Conclusion

Today we observed performance of the most technologically advanced graphics card to date – ATI RADEON X1800 XT 512MB – as well as its less speedy brother, the RADEON X1800 XL. Based on the benchmark results we have obtained, we can say for sure that the new high-end lineup from ATI delivers incredible performance in all types of games popular today.

However, we cannot say that ATI’s new flagship product, the RADEON X1800 XT 512MB, is the absolute champion across the board, nor we can say that the XL model is a king of high-end, as both graphics accelerators are noticeably left behind by competing GeForce 7800 GTX and GT in games like Doom III, Chronicles of Riddick, Pacific Fighters and some other OpenGL applications, for example. Nevertheless, when it comes to modern games with intensive use of shaders, such as Battlefield 2, Colin McRae Rally, F.E.A.R., Perimeter, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and some others, the new RADEON X1800-series takes the lead.

Performance advantage over the competing GeForce 7800 GTX comes to the RADEON X1800 XT 512MB at the cost of tremendous clock-speeds as well as never-before-seen power consumption. However, we should keep in mind that high consumption of power seems to be a result of installation of 512MB of GDDR3 memory onboard.

In fact, 90nm process technology allowed ATI to keep power consumption of its RADEON X1800 XL graphics chip in the same envelope as that of the RADEON X850 XT PE, which has two times less transistors. Furthermore, die sizes of the RADEON X1800-series seem to match those on the RADEON X800 family, which means that the cost per die, provided that model X1800 and X800 yields are equal, remains approximately the same as with the previous generation products.

Currently there are several strong points the RADEON X1800 (or the R520, if you prefer) has: very good Shader Model 2.0 performance (at least, when it comes to games, generally the RADEON X1800 is not behind the GeForce 7800), the most efficient Shader Model 3.0 implementation on the PC to date (as theoretical tests showcase), FSAA support with HDR, Avivo video engine and hardware H.264 decoding support, higher-quality anisotropic filtering, great memory clock-speed of the model X1800 XT.

Unfortunately, the CATALYST drivers for the RADEON X1800-series still seem to need certain performance optimizations. Stability-wise, though, everything seems to be okay. This means that customers who get the RADEON X1800-series products today are advised to update their drivers later on.

While generally speaking the whole RADEON X1800-series family deserves a credit for nice performance and feature-set, it comes more than a quarter after the GeForce 7800 GTX, which offered similar speed and capabilities. Unless ATI manages to flood the market with the models X1800 XT and X1800 XL, success of the whole family will be under question mark. To say in short, ATI needs volume availability as soon as possible and, as a result, price drops, of the whole RADEON X1800-series in order to fight high-end market back from NVIDIA.

So, let us summarize everything up about both graphics cards we tested today.

ATI RADEON X1800 XT 512MB

Highs:

• Unmatched performance in loads of applications, primarily Direct3D;
• Supreme performance under “high load” with FSAA and anisotropic filtering;
• Alpha-textures antialiasing;
• Avivo video engine and hardware H.264 and other HD formats, such as HD WMV decoding;
• Future proof – 512MB of onboard memory as well as efficient Shader Model 3.0 implementation;
• Support for FSAA with HDR.

Lows:

• Excessive power consumption;
• Dual-slot cooling system;
• Outperformed by competitors in OpenGL and some other titles;
• Drivers still require polishing off;
• Late to market.

ATI RADEON X1800 XL

Highs:

• High performance in loads of applications, primarily Direct3D;
• Normal performance under “high load” with FSAA and anisotropic filtering;
• Alpha-textures antialiasing;
• Avivo video engine and hardware H.264 and other HD formats, such as HD WMV decoding;
• Future proof – efficient Shader Model 3.0 implementation;
• Support for FSAA with HDR;
• Single-slot cooler.

Lows:

• Excessive power consumption;
• Only matches, but does not outperform, rivaling GeForce 7800 GT in majority of applications;
• Outperformed by competitor in OpenGL and some other titles;
• Late to market.