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/tre...7/mai/ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt_treibervergleich/
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