ATI releases the X1900 XT

User Comments: 17

1. January 24, 2006 1:58 PM
   mastronaut said:
   You must excuse me whilst I change my shirt, I've been hyper-salivating........must...play...lottery....
   Reply
2. January 24, 2006 2:36 PM
   MonkeyMan said:
   Well, this is without a doubt, a monster card, but it really isn't all that different from the X1800. This card should give you some major playtime, gamewise, and should be a favorite for ATI consumers. Way to go ATI!!!!!!!
   Reply
3. January 24, 2006 2:52 PM
   DragonMaster said:
   Mmmm!... but I only have the money for an X1600
   Reply
4. January 24, 2006 4:36 PM
   maxtor said:
   I saw the news and my jaw dropped, if only I had money. My 9200SE that I'm using now can't be that bad, can it? I guess it can... Well the only change of me getting a new card is if I win that contest. Oh well, at least I got, oh nevermind, I got nothing, thats what I got. I guess I'll buy this card in 2150, when the X19000 XT is out, (no the extra zero isn't a typo)...
   Reply
5. January 24, 2006 5:19 PM
   Kaleid said:
   So this is not a paperlaunch? If not then great, Ati's performance has a been a bit lacking lately.
   Reply
6. January 24, 2006 6:23 PM
   gamingmage said:
   Well it's still no match for the 7800gt or gtx so I hope ATI is still thinking about doing better. The price is a little high as well.
   Reply
7. January 24, 2006 6:35 PM
   PUTALE said:
   Looking at few benchmarks, it seems like the x1900 is a great card, it beats nvnida's top card almost all cases. I guess now we'll have to wait to see what nvidia will bring to the table.
   Reply
8. January 24, 2006 7:05 PM
   nathanskywalker said:
   Here's another evaluation in case anyone wants to read it...[url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=OTUz[/url]
   quote]this first part of our evaluation, we are going to compare the new Radeon X1900 XT and XTX to a 256MB BFGTech GeForce 7800 GTX OC as well as a reference GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB. With 512MB video cards, “Ultra Quality” can be utilized in Quake 4. This highest in-game quality mode allows uncompressed textures and lights and sets 8X AF by default. However, we encountered a problem enabling this mode with all ATI video cards. While loading some levels in the game, the game will crash suddenly to the desktop without warning. We contacted ATI and they are fully aware of this bug and are working on a solution that should be provided as a driver fix. Another problem we experienced was severe artifacting and texture corruption in the levels that did work in Ultra Quality mode. However, in High Quality mode everything worked perfectly, so right now, until that driver fix is made available, High Quality is as high as you can go on ATI video cards in Quake 4.[/quote]That could be a small problem for ATI, but they seem to have good support techs so they shouldn't have to much trouble fixing that.Then again, on ATI's side...[quote]Compared to the GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB, the performance is actually rather close. The GeForce 7800 GTX 512 had the gameplay advantage of being able to run in Ultra Quality mode and 8X AF with no problems, so that right there gives it a slight visual quality advantage. However, we found the same resolution and AA setting playable— 1600x1200 with 2X Transparency Supersampling. Performance was very slightly faster than on the Radeon X1900 XTX, but that was only detectible once we plugged the numbers into the graph here. In the game itself, we could not actually feel the difference between the video cards. Both the Radeon X1900 XT and XTX match the BFGTech GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB video card exactly with the same playable settings, and the XTX is even faster overall. The X1900 video cards do have the advantage of the High Quality AF feature.[/quote]and....[quote]Unlike Quake 4, in F.E.A.R. we found some very large performance and gameplay experience differences. The X1900 XT and XTX provide a very large performance improvement in F.E.A.R. allowing higher quality settings. We were able to play F.E.A.R. smoothly at 1600x1200 with 2X Adaptive AA and 16X High Quality AF on both the XT and XTX. There was hardly any difference in performance between the XT and XTX at these settings. This level of performance is much faster than the GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB video card, which we found playable at 1280x960 with 4X TR SSAA. Furthermore, the performance of the XT and XTX was much faster than the 256MB GeForce 7800 GTX.[/quote]...ok you get the point, and if you wanna dig deeper, go for it.
   Reply
9. January 24, 2006 9:23 PM
   champmanfan said:
   I've heard that ATI's R580 - dubbed x1900XT - is going to feature 48 pixel-processing pipelines. All I can say is WOW!! The step uo from 4 pipelines to 16 on the GeForce 6800Ultra was amazing, but having 48 pipelines is huge step forward towards high definition gaming. ATI's R580 card is also featuring a 40-bit video processing system. That'll work brilliantly with movie buffs working on Adobe Premiere.
   Reply
10. January 24, 2006 11:17 PM
    exscind said:
    Many online stores had the X1900XT for sale but weren't technically allowed to sell them until the 24th per ATI's request (or command, however you want to interpret it). It is going around several e-stores for $530 or so, depending on what store, if tax is applicable, and the shipping cost. But the X1900XT is a beast of a card; a few people have said these cards overclock like monsters, much like their X1800 brethren. The X1900XTX (aka XTPE, or Platinum Edition) is rumored to be so crazy it completely dominates the 7800 GTX 512MB. Not barely beating it or similar in performance - complete domination. Until more sites come out with reviews, we can't know anything for certain. But it seems like ATI is back in business after a long 6 to 8 months of indefinite hiatus. Hopefully this will only drive nVIDIA to output better products so the market will have that nice "friendly" competition again, which translates to better quality cards for the consumers at a lower price.
    Reply
11. January 24, 2006 11:53 PM
    otmakus said:
    I wonder when will Techspot start giving this card to us readers? I hope not too long in the future.Anyway, 175 Watt for a video card is a little too much. And with this card running, I bet u can turn off ur heater in the dead of winter and the room will still be warm (u have to install TWO air con for summer though)
    Reply
12. January 25, 2006 1:29 AM
    crossfire851 said:
    [b]Originally posted by champmanfan:[/b][quote]I've heard that ATI's R580 - dubbed x1900XT - is going to feature 48 pixel-processing pipelines. All I can say is WOW!! The step uo from 4 pipelines to 16 on the GeForce 6800Ultra was amazing, but having 48 pipelines is huge step forward towards high definition gaming. ATI's R580 card is also featuring a 40-bit video processing system. That'll work brilliantly with movie buffs working on Adobe Premiere.[/quote]Ati's idea (now) is not in in how many piplines you can have but, the shader technolgy.
    Reply
13. January 25, 2006 7:16 AM
    charp said:
    Nice card with again a nice tag, why are the improvements little and vga's so expensive? Any way i've read that for modern cards, you really need a big, fast cpu in the pc to get the most out of your graphics.Since graphics cards are designed nowadays to use system memory and fast cpu power. Thus with cards like this you need to update all hardware in your rig. To get the full potential.
    Reply
14. January 25, 2006 11:40 AM
    mentaljedi said:
    [b]Originally posted by charp:[/b][quote]Nice card with again a nice tag, why are the improvements little and vga's so expensive? Any way i've read that for modern cards, you really need a big, fast cpu in the pc to get the most out of your graphics.Since graphics cards are designed nowadays to use system memory and fast cpu power. Thus with cards like this you need to update all hardware in your rig. To get the full potential.[/quote]I guess i won't be getting this any time soon eh? My 1.4 GHZ dell isn't going to bea ble to utilise anything...
    Reply
15. January 25, 2006 11:54 AM
    Per Hansson said:
    Doing the math a X1900XTX draws ca 100w, not 175...[url]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=267
    &p=15[/url]Crossfire = 459w - 1900XTX = 341w = 118w, efficiency of PSU used@400w=78% so 118x0.78=92,04w
    Reply
16. January 25, 2006 12:38 PM
    Cartz said:
    [b]Originally posted by mentaljedi:[/b][quote]I guess i won't be getting this any time soon eh? My 1.4 GHZ dell isn't going to bea ble to utilise anything...[/quote]Hahaha no...My X850XTPE is excruciatingly bottlenecked by my Athlon64 3200, I would say to see the full effects of this card, you'd need to have at least an FX-55, and would probably most benefit from the FX-60.In a review over at HEXUS, a few of the benchmarks they ran were bottlenecked by the CPU (ie. the x1900s displayed exactly the same results)More interesting with this card, is that the RAM is actually rated at 900Mhz, but is conservatively clocked back to 775Mhz.I'm betting a 50Mhz bump in memory could be achieved very reliably, giving this card even more power then it ships with...Also fresh in my memory is the huge performance bump experienced with the X1800s when the newer (5.11?) catalyst drivers came out... Ten to One odds that when the next iteration of drivers comes out, we see even larger scores coming out of the X1900s. [Edited by Cartz on 2006-01-25 12:41:55]
    Reply
17. January 27, 2006 7:51 AM
    djleyo said:
    175 Watt for a video card is a little too much this is the bad thing it sounds like a great card but what about cooling ??is it good?? im sticking with nvidia for now since i had a lot of problems with catalyst drivers lets see how the 7900 gtx measures up with this one
    Reply

Recently commented stories