle such resolutions.
What would be the point of running these cards at 1024x768 ? Besides
that, when you are comparing graphic cards, you have to pick scenarios
which stress the GPU and make CPU as little of a factor as it can be.

By the way, I do have 20" Dell 2000FPW screen and it's absolutely
wonderful. My next graphic card will be one which can perform great at
1680x1050 level.


HL2:Lost Coast 80.2 65.2 78.9
Battlefield 2 109.7 68.6 89.4
Quake 4 72.8 65.2 85.3
FEAR 49 27 37
CoD2 34.9 26.4 32.3
Serious Sam 2 69.5 47.7 75.1
Far Cry HDR 84.5 64.3 84.2

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...00_xt_preview/

When you add in features like FP-Blending+AA (which 7800GTX can't
do and 7900GTX won't either), angle-independent AF and of course
the forward looking shader:texture ratio, X1900XT at $480 is the best
graphic card one can find in the $350+ range.

You could have saved up this exercise until after the 7900GT/GTX cards
are released. Seems like a regurgitation of selected review material
and ATi marketing blurb. However, no need to waste your time any
further when I can refer to the in-depth technical reviews on

If you were the sole reader of this newsgroup, I'd never post here.
Fortunately that's not the case.

I replied to the post which had completely incorrect information about
both ATI and nVidia graphic cards.
--
Noman