We will put the new diagrams online as soon as possible. We do not typically make this kind of updates, but this time we'll certainly enable comparison between the RADEON X600 XT and the RADEON X700 XT.

X-bit labs has published the RADEON X700 XT review and decided to compare ATI's latest mainstream graphics offering to NVIDIA's latest mainstream graphics offering. We believe that such comparison is logical and understandable for readers educated in modern technologies.

We included the RADEON X800 PRO results so that end-users could compare performance of ATI's X800-series to ATI's X700-series. We also included GeForce 6800 results so that end-users could compare performance of NVIDIA's 6800-series to NVIDIA's 6600-series.

We are surpised that John S. did not accuse us of being biased to NVIDIA when we included results NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT in our GeForce 6600-series review against GeForce 6600 GT, GeForce 5950 Ultra, RADEON 9800 XT and RADEON X600 XT graphics cards.

X-bit labs was asked to include GeForce 6800 and RADEON X800 PRO results against the GeForce 6600 GT by some readers.

"Can you included the X800 in your next test," asked a reader who named himself Johny Hill on the 7th of September, 2004.

"I would of prefered to see 6800 vs 6600 GT Tests," said a reader who named himself MonkRX on the 7th of September, 2004.

When X-bit labs is asked, we deliver. Though, asking us not to deliver seems strange.

ATI is the best choice if you want a much slower card in games using Doom 3 engine and you also want a card that does not support Shader 3.0 (which Nvidia does suport) ATI has cut corners in the past (quietly using 24 bit rendering vs Nvidia's 32 bit and one of the reasons it cannot support Shader 3.0!) in the quest for speed and now it is all catching up with them. The X800XT is no match for the top Nvidia card anyway you cut it and the Nvidia cards GPU even runs a lot slower than the ATI one too. ATI has clearly lost this round and is now trying to play catchup.