Well I am a ati fan but the 7800 gtx really is the winner here.
The articles I read said that the X1800XT was up with the 7800GTX, and with AA and AF on, it said it wasted the 7800GTX. From what I read, the X1800XT is a better card, and if you take it up to 512Mb, it is only 550, where the 512 7800GTX is 750, way more for your money there, now ain't it? Well, I appreciate your opinions, thx for voting.
Huh? This thread makes me cry. So many fanboys in one place = lose.
They don't make a 256mb version of the X1800XT. Only 512. The X1800 performs better than a GTX, and with eye candy it isn't even close. 7800 is a much better deal though as you can probably find one under $400 while a X1800 will likely run you MSRP of $600.
...and you still can't fill 512MB with textures. Wouldn't it be nice if either company would make a core worthy of that much memory?
Unfortunately for those pulling for ATI, the X1800XT only shows an substantially appreciable lead when benched in BF2. It only has two points going for it: better anisotropic filtering in some cases, and a better-than-G70-on-average falloff rate (particularly with antialiasing enabled, an old ATI hallmark).
While G70 really is a rather superior core to R580, it isn't by much. R580 certainly wins points for uniqueness.
AFAIC, it all comes down to which you value more: "High Quality AF" (the technical term) or Transparency AA.
C38368...and you still can't fill 512MB with textures. Wouldn't it be nice if either company would make a core worthy of that much memory?
You still need a software to use the memory. By the way X1800 = r520. ;)