theuerkorn's Full Review: ATI RADEON® X1900 XT, (512 MB) PCI Express Vi...
The graphics war seemed "over" in early 2005, nVidia was kicked out of the vital next-gen console market (xbox 360) and ATI repeatedly won benchmarks (by a slight margin). While this is blowing facts out of proportion, it still all held true until Sony announced to use nVidia in their upcoming super console PS3 and the GForce 7800 series already claimed respect with top performance. More points for the revamped nVidia stem from the first-to-market support for Shader Model 3.0, the ambitious SLI, and the vastly successful nForce4 chipset. All were introduced way before ATI's equivalents. However, the market is cyclic and competition is typically a good thing. Now it's time for ATI to shake things up and not only catch up (the main purpose of the x1000 series). Only a few months after the x1800 managed to catch up in performance and support for SM3.0, ATI already introduced a more powerful model, the x1900. This release is clearly aimed at getting back into the top position which ATI started to getting used to watching from second place. So time has come for my (not too shabby) x1800 XL to step aside and make room for the x1900 XT. Here is why ...
IN A NUTSHELL
The question is not if the x1900 is the fastest board in the market, as that crown is changing hands quicker than most users can keep up. It's also not about ATI vs. nVidia since both change lead frequently and this competition is what drives innovation. The real question is whether it's warranted to spend the extra money over the venerable x1800 XT, since the latter is now available in a 512 MB version as well.
In my case the upgrade from an x1800 XL to the x1900 XT was an expensive but rewarding step. Performance almost doubled and some games finally have been tamed with the power of the 48 pipelines in the x1900. This is especially important at higher resolution and since I typically insist on running everything in 1600 x 1200 pixels this is the main reason for justifying the extra cash, something I could not convince myself of when the choice was between the XL and the XT version of the x1800. By the way, this is a similar problem with the immensly expensive x1900 XTX which provides even less difference than the XL vs. XT. The list in the details section below shows that the main difference is in the number of pixel shaders when comparing x1800 XT with x1900 XT.
While the x1800 showed some weaknesses under demanding tasks in today's most demanding games like F.E.A.R.'s softshadows, Call of Duty 2's particle effects, and especially Need for Speed: Most Wanted's overall effect galore (high resolution and parameters turned to maximum), the x1900 XT finally seems to have just enough power to eliminate those problems for now. As satisfying this is, it also means that upcoming games may break that barrier again (Unreal 3?). It may still be a few years until games render truly photorealistic graphics in high resolution at good frame rates. ATI's "toyshop" demo showcases that this isn't too far in the future, but there is also a big difference between a mid-resolution demo like this and a full featured game.
At the current state of development, Crossfire has become a good solution but with cards nearly doubling performance with each iteration, the benefits of driving two cards may be short-lived and ultimately too expensive. (For example: the x1900 XT performs almost as good as two x1800 XT at less cost by virtue of purchase price and power consumption!)
The x1900 is well prepared to deal with Windows Vista whenever it will be released. In fact, ATI announced to work with Microsoft on an optimization to leverage 3D power in the new interface. Time will tell what that actually means. We won't find out until early 2007 when Vista is scheduled to release.
FOCUS: PERFORMANCE
Games: Though Quake 4 is not the latest anymore, it's still a considerable benchmark for OpenGL gaming and despite the traditional ATI handicap in this arena even the x1800 XL had no problem other than insufficient memory for the maximum graphics (textures). The 512 MB in the x1900 XT, however, still caused Quake 4 to be unstable in Ultra Quality mode (using more than 500 MB of video memory for textues alone). Superstar F.E.A.R. didn't run all that well on a x800 Pro, and not only soft shadows would slow the game down immensely. While the game was still unplayable on the x1800 XL when using softshadows, this was no issue on the x1900 XT. Call of Duty 2 showed good results on the x1800 XL until massive amounts of particles slowed the game immensely down. Now on the x1900 XT this seems to be taken care of too, but also keep in mind that Catalyst 6.3 specifically claimed 10% improvements for COD alone. My current favorite, Need for Speed: Most Wanted now allows to bump everything up to maximum at 1600x1200 with the x1900 XT power and still feel smoother than the x1800 XL. Demos of upcoming games like "Condemned: Criminal Origins" and "Timeshift" showed promising performance which indicates that at least for the remainder of 2006 the x1900 XT might be able to keep up. ("Timeshift" was virtually unplayable on the x1800 XL in highest settings at 1600x1200.) Even the new "Prey" should not be a problem since it's based on the Doom engine and that already runs smoothly. It remains to be seen how the upcoming Unreal III engine is going to shake things up.
Professional Applications: Radeons are optimized for video gaming and complex geometry isn't all that important as the pixel shaders (effects) and facettes (smallest subsurface). Games like Quake 4 aside, OpenGL is typically used in "serious" applications like computer aided design (CAD). That in return benefits from a geometry accelleration and cards like ATI's FireGL series provide actual geometry engines which accelerate 3D geometry beyond vertices. (circles, slines, curves etc.) Further, OpenGL is cross-platform compatible and the format of choice for developers that publish on more systems than just Windows. The lack of actual geometry engines in any Radeon card explains the handicap in professional visualization and the need for an OpenGL card therefore. The OpenGL benchmark SPECviewperf 8.1 shows the difference. The venerable FireGL V7300 scores roughly three times as high compared to the x1800 XL or x1900 XT. The virtually identical results for both Radeons are due to the CPU load of nearly 100% which indicates that the lack of a geometry engine is compensated via software emulation and the test pretty much becomes a CPU benchmark with Radeons.
Using Pro/Engineer for example performs even on a pricey Radeon x1800 XL not exactly mind-blowing. Biggest problem is the highlighting when using the smart select (which can be rather dumb to be honest). In this case hovering over geometry might require several seconds to find and highlight it. (Any "old" Quadra or FireGL does better than the spanking new Radeon x1000 series in that particular case.) Unexpected after the Viewperf test, improvements in the x1900 XT over the x1800XL are visible, and mostly in the shaded mode. With individual parts and "simple" assemlies it's good enough to almost eliminate the craving for a dedicated OpenGL card like ATI's venerable FireGL V7300. That pricey card doesn't only provide mind-blowing geometry instancing but also does well in gaming applications and supports HDR and SM3.0 (similar to the x1800). A medium sized assembly (~50 components) in Pro/E is very workable on the x1900 XT until you end up with a lot of 3D curves (i.e. coil springs) and the difference to a good FireGL becomes significant. Other applications with an OpenGL interface that I use frequently are Lightwave3D and Vue5 Infinite, both perform well. While Vue5 seemed to have benefitted most from my recent upgrade to the x1800 XL, it was Lightwave v9 that blew me away. However that might have been a combination of the improvements in v9 and the x1900 XT -- or simply an effect of improvements in the driver suite Catalyst (v6.3). Both Vue and Lightwave don't deploy much 3D gemometry beyond facettes and the increased power of the x1900 comes nicely into play.
3DMark05: With my configuration the x1900 XT scored 10620 points. This is a relatively undemanding test by today's standards with only 1024x768 pixels and no antialiasing (in the free version). The card had no problems displaying any of the shader tests, but neither did the x1800 XL which scored 7405 points in the same configuration. (catalyst 6.3) Either way, just like 3DMark06 the CPU speed is compounded in the score and therefore your number might vary. (An AMD FX60 is said to bump this score up well into the 12k range.)
3DMark06: Designed to stress even the fastest video cards to their limit, the 2006 edition of this popular benchmark test shows the limits of the x1900 XT and any other card today (including SLI or Crossfire). With a higher resolution (1280x1024 pixels) and SM3.0 effects, the frame rates are significantly lower than 3DMark05 on the same hardware. While the x1800 XL reached a score of 3671 points (SM2 1442, SM3/HDR 1449, CPU 1614), the x1900 XT proved one more time that more pipelines are better and clocked in at 5770 (SM2 2386, SM3/HDR 2620, CPU 1601). The compounded score is stifled by the identical CPU score (since that didn't change). An AMD FX60 would elevate the overall result into the 6500 range. To see the true power of the x1900 XT one needs to look at the Shader Model 3.0 and HDR tests. The 2588 is a clear improvement over the 1449 score of the x1800 XL and that's what matters in modern games.
Overclocking: ATI's Catalyst Control Center allows overclocking the board and the automated script optimizes the max. recommended frequency for your specific model should you desire to do so. This requires Catalyst 6.3 or later since previoulsy a bug caused it to crash during the memory tweaking. The x1900 XT had no trouble to reach 655 MHz for the processor (VPU) and 789 MHz (x2) for the memory. This is even beyond the x1900 XTX standard specs! With those settings the board had no problem to complete both 3DMark tests without any visual artifacts or instability. The measured core temperature, however, appears to be very high with 90C which seems to be approved by ATI.
MAIN FEATURES
Installation: [****-] The x1900 XT is a double wide card and will cover a slot unless the board provides extra room. Further, it's very long and in my case interferes with the hard drive should one be installed in the respective slot of the HD frame. Make sure to use the included secondary PCI-E power plug or else it might result in a VGA boot error. Modern power supplies like the ATX12V v2.2 compatible Antec Neo HE 500 include one or two PCI-E graphics plugs which are compatible.
Size: [***--] The x1900 XT is a double slot card -- just like the x1800 XT version. while neither x1900 version fits a single slot, the x1800 XL is currently the most powerful ATI card to fit tight spaces. However, any of the x1800 and x1900 cards is very long and may interfere with other hardware in your computer (typically hard drives).
PCI-Express: [*****] By now it can be concluded that PCI-Express replaced AGP at least in the high-end segment and many new cards are not even offered in AGP anymore. Realistically, that's not yet for bandwidth reasons since many games often are still designed with AGP in mind for a broader audience (with existing computers). The latest push for PCI-E x16 dual GPU fits in the same marketing drawer. Nevertheless, you can be sure that performance is not limited by the PCI-E bus be it full x16 or half x8 (first generation SLI or Crossfire).
VPU (Processor): [****-] Internally identified as an x1900 XTX, apparently the only difference to the more expensive model is selection. It's still the 90 nm process which doesn't sound as incredible anymore in light of the upcoming 65 nm (potentially less power consumption and higher frequency). The 48 pixel shaders, however, is hands-down be the only and most important difference to the previous top dog in the ATI camp (the x1800 XT). Other than that, the chip architecture still the "same" ringbus able to multihread up to 512 tasks. Expect greater differences in the second phase of the next evolution (65nm).
Video Memory: [*****] With 512 MByte of video memory, who would ever need more? Right now the answer might as well be: "nobody" since even Quake4's most demanding mode demands "only" 512 MByte for the maximum texture quality. However, the x1900 still had problems with stability and load times and it appears that the Ultra Quality mode is reserved for a Crossfire solution with two (!) 512 MB cards. Most games and applications will be fine with 256 MByte. Expect improved performance from the increased Z-Buffer size (to remove hidden geometry). Then again, the appearance of the first 1 GByte card (FireGL V7350, $1,500.-) shows that 512 MByte may not be the end of it just yet. However, for now that's a rather professional board in a lofty price range anyway.
Power Consumption: [***--] Computers are not so silent anymore and the use of energy a significant factor in the cost of owning a high power gaming rig. Latest high-end versions of SLI or Crossfire configurations now require a power supply rating of 550 Watt or more. If that doesn't give it away, the x1900 XT instructions suggest a 450 Watt as a minimum for a single GPU system, while not too long ago 300 Watt was perfectly fine. Regardless of energy use, it won't help system stability to ignore the needs of modern processors and graphics cards. The X1900 XT clocks in at roughly 90W to 120W in 3D mode and "only" 45W in 2D mode. (The switching between both modes depends on your application and is noticeable by the much higher fan noise.) Add the typical 90W to 130W for the CPU and at least 100W for all the other stuff like memory, hard drive, DVD drive etc., and that explains the minimum power supply to run one (!) x1900 XT system right around 450W. Undersized power supplies will cause stability issues.
AVIVO: [*****] Video on PCs is typically highly compressed and not all that attractive often simply due to the conversion from analog to digital. ATI is trying to address those issues with the new AVIVO chip that virtually "cleans" bad video. While I have trouble seeing much improvements in sharpness (by HDTV standards), the overall quality is significantly improved over straight video replay. The applied comb filter and other wizzardry reduces noise and color fringing enough to achieve near TV quality (the kind that's straight up on your TV with a good signal) or even better in the case of low quality that requires conditioning. Since Catalyst 6.3 ATI finally included the new recoding tool which allows the use of the Radeon hardware to convert video in record time. (Now, if only Nero Vision or similar software would be able to use it too.)
Crossfire: [****-] PC land is divided in Intel and AMD, at least regarding CPU and bus architecture. Graphics are still universal with PCI-E replacing AGP across the board. Once we enter the high-end market of dual GPU designs though, the diversion is driving two initially incompatible standards (SLI / Crossfire). While each has their advantages and problems, the required motherboard is specific to each solution and lock users in using one or the other. I guess it will take another 2 - 3 years until both competitor might at least theoretically support the opposing technology.
Windows Vista: Microsoft recently moved the release of their new OS to the beginning on 2007. In lack of the real thing, vendors and third party developers started labeling hardware "Vista Capable" -- which is not synonymous with "DX10 capable". Especially the graphics is going to take its toll and at least a DX9 capable graphics cards is mandatory to run Vista's new (transparent) "Aero" interface. In that sense, the X1900 is clearly up to the task and ready to go (since it's one of the most powerful DX9 cards to date). Pair it with enough memory and a decent CPU and you should be fine. Careful though: With Vista the new DirectX 10 is going to be released and that is indeed a whole different story. As of summer 2006 there is not a single DX10 capable card available from any vendor and the x1000 series is no exception. (In fact, currently only the XBox360 actually has a quasi first generation DX10 concept included.)
No reason to panic just yet, since DX9 will be supported in Vista as well. In fact, it's likely to hold center stage for the next one to two years, as developers are unlikely to embrace DX10 that quickly. Nevertheless, the claimed improved power of DX10 may be the antidote to the exodus of PC gaming, but it's going to be a tough pill to swallow. Yet, we're not likely to see first DX10 cards before the beginning of 2007. In the best case, people will embrace the transition from DX9 to DX10 and willingly retrofit (again), since even the x1900XT(x) is not DirectX 10 capable. Alternatively we might see DX9 and OpenGL around for a while on PCs, and the trend towards high-end consoles continue.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.