Why the HD 2900xt is better.

[m3lisk]

Well, looking at all the reviews out there, I have come to a few conclusions:
1- I am going to buy this card
2- It is better than the 8800gtx
3- It is cheaper than the 8800gtx

You may say, what are you retarded, look at all the reviews, the 8800gtx gets wayy better frames. Well, not in all games. In fact, there is quite a few that the 2900xt has a lead on. Plus, in the 3dMarks, it also has a slight lead. This says that the card has locked in potential in my eyes. I mean, look at the spec of it. Technically speaking it should blow the hell out of the 8800gtx. I blame it on drivers. The 8800 gtx has had tons of driver re-polishings. I theorize that ATI wil wait until everyone has bought an 8800, then go MWAHAHAHA! then release the new drivers which will unlock the 2900's ture potential from within and make it the best card out there. Then they will know who is truly on their side. Those with the 2900 will reign supreme and ultimately conquer the 8800 USERS!!! Seriously though, wait a little whilee and ATI will have nice drivers for the 2900 that will allow it to easily keep up with the 8800gtx. The prior rant was built up inside, I had to get it all out.

[GJSNeptune]

Lots of theories in there. Hope they pan out. Good luck.

[DanTheBanjoman]

A GTS was cheaper last time I checked and performs at about the same level while using a lot less power.

[mandelore]

the standard 2900xt was really aimed at the gts market tbh, with the higher clocked 1gb going after the gtx, at least thats what i believe was stated

[Chewy]

I dont see them waiting to release killer drivers, they want sales now and its not happening to well for them. Im sure Niv has a HUGE lead in sales even just since the 2900 has been released... and thats not good for ati/amd.

Personally I want to wait till nexted gen cards, but if I find a good deal/sale on a higher end dx10 card I will take it. I see how you cant rerally wait around though and good luck witht he 2900xt its a good card, hopefully it gets better.

[GJSNeptune]

Niv? Nivea for Men?

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by mandelore

the standard 2900xt was really aimed at the gts market tbh, with the higher clocked 1gb going after the gtx, at least thats what i believe was stated

How is the 1gb model paring with the gtx? it has a higher clock but I dont think its going to surpass yet.. you try oc'in your yet? wonder if it will oc higher than the 512 version.

Originally Posted by GJSNeptune

Niv? Nivea for Men?

:P Nividea!!1! Nivida :O

Edit: ok its Nivdia.. I never was a fan of Nivdia cards... I actually hated thier organisation with a passion, therefore never paid attention to them.

[m3lisk]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

A GTS was cheaper last time I checked and performs at about the same level while using a lot less power.

i was talking about a gtx, not a gts, and the 640mb gts is about the same price as the 2900xt, and the 2900 still owns it.

As for the power, boo-hoo, go get a new PSU, lol.

[hat]

The 2900XT is a good buy IMO. The Sapphire model I believe is $370... it has potential, just wait until ATi releases good drivers for it. It beats the GTX on paper, and the 8 series went through all it's driver revisions already, however the 2900 has not done so yet.

[GJSNeptune]

Originally Posted by Chewy

:P Nividea!!1! Nivida :O

Edit: ok its Nivdia.. I never was a fan of Nivdia cards... I actually hated thier organisation with a passion, therefore never paid attention to them.

Wow. No, it's none of the above.

NVIDIA.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by m3lisk

Well, looking at all the reviews out there, I have come to a few conclusions:
1- I am going to buy this card
2- It is better than the 8800gtx
3- It is cheaper than the 8800gtx

You may say, what are you retarded, look at all the reviews, the 8800gtx gets wayy better frames. Well, not in all games. In fact, there is quite a few that the 2900xt has a lead on. Plus, in the 3dMarks, it also has a slight lead. This says that the card has locked in potential in my eyes. I mean, look at the spec of it. Technically speaking it should blow the hell out of the 8800gtx. I blame it on drivers. The 8800 gtx has had tons of driver re-polishings. I theorize that ATI wil wait until everyone has bought an 8800, then go MWAHAHAHA! then release the new drivers which will unlock the 2900's ture potential from within and make it the best card out there. Then they will know who is truly on their side. Those with the 2900 will reign supreme and ultimately conquer the 8800 USERS!!! Seriously though, wait a little whilee and ATI will have nice drivers for the 2900 that will allow it to easily keep up with the 8800gtx. The prior rant was built up inside, I had to get it all out.

I am not in a position to comment specifically on your comments as I have neither card, from reviews I have read...loosely you are about right, I have no doubts however that currently, across the board (I mean on average)the 8800GTX is the more powerful card but again I have no doubts that the 2900XT is better "Bang for Buck" probably by some margin and certainly up there in some benches, therefore I agree the better bet, although once you get to really Hi Res with lots of AA enabled I think the 2900XT's performance kind of disapears on the horizon (unless the latest driver release sorted AA at High Res??? not sure....dont quote me).

What I would say to you however, as I say to anyone with similar decisions to make and that is "why are you judging a DX10 cards performance on current DX9 benches/games which may have no reflection whatsoever on your gaming experience in DX10, unless of course you may be in the market to buy another card in 3-6 months.....but if thats the case, surely you will be contemplating a similar decision but with the 8900 not the 8800.

My advice, for what it's worth, is be patient for a little while longer and see what DX10 brings for sure in a bug free full version game, benchmarks are largely irrelivant, especially nearly 2 year old ones but if thats your flavour....then yes the 2900XT is the better bet IMO.

[mandelore]

Originally Posted by Chewy

How is the 1gb model paring with the gtx? it has a higher clock but I dont think its going to surpass yet.. you try oc'in your yet? wonder if it will oc higher than the 512 version.



:P Nividea!!1! Nivida :O

Edit: ok its Nivdia.. I never was a fan of Nivdia cards... I actually hated thier organisation with a passion, therefore never paid attention to them.

on that website from canada, extremepc the 1gb 2900xt is right there with the 8800 ULTRA, so yes its better than the 8800 gtx in terms of 3dmark06 benchies

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by hat

The 2900XT is a good buy IMO. The Sapphire model I believe is $370... it has potential, just wait until ATi releases good drivers for it. It beats the GTX on paper, and the 8 series went through all it's driver revisions already, however the 2900 has not done so yet.

I agree but with each Forceware release there remains still gains to be had, some considerable.

[mandelore]

and with each catalyst I say ditto

[mandelore]

lol a flametastic thread name if ever there was one

[Chewy]

Idle power consumption factors in for me alot since I dont just game on my computer. I have more idle time than gaming time, the 2900 doesnt use to much juice idleing.

BUying a new psu to run your card sucks.. you already have one and if you just bought your computer not to long ago like me than you dont want ot have to go buy a new psu when you just got one.

Trys to stay on topic :P but I guess I cant go all out overclocking with my using a 2900xt.. which is a bummer.. I was expecting to have more headroom for the 2900xt when I bought it.

[Mediocre]

I'd just worry about the early dx10 reviews I've read. There was SERIOUS artifact/rendering issues with the 2900, it didn't even render certain elements of the benchmark....This was the first couple weeks they were out, have they been fixed with driver updates??
You can have all the speed in the world, but if you're not rendering the whole scene who cares?

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by mandelore

and with each catalyst I say ditto

You may well do so but I was not saying that the gains had already been made in the drivers as was the case for the comment on Forceware. The last update gave me 200 points on 2006.

[m3lisk]

Lol, thread explosion FTW!

[Kasparz]

Originally Posted by GJSNeptune

Wow. No, it's none of the above.

NVIDIA.

Is nvidia still in business?
I thought nvidia died before 3dfx.

[m3lisk]

Originally Posted by Kasparz

Is nvidia still in business?
I thought nvidia died before 3dfx.

[jagjitnatt]

I simply don't understand why people are so immature.
They go directly to conclusions without even thinking once. HD 2900XT is a very nice card.
It is better than 8800GTX. See what happenned when NVIDIA came out with 8800 series in Nov?
Their hardware was very nice cause it was being compared to X1950XTX.
Their drivers were immature, i should say their drivers plain SUCKED.
It took them over 6 months to achieve the performance that they get now.
Give ATI some time. And those dumb people who feel drivers aren't making a difference, check this link which shows the kind of improvement drivers have been showing on HD2900.

http://www.computerbase.de/news/trei...ibervergleich/

HD2900 is being compared to GTX and GTS. sure people expect it to be slightly ahead or behind it. But I don't understand, there are people who believe because ATI was late 6 months, HD2900 should have scored ten times than that of 8800.
Guys, every gen of cards has seen this trend that the top of the line cards are pretty much similar in performance (8-12% diff)
Now ATI is slow because all the features it offers in hardware are not being implemented in games. But once DX10 is mainstream we'll see those features and then it will be like GeForce 7 vs X1k series where X1k series could do AA+HDR whereas nVIDIA didn't implement it in hardware.
Complex shaders and Tesselation are such features. Games today use scalar shaders, which is why they only see 64 shaders in 2900 whereas they see 128 shaders in 8800GTX.
Once DX10 games are here, they will be able to utilise the advanced shaders which would give the card the power of around 256 shaders in best case (64X4, when all complex shaders are in use)
Moreover if you look at the DX10 games like company of heroes, you'll see that ATI performs better than 8800GTX.
So, I would say m3lisk made the correct decision and went for the best and the most future proof card out there.

Rock on ATI users

[mandelore]

Originally Posted by Mediocre

I'd just worry about the early dx10 reviews I've read. There was SERIOUS artifact/rendering issues with the 2900, it didn't even render certain elements of the benchmark....This was the first couple weeks they were out, have they been fixed with driver updates??
You can have all the speed in the world, but if you're not rendering the whole scene who cares?

you will find its software related, nothing to do with the hardware, and which benchy u talking about? I ran 3dmark fine. some dx10 games, like lost planet had issues, but again, software, it wouldnt surprise me if Nvidia snuck in some ebil anti ati code hahahaha, well probs not, but who knows... they appear to pay game devs an awful lot

[hat]

Originally Posted by Kasparz

Is nvidia still in business?
I thought nvidia died before 3dfx.

You live in a hole?? nVidia bought 3DFX a LONG time ago... nVidia ant ATi are the 2 video card manifacturers. I don't see how you can't tell that nVidia is still in business... :/ :/ :/

[mandelore]

lool, that must have been a joke..