RadeonX1900xtx
 

i dunno if you guys now about this mofo but its like whoa

[url:8dd6f]http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1900/index.html[/url:8dd6f]

with a 600-650$ price and performance up the brown eye id say its the best fer now of course.

how does this stand up to a 7800gtx?

fastest card on the planet right there

but then again you can get a 7800gtx for $350.

[img]http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1900/images/ToyShop_9.jpg[/img] ed: ed:

Will it outperform a 360 ?

of course it will.

\\geRV$

Radeonx999999999999999999999 sleeping:

[quote="Short Hand":1a4e3]Will it outperform a 360 ?[/quote:1a4e3]
not even close

my head is the best graphics card in the world

[quote=Akuma]not even close[/quote:946b4]


have you seen quake 4 run on a 360 oOo:

only thing that looks nice in that are the water reflections.

overkill.

[quote=elstatec]
have you seen quake 4 run on a 360 oOo:[/quote:32909]
Q4 looks like shit on PC too. oOo:

First gen games always looks like crap.

Is there any games out there on the pc that could even take an advantage of saaayy..80% of the cards performance? F.E.A.R I saw had some pretty hefty system requirements but nothing near graphics capability of the x1900

The x1900xtx is all about shader performance, games like fear run a lot better on this card than any other due to it having 48 pixel shaders, the x1800xt\7800gtx only have 16 pixel shaders.

If games continue to make heavy use of shaders then this is the card to go for. Im hoping to have my new system set up in the next month and one of these will definately be going into it.

[quote=Akuma]Q4 looks like shit on PC too. oOo:

First gen games always looks like crap.[/quote:fe8dc]

hes not referrin to how it looks hes referring to how it runs, its a shitty port and has framerate problems all over the place. Dunno how you can say quake 4 looks like shit, looks a lot better than doom 3 and doom 3 was always in the spotlight because of its graphics being good.

*cough* Awaits arrival of 7900GTx

[quote="Sniped Ur Azz":9985d]*cough* Awaits arrival of 7900GTx[/quote:9985d]

Which the r600 will take a shit on from a huge height...anyone seeing a pattern here. eek:

[quote=geRV]Which the r600 will take a shit on from a huge height...anyone seeing a pattern here. eek:[/quote:da5a2]

Thanks to GF1 I'm retarded and can't see patterns anymore. Reveal and explain this pattern.

eek:

Theres a performance leader for a couple of months with each new core\refresh before the other camp gets their new board out to take the crown for another short while.

sigh, all new cards are overkill. im satisfied with my x800 Pro.

which is why I hate the whole business surrounding graphics cards.

Hell.. i am more then satisfied with my 9800 AiW Pro.

Depends on he res and settings you play with, im a graphics whore so i love to bump up the res as high as i can and enable fsaa and anistropic filtering. 1680x1050 with everything maxed in a game like battlefield 2 use to cripple my x800xt.

1680x1050 in dod source with hdr on was the same deal, the card couldn't handle it, stangely enough though my 6800gt in this system seems to perform better in dod source, i can run at that res with fsaa+aniso+hdr enabled and get playable frame rates. eek:

Just comes down to res, at 1280x1024 x800's can handle most games, but games like fear at that res with fsaa and higher really need something faster to be properly playable.

Id like to see nvidia and ati only bring out 1 "family" of cards per year, it gets a bit ridiculous after a while having one card then 2 months later something fasters out for about the same price. Just no longevity in cards these days at all. annoy:

I usually play at 1280*960 with AA 2x and AF 8x. Does the job.

but when you have a widescreen monitor as some people do, you dont play at that resolution. though there are smaller wide screen resolutions, they look like shit on monitors that need say a 1680x1050

I also don't like all the competition because I think it probably makes the prices higher. The cards are so expensive when they first come out, but then drop immediately when newer cards come out. If it weren't so competitive, it probably wouldn't cost as much for new cards.

Nope, if graphics cards were based around one company then that company could charge whatever they liked for them since there would be no alternative, even innovation in features would get stale, they'd just throw in a new feature every couple of years instead of how it is now with new features appearing with every generation. The way things are with 2 companies now its more competative adding in new features and developing faster hardware.

If ati or nvidia goes ever goes under pc gaming is pretty much fucked because of the above pricing scenario.

I never said anything about one company. I just think the competition between those companies is too intense. It's ridiculous how much they seem to want to out do the other.

They should be more like AMD and Intel...Dual Core just came out, so AMD is going to sell as much as possible before releasing their newest technological advance, the quad-core.

Actually intels on track to release quad core first. ed:

whatever, the point is, they sell as much as they can of what they have now, then make a "breakthrough"...sounds like a logical marketing assault...unlike the dipshits who run ATi and nVidia.

Intel has some major catching up to do... They are loosing there market strangle hold since companies like Dell, Hp, Gateway, etc will be or are carrying AMDprocessors now.