ATI Radeon X700 XT: More PCIe Midrange
by Derek Wilson on September 21, 2004 5:58 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
The same general guidelines apply to this review as applied to our previous 6600 GT review. We are still comparing many PCI Express Intel system numbers to AGP 8x AMD based systems. Numbers for cards other than the 6600, X700, and X600 are run with older drivers as they are taken from previous reviews we have done. We are in the process of trying to update all our performance numbers with the latest drivers (and then some), but we were unable to do so before this review. The 6600 GT, X700 XT, and X600 XT numbers can all be reliably compared, but please use other numbers for reference only. The key thing to take away from this for most people will be the relative performance between the competing $200 ATI and NVIDIA parts anyway, so we hope that this setup won't be an inconvenience.Processor(s): |
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ |
RAM: |
2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd (2:3: 2:10) |
Hard Drives |
Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) |
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers |
VIA Hyperion 4.51 |
Video Card(s): |
ATI Radeon X700 XT |
Video Drivers: |
ATI Catalyst 4.6 |
Operating System(s): |
Windows XP Professional SP2 |
Motherboards: |
MSI MS-6702E (VIA K8T800 Pro Chipset) |
As previously stated, the older drivers were used in previous reviews. Only the 6600 GT, X700 XT, and X600 XT used the latest drivers. These three cards were also run on the Intel based PCI Express system, while other cards were run on AMD based AGP systems. AGP cards were run in the Athlon 64 FX 53 system for the Doom 3 and Source Engine tests and all other AGP cards were tested in the 3400+ system.
We wanted to include Aquamark 3 numbers, but we were unable to get the X700 XT to get to the point where it would spit out a number for us. The test ran all the way through, but just didn't display the score. This is probably just some error on Aquamark's part as it gets through the entire benchmark just fine every time.
We should also mention that we did not use the Catalyst Control Center for these tests as we did not want to install the .NET Framework on our test system. All the functionality of the driver is there with the exception of being able to disable certain optimizations that ATI is now rolling into a package called Catalyst AI (which we will talk more about in a seperate article). Thus all the default Catalyst AI settings are used, and our standard control panel setup is used (all defaults with vsync disabled).
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.