GX2 vs X2

[wolf]

The 8000 vs HD 2000 was the only round that nvidia won. The previous gens ATi won all of them I think(X1k beat 7k, x100 beat 6000, 9k beat FX5k)

hmm the way i remember it was 6k vs x800 was too close to call, as was x1K vs 7k, with one card holding the crown temporarily then quickly bested by another. so really it wasnt a "win" for any brand until the 8800 came out. except i think the 6800 ultra was a few months ahead of ATi's counterattack too.

the real "win" is that nvidia has 71% of the market share, so make of that what you will.

 

[imperialreign]

I think that really depends on what you mean by "beat". If you mean who had the fastest card, ATi lost the x1k vs. 7k as nVidia's 7950GX2 walked all over the x1950XTX in terms of performance. If you mean priceerformance, then nVidia won that also. I would call the 6000 vs X series a draw.

and the 7950GX2 was trumped by Sapphire's X1950x2 - still, though, I think what he meant was that ATI had held the crown for the mid-range and low-range cards for years, and was only really duking it out with nVidia in the high end; and it was shot for shot - I still think, though, that if it wasn't for the complications of the merger, the 2900 series would've been a lot better and more capable of competing with the GF8s . . . but R&D was boggled down, and after so long with paople demanding some form of DX10 offering from ATI, they shipped a card that was half-baked . . . look at how quickly they moved from the HD2000 series into the 3000 series.


Anyhow, back on topic, I'd like to see some reviews of the GX2 from more reputable sites as well, before I make any real conclusions as to how the card(s) will run

 

[das müffin mann]

hmm the way i remember it was 6k vs x800 was too close to call, as was x1K vs 7k, with one card holding the crown temporarily then quickly bested by another. so really it wasnt a "win" for any brand until the 8800 came out. except i think the 6800 ultra was a few months ahead of ATi's counterattack too.

the real "win" is that nvidia has 71% of the market share, so make of that what you will.

they also advertise MUCH more where as ati doesn't they also have the money to do it--that may have something to do with the 71% market share

 

[yogurt_21]

hmm the way i remember it was 6k vs x800 was too close to call, as was x1K vs 7k, with one card holding the crown temporarily then quickly bested by another. so really it wasnt a "win" for any brand until the 8800 came out. except i think the 6800 ultra was a few months ahead of ATi's counterattack too.

the real "win" is that nvidia has 71% of the market share, so make of that what you will.

nvidia doesn't have anywhere near 71% of the graphics marketshare. Intel has most of the graphics ,arket share, with nvidia a really far second.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

some people are very young and live with mum and dad.. they spend all their spare cash on PC parts.. i think i have just created a profile for the average "enthusiast"..

trog

Where do you spend your money trog?

Where did you spend it when you were young?

Did you start a business?

I moved out many years ago when I was 18 and still had money for high dollar parts. lol

Thats like saying all MMORPG players are sweaty 30-something virgins. Which usually isn't true.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

hmm the way i remember it was 6k vs x800 was too close to call, as was x1K vs 7k, with one card holding the crown temporarily then quickly bested by another. so really it wasnt a "win" for any brand until the 8800 came out. except i think the 6800 ultra was a few months ahead of ATi's counterattack too.

the real "win" is that nvidia has 71% of the market share, so make of that what you will.

Nvidia isn't in any debt either.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

nvidia doesn't have anywhere near 71% of the graphics marketshare. Intel has most of the graphics ,arket share, with nvidia a really far second.

You are counting integrated?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

overclock of the GX2 found here

 

[imperialreign]

Thats like saying all MMORPG players are sweaty 30-something virgins. Which usually isn't true.

Usually . . . LOL!!


Sorry, I just found that statment to be hilarious! New siggie right there!




As to Trog's statement, it has some merit - but also depends on the region. This region where I live is like that; there's a lot of upper class around here. Our city is trying to turn itself into a "Family friendly resort" . . . we also have a lot of active duty military, and it's not unsual to see them dump a lot of cash right after they get home from deployment.

 

[Blacklash]

Just wait until release when people are testing with something other than the old 173.67 driver.

It may shock a some folks.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Usually . . . LOL!!


Sorry, I just found that statment to be hilarious! New siggie right there!




As to Trog's statement, it has some merit - but also depends on the region. This region where I live is like that; there's a lot of upper class around here. Our city is trying to turn itself into a "Family friendly resort" . . . we also have a lot of active duty military, and it's not unsual to see them dump a lot of cash right after they get home from deployment.

There are young World of Warcraft players. Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVDocq6TaFs

 

[Darkmag]

the real "win" is that nvidia has 71% of the market share, so make of that what you will.

HUH!?!?!?! last time I checked it looked like this.

http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/graphics.png

 

[DaedalusHelios]

HUH!?!?!?! last time I checked it looked like this.

http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/graphics.png

For the lazy people:
Quater Q207 Q107 Q406 Q307 Q206
AMD/ATI 19.5 21.9 23.0 20.9 26.7
NVIDIA 32.6 28.3 28.5 28.5 19.7
Intel 37.6 38.7 37.4 37.1 40.4

You are counting integrated graphics, in those measurements.

Integrated is what is pushed onto the consumer by default. Its not like a guy shopping for a computer says "Heck yeah, its got Intel extreme graphics! I can play Crysis with that!". People that decide to buy it are "just getting by" with something cheap because they don't care about graphics, or need the cheapest solution.

 

[newtekie1]

and the 7950GX2 was trumped by Sapphire's X1950x2 - still, though, I think what he meant was that ATI had held the crown for the mid-range and low-range cards for years, and was only really duking it out with nVidia in the high end; and it was shot for shot - I still think, though, that if it wasn't for the complications of the merger, the 2900 series would've been a lot better and more capable of competing with the GF8s . . . but R&D was boggled down, and after so long with paople demanding some form of DX10 offering from ATI, they shipped a card that was half-baked . . . look at how quickly they moved from the HD2000 series into the 3000 series.


Anyhow, back on topic, I'd like to see some reviews of the GX2 from more reputable sites as well, before I make any real conclusions as to how the card(s) will run

The x1950Pro-Dual didn't actually beat the 7950GX2 in performance, and by the time it came, nvidia had already released their 8800 series, so ATi simply entered into a race that was already over with that card. It was extremely rare, only made by sapphire, and drivers never matured.

As for the mid and low range cards, nVidia definitely won the 7&x1k series. ATi didn't have a card that could compete in the mid-range for the 7600 series. The 7600GT outperformed everything on ATi's side in the mid-range, and even the 7600GS was outperforming everything except the x1650XT.

 

[yogurt_21]

You are counting integrated?

yes because integrated takes up over 90% of the graphics market. lol seriously nvidia wishes it had 71% of the graphics market.

 

[yogurt_21]

The x1950Pro-Dual didn't actually beat the 7950GX2 in performance, and by the time it came, nvidia had already released their 8800 series, so ATi simply entered into a race that was already over with that card. It was extremely rare, only made by sapphire, and drivers never matured.

As for the mid and low range cards, nVidia definitely won the 7&x1k series. ATi didn't have a card that could compete in the mid-range for the 7600 series. The 7600GT outperformed everything on ATi's side in the mid-range, and even the 7600GS was outperforming everything except the x1650XT.

on the mid-low range, yes. same with the x800's ve 6800's, the x700 couldn't compete with the 6600gt. which is why ati never release the x700xt and only launched the pro. ati hasn't competed on the midrange since the 9600xt's and even those were only successfult because the nv fx series sucked, I consider the 9500pro the best midrange ati ever launched.

but with the x1k's you're completely leaving out the x1950gt's and pro's (upper midrange)which were barely more expensive than the x1650's and beat the 7600gt easily.Nvidia had no answer to them, the 7950gtx was pitted against the x1950xtx, with the 7950gt being against the x1950xt. the 7900gs barely caught the x1950gt, much less the pro, and was 50$ more expensive at the time.

 

[cdawall]

on the mid-low range, yes. same with the x800's ve 6800's, the x700 couldn't compete with the 6600gt. which is why ati never release the x700xt and only launched the pro. ati hasn't competed on the midrange since the 9600xt's and even those were only successfult because the nv fx series sucked, I consider the 9500pro the best midrange ati ever launched.

but with the x1k's you're completely leaving out the x1950gt's and pro's (upper midrange)which were barely more expensive than the x1650's and beat the 7600gt easily.Nvidia had no answer to them, the 7950gtx was pitted against the x1950xtx, with the 7950gt being against the x1950xt. the 7900gs barely caught the x1950gt, much less the pro, and was 50$ more expensive at the time.

7900GS would be the answer to the PRO and the two traded blows

also as for the FX line sucking it was only in DX9 performance that they were destroyed in look @ opengl and DX8.1 games and you will see that the FX line was on par and sometimes better than the 9xx0 series.

and all of you forgot about GF4Ti killing the 8x00 series and GF3Ti killing the 7x00 series

 

[yogurt_21]

7900GS would be the answer to the PRO and the two traded blows

also as for the FX line sucking it was only in DX9 performance that they were destroyed in look @ opengl and DX8.1 games and you will see that the FX line was on par and sometimes better than the 9xx0 series.

and all of you forgot about GF4Ti killing the 8x00 series and GF3Ti killing the 7x00 series

http://www.techspot.com/review/28-radeon-x1950pro-vs-geforce-7900gs/
exchanged blows? stock vs stock the x1950 doesn't lose at all in this one and only loses at lowest resolution and detail setting on two of the games. at 1600x1200 the overclocked gs doesn't even best the stock x1950pro.
Infact many times the 7900gs failed to best the x1800xl.

the 7900 did poorly with aa on compared to the x19xx series whcih is why it's quite ironic that the 2900 and 3800 can barely do aa at all. lol
but even without aa the 7900 gs can't touch the pro and is instead comp-eting with the x1950 gt, which as I said is aa was turned on would beat the 7900gs
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-1248-view-ati-x1950gt-review-and-benchamrk.html

also as for the FX line sucking it was only in DX9 performance that they were destroyed in look @ opengl and DX8.1 games and you will see that the FX line was on par and sometimes better than the 9xx0 series.

yeah I'm thinking not. and not not even in 8.1 did the fx series best the 9800's they were unmatched. and saying the fx line was fine in dx8.1 isn't a good foot to stand on when the gf4 ti sereis already handled every game directx 8.1 could throw at it. gf4 ti series was a different story ati at that pint had yet to truly best nvidia, despite being the older company. and the gf3 vs the 7500 was a pretty close call.

 

[newtekie1]

but with the x1k's you're completely leaving out the x1950gt's and pro's (upper midrange)which were barely more expensive than the x1650's and beat the 7600gt easily.Nvidia had no answer to them, the 7950gtx was pitted against the x1950xtx, with the 7950gt being against the x1950xt. the 7900gs barely caught the x1950gt, much less the pro, and was 50$ more expensive at the time.

The 7900GS definitely competed with the x1950GT/Pro, especially the overclocked versions. I guess the argument could be made that the x1950GT/Pro were better than the 7600GT, but then again they were also a lot more expensive, they were not mid-range cards, and weren't priced like mid-range cards either. The only mid-range card ATi had that was worth considering was the x1650XT, and even that was overpriced compared to the 7600GT.

The 7900GS and 7900/7950GT competed with the x1950GT/Pro. However, the x1950GT/Pro were pretty nice cards, which is why I have two of them. There were the only cards from the last generation that ATi actually were able to compete with.

 

[yogurt_21]

The 7900GS definitely competed with the x1950GT/Pro, especially the overclocked versions. I guess the argument could be made that the x1950GT/Pro were better than the 7600GT, but then again they were also a lot more expensive, they were not mid-range cards, and weren't priced like mid-range cards either. The only mid-range card ATi had that was worth considering was the x1650XT, and even that was overpriced compared to the 7600GT.

The 7900GS and 7900/7950GT competed with the x1950GT/Pro. However, the x1950GT/Pro were pretty nice cards, which is why I have two of them. There were the only cards from the last generation that ATi actually were able to compete with.

proof? i posted 2 reviews, you've shown nothing to this point

 

[DaMulta]

ONE CARD

That's just GODLY FAST

 

[das müffin mann]

holy $h!T it is

 

[phanbuey]

HOLY CRAP... These are scaling suspiciously well with high frequency CPUs

 

[das müffin mann]

doesn't quite beat any records, but damn i thought this card was going to flop, well i was wrong, good job!

 

[imperialreign]

The 7900GS definitely competed with the x1950GT/Pro, especially the overclocked versions. I guess the argument could be made that the x1950GT/Pro were better than the 7600GT, but then again they were also a lot more expensive, they were not mid-range cards, and weren't priced like mid-range cards either. The only mid-range card ATi had that was worth considering was the x1650XT, and even that was overpriced compared to the 7600GT.

The 7900GS and 7900/7950GT competed with the x1950GT/Pro. However, the x1950GT/Pro were pretty nice cards, which is why I have two of them. There were the only cards from the last generation that ATi actually were able to compete with.

correct me if I'm far wrong here . . . but I thought the 1900 series was to compete with the 7800 series, and the 1950 series was to compete with the 7900 . . . which left the 1800/1850 lineup to handle the 7500/7600. Granted, though, the 1800 series wasn't up to snuff, I'll defi say that - the 1900 series just made the 1800s obsolete.

If we consider that, at the time, the 1900 series was the high-range cards from ATI, with the X1900XTX being the cream of the crop, the 1950 PRO took it's place as the mid-range contender . . . late into the game, though, and quite overpriced at that - typical price was anywhere from $225 on up.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, also, but I thought the ATI 1000-1600, plus the X700 and X800 series was to compete with the GeForce 6 and early GeForce 7s?