CNET REVIEW

[Stryyder]

This should liven things up!

Have you guys seen this yet??

http://reviews.cnet.com/ATI_Radeon_X800_XT_Platinum_Edition/4505-3025_7-30871661.html?tag=fr

 

[digitalwanderer]

Unequivocally the most powerful graphics card on the market, ATI's Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition hands Nvidia's new card a stunning defeat.

Uh-oh, some people at nVidia probably ain't gonna be too happy with this one. :|

 

[digitalwanderer]

After years of finishing second to Nvidia in the race for graphics supremacy, ATI has finally handed a defeat to its rival. Frankly, we were shocked at the difference in performance between the two top-of-the-line, next-generation cards. The 256MB ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition trounced Nvidia's new GeForce 6800 Ultra so soundly in our tests that there is no longer any question: ATI's new graphics card is the best product of its kind.

Well, at least it's nice to see the mainstream press finally catching up with all of us. 8)

 

[John Reynolds]

I have to say I disagree with the wording of that article. It's not a "stunning defeat" by any stretch of the imagination. The two high-end boards are fairly close in performance, yet the differences are because of the approaches the two companies took for this generation. Because of the added transistors required for features like 32fp and SM 3.0 nVidia has a larger chip with a lower clock speed and higher power consumption and ATI has a chip that can be put on boards that'll work in even SFF rigs.

 

[BetrayerX]

ATI has finally handed a defeat to its rival

I thought the 9700Pro did have that honor. :?

 

[digitalwanderer]

ATI has finally handed a defeat to its rival

I thought the 9700Pro did have that honor. :?

Yeah, that's what I meant about this being a shift in the mainstream media. Most places still gave nVidia the nod as number one last time around in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

John-Yeah, I agree about that...but don't you sort of find it interesting that is how they've decided to play it? They're billing ATi as the second coming this time around. (And if'n you look at the graphs in the review I don't see a damned thing "stunning" about the victory either, much more like a near draw....but I'm enjoying it anyways. )

 

[Diplo]

Frankly, we were shocked at the difference in performance between the two top-of-the-line, next-generation cards. The 256MB ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition trounced Nvidia's new GeForce 6800 Ultra so soundly in our tests that there is no longer any question: ATI's new graphics card is the best product of its kind.

Yet the benchmarks they post show that the X800 "trounces" the 6800 by all of 0.2 FPS in 'Splinter Cell' and in 'Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004' the 6800 actually wins in some settings. In UT2003 fly-by both cards get over 100FPS at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF which should be enough for anyone! OK, the XT does a little better at higher resolutions with AA/AF, but by no stretch of the imagination is the difference "shocking". It's nothing like the way the 98000 beat the NV3.x cards, which was amazing.

There's no disputing the X800 is an amazing card, but the performance gap isn't anywhere near as vast as the CNet leader would have you believe. Then again their software reviews have always been awful, so I'm not suprised...

 

[digitalwanderer]

Yes, but it is telling that c|net decided to push it as such.

BTW- Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, the folks over at nVnews aren't as happy with the story as I am.
(Sue me, I'm feeling evil and I thought it was funny. *evil*)

 

[John Reynolds]

Yes, but it is telling that c|net decided to push it as such.

BTW- Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, the folks over at nVnews aren't as happy with the story as I am.
(Sue me, I'm feeling evil and I thought it was funny. *evil*)

You're sued because you really shouldn't cross-post like that. Just considered bad netiquette by some (and, yeah, I've been guilty of doing it myself at times).

 

[Diplo]

Yes, but it is telling that c|net decided to push it as such.

Is it? How so?

I can't say I've ever read a CNet hardware review before, so I've no idea how respresentative this is of there coverage. However, I've read plenty of software reviews (IE is the best browser! Outlook the best email client! Norton the best AV!! etc.) and they always seem to (and pardon my English) suck corporate cock. Often you'll find the products that get the best reviews just happen to be by the most prominent advertisers. I'm not saying this is the case here (nor do I think ATI had anything to do with it), but I've never trusted them...

 

[digitalwanderer]

You're sued because you really shouldn't cross-post like that.

"It was a whole lot easier when there weren't so many wanderers", mutters the Dig darkly under his breath while scowling fiercely.

Besides, I just cut-n-pasted the one line...not the WHOLE post....

And hey, it ain't like you're a mod here anymore or nothing like that!

 

[gb25]

Frankly, we were shocked at the difference in performance between the two top-of-the-line, next-generation cards. The 256MB ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition trounced Nvidia's new GeForce 6800 Ultra so soundly in our tests that there is no longer any question: ATI's new graphics card is the best product of its kind.

Yet the benchmarks they post show that the X800 "trounces" the 6800 by all of 0.2 FPS in 'Splinter Cell' and in 'Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004' the 6800 actually wins in some settings. In UT2003 fly-by both cards get over 100FPS at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF which should be enough for anyone! OK, the XT does a little better at higher resolutions with AA/AF, but by no stretch of the imagination is the difference "shocking". It's nothing like the way the 98000 beat the NV3.x cards, which was amazing.

There's no disputing the X800 is an amazing card, but the performance gap isn't anywhere near as vast as the CNet leader would have you believe. Then again their software reviews have always been awful, so I'm not suprised...

If you look strictly at the high settings/resolution benchmarks (which is what a $500 card should be used for anyways), it's certainly not as close as you make it seem.

UT2003 - 1600x1200 4xaa/8xaf

x800xt - 126.9fps
6800u - 99.7fps

Splinter Cell - 1600x1200

x800xt - 79.4fps
6800u - 74.1fps

MS FS2004 - 1600x1200 4xaa/8xaf

x800xt - 34.6fps
6800u - 27.7fps

Far Cry - 1600x1200 4xaa/8xaf

x800xt - 53.8fps
6800u - 32.7fps


Looking strictly at those numbers, it looks like a pretty convincing win to me. Especially in Far Cry and FS2004. Not anywhere near as convincing as the 9700, but still seems pretty convinicing to me . Granted, the review comes across to me as being biased, and it really isn't very thorough at all. But going by the numbers at the highest settings, it seems to me that the x800xt is quite a bit better than the 6800u.

Of course, if you want to compare lower settings/resolutions, then it gets closer. But I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people who will be buying a $500 video card will be running at 1024x768. At least I know I wouldn't. I'm not even considering buying either card. But if I were, I probably wouldn't even be looking at the 1024x768 benchmarks in most cases.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Of course, if you want to compare lower settings/resolutions, then it gets closer. But I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people who will be buying a $500 video card will be running at 1024x768. At least I know I wouldn't. I'm not even considering buying either card. But if I were, I probably wouldn't even be looking at the 1024x768 benchmarks in most cases.

Well at lower resolutions, the cards are completely cpu limited. Still I don't think stunning defeat is appropriate.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Still I don't think stunning defeat is appropriate.

No, but it sure is a refreshing change of imbalanced reviewage.

 

[Atomahawk]

ATI has finally handed a defeat to its rival

I thought the 9700Pro did have that honor. :?

I was going to say that, say your own stuff OK!

But yes since the 9700 would have been more like it!
C/Net you need better coverage of this business, may I help?

 

[John Reynolds]

And hey, it ain't like you're a mod here anymore or nothing like that!

Hmm, then why is there an "edit" button still visible to me in your post? 8)

 

[gb25]

Of course, if you want to compare lower settings/resolutions, then it gets closer. But I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people who will be buying a $500 video card will be running at 1024x768. At least I know I wouldn't. I'm not even considering buying either card. But if I were, I probably wouldn't even be looking at the 1024x768 benchmarks in most cases.

Well at lower resolutions, the cards are completely cpu limited. Still I don't think stunning defeat is appropriate.

I don't really think "stunning defeat" is appropriate either. But in my opinion, it isn't as close as Diplo made it out to be. I was just pointing out that at the higher resolutions/settings, the x800xt was across the board faster than the 6800u. Sure, if you want to cherry-pick the results that best suit the 6800 like Diplo did, you can make it look like it is a lot closer race. But at the higher resolutions/settings, the x800xt is consistently faster than the 6800u. At least according to the benchmarks in this review.

Of course, you could say that I'm cherry-picking the results by only looking at the highest resolution/settings. But isn't that what a $500 is meant to use?

Also, sure the cards are cpu limited at the lower resolutions. At least it's more obvious for FS2004 and Splinter cell. All the more reason to ignore them. Why buy a $500 to run at lower resolutions when a cheaper card will give you the same performance? FS2004 is the perfect example:

1024x768 - 4xaa/8xaf

x800xt - 37.6fps
6800u - 38.9fps
x800pro - 37.3fps

1600x1200 - 4xaa/8xaf

x800xt - 34.6fps
6800u - 27.7fps
x800pro - 26.4fps


So, if you want to play at 1024x768, it would appear that the 6800u is the better card. Even the x800pro offers similar performance to the x800xt. But at 1600x1200, the x800xt is considerably faster than both the x800pro and the 6800u. In my opinion, with respect to $500 video cards, the 1600x1200 results are more important than the 1024x768 results.

 

[Diplo]

But at the higher resolutions/settings, the x800xt is consistently faster than the 6800u. At least according to the benchmarks in this review.

I agree, the 800XT seems to win the majority of benchmarks at the highest settings, and in some cases by a good margin. However, it only appears to be 'Far Cry' where the difference is so large as to warant the superlatives of the review, which was my main point. At the current time I think there's too much controversy regarding 'Far Cry' to be entirely sure whether this is truly representative of next-generation performance. It may well be, but I wouldn't like to rely on it.

It's also true that with a $500 card you'd want to play at the highest-resolutions, but I'd also point out that those are often unplayable because they can render text illegible (at least to my eyes!) I'd imagine that 1280x960 might be a more realistic target, especially if you factor in longevity (ie. games in 1 year being playable at these settings). Then there's also the unknown 'Doom 3' factor, which may alter the picture slightly in the near future, depending on how it performs, when it's released and how many games licence the engine.

Personally I'd like to see reviewers say, "Don't buy either card yet - wait and see how things pan out. Then you'll have more idea and get the card cheaper." There really doesn't seem to be enough 'next-generation' games out to get a real picture. My gut feelings are the X800 will still be the best all-round card (the power factor being very important), but I think when/if Nvidia sort their drivers out then it will be closer than some people think. Maybe

 

[digitalwanderer]

Hmm, then why is there an "edit" button still visible to me in your post? 8)

Uhm, never mind. Forget I said anything.

So, how about that X800? Some card, eh? (Sayeth the Dig in a desperate gambit to change the subject...)

Wait a minute....WHY do you still have an edit button? :|

 

[gb25]

But at the higher resolutions/settings, the x800xt is consistently faster than the 6800u. At least according to the benchmarks in this review.

It's also true that with a $500 card you'd want to play at the highest-resolutions, but I'd also point out that those are often unplayable because they can render text illegible (at least to my eyes!) I'd imagine that 1280x960 might be a more realistic target, especially if you factor in longevity (ie. games in 1 year being playable at these settings). Maybe

I agree completely. Then again, I run all my games at 1024x768 and am satifisied with my 9800pro at that resolution. But apparently there are a lot of people that like to play at 1600x1200, and they expect to be able to play every game at that resolution. The x800xt is probably the first card that is able to play just about every game at 1600x1200 with all the eye candy. But right now, the 6800u doesn't seem quite as capable. Even though I don't really like hardocp's new review method, it certainly does a good job of showing how capable the x800xt is at running high resolutions.

I think part of the reason that people aren't more blown away this time, is that nvidia has delivered what looks to be a very good card that competes very closely with ati's. When the 9700 came out, it was made that much better by the fact that the nv30 wasn't really that good. So it was more of a comparison between the 9700 and the previous generation. This time, it's a comparison between two new cards. But if you compare either the 6800u or the x800xt to the previous generation, they are just as impressive as the 9700 was when it came out. They are both leaps and bounds better than the 9800xt, which is pretty impressive when you think about it.