Beyond3D Forum

Freak'n Big Panda · 28-Nov-2002, 14:17

Anybody know where I could read a review for this card?? I searched google and found very little info on it

Any help would be greatly apperciated.

Thx in advance!

ben6 · 01-Dec-2002, 05:59

very good question. Let me see if I can get an answer. `ATI just recently announced shipping of the product so it's possible that it'll happen soon

Ante P · 01-Dec-2002, 13:47

It sucks crap, at least with current drivers. Hehe maybe not that bad but I'm a bit dissapointed with ATis Fire GL cards.
A Quadro 4 900 XGL kicks its butt, not even mentioning Quadro 4 980 XGL.

Of course it has all the fancy DX 9 features but performance seems a bit crappy to me considering how much the desktop version outperforms a Ti4600.

http://www.specbench.org/gpc/opc.data/vp7/summary.html

So more expensive, more features but less performance.

The E1 falls WAY behind.

Though this is not completely apples to apples comparisons but the two Dell machines give a pretty good idea of where the performance is at.

Babel-17 · 04-Dec-2002, 17:45

http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/Preview/Pr...p?board_idx=69

Nice pics but only a little info.

Mintmaster · 05-Dec-2002, 19:08

I don't think it sucks crap according to that data, and here's why:

Compare the Fujitsu Siemens systems (Celsius 444 2.6 GHz) with the the 750XGL and the 900XGL. The 900XGL only improves performance marginally over the 750XGL in all tests except for the last one ("Ugs mean") where the 900XGL has a 10% gain. This means that except for this, all the tests are CPU/system limited. You can further see this in the way all the scores go up nicely when going from the Fujistu Siemens system to the Dell 3.06 GHz system - except for the "Ugs mean" score, which stays the same.

In other words, only the last test is really pushing the video card. Even then, the 20% clock speed increase in the 900XGL over the 750XGL only gives you a 10% boost.

Now look at the FireGL X1 score from ATI. The X1 scores 50% higher than the 900XGL. This likely means that the X1 is even more than 50% faster than the 900XGL in a pure graphics card test, if the 750XGL and 900XGL data is anything to go by.

A fast GPU can't do anything if the CPU is holding it back. But when you give the GPU's a chance to fly, the X1 is a lot faster than the 900XGL.

28-Nov-2002, 14:17	#1
Freak'n Big Panda Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Waterloo Ontario Posts: 898	ATI FireGL X1 Review??? Anybody know where I could read a review for this card?? I searched google and found very little info on it Any help would be greatly apperciated. Thx in advance! __________________ Random 1MB ISA -> SiS 530 -> SST96 -> STG4000 -> NV20 -> R300 -> R350 -> G70 -> R580 -> RV670 -> RV770 IHV bias meter: ATI[-X--------]NV

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ATI Delivers First 3D Gaming Chip For Cellphones	Dave Baumann	Press Releases	0	07-Jan-2004 11:35
ATI MOBILITY FIREGL T2 mobile Workstation Processor	Dave Baumann	Press Releases	0	13-Nov-2003 11:32
ATI's new FireGL accelerators available in HP's workstations	Dave Baumann	Press Releases	0	30-Jul-2003 12:54
ATI Introduce FireGL X2-256 and T2-128	Dave Baumann	Press Releases	0	29-Jul-2003 14:22
ATI Radeon 9000 pro review	marco	Beyond3D News	0	31-Jul-2002 22:14

01-Dec-2002, 05:59	#2
ben6 Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 863	very good question. Let me see if I can get an answer. `ATI just recently announced shipping of the product so it's possible that it'll happen soon

01-Dec-2002, 13:47	#3
Ante P Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,448	It sucks crap, at least with current drivers. Hehe maybe not that bad but I'm a bit dissapointed with ATis Fire GL cards. A Quadro 4 900 XGL kicks its butt, not even mentioning Quadro 4 980 XGL. Of course it has all the fancy DX 9 features but performance seems a bit crappy to me considering how much the desktop version outperforms a Ti4600. http://www.specbench.org/gpc/opc.data/vp7/summary.html So more expensive, more features but less performance. The E1 falls WAY behind. Though this is not completely apples to apples comparisons but the two Dell machines give a pretty good idea of where the performance is at.

04-Dec-2002, 17:45	#4
Babel-17 Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 445	http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/Preview/Pr...p?board_idx=69 Nice pics but only a little info.

05-Dec-2002, 19:08	#5
Mintmaster Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 3,786	I don't think it sucks crap according to that data, and here's why: Compare the Fujitsu Siemens systems (Celsius 444 2.6 GHz) with the the 750XGL and the 900XGL. The 900XGL only improves performance marginally over the 750XGL in all tests except for the last one ("Ugs mean") where the 900XGL has a 10% gain. This means that except for this, all the tests are CPU/system limited. You can further see this in the way all the scores go up nicely when going from the Fujistu Siemens system to the Dell 3.06 GHz system - except for the "Ugs mean" score, which stays the same. In other words, only the last test is really pushing the video card. Even then, the 20% clock speed increase in the 900XGL over the 750XGL only gives you a 10% boost. Now look at the FireGL X1 score from ATI. The X1 scores 50% higher than the 900XGL. This likely means that the X1 is even more than 50% faster than the 900XGL in a pure graphics card test, if the 750XGL and 900XGL data is anything to go by. A fast GPU can't do anything if the CPU is holding it back. But when you give the GPU's a chance to fly, the X1 is a lot faster than the 900XGL.

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.