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
AlphaFox - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
if you have a PCIe system, why would you waste your $$ on an entry level card???? these cards should be released on AGP if they want any to sell.manno - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
The real issue is this, nVidia, has dedicate die space to shadowing functions specificaly requested by John Carmak for use with the Doom 3 engine. Nvidia obliged, yes ATI's openGL drivers are POS's but even if they were up to snuff Doom 3 will still favor nVidia. That said it all boils down to where do you thing the better mods/engine licenses will go Doom 3, or Half-Life 2, and is the small discrepency between the 6600 GT, and 700 XT realy worth those few extra frames in HL2, as compared to the significant frame rate difference in Doom 3, and the subsiquent games based on that engine. Not to mention PS 3.0 support. I'll gladly spend $10 extra for a better card.coldpower27 - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
That makes more sense since ATI's has to make a seperate core for the AGP version while Nvidia doesn't and can use thier HSI.chilled - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
#5: HardOCP's conclusion states that the AGP version of the X700 will be not be available soon, but before Christmas.I read somnewhere(?) that the AGP version of the 6600 would be available sometime in October...
Make of that what you will.
chilled - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
#3: I think it would be fairer to say that under DX ATI/nV are in a situation of win some, lose some. I wouldn't say the ATI cards are superior - read the Conclusion again.However, like Derek said it remains to be seen how the cards perform with a mid-range system.
Locutus4657 - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
So now long before these mid-range solutions are available in AGP? Seems incredibly silly to me that they weren't first released in AGP form! I can't use either nVidia's or ATI's midrange solutions in my midrange system (A64 3000+). Strangly though, if I wanted to blow $400 on a video card I could always get an x800!shabby - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
The specs on paper look good, but for some reason the x700 doesnt perform.With aa/af enabled you'd expect the x700 to beat the 6600gt in dx games thanks to ati's optimizations/cheats, but it doesnt. Go figure.
Aquila76 - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
Again we see ATI=DX, nVidia=OpenGL. It's interesteing that the gap in DirectX games is narrowing. ATI needs to get better OpenGL support somehow and do it quick. These cards are pretty evenly matched (diff of only 2-4 FPS avg.) - until you get to OpenGL. NVidia comes out on top by 15-20 FPS in those benches.DerekWilson - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
Please pay careful attention to the test page -- the 9700 Pro was tested on a (more suited to gaming) Athlon 64 system which makes the results not absolutely comparable.The Athlon 64 system is our video test rig, and rerunning all our cards on a p4ee system when the A64 gives results we can use as a reference just didn't make sense.
As stated on the test page, the directly comparable cards are the GeForce 6600 GT, the Radeon X700 XT, and the Radeon X600 XT.
skunkbuster - Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - link
in some cases the X700 XT scored worse than the 9700 pro... i think ati needs to work on their drivers.