Replace the spaces in the .jpg name in the link with hyphens, like in the HDR shots, and you can see them until Xbit gets around to correcting it.

Thanks, corrected. Should work now.

Thanks for nice words.

1. ATI has higher image quality, as it has angle-independent anisotropic filtering enabled. It does reduce performance, but only a little bit in the vast majority of games.
2. Sorry. We've added the transparent textures antialiasing section.
3. We separated trilinear- and anisotropic-related comments for easier navigation.

Hi, what I meant is that on the second page (Fast and Furious), I thought it was supposed to demonstrate ATI's default "Typical" Quality AF settings instead of HQ, while on the third page (Angle Off), it shows ATI's HQ again.

On another topic, several forum readers complained that ATI's QADAA is not as good as Nvidia's TRSSAA. Although this issue is not nearly as important as Nvidia cheating with heavy texture shimmering, I was just wondering if you noticed the difference between the two alpha texture AA methods.

Yes, we have noted the differences and added comments to the appropriate section and conclusion.

We wanted to show off the difference between the highest-end boards available today. Some of the future articles will include GeForce 7900 GTX boards with new settings.

hi! my xfx gx2 1gb 500m is about to arrive. pci-e is a whole new experience 4 me as i used agp formerly. so can u plz tell me a bit about overlocking, how to do it safely & that how did u get ur card ovelocked to 615/1600. thnx>>

You've forgotten to mention that Radeon X1950 XTX starts at $426(http://castle.pricewatch.com/s/search.asp?s=Radeon+X19 0) in e-tail while having MSRP of $449, whereas GeForce 7950 GX2 starts at $520 (http://castle.pricewatch.com/s/search.asp?s=GeForce+7950+ X2) in e-tail while having MSRP of $599/$649.

We tend to use MSRP as those will more or less reflect the whole world, not only Newegg or MonarchComputers.

Understood, but when the MSRP is off by almost 200 bucks, I say it should not be used as it confuses the consumer :)

the 426 is for a 1550 mhz clock on the memory, this is not the card in the review thank you check your facts, I sure did :)

Well, you seem to have the fact that we are talking about the Radeon X1950 XTX that works at 650MHz/2000MHz missing.

http://www.sapphiretech.com/us/productfiles/matrix-vga-1.x s

My appologies. Guess I was a tad hasty too.

I looked up this card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168141 2045&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=14-102-045

its the second one listed in a pricewatch search and shows 1550 as the memory clock. The one for 426 is 2000mhz I believe, and is an oem version. I assumed it was the same as the one above it so I ignored it in my search.

Both cards street price differ greatly from MSRP :( It almost makes people who are not in the know think its OK to spend 599 - 649 for a 7950 when in reality they are bing ripped off :(

as far as the overclock the 7950 ownz there. Default clocks are pretty wack, but I was able to get to the speeds below and have 0 artifacts and 0 problems. IM sure the memory could go futher if coolbits would allow.

http://www.xenozx.com/images/overclock.JPG

Having a damn near 20% overclock for mem and core really makes these cards shine. Have a 650/2000 card vs a 500/1200 clocked card kind of hurts even if its technically doing sli. Increase that to 615/1600 and it makes a HUGE difference :) Thats per core/card :D

Well the comparison was between stock cards. Not everyone has the aptitude to overclock their video cards, or the inclination. Not to mention power supply headroom.

I do agree that the prices for the 7950GX2 were a bit inflated. But prices fluctuate daily, and I would argue that it is hard to pinpoint the price of the day. I wouldn't begin to try to pinpoint the right price for the card. Even the X1950XTX you can find for $420. If you take the Newegg prices for when I bought the card the difference between the cheapest X1950 and 7950GX2 was only $80, but that was enough to put it out of my range.

This article does what I think it was intended to do: show the two top single card options in stock form for what they can offer. Pricing is up to the consumer to figure out. Intelligent consumers will get the best deal, this article gives these consumers the tools to differentiate more accurately between the two products.

There is no point to benchmark graphics cards in resolutions you mentioned: they all will be faster than 16x12 and lower end like 13x7 will be faster than 12x8. By testing those resolutions we will simply find out new CPU performance limitations.

Ah, I should have read the article to the end first. Feel free to delete my comment...

Mr. Widescreen Support was here to advertise a web-site that is not there...

The most serious gamers use 640x480 resolution with lowest quality settings to get some extra speed. The vast majority of gamers use 1280x1024 resolution or 1600x1200 resolution - the most popular resolutions for new monitors. The well-informed should choose 16x10, 19x12 or 25x16. Given that 16x10 is not good for loading the graphics boards to the limit, while 25x16 is available on three consumer monitors shipping, we decided to stick with 19x12.