"It seems strange that the fan is actually larger than the hole in the top plate of the four part heatsink. The fan is a 50mm flat fins design, whilst the hole is strangely only 40mm across."
Thats how centrifugal blowers/fans work. :)
Its good to see ATi catching up, but its a shame about the pricing. :(
The reason it seems strange is because the airflow doesn't seem that great. In fact, if you put your hand at the power end of the card, you can't actually feel the air blowing through it, even when it is howling.
EDIT: I've also done the paper test - that works a little better. The paper moves back a little, but not very much at all considering the noise that the fan is making. :|
It seems to be more of a radial blower than a fan, which means noise and pressure over greater unresisted airflow, are there a lot of closely packed fins in that heatsink?
hmmmm..i like your analysis on the fan.as i remember sapphire allways has noisey HSF's on their cards...so it shows with their latest ones.
i was just wondering the ram chips on the board were all of them covered by the HSF or are those small "lego" looking bricks next to the power components ram modules aswell??
Originally Posted by Xen0phobiak It seems to be more of a radial blower than a fan, which means noise and pressure over greater unresisted airflow, are there a lot of closely packed fins in that heatsink?
yes probably about twice as many as on a 7800 GT. Incidentally, they both have similar fans.
Originally Posted by atanum141 hmmmm..i like your analysis on the fan.as i remember sapphire allways has noisey HSF's on their cards...so it shows with their latest ones.
i was just wondering the ram chips on the board were all of them covered by the HSF or are those small "lego" looking bricks next to the power components ram modules aswell??
There are only 8 DRAMs.
Sapphire's coolers don't tend to stray much from ATI's reference coolers. I wish they would though, in all honesty.
Since the X800XT/Pro cooler, I've not been a fan of any of ATI's reference coolers since then strictly speaking pretty - the dual slot X850/X1800 XT cooler looks ok, but does have some issues. The X850XT was an inferno, giving off ~64W and the X1800XT is said to be even worse at ~69W. :|
Seeing as the card has two dual-link DVI ports, we hope that Sapphire will amend this bundle to include a second VGA-to-DVI converter for those gamers who are still running two analogue monitors.
Honestly, I think most people running multiple analogue monitors will already be equiped with an adiquate number of converters. Some I know even have a small surpless. That said, there is still a situation in which someone maybe be buying a card and a second monitor. Those dvi converters are inexpensive and would just be tossed into the order. Anyone paying $300-500 + the cost of a monitor is more than likely not going to be crying of an extra $2-5.
As always though, good article. Personally, I think nVidia has a the lead in this round, this far anyway. The X1x00's weren't the cards I was hoping for. One thing that I've been disapointed with is that niether manufacturers cards are capable of providing flat out brutal frame rates in current games and the absolute best picture quality. That maybe unrealistic but I'm just not happy with the current appoarch (which seems to be "hey!, just throw another card at it....Wee! Sli and Crossfire). On the other hand, its very nice to see games that are continually moving toward a more life-like visual quality.
Still, I don't feel that multi-card solutions are the answer. I definatly think that multi-GPU graphics solutions is the direction we are heading but a second card is extra baggage. I really like some of Gigabyte's SLi solutions in which both cores were on the same card. While definatly a step in the right direction, I think that we will eventually end up with multi-core GPUs. That would get us a nice, small unit with incredable power. I emphasize small mainly due to one of my personal issues with using multiple cards. In most situations with two graphics cards, there is only room for a single PCI slot and sometimes a single x1 PCI-e. This is extremely limiting in my opinion. Usually that single slot would find itself occupied by a high-end sound card such as the new X-fi's (if you are going to drop the the kind of cash required for two video cards, you better be paying attension to sound). So with that filled, you are basicly screwed if you need to add a card if you want/require additional functionality for your computer. These aren't suppose to be consoles with gaming as the sole purpose. PC's have a potentially infinite number of uses and thats what sets them apart from dedicated gaming hardware.
Originally Posted by Andy Mc it wouldbe nice to see this review redone when ATI makes their 'magical' openGL tweak availalble to the masses.
I'm not actually using any OpenGL games at the moment (because there aren't any that are popular enough), but when Quake 4 comes out, we'll be making use of it I would have thought. ;)
And yes, its all well and good ATI having a magic OpenGL tweak seeded to journalists (I've got it too), but I don't have the time to look at it explicitly now, but when it is included in the drivers, we'll definitely have a look at it.
LockmanX, I agree with you but, you have to consider how much they're making on these cards. After taking that in to account I think you'll realise why I moan about it every single time a manufacturer 'forgets' to put adequate cables/adapters in the box. The price it'd cost them to include another DVI to VGA converter is less than 1/5th of what it'd cost the consumer because they buy them in such massive quantities.
Originally Posted by Tulatin Sooo you're telling us that we've waited all this time for a card that performs very close to NVIDIA's offering, but at a higher price...?
Sort of what I was thinking. After a good 30 minutes of reading, I wasn't impressed by the card. Basically, what it means is that ATI has finally caught up with nVidia a bit after a few months of absence.
I personally will be getting the 7800GT, the extreme edition at £245 seems good. What is the extra bit for £30 more bigz, is it just looks or is performance improved? Any info on that?
Originally Posted by MrWillyWonka I personally will be getting the 7800GT, the extreme edition at £245 seems good. What is the extra bit for £30 more bigz, is it just looks or is performance improved? Any info on that?
It's the same card, but 'improved' aesthetics, depending on your tastes. I think it looks pretty cool IRL, depends whether it floats your boat or not though... ;)
Good write up but no real surprises. I think it's quite amusing that ATI relaeased these at these price points. Surely no one in their right mind would buy one considering it's £60/£70 more than the 7800GT. I'm also surprised really ATI have their card inside the Xbox which is obviously gonna make em some cash so would have thought they could have taken a bigger hit re pricing on these cards.
I might have missed it somewhere in the review but which drivers were used under testing assume the 5.10's but wanted to check.
Roll on the 580.........
As I'm on on an X800XT atm I think I'll skip this round of cards unless I spy a real baragin for a 7800 GTX ;)
Nope, Catalyst 5.10 don't support Radeon X1800 - I had to use beta drivers against my wish. I'm all for using drivers that everyone can get hold of. :(
Don't know if anyone noticed this but you reviewed on a dual core cpu, I think this is a little unfair as the new nvidia drivers you used take advantage of dual core, whereas the ATi ones don't yet, they will in the near future. So in my opinion this isn't a fair comparison of the GPUs being tested.
Originally Posted by skank Don't know if anyone noticed this but you reviewed on a dual core cpu, I think this is a little unfair as the new nvidia drivers you used take advantage of dual core, whereas the ATi ones don't yet, they will in the near future. So in my opinion this isn't a fair comparison of the GPUs being tested.
We actually ran a poll in the forums about which CPU forum members would choose out of FX-57 and X2 4800+ given the choice - the result came out as X2 4800+, which is why you see an X2 4800+ being used. The whole point of these reviews is that they're realistic to the consumer.
I don't think your point is valid at all, seeing as the test system was set up based on a reader survey that didn't have anything to do with video card drivers. Over 60% of the readers voted for the X2 4800+ and many of those who voted for the FX-57 actually said later in the thread that they actually 'got' what the poll was about and changed their mind.
Oh, and just because one IHV has support for something that the other doesn't, it means that we shouldn't use it at all? So, when it comes to getting a game that can do FP16 HDR and AA together, we can't test that and compare to NVIDIA hardware because NVIDIA can't do FP16 HDR and AA at the same time through hardware?
I'm sorry, but if you didn't get the message already, I completely disagree with your opinion and point of view.
OK, I am new here so I didn't see the poll, please accept my humblest apologies. However you say realistic to the consumer, how many people are gaming on dual core cpus right now? I'd be willing to bet my house on there being way less on dual core than single, so realistic to the consumer would indicate a single core processor, also as I said ATi will be bringing out dual core support as well. I just think it is a little underhanded that you make no mention of the dual core support as being a factor in the performance results, the results may well have been different on the FX-57, I'm not bashing, far from it to be my place as a newcomer on these boards, but I do think that people should know all the facts regarding performance, to use your example, you would alert people to the lack of support or thereof in the review of the HDR + AA. Also, how would you test the performance of HDR + AA on Nvidia cards?
The review is focused on 'highest playable' - it's not a pissing contest. The fact is that you can't *use* HDR and AA on an NVIDIA card, so you can't take that in to account with highest playable, where you can on ATI's cards. In short, you can't test HDR + AA on NVIDIA cards, but you can on ATI cards.
That is the beauty about the way we do things - you should be asking that question to the many sites out there who still compare average frame rates from a time demo. It easily fits in to our review format already. ;)
You could almost say the same about Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory before Radeon X1800 came out, couldn't you? Do I have to benchmark in Shader Model 1.1 on all cards because ATI didn't support SM3.0 and NVIDIA couldn't use the 'ATI' SM2.0 patch just to be (un)fair to both parties? Would you play the game in SM1.1 mode if you spent £200+ on a GeForce 6/7?
Your question is also true with the FX-57. How many people have an FX-57? And in response to your first question, I believe there are more than you think.
Comments 1 to 25 of 48
Thats how centrifugal blowers/fans work. :)
Its good to see ATi catching up, but its a shame about the pricing. :(
EDIT: I've also done the paper test - that works a little better. The paper moves back a little, but not very much at all considering the noise that the fan is making. :|
i was just wondering the ram chips on the board were all of them covered by the HSF or are those small "lego" looking bricks next to the power components ram modules aswell??
Sapphire's coolers don't tend to stray much from ATI's reference coolers. I wish they would though, in all honesty.
Since the X800XT/Pro cooler, I've not been a fan of any of ATI's reference coolers since then strictly speaking pretty - the dual slot X850/X1800 XT cooler looks ok, but does have some issues. The X850XT was an inferno, giving off ~64W and the X1800XT is said to be even worse at ~69W. :|
Honestly, I think most people running multiple analogue monitors will already be equiped with an adiquate number of converters. Some I know even have a small surpless. That said, there is still a situation in which someone maybe be buying a card and a second monitor. Those dvi converters are inexpensive and would just be tossed into the order. Anyone paying $300-500 + the cost of a monitor is more than likely not going to be crying of an extra $2-5.
As always though, good article. Personally, I think nVidia has a the lead in this round, this far anyway. The X1x00's weren't the cards I was hoping for. One thing that I've been disapointed with is that niether manufacturers cards are capable of providing flat out brutal frame rates in current games and the absolute best picture quality. That maybe unrealistic but I'm just not happy with the current appoarch (which seems to be "hey!, just throw another card at it....Wee! Sli and Crossfire). On the other hand, its very nice to see games that are continually moving toward a more life-like visual quality.
Still, I don't feel that multi-card solutions are the answer. I definatly think that multi-GPU graphics solutions is the direction we are heading but a second card is extra baggage. I really like some of Gigabyte's SLi solutions in which both cores were on the same card. While definatly a step in the right direction, I think that we will eventually end up with multi-core GPUs. That would get us a nice, small unit with incredable power. I emphasize small mainly due to one of my personal issues with using multiple cards. In most situations with two graphics cards, there is only room for a single PCI slot and sometimes a single x1 PCI-e. This is extremely limiting in my opinion. Usually that single slot would find itself occupied by a high-end sound card such as the new X-fi's (if you are going to drop the the kind of cash required for two video cards, you better be paying attension to sound). So with that filled, you are basicly screwed if you need to add a card if you want/require additional functionality for your computer. These aren't suppose to be consoles with gaming as the sole purpose. PC's have a potentially infinite number of uses and thats what sets them apart from dedicated gaming hardware.
Things are good, but it all needs work.
And yes, its all well and good ATI having a magic OpenGL tweak seeded to journalists (I've got it too), but I don't have the time to look at it explicitly now, but when it is included in the drivers, we'll definitely have a look at it.
LockmanX, I agree with you but, you have to consider how much they're making on these cards. After taking that in to account I think you'll realise why I moan about it every single time a manufacturer 'forgets' to put adequate cables/adapters in the box. The price it'd cost them to include another DVI to VGA converter is less than 1/5th of what it'd cost the consumer because they buy them in such massive quantities.
Sort of what I was thinking. After a good 30 minutes of reading, I wasn't impressed by the card. Basically, what it means is that ATI has finally caught up with nVidia a bit after a few months of absence.
I personally will be getting the 7800GT, the extreme edition at £245 seems good. What is the extra bit for £30 more bigz, is it just looks or is performance improved? Any info on that?
http://staff.bit-tech.net/tim/xfx-new-look.jpg
http://staff.bit-tech.net/tim/image004.jpg
It's the same card, but 'improved' aesthetics, depending on your tastes. I think it looks pretty cool IRL, depends whether it floats your boat or not though... ;)
I might have missed it somewhere in the review but which drivers were used under testing assume the 5.10's but wanted to check.
Roll on the 580.........
As I'm on on an X800XT atm I think I'll skip this round of cards unless I spy a real baragin for a 7800 GTX ;)
I don't think your point is valid at all, seeing as the test system was set up based on a reader survey that didn't have anything to do with video card drivers. Over 60% of the readers voted for the X2 4800+ and many of those who voted for the FX-57 actually said later in the thread that they actually 'got' what the poll was about and changed their mind.
You can see that thread here: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=99273
Oh, and just because one IHV has support for something that the other doesn't, it means that we shouldn't use it at all? So, when it comes to getting a game that can do FP16 HDR and AA together, we can't test that and compare to NVIDIA hardware because NVIDIA can't do FP16 HDR and AA at the same time through hardware?
I'm sorry, but if you didn't get the message already, I completely disagree with your opinion and point of view.
That is the beauty about the way we do things - you should be asking that question to the many sites out there who still compare average frame rates from a time demo. It easily fits in to our review format already. ;)
You could almost say the same about Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory before Radeon X1800 came out, couldn't you? Do I have to benchmark in Shader Model 1.1 on all cards because ATI didn't support SM3.0 and NVIDIA couldn't use the 'ATI' SM2.0 patch just to be (un)fair to both parties? Would you play the game in SM1.1 mode if you spent £200+ on a GeForce 6/7?
Your question is also true with the FX-57. How many people have an FX-57? And in response to your first question, I believe there are more than you think.