ATI Radeon X700 XT: More PCIe Midrange
by Derek Wilson on September 21, 2004 5:58 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
As we have seen from our tests, the X700 XT packs a lot of punch into a small package. Most of the time its not quite enough to keep up with the NVIDIA 6600 GT, but the X700 XT proves its worth in the Source Engine Video Stress Test, and FarCry, and Unreal Tournament 2004. Most of the X700 XT's power shines through when anisotropic filtering and antialiasing are disabled (the exception being UT2K4). Current and previous generation OpenGL titles do show the Radeon X700 XT lagging the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT. NVIDIA has traditionally been stronger in OpenGL performance than ATI, so this is not really a surprise.What is interesting is that we usually see ATI cards push past NVIDIA cards when aniso and antialiasing are enabled, but we are seeing the reverse this time around. This could be because NVIDIA has finally got a solution with the same number of pixel pipes at a higher core clock speed than a comparably priced ATI product. The NVIDIA part also seems to maintain performance a little better when its limits are pushed (i.e. at 1600x1200). This could indicate that NVIDIA is making more effective use of memory bandwidth, as the 6600 GT is actually running at a very slightly slower memory data rate.
It is possible that we are only seeing the X700 XT pull further ahead at lower resolutions and when AA and AF are disabled because geometry processing is a larger percentage of overall performance in those cases, but we don't have a very sound way of testing this at the moment. We have also not explored the impact of coupling these GPUs with a lower performing CPU. The added geometry processing power of the X700 XT may or may not help alleviate the strain on slower systems, though it doesn't seem likely that this would be a significant advantage.
In addition to it's other advantages, the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT is capable of being used in an SLI configuration. Whether or not this will prove to be worth the investment is still up in the air (we still don't have that bridge connector from NVIDIA), but certainly it poses a potential that ATI can't offer right now.
In the end, the GeForce 6600 GT is a more versatile solution than the Radeon X700 XT that can deliver higher performance at more demanding settings. The X700 is certainly not a bad card, and street prices still remain to be seen. At publication, we found a 6600 GT available for $209 on pricewatch, though street prices for the X700 are not yet available. Unless the X700 XT is priced comfortably below its $199 MSRP, or you need the 256MB of the X700 Pro, the 6600 GT is the way to go for midrange cards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
Entropy531 - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
Didn't the article say the pro (256mb) was the same price as the XT (128mb)? It does seem odd that the 6600s are only pci-e. Especially since nVidia only makes motherboards with AGP slots, right?Drayvn - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
However, on this site http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?article... it shows the X700XT edged out a win overall.What i think is ATi are doing what nVidia did in the high end market, they brought out the X700Pro, which is very close to the X700XT, but cheaper, and probably highly moddable.
Buy a X700Pro with 5 - 10% loss of performance for $60 less?
blckgrffn - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
What mystifies me (still) is the performance discrepancy between the 6800 and 6600 GT. In some cases, the 6600 GT is whooping up on it. The 6600GT preview article made some allusions to 12 pipes not be as effeicient as 8 and 16, etc. But if the performance is really so close between them, the 6800 is probably going to go the way of the 9500 Pro. That's too bad, my 6800 clocked at 400/825 is pretty nice. If anyone could clear up why the 6600 GT is faster than the 6800, that would be nice. The fill rates should be nearly identical, I guess. But doesn't the 6800 retain it's 6 vertex shaders and wouldn't the extra memory bandwidth make a noticeable difference?Resh - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
Just wish nVidia would come out with the NF4 NOW with PCI-Express, etc. a board with two 16x slots, one 6600Gt now, and one later is looking pretty awesome.rf - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
Looks like ATI dropped the ball - 12 months or more kicking nVidias ass and now they are the ones lagging behind.Oh well, I am not in the market for a graphics card at the moment (bought a 9800XT last year) but if I was, I'd be switching to nVidia.
I do have to say that the move away from AGP is annoying. What about the people that want to upgrade their components? Are we supposed to ditch kit that is less than 6 months old?
ZobarStyl - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
I must agree all things considered the 6600GT really comes out the winner...I mean, look at the x800/6800 launch, the x800Pro looked like it just massacred the 6800GT, and now no one thinks twice at the 400$ price point which is better because nV put out some massive driver increases. Considering the 6600GT already has the performance AND feature advantage over the x700, there's just no contest when you add in what the nV driver team is going to do for its perf. Can't wait to dual up two 6600GT's (not SLI, multimonitor =) )LocutusX - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
Just to be clear, I think #3's statement was invalid simply because Nvidia is winning half the Direct3D games as well as all the OGL games.LocutusX - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
#3: "Again we see ATI=DX, nVidia=OpenGL. "Nah, don't think so. Here are the notes I took while I read the article;
6600gt
d3 (big win) - OGL
far cry (with max AA/AF) - DX9
halo - DX9
jedi academy (big win) - OGL
UT (tie) - DX8/DX9
x700xt
far cry (with NO aa/af) - DX9
source engine (small win) - DX9
UT (tie) - DX8/DX9
I'm sorry to say it, but the X700XT is a disapointment. I'm not an "nvidiot"; check my forum profile, I'm an ATI owner.
Shinei - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
#11: Probably because you won't have much money left for a video card after you buy all the new crap you need for a Prescott system. ;)Anyway, this quote made me wonder a bit.
"From this test, it looks like the X700 is the better card for source based games unless you want to run at really high quality settings."
Er, if I can get great graphics at a decent framerate (42fps is pretty good for 16x12 with AA/AF, if you ask me (beats the hell out of Halo's horribly designed engine)), why WOULDN'T I turn on all the goodies? Then again, I used to enable AA/AF with my Ti4200 too, so my opinion may be slightly biased. ;)
Woodchuck2000 - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
#10 - I agree entirely! These are midrange cards. Yet they're released first as PCIe parts. Which is only available as a high-end Intel solution. Why does this make sense?