Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by DaMulta, Jun 9, 2007.
link is on the top.....
Omg that's nuts. Imagine 2 1GB in crossfire O.O
OMG you know what is even more nuts? Two 8800GTX's in SLI.
I doubt that.
Not really, we've seen the 8800GTX. Id like to see what these offer.
Look at the benchmarks, sparky. The GTX's are faster, cooler, quieter, and less power-hungry.
More heat, more power, more noise, slightly faster performance than the 512MB version -- but still no match for the GTX.
Do you have a link to the 1GB GDDR4 version benchmarks?
Price - Performance wise the GTX is not impressive what so ever
True ... price/performance ratio is best in mid-range cards such as the x1950 PRO. If you want the best performance, expect to pay premium.
i linked this on my thread http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=32491
in crossfire / sli, only sli'd 8800 ultras beat it, but at an insane price hehe
Alright someone buy it and benchmark it for the rest of us. I can provide the benchmark for the 8800GTX and even SLI. Remember, 3Dmark means nothing compared to real game play and performance. Hell I think either Anandtech, THG, HardOCP, or VR-zone will get their reviews in soon enough.
They have benchmarks on that site. The Ultra SLI scored only 200 points more.
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT DDR4 1GB
Nvidia 8800GTX Ultra
Also the Ultra is OCed and the XT is @default
that xt really is a monster! im gonna get me one got my folks in the USA atm and gonna get them to try and track one down after the 14th
also, what ya thinks gonna happen to that xt score with some improvements and tweaking on the drivers?
im hoping a decent boost, but price for price, the 1gb xt is great, the ultra rocks too, but for so much more money
Isnt that one Ultra vs two 2900's tho :S?
No its CF vs SIL
For a comparison, here is the Nvidia 8800GTX Ultra in SLI score ($1880 + tax CND in GPUs):
3Dmark06 701/1163 SLi.............19819
Doesn't matter, nothing can use the memory.
Its like using a 1000hp car with tires only capable of 40mph. Yeah the engine can go faster, but you don't have the tires(GAMES) to use the speed!
GPU memory is purely e-peen and bragging rights now. It really is useless. Now, if they get the low end cards to catch up, games might start using that much.
Yeah, if you have 2GB of RAM, 256mb of video memory is probably enough. Nothing would use more than 512mb atm.
big screen with theses new cards features of 24AF and like 16AA newer dx10 games willl prob use more memory.. though like my 256mb 1900gt can handle practically any dx9 game maxed (-Oblivion completly maxed) @ 17" monitor resolution that was when I had my card maxed. I think the 512mb 2900xt will be like that.. just enough, might need some oc down the road.
I'd be impressed if a game available actually made functional use of 512mb. Letalone >512. Theres no market for it, so game designers won't bother, unless its for bragging rights.
What about people gaming on those 30" monster monitors from the likes of Apple, Dell, etc.?
even when full blown dx10 games come out? I can just speculate xD. damm I was just thinking about mabe going with this card though I shouldnt drop all my money on a video card ahwell I think I wait it out a bit more.
I thought that at 1950x1200 (24" monitor) resolution everything maxed on a dx10 game it might just ask for more memory than 512.
Large memory is only needed for very high resolution - hence why there is no point getting a X1950Pro for example, with 512MB's. It simply isn't powerful enough to work at resoltuions that require that amount of memory and thus is utterly pointless.
However in the future I believe the multiple texture samples in DX10 will require more memory and thus it will be needed. Also the 2900XT is far more powerful than most GPU's. On paper anyway.
Separate names with a comma.