ATI Radeon X1800 GTO Launched

SippinTea writes "ATI has also hastened to market with a launch of their own this week, with a new Performance Mid-Range Graphics Card. The Radeon X1800 GTO is a chopped-down version of the Radeon X1800 XL with 12 pixel pipelines and less expensive, lower speed GDDR3 DRAM on board. It compares well with the new GeForce 7600GT but can it compete with a GeForce 7900GT for only a few dollars more?"

Too many video cards

Is it me or are there just too many video cards out there?

Re:FX5200? Why?

Actually a Voodoo 3 would barely be installable to start with, the last official Voodoo3 drivers are for Windows 98, to use a Voodoo3 on a W2K/WXP box you have to use sub-par unofficial drivers (I know it, because I used to run a W2k box with a Voodoo3)

Re:Too many video cards

Is it me or are there just too few silent video cards out there?

Re:Too many video cards

And too (two) few companies.

Can you say "soft launch"?

There's one significant difference between the nVidia launches this week and the ATI board launched the same day. The nVidia products were available on launch day from on-line stores but the ATI product won't be available for "a few weeks".

It looks like ATI wanted to steal nVidia's thunder by announcing their latest product the same day. The small issue of not actually being able to manufacture their product yet doesn't seem to be very important to them.

Linux drivers?

The vesa driver is sooooo unacceptable.

Finally proof!!

I am offically an Old-Fart(tm).

I looked at this and I thought, "so what, how many fps do kids need in their games anyways?"
Then the exact next thought was: "Bah the drivers are still fubar in linux so why should I care."
3rd: "How many /.'ers will make the same comments?"

So offically, pass me a hat. I quit.
Ahh games I do miss them so (the best FPS will always be StarSeige Tribes), and eye-candy; nah it'll probably slow down my compile times.

Speed Check

If you put four of them together you can actually run the first full second of the trailer for the next version of Doom.

With all these new mid-range cards out..

Its a real shame Apple had to shackle its Pro notebook and consumer desktop with the uninspiring x1600. OS X relies on the graphics card for so much and they give it so little attention. I hope they follow the lead of other OEMs and make upgrades to their products as new stuff becomes available and not delay faster stuff so that Steve Jobs has something to talk about at Macworld or WWDC.

Re:With all these new mid-range cards out..

Its a real shame Apple had to shackle its Pro notebook and consumer desktop with the uninspiring x1600.

I think the Radeon x1600 is a fine GPU for their "professional" notebook and a very good GPU for their "consumer" desktop.

The Mobility Radeon x1600 in their mid-sized MacBook Pro is ATI's second-best current-generation mobile GPU. The Mobility Radeon x1800 is ATI's current high-end part and the only noticable difference (for most users) between x1600 and x1800 is 3D gaming performance, which is not worth the extra cost for the vast majority of MacBook Pro buyers. The x1800 is more appropriate for Alienware gaming notebooks or giant Dell XPS desktop replacement notebooks.

I think the (non-mobile) Radeon x1600 in the iMac is a heck of a nice GPU for a "consumer" PC. Any current generation GPU (like Radeon x1300 or GeForce 7300) would be a fine choice IMO because the extra 3D gaming performance would be a waste for the vast majority of iMac buyers. Anyone that needs more gaming power than an x1600 shouldn't be buying an all-in-one computer with non-upgradable graphics. It would be nice, however, if Apple offered a headless upgradable desktop that wasn't a freakin' workstation.

OS X relies on the graphics card for so much and they give it so little attention.

Are you talking about stuff like Quartz Extreme and Core Image/Video? I think the Radeon x1600 gives plenty of GPU power for OS X. Heck, Intel's maligned GMA 900 integrated graphics seemed to have snappy OS X performance [slashdot.org] on the Intel Developer Macs. Core Image only requires a Radeon 9500 or GeForce FX 5200, which are both two generations older than the Radeon X1600.

A quick run down of how this works

1. Spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing top of the line graphics card.
2. Sell it for $500
3. Spend a few more million dollars figuring out how to cripple top of the line graphics card.
4. Sell it for half the price.
5. Profit?
6. Consumers figure out how to re-enabled all the features that were crippled making there $250 graphics card perform almost equal to the $500 version.

Re:A quick run down of how this works

That's completly untrue. These cards are able to be sold for cheaper because they don't need as high manufacturing standards as the top of the line cards. For those, every pipeline has to be perfect (or within an acceptable range of that) in order for it not to be thrown away. The brilliant thing about selling these kinds of cards, is that they don't have to just throw them away. Instead, they disable the faulty pipelines and sell them for cheaper. Thus they make $250 instead of nothing. Some people who buy them get lucky and get ones with mostly good pipelines. They can then renenable the pipelines, and get better performance. However, there will be problems like video corruption.

Oh Yay...

Another graphics chip, in case the 20+ already out there aren't enough choice for you.

FTFA:

Fortunately, years later we find a dramatically different competitive landscape on the graphics card front, as today's mainstream and performance segment GPU's are equipped with the technology and features that would annihilate flagship GPU's from a few short generations ago.

And then:

Looking at these basic specifications, it is certainly impressive to think that this is a $249 graphics card that has all of the features and functionality of the Radeon X1800 series of GPU's.

So first they say what many of us already knew - cards become obsolete in under 18 months - and immediately after say we should spend lots of money on them anyway. Now $250 might now be much to some, but not all of us can afford that, especially for what is effectively a mid-range card.

Gratuitous product launches

Am I the only one who suspects the reason we now have a ridiculously confusing range of video chips is less to do with product differentiation and manufacturing efficiency than the publicity that accompanies each new launch? ATI and nVidia seem to have themselves stuck in this game where if one were to announce a new product every month and the other every two months, the relative disadvantage in the reporting on the latter company will result in a significant loss of consumer recognition.

So they keep coming up with new variations that are trivially different from the existing products - a clock speed adjustment here, a few pipes disabled there - primarily to keep their name in the media. Even the "unannounced" chips are broadly reported, usually with something like "quietly released" in the headline.

Linux drivers?

ATI used to suck with linux drivers. If you wanted a fairly recent 3d card in linux, you had to go with nvidia.

Is that still the case? If so, then I can't see why I would be interested in ATI.

Why?

I once set Q3Arena to deathmatch, one of the void maps, against bots. 300 of them. Frag limit bumped to something like 500 and it wasn't much. The game was completely crazy but incredibly fun. With some luck you lived 10 or 15 seconds, the trick was not to not be killed but to frag at least two before you get fragged. The saw glove appeared to be extremely good weapon because at a good location you could run through a row of 30 or so bots shooting each others' backs, and get 30 frags in a row.

The problem? It was running at about 5 FPS.
Now I'd like to get a card that would enable this kind of gameplay at reasonable speed. Crowded cities, armies of troopers, hordes of demons. Power in numbers, not detail. Completely new gameplay style. Screw high degree of reality, allow me to perform a multi-kill of 40 with one shot.

Crippled cards

I wonder what's the point of releasing such cards. They usually cost about the same that previous-generation cards with very similar performance. The only reason for me to get a new crippled card would be to unblock some features but I can't come up with a way how is this profitable for the manufacturer.

nVidia keeps the crown this year too

Radeon X1800 XL with 12 pixel pipelines and less expensive, lower speed GDDR3 DRAM

The 7900GT has 24 pixel pipelines 65nm process and is cheaper. nuff said.

New segment in 250US$ range

well this card is placed really nice in the 200-300 price bracket. if u take a look at the card at that price range 7600GT will be low range and 7900GT will be outta budget. i think its better than nvidia 7600GT(only if 7600GT had 256bit memory bus y nvidia y). the moment nvidia launched 7600 and 7900 products ATi decreased the prices. i don't think we are gonna see the X1800 GTO soon in the market. as all ATi lauches are mostly paper launches. but i think its a good move from ATi they have created a new segment in that price bracket. and actually ATi had a big hole in that bracket specially in SM3.0 compatible cards.

More Video Card News From CeBIT

Tech Forum Watch [techforumwatch.com] has a good round up of the recent launches including the GTO, Quad SLI & Notebook SLI.

These launches are not totally about PR

They are about offering more about bang than the other guy for your buck. The midrange $150-$200 range is where you get the most for your money, and each time one competitor offers a better value, the other can't afford to sit back for too long. The midrange GPU segment is one incredibly efficient market and the that is why there are these frequent releases. Each company is fighting to stay ahead.

One reason for this is that most midrange buyers are enthusiasts, and judging by the # of comments for a product on newegg, one can see that as soon as a better value is offered by a new chip, sales quickly shift towards it. The Nvidia 6800 GS was selling like hotcakes for just the tiny stopgap period it was put out, just to best the ATI x800GTO until the 7600 GT showed up.

I'm shopping for a card for a friend now, and have noticed that the midrange is good, but for high resolution play at 1600x1200 or 1920x1200, the midrange is barely cutting it now, so it becomes important to get the most bang for your buck, especially if you have an LCD with native high res and want to maintain quality. The new 7600 GT is about 15% faster than the 6800 GS, even w/ a 128 bit memory bus, and definitely hits a sweet spot at $190. It should run most popular titles comfortably at 1920x1200 and has next generation shader 3.0, unlike ATI's offerings below $200.

Unfortunately for ATI, they haven't offered the best midrange value since their 9xxx line. ATI took Nvidia's crown a while back but Nvidia has had it back for some time now.

Video Card for Photo Editing

I'm a photographer, and most of my work is photo editing with Adobe Photoshop and RAW picture conversion with Canon's Zoombrowser. I read in a FAQ from Adobe that they mentioned upgrading your video card to improve performance in Photoshop, and was wondering what types of aspects in a video card I should be looking at for this work? I don't need any of the video game type enhancements in a card, so should I just look at the speed and amount of DRAM on the board? Is the X1800 GTO going to be a good choice, or should I go with something higher up on the product line? Or does the video card really make little difference for programs like these? thanks, Chris

Annoying and confusing names

Wouldn't you expect that a "GTO" edition of a card is better than the plain-jane version?

Recently I upgrade my card. If it wasn't for Tom's Video Card charts and some more reviews to round that out, it would have been impossible to tell which cards were better than which - let alone which is the best value.

I really think the numbering and naming schemes do the companies a disservice.

Re:Hhehehe

huh?