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
Mid-Range Perforamnce
The X1600 XT costs much more than the 6600 GT and performs only slightly better in some cases. It's real competition should be something more along the lines of the 6800 GT which is able handle more than the new midrange ATI part. $249 for the X1600 XT compared to $288 for the 6800 GT shows the problem with the current pricing.
As we can easily see, the 6800 GT performs quite a bit better than the X1600 XT. From what we see here, the X1600 XT will need to fall well below the $200 mark for it to have real value at these resolutions with the highest settings. The 6600 GT is the clear choice for people who want to run a 1280x1024 LCD panel and play games comfortably with high quality and minimal cost.
Looking at Doom 3, it's clear that the X1600 XT falls fairly far behind. But once again, when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled the X1600 performs at the level of the 6600 GT.
Eventhough this game is based on the engine that powered Half-Life 2 (and traditionally favored ATI hardware), the X1600 XT isn't able to surpass the 6600 GT in performance. The game isn't playable at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, but for what it is worth the X1600 XT again scales better than the 6600 GT.
Far Cry and Everquest II are the only two games that show X1600 XT performing beyond the 6600 GT at 1280x960 with no AA or AF. Even though these games scale better with AA and AF enabled on ATI's newest hardware, the framerates are not playable (with the exception of Far Cry). We should see a patch from Crytek in the not too distant future that expands HDR and SM3.0 features. We will have to revisit Far Cry performance when we can get our hands on the next patch.
The X1600 performs exactly on par with the X800 in this test. Both of these ATI midrange cards outpace the 6600 GT from NVIDIA, though the 6800 GT is 50% faster than the X1600 XT. Again, cost could become a major factor in the value of these cards.
Splinter Cell is a fairly demanding game and the X1600 XT and 6600 GT both perform at the bottom of the heap in this test. Of course, ultra high frame rates are not necessary for this stealth action game, but the game certainly plays more smoothly on the 6800 GT at 51 fps. The 6800 GT also remains playable with AA/AF enabled while the X1600 and 6600 GT do not.
The X1600 XT costs much more than the 6600 GT and performs only slightly better in some cases. It's real competition should be something more along the lines of the 6800 GT which is able handle more than the new midrange ATI part. $249 for the X1600 XT compared to $288 for the 6800 GT shows the problem with the current pricing.
As we can easily see, the 6800 GT performs quite a bit better than the X1600 XT. From what we see here, the X1600 XT will need to fall well below the $200 mark for it to have real value at these resolutions with the highest settings. The 6600 GT is the clear choice for people who want to run a 1280x1024 LCD panel and play games comfortably with high quality and minimal cost.
Looking at Doom 3, it's clear that the X1600 XT falls fairly far behind. But once again, when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled the X1600 performs at the level of the 6600 GT.
Eventhough this game is based on the engine that powered Half-Life 2 (and traditionally favored ATI hardware), the X1600 XT isn't able to surpass the 6600 GT in performance. The game isn't playable at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, but for what it is worth the X1600 XT again scales better than the 6600 GT.
Far Cry and Everquest II are the only two games that show X1600 XT performing beyond the 6600 GT at 1280x960 with no AA or AF. Even though these games scale better with AA and AF enabled on ATI's newest hardware, the framerates are not playable (with the exception of Far Cry). We should see a patch from Crytek in the not too distant future that expands HDR and SM3.0 features. We will have to revisit Far Cry performance when we can get our hands on the next patch.
The X1600 performs exactly on par with the X800 in this test. Both of these ATI midrange cards outpace the 6600 GT from NVIDIA, though the 6800 GT is 50% faster than the X1600 XT. Again, cost could become a major factor in the value of these cards.
Splinter Cell is a fairly demanding game and the X1600 XT and 6600 GT both perform at the bottom of the heap in this test. Of course, ultra high frame rates are not necessary for this stealth action game, but the game certainly plays more smoothly on the 6800 GT at 51 fps. The 6800 GT also remains playable with AA/AF enabled while the X1600 and 6600 GT do not.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Hello,Rather than update this article with the tables as we had planned, we decided to go all out and collect enough data to build something really interesting.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2556">http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2556
Our extended performance analysis should be enough to better show the strengths and weaknesses of the X1x00 hardware in all the games we tested in this article plus Battlefield 2.
I would like to apologize for not getting more data together in time for this article, but I hope the extended performance tests will help make up for what was lacking here.
And we've got more to come as well -- we will be doing an in-depth follow up on new feature performance and quality as well.
Thanks,
Derek Wilson
MiLLeRBoY - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
If NVIDIA puts out a 7800XT with a bigger cooler, which makes the video card dual slots, instead of just one slot. This would allow them to increase the speeds of the RAM and GPU. And if they increase it to 512MB ram, they will knock ATI’s X1800XT off the map completely.MiLLeRBoY - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
oops, 7800 GTX, I mean, lol.stephenbrooks - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Maybe a solution for all the complaints about review-quality would be for AnandTech to put its reviews through "beta"? :pwaldo - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
So, I am back, and as always confused!Where are we now? We have at THG the same card beating teh 7800GTX hands down in several instances....and here at Anand, we have the ATI version barely holding its head above water.....talk about weird inconsistencies....someone is tweaking the numbers or the machines....one or the other.
Some of me would like to give the nod to THG because they have a history of doing more accurate more complete video card reviews, but this is just crazy....can someone at Anand please explain, cause well, I know THG won't.
tomoyo - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
In terms of pricing, I think Nvidia has Ati beaten in every category of card currently.I think the competition that ATI is marketing each card against is as follows(even if the prices have a huge disparity currently):
X1800XT vs 7800GTX
X1800XL vs 7800GT
X1600XT vs 6800/6600GT
X1600Pro vs 6600GT/6600
x1300Pro vs 6600
x1300 vs 6200
From what I've seen of the reviews from anandtech, techreport, and a couple other sources it looks like the X1800XT/XL are pretty competitive with their competition, however I really dislike the extra power consumption and of course the cost of the card. I think the 7800 is a far better solution in terms of most categories except a few minor features like having HDR/AA at the same time. It looks like it's possible the X1800 might have some gains in future games because of the better memory controller and threading pixel shader, but it seems rather useless for now.
The x1600 looks like the biggest disappointment by far. It's nowhere near the league of the 6800 cards and barely outperforms the 6600gt, which has a huge price advantage. The x800gto2 looks like a far better card than the x1600 here. Personally I'm hoping nvidia does what's expected and puts out a 90nm 7600 that has a decent performance gain over the 6600gt. That might be one of the best silent computing cards around when it comes out. (I'm hoping to replace my 6600 with this now that the x1600 is no upgrade for me)
The x1300 actually looks like the most promising chip to me. It's obviously not worthwhile for gamers, but I think it might turn out to be a pretty good drop-in card for non-gaming systems. It's all dependent on whether it can hit the price point for the under $100(or is that under $70) market well. It certainly looks like it'll outperform the 6200 and x300 and be the new standard for entry level systems... until nvidia's next entry card. Not to mention most of the x1x00 generation features are still included with the x1300 card.
AtaStrumf - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Totaly disappointed in both ATi and AT.As for X1300 don't forget this is the best version out of X1300 family and I can't help but remember the FX 5200 Ultra, which looked great but was never really available, because they could not produce it at low enough price point. I think same will happen here.
bob661 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Very nice summary.andyc - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
So what card is the "real" competitor to the 7800GT, becuase frankly, I'm totally confused which card ATI is trying to use to compete against it.Pete - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
X1800XL.