HIS X850 XT IceQ Turbo

[WilHarris]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._iturbo/1.html

[Shadowed_fury]

Originally Posted by mrhaz

http://www.bit-tech.net/content_imag.../backplate.jpg

Wrong link!

[Tim S]

fixed, thanks

[Shadowed_fury]

Nice review, that card looks good, but I think i'd have to spend my money on a Nvidia card.
Since it has SM3.0, HDR...
In my eyes, Ati hold nothing if your spending that sort of money.

[bwlonsdale]

That is a nice card and a good price, but I think the X800XTs are the best value for money right now.

I just bought an Asus AX800XT Platinum Edition for £234 from Overclockers (and that was including VAT). It runs at a default 520/1120 core/mem which is remarkably close to the X850XT in this review and I don't think you're going to see much, if any, difference in frame rate.

I've OC'd the card last night and got 570/1140 core/mem out of it (that was with water cooling on the GPU and some copper RAM sinks on the mem so your mileage may vary).

Just checked and OCers have just bunged the price up a touch...it's now £252 inc VAT but that's still a very good deal in comparison and £50 cheaper than HiS.

[Update] OCers have now removed this card from their website...sorry! Maybe cos I complained it didn't ship with the webcam it was meant to!!

[The_Pope]

What do y'all think of the new Best Playable Settings tables?








I think they're grrrrrrrrreat!

[Shadowed_fury]

I agree, very nice

[Da Dego]

I was actually just about to comment on them, Pope!

I think these new tables really are quite nice. They make the summary of information very easy to look at, particularly since the style of review is "best playable" instead of "how many FPS can I cram". It's this type of innovative stuff that sets BT's reviews apart from the rest.

[The_Pope]

Glad to hear - we do try

[Da Dego]

If I may make one request, though...Perhaps you guys should work on making the text a little more legible in the pictures. Depending on the image, they can be a little harder to read. For instance, with the HL2 one, the first NVidia line is difficult. Not sure what can be done here, but perhaps something little would make a big difference. The bars are easier because they have that glow around them, maybe that will help you?

[Tim S]

I've already mentioned that and we're developing them so that they are a little more legible

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by bigz

I've already mentioned that and we're developing them so that they are a little more legible

Oops! Sorry biggles. Where did you say that? I must have just missed it.

[Tim S]

Originally Posted by Da Dego

Oops! Sorry biggles. Where did you say that? I must have just missed it.

I've already mentioned it internally... sorry, I confused matters

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by bigz

I've already mentioned it internally... sorry, I confused matters

Oooh, sure. I see how it is, blame me for questioning you talking to yourself.

[Tim S]

ongoing development to provide you guys with the information that you want, as they say

[JADS]

It may be more effort, but wouldn't it be useful to take three resolutions say 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 then show the maximum capabilities for the cards at each resolution with playable framerates?

I'm still waiting to see if the 7800GTX cards in SLI can play at playable frame rates at 2560x1600, they support one dual-link DVI socket now so it should be possible

[Shadowed_fury]

Originally Posted by JADS

It may be more effort, but wouldn't it be useful to take three resolutions say 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 then show the maximum capabilities for the cards at each resolution with playable framerates?

This would be nice for me, and plenty of other people I imagine.
I only game at 1280x1024 (17" TFT)...

[Tim S]

i like your thinking... but that is around three times the work. It depends whether you want 2 reviews a month, or 6+ reviews a month....

[The_Pope]

This would be nice for me, and plenty of other people I imagine.
I only game at 1280x1024 (17" TFT)...

Why would knowing the max fps at 1024 and 1600 be useful if you only game at 1280?

Benchmarking is very time & labour intensive, and Tim is quite correct: would you prefer only one or two reviews a month with a billion different resolutions, or 6+ per month with a sensible compromise of representative settings?

1280 is an obvious sweet-spot for gaming: everyone with a 17" TFT or larger will be running this as their minimum desktop resolution; every CRT of 17" or larger can do this resolution too. When Tim has spent a great deal of time figuring out the Best Playable Settings, which are 30fps min and around 60fps average, and those results say all but one card in one game runs smoothly at 1280 or higher, why then would we benchmark at 1024?

Of course, if something *really* intensive came out, like maybe Half Life 2: Lost Coast and the HDR creates SUCH a hit, then IF the Best Playable Settings are only 1024, then we'd bench at 1024. The idea is to provide Apples vs Apples numbers that are applicable to the most number of people. If the MaxFPS was only 20 at anything higher than 1024, *nobody* would substitute smoothness for a higher resolution.

Am I making sense?

[Shadowed_fury]

Oh yeah, I get what you mean.
1280x1024 benchies would be useful to know for us 17" TFT guys, but if its gonna cost more reviews, nevermind!