ATi Radeon HD3870 Analysis

  • 137 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Lilgunney612
Lilgunney612

1878

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#52 Lilgunney612
Member since 2005 • 1878 Posts

[QUOTE="filmography"]good analysis, oh and dont bother with "thinker", he is a fanboy and as such his claims are to be ignored. He has really lost credibility in the past moths when it comes to graphics cards. Thinker_145

O really then why dont you go ahead and prove my "graphics cards claims" wrong.

You are an ATI fanboy who cant admit that the 640GTS>2900XT.

read the first damn post... if you refuse to read what we give you than whats the point?
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
hmmm... guy who has a prebuilt.. or the guy who has built and tested several PC's.... btw thinker... what happened to your sig? you make such a fuss and yet you dont even support in what you believe...Lilgunney612
Some people seemed to be offended by it so i guess it was better to remove it.And i was not passing on the message that was actually being reflected by it.
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts

I'll try to have an intelligent discussion here.

First of all how is it a "ridiculous claim" to say that the 640GTS is better than 2900XT.I have proven it so why dont you disprove it or just accept it to be true.

I "never" said that the old 640GTS is better than the 8800GT.There is a new 112 stream processor 640MB GTS for $270 at newegg and that has the possibility of being better but my card certainly isnt.And i also say that the 8800GT aint no GTX like people say that it offers GTX level performance.

You think that a 3870 with 22" monitor will provide a better gaming experience than 8800GT on a 19".Well you are just saying that a 22" monitor is better than a 19".Well everybody knows that gaming on a bigger screen is better.But you talk about bang for buck here see this"The bigger the screen the more powerful your PC should be and the more upgrading you will have to do".That's a fact.I am not saying that everybody should play on small screens but their is a reason why people play on small screens.

Again i will come to you saying that a 3870 with 22">>>8800GT with 19" as far as gaming experience is concerned.Ok did you notice that the guy was going with the Q6600.Will you not agree that E8400 and 8800GT with 22" is far better than both the other options.;)

And again did you not notice how much money that guy was pumping in.Then why simply why would you advice somebody to buy a card which is atleast 15% weaker.Maybe 15% doesnt matter to you but it is important.And yes i agree that the new GTS is worth $50 over a GT unlike many other people.

The 3870 has largely the same price/performance as the 8800GT but i never argued this.And do you realize that a 8800 GTS 320MB had the best price performance back in the day so did that mean that it was the best card and nobody should buy the other cards.Look at the 320GTS now,it's started to stuggle with some games now.It cannot play crysis smoothly at high settings whereas all the other 8800 cards can(excepting the 256MB GT).This is what can happen when you have an extra reserve of performance in your card just like in the case of the 3870 and 8800GT.And BTW the performance charts of 20x15 are irrelavent.Nobody plays at that res with a single card.

And my sig is not meant to be accusing ATI of anything.It is just meant to tell people to not care about 3dmark cuz it doesnt matter and really is a poor reflection of real world performance.Even if sometimes it shows an accurate difference between the performance of 2 cards.

Thinker_145
It's interesting that you didnt reply to this.
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

[QUOTE="filmography"]good analysis, oh and dont bother with "thinker", he is a fanboy and as such his claims are to be ignored. He has really lost credibility in the past moths when it comes to graphics cards. Lilgunney612

O really then why dont you go ahead and prove my "graphics cards claims" wrong.

You are an ATI fanboy who cant admit that the 640GTS>2900XT.

read the first damn post... if you refuse to read what we give you than whats the point?

What does the first post say.It proves nothing against that i have said.

And read my response which seems like he is unable to respond to.

Avatar image for filmography
filmography

3202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#57 filmography
Member since 2004 • 3202 Posts

[QUOTE="filmography"]good analysis, oh and dont bother with "thinker", he is a fanboy and as such his claims are to be ignored. He has really lost credibility in the past moths when it comes to graphics cards. Thinker_145

O really then why dont you go ahead and prove my "graphics cards claims" wrong.

You are an ATI fanboy who cant admit that the 640GTS>2900XT.

Yeah the guy who has "nvidia the way its meant to be played" in his sig isn't a fanboy at all.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/diamond-viper-hd2900xt-1024mb_12.html#sect1

there you go, read the whole review and when your done read this one

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=645&p=4

Now you can choose to listen to the evidence and we can all just politely pretend this whole incident didn't happen or you can continue to ignore the evidence and lose whats little credibility you have left.

The choice is yours.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts
How much is the 8800GT 256MB and how well it performs, now that's a good question.
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

[QUOTE="filmography"]good analysis, oh and dont bother with "thinker", he is a fanboy and as such his claims are to be ignored. He has really lost credibility in the past moths when it comes to graphics cards. filmography

O really then why dont you go ahead and prove my "graphics cards claims" wrong.

You are an ATI fanboy who cant admit that the 640GTS>2900XT.

Yeah the guy who has "nvidia the way its meant to be played" in his sig isn't a fanboy at all.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/diamond-viper-hd2900xt-1024mb_12.html#sect1

there you go, read the whole review and when your done read this one

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=645&p=4

Now you can choose to listen to the evidence and we can all just politely pretend this whole incident didn't happen or you can continue to ignore the evidence and lose whats little credibility you have left.

The choice is yours.

Both of those are older reviews for when the card launched.The second review you showed is just too small and does not use filtering in more than one occasion.

I'll look at your other link but i do know that it's old.Now you take a look at the present.With 7.11 drivers and 169.06 for nvidia the 640GTS "easily" beats the 2900XT.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

[QUOTE="filmography"]good analysis, oh and dont bother with "thinker", he is a fanboy and as such his claims are to be ignored. He has really lost credibility in the past moths when it comes to graphics cards. filmography

O really then why dont you go ahead and prove my "graphics cards claims" wrong.

You are an ATI fanboy who cant admit that the 640GTS>2900XT.

Yeah the guy who has "nvidia the way its meant to be played" in his sig isn't a fanboy at all.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/diamond-viper-hd2900xt-1024mb_12.html#sect1

there you go, read the whole review and when your done read this one

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=645&p=4

Now you can choose to listen to the evidence and we can all just politely pretend this whole incident didn't happen or you can continue to ignore the evidence and lose whats little credibility you have left.

The choice is yours.

That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

filmography

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

Avatar image for Lilgunney612
Lilgunney612

1878

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#64 Lilgunney612
Member since 2005 • 1878 Posts
[QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Thinker_145

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

you mean just like you ignored the first post?
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts

The review which you showed shows the GTS winning on alot of accasions.But the latest review which i showed sees the GTS winning on most of the occasions.

The GTS is also ahead in toms hardware charts.

And here's an old review of GTS vs 2900XT and the GTS wins.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Lilgunney612

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

you mean just like you ignored the first post?

WTF is there to lok at??
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
How much is the 8800GT 256MB and how well it performs, now that's a good question.Bebi_vegeta
The 3850 512MB is a better card and is priced similarly.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]How much is the 8800GT 256MB and how well it performs, now that's a good question.Thinker_145
The 3850 512MB is a better card and is priced similarly.

You sure?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3175&p=6

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]How much is the 8800GT 256MB and how well it performs, now that's a good question.Bebi_vegeta

The 3850 512MB is a better card and is priced similarly.

You sure?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3175&p=6

Is that 256MB 3850 or 512MB??

An 8800GT 256MB getting 35fps in 19x12 in crysis.Surely they are playing in medium.I bet that the 512MB 3850 would crush the GT in high settings.And they just dont tell what settings they are playing their games but the problem is that we dont even know which version of 3850 it is.

And yes the GT would be better in alot of circumstances but the 512MB is more future proof and IMO is the beter option.Games like crysis and world in conflict already need alot of RAM.

Avatar image for LordEC911
LordEC911

9972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 LordEC911
Member since 2004 • 9972 Posts
[QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Thinker_145

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

I love how you contradict yourself...
Reviews fail when they don't use AA or AF but also fail if they use HQ AA and AF?
Good logic there...

I think I will stay out of this thread since you just can't argue with stupid.

Avatar image for shanelevy
shanelevy

1316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#71 shanelevy
Member since 2004 • 1316 Posts

The 8800GTS 640 does win in almost all the benchies that thinker posted, but honestly who cares?

Everyone needs to calm down. Wesker made a very informative post that proved the HD3870 is a good card for the price, and thinker isn't denying that, so can we all move on?

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

LordEC911

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

I love how you contradict yourself...
Reviews fail when they don't use AA or AF but also fail if they use HQ AA and AF?
Good logic there...

I think I will stay out of this thread since you just can't argue with stupid.

We dont know whether the different settings in the drivers of nvidia and ATI affect image quality similarly so it isnt fair.

There is a reason why most sites dont use these settings while benchmarking.And these settings are applied mostly to older not so demanding games.It's like arguing which card is better at 16xAA.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]How much is the 8800GT 256MB and how well it performs, now that's a good question.Thinker_145

The 3850 512MB is a better card and is priced similarly.

You sure?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3175&p=6

Is that 256MB 3850 or 512MB??

An 8800GT 256MB getting 35fps in 19x12 in crysis.Surely they are playing in medium.I bet that the 512MB 3850 would crush the GT in high settings.And they just dont tell what settings they are playing their games but the problem is that we dont even know which version of 3850 it is.

And yes the GT would be better in alot of circumstances but the 512MB is more future proof and IMO is the beter option.Games like crysis and world in conflict already need alot of RAM.

Crush? I don't think either card would have a chance in high settings for crysis.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_8800_gt_256mb_xxx_review/page20.asp

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts
[QUOTE="LordEC911"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Thinker_145

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

I love how you contradict yourself...
Reviews fail when they don't use AA or AF but also fail if they use HQ AA and AF?
Good logic there...

I think I will stay out of this thread since you just can't argue with stupid.

We dont know whether the different settings in the drivers of nvidia and ATI affect image quality similarly so it isnt fair.

There is a reason why most sites dont use these settings while benchmarking.And these settings are applied mostly to older not so demanding games.It's like arguing which card is better at 16xAA.

How do you play your games... with AA or no AA?

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="LordEC911"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Bebi_vegeta

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

I love how you contradict yourself...
Reviews fail when they don't use AA or AF but also fail if they use HQ AA and AF?
Good logic there...

I think I will stay out of this thread since you just can't argue with stupid.

We dont know whether the different settings in the drivers of nvidia and ATI affect image quality similarly so it isnt fair.

There is a reason why most sites dont use these settings while benchmarking.And these settings are applied mostly to older not so demanding games.It's like arguing which card is better at 16xAA.

How do you play your games... with AA or no AA?

I play all of my games with a minimum of 4xAA including crysis(10x7 for crysis).I dont use any of thiose fancy settings with new games.I only use them with the older games and they dont really improve the quality much anyways.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="LordEC911"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Thinker_145

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

I love how you contradict yourself...
Reviews fail when they don't use AA or AF but also fail if they use HQ AA and AF?
Good logic there...

I think I will stay out of this thread since you just can't argue with stupid.

We dont know whether the different settings in the drivers of nvidia and ATI affect image quality similarly so it isnt fair.

There is a reason why most sites dont use these settings while benchmarking.And these settings are applied mostly to older not so demanding games.It's like arguing which card is better at 16xAA.

How do you play your games... with AA or no AA?

I play all of my games with a minimum of 4xAA including crysis(10x7 for crysis).I dont use any of thiose fancy settings with new games.I only use them with the older games and they dont really improve the quality much anyways.

Can you tell me wich one looks better?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/FSAA.jpg

Avatar image for LordEC911
LordEC911

9972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 LordEC911
Member since 2004 • 9972 Posts

I play all of my games with a minimum of 4xAA including crysis(10x7 for crysis).I dont use any of thiose fancy settings with new games.I only use them with the older games and they dont really improve the quality much anyways.Thinker_145

Do you even understand what you are saying because I don't think you do.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]How much is the 8800GT 256MB and how well it performs, now that's a good question.Bebi_vegeta

The 3850 512MB is a better card and is priced similarly.

You sure?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3175&p=6

Is that 256MB 3850 or 512MB??

An 8800GT 256MB getting 35fps in 19x12 in crysis.Surely they are playing in medium.I bet that the 512MB 3850 would crush the GT in high settings.And they just dont tell what settings they are playing their games but the problem is that we dont even know which version of 3850 it is.

And yes the GT would be better in alot of circumstances but the 512MB is more future proof and IMO is the beter option.Games like crysis and world in conflict already need alot of RAM.

Crush? I don't think either card would have a chance in high settings for crysis.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_8800_gt_256mb_xxx_review/page20.asp

33fps is fine although i would rather lower the res and put some AA which may fail the GT.

But it's definitely not a simple choice between the cards here.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="LordEC911"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="filmography"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]That xbit labs review falis cuz it's using high quality filtering and transperancy anti aliasing in all the benchmarks.:|

You just cant do it that way.

Bebi_vegeta

and the reward for dumbest comment of 2008 goes to "drum roll" the thinker_145. this is a lost cause, enjoy your delusions.

Even if we take this "old" review as legitimate.How about the "present" comparasion i showed you.

Are you just going to ignore it?

I love how you contradict yourself...
Reviews fail when they don't use AA or AF but also fail if they use HQ AA and AF?
Good logic there...

I think I will stay out of this thread since you just can't argue with stupid.

We dont know whether the different settings in the drivers of nvidia and ATI affect image quality similarly so it isnt fair.

There is a reason why most sites dont use these settings while benchmarking.And these settings are applied mostly to older not so demanding games.It's like arguing which card is better at 16xAA.

How do you play your games... with AA or no AA?

I play all of my games with a minimum of 4xAA including crysis(10x7 for crysis).I dont use any of thiose fancy settings with new games.I only use them with the older games and they dont really improve the quality much anyways.

Can you tell me wich one looks better?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/FSAA.jpg

Of course the right side one.:?
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]I play all of my games with a minimum of 4xAA including crysis(10x7 for crysis).I dont use any of thiose fancy settings with new games.I only use them with the older games and they dont really improve the quality much anyways.LordEC911

Do you even understand what you are saying because I don't think you do.

Tell me what am i saying then.
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
Anyways here's a DX10 shootout which should seal the deal.
Avatar image for Wesker776
Wesker776

7004

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 Wesker776
Member since 2005 • 7004 Posts

I have a Uni meeting to attend to today, but I'll quickly address your points, Thinker.


First of all how is it a "ridiculous claim" to say that the 640GTS is better than 2900XT.I have proven it so why dont you disprove it or just accept it to be true.
Thinker

It's a ridiculous claim because it's not true.

You haven't proven anything, even after its (R600) launch a few months ago.

These benches were done by www.techreport.com, on the launch day of the HD2900 XT. Take note that this review was done with beta drivers at launch.

The 8800 GTS wins here, however the CrossFire scaling should be noted here.

The HD2900 XT wins here.

However, it can be seen that NVIDIA is having SLi driver issues. Techreport has a Windows Vista test suite, and at the time, NVIDIA had various problems optimising SLi.

The 8800 GTS wins narrowly here.

The alpha driver makes a noticible difference in performance here but it isn't enough to take the performance crown.

CrossFire looks strong however.

AMD takes a good lead here.

With beta drivers, the HD2900 XT is unable to beat the 8800 GTS. However, the alpha driver set pushes the HD2900 XT ahead of the 8800 GTS.

AMD snatches the win from the 8800 GTS, and trails the 8800 GTX by a minor difference.

-

The main reason why people on this forum decided that the HD2900 XT was better than the 8800 GTS (performance either "see-sawed" between the two cards or were at neck and neck) was because AMD also provided a very generous accessory with the HD2900 XT: Valve's Black Box, which saved the consumer a further $50. AMD also provided a better solution to media enthusiasts who may have had their PC connected to a HD TV by providing a DVI-HDMI adapter (without the need for cabling to a sound processor, as the HD2900 XT output its own sound).

You missed coversations regarding the HD2900 XT vs 8800 GTS because you weren't around at the time, Thinker.

I "never" said that the old 640GTS is better than the 8800GT.There is a new 112 stream processor 640MB GTS for $270 at newegg and that has the possibility of being better but my card certainly isnt.And i also say that the 8800GT aint no GTX like people say that it offers GTX level performance.

Thinker_145

:|

That is flame bait, IMO.

No one expects an 8800 GT to beat the 8800 GTX, especially when AA/HDR or the resolution is increased.

You think that a 3870 with 22" monitor will provide a better gaming experience than 8800GT on a 19".Well you are just saying that a 22" monitor is better than a 19".Well everybody knows that gaming on a bigger screen is better.But you talk about bang for buck here see this"The bigger the screen the more powerful your PC should be and the more upgrading you will have to do".That's a fact.I am not saying that everybody should play on small screens but their is a reason why people play on small screens.

Thinker

What?

You just proved my point--Playing on a 22" WS with a HD3870 is better than playing on a 19" with an 8800 GT.

Again i will come to you saying that a 3870 with 22">>>8800GT with 19" as far as gaming experience is concerned.Ok did you notice that the guy was going with the Q6600.Will you not agree that E8400 and 8800GT with 22" is far better than both the other options.;)

Thinker

...except that the E8400 isn't out yet. Especially not in Australia.

But yes, depending on your game preferences, a good Wolfdale CPU will provide better performance in most of today's titles. But, software (games) is going multithreaded, so games such as Alan Wake, those developed on the UE3 engine or those on the updated version of Source will perform better on a quad core.

And again did you not notice how much money that guy was pumping in.Then why simply why would you advice somebody to buy a card which is atleast 15% weaker.Maybe 15% doesnt matter to you but it is important.And yes i agree that the new GTS is worth $50 over a GT unlike many other people.

Thinker

His rig wasn't balanced at all. He had 19" LCD, with a 620w PSU and an 8800 GT.

Buying an 22" WS LCD with a lower wattage PSU and HD3870 would provide a better experience.

The 3870 has largely the same price/performance as the 8800GT but i never argued this.And do you realize that a 8800 GTS 320MB had the best price performance back in the day so did that mean that it was the best card and nobody should buy the other cards.Look at the 320GTS now,it's started to stuggle with some games now.It cannot play crysis smoothly at high settings whereas all the other 8800 cards can(excepting the 256MB GT).This is what can happen when you have an extra reserve of performance in your card just like in the case of the 3870 and 8800GT.

Thinker

The 320MB GTS is limited in performance in Crysis because of its memory buffer, which many people were warned about before purchasing the card.

Also, it seems that all you care about is Crysis (after making a topic complaining about how Crysis sucks -_-). There are still plenty of new games where the 320MB GTS provides good performance.

And BTW the performance charts of 20x15 are irrelavent.Nobody plays at that res with a single card.

Thinker

It's a benchmark, Thinker, it's meant to show the performance of various graphics cards. Further, because of the E6550 CPU, TPU upped the resolution (and applied 4xAA/16xAF) to by pass the CPU bottleneck.

Also, the logic goes: "If this card can play game X at 20x15 comfortably, it should handle 16x10 easily."

And my sig is not meant to be accusing ATI of anything.It is just meant to tell people to not care about 3dmark cuz it doesnt matter and really is a poor reflection of real world performance.Even if sometimes it shows an accurate difference between the performance of 2 cards.

Thinker

Your sig was accusing ATi, because you specifically stated that ATi optimises for 3Dmark06.

If you wanted to get your point across (like you are saying now), then you would've simply stated that 3DMark06 isn't accurate.

Finally, 3DMar06 is still very accurate. The cards attain scores relative to one another that reflects their real world performance. Look at the benchmarks in my original post again.

Avatar image for screamingdoom
screamingdoom

884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#85 screamingdoom
Member since 2007 • 884 Posts

I don't know about the video card argument, but Thinker's thoughts on CRT's versus lcd's are definately on the ball. After reading his view points I looked for a good quality CRT that had been refurbished. I found a Dell P1130 21 inch screen (this is one of the best crt screens in the world) and I was very happy with the results. The blacks are great and the colours are vibrant without being unrealistic.

I do have a 22inch lcd though, and at the native resolution I will say that the picture looks better, but when I lower the resolution, I do lose quite a bit of image quality, that I don't lose on the CRT. Basically games look great at almost any resolution on the CRT and this will help my video card last longer into the future, when it can't display games natively on the lcd. Also my CRT, unlike my lcd can go up to a huge resolution of 1880x1440, and what I like the most was the cost. It cost me $100 AUS dollars, and I think I got real value for money considering the picture quality at any resolution and the maximum resolution it can go up to.

LCD's are still great though. I still think at their native resolution, their picture quality is just as great, if not better. They're softer on the eyes, they're thin. But to me, since I don't have too much money, CRT's just help my limited funds to last longer. So my advice, if games like crysis are annoying you because you have to drop the resolution: Get one of each, crt's are cheap these days, and good quality ones are still around. They do take up a bit of space (okay this 21inch takes up a continent) but though they're old technology, they're still very good technology.

Sorry I think I hijacked this thread. I noticed the comments that the TC made about Thinker's opinions on CRT's and LCD's, and I forgot that this thread is about the 3870. My apologies.

Avatar image for inyourface_12
inyourface_12

14757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#87 inyourface_12
Member since 2006 • 14757 Posts
i got mine for 220 dollars and i can honestly say it was the greatest deal ive ever got ona videocard, coming from a guy who got ahold of an x1900xt for 150 right after the 8800's came out thats saying something
Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts

Why are you showing me older benchmarks when i show you benchmarks with newer drivers.Becnhmarks with older drivers are irrevalent when newer drivers show a different story.And how about the DX10 shootout.You people keep showing me your links and ignore mine.We cant go anywhere with this.

And do you know that i also got a free game with my card which saved me $50:|.Sorry but that black box thing is laughable.And you are talking about things not related to performance and not mention the power consumption.You mention HDMI as being something.The last time i saw the majority of PC gamers dont have HDMI capable screens.Sorry but these are simply ridiculous points.

I am not going to argue with anything else as that's just opinion.However i am going to leave you with a fact and that is that the 640GTS beats any single ATI card.I have given enough proof and this is my last.And this is using new drivers where the 640MB GTS comfortably beats the 3870.

And BTW the 640GTS loses to the 3870 in 3dmark but wins in the majority of games.So much for your real world performance.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

Why are you showing me older benchmarks when i show you benchmarks with newer drivers.Becnhmarks with older drivers are irrevalent when newer drivers show a different story.And how about the DX10 shootout.You people keep showing me your links and ignore mine.We cant go anywhere with this.

And do you know that i also got a free game with my card which saved me $50:|.Sorry but that black box thing is laughable.And you are talking about things not related to performance and not mention the power consumption.You mention HDMI as being something.The last time i saw the majority of PC gamers dont have HDMI capable screens.Sorry but these are simply ridiculous points.

I am not going to argue with anything else as that's just opinion.However i am going to leave you with a fact and that is that the 640GTS beats any single ATI card.I have given enough proof and this is my last.And this is using new drivers where the 640MB GTS comfortably beats the 3870.

And BTW the 640GTS loses to the 3870 in 3dmark but wins in the majority of games.So much for your real world performance.

Thinker_145

Last time i checked nobody plays in dx10 mode, since it looks very much like dx9. Even in crysis you can unlock the very high settings in dx9.

Also in thoses benchmark..with old drivers... the Hd3850 & HD3870 are no show

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/09/directx_10_shootout/index.html

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

Why are you showing me older benchmarks when i show you benchmarks with newer drivers.Becnhmarks with older drivers are irrevalent when newer drivers show a different story.And how about the DX10 shootout.You people keep showing me your links and ignore mine.We cant go anywhere with this.

And do you know that i also got a free game with my card which saved me $50:|.Sorry but that black box thing is laughable.And you are talking about things not related to performance and not mention the power consumption.You mention HDMI as being something.The last time i saw the majority of PC gamers dont have HDMI capable screens.Sorry but these are simply ridiculous points.

I am not going to argue with anything else as that's just opinion.However i am going to leave you with a fact and that is that the 640GTS beats any single ATI card.I have given enough proof and this is my last.And this is using new drivers where the 640MB GTS comfortably beats the 3870.

And BTW the 640GTS loses to the 3870 in 3dmark but wins in the majority of games.So much for your real world performance.

Bebi_vegeta

Last time i checked nobody plays in dx10 mode, since it looks very much like dx9. Even in crysis you can unlock the very high settings in dx9.

You cannot get DX10 effects of bioshock in XP and bioshock runs like a charm in DX10.

You cannot get AA in DX9 in gears of war.That game also runs fine.

Crysis is ofcourse a non issue for DX10 performance but they dont even have crysis on that test.They have games which can actually be played in DX10.I only have 3 DX10 games so far and 2 have run without any performance issues.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

Why are you showing me older benchmarks when i show you benchmarks with newer drivers.Becnhmarks with older drivers are irrevalent when newer drivers show a different story.And how about the DX10 shootout.You people keep showing me your links and ignore mine.We cant go anywhere with this.

And do you know that i also got a free game with my card which saved me $50:|.Sorry but that black box thing is laughable.And you are talking about things not related to performance and not mention the power consumption.You mention HDMI as being something.The last time i saw the majority of PC gamers dont have HDMI capable screens.Sorry but these are simply ridiculous points.

I am not going to argue with anything else as that's just opinion.However i am going to leave you with a fact and that is that the 640GTS beats any single ATI card.I have given enough proof and this is my last.And this is using new drivers where the 640MB GTS comfortably beats the 3870.

And BTW the 640GTS loses to the 3870 in 3dmark but wins in the majority of games.So much for your real world performance.

Thinker_145

Last time i checked nobody plays in dx10 mode, since it looks very much like dx9. Even in crysis you can unlock the very high settings in dx9.

You cannot get DX10 effects of bioshock in XP and bioshock runs like a charm in DX10.

You cannot get AA in DX9 in gears of war.That game also runs fine.

Crysis is ofcourse a non issue for DX10 performance but they dont even have crysis on that test.They have games which can actually be played in DX10.I only have 3 DX10 games so far and 2 have run without any performance issues.

I can't even tell the difference between Dx9 & Dx10 in Bioshock

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp/2223/11


Make sure you check out the other pictures.

As for gears of wars... as you said yourself, you don't put AA for new games.

What are the games that play Dx10.1?

Avatar image for filmography
filmography

3202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#93 filmography
Member since 2004 • 3202 Posts

so let me get this straight you posted two reviews from a crappy website, and yes that website is pretty crap and not verifiable at all while the other having known **** up's in benchmarks, however when we post benchmarks from respected sites they dont count. whatever dude, the only thing your hurting is your credibility.

@lord

dam that sig beats mine lol.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

Why are you showing me older benchmarks when i show you benchmarks with newer drivers.Becnhmarks with older drivers are irrevalent when newer drivers show a different story.And how about the DX10 shootout.You people keep showing me your links and ignore mine.We cant go anywhere with this.

And do you know that i also got a free game with my card which saved me $50:|.Sorry but that black box thing is laughable.And you are talking about things not related to performance and not mention the power consumption.You mention HDMI as being something.The last time i saw the majority of PC gamers dont have HDMI capable screens.Sorry but these are simply ridiculous points.

I am not going to argue with anything else as that's just opinion.However i am going to leave you with a fact and that is that the 640GTS beats any single ATI card.I have given enough proof and this is my last.And this is using new drivers where the 640MB GTS comfortably beats the 3870.

And BTW the 640GTS loses to the 3870 in 3dmark but wins in the majority of games.So much for your real world performance.

Bebi_vegeta

Last time i checked nobody plays in dx10 mode, since it looks very much like dx9. Even in crysis you can unlock the very high settings in dx9.

You cannot get DX10 effects of bioshock in XP and bioshock runs like a charm in DX10.

You cannot get AA in DX9 in gears of war.That game also runs fine.

Crysis is ofcourse a non issue for DX10 performance but they dont even have crysis on that test.They have games which can actually be played in DX10.I only have 3 DX10 games so far and 2 have run without any performance issues.

I can't even tell the difference between Dx9 & Dx10 in Bioshock

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp/2223/11


Make sure you check out the other pictures.

As for gears of wars... as you said yourself, you don't put AA for new games.

What are the games that play Dx10.1?

The difference is in the water spurlings but admidtedly there is not much difference.When did i say that i dont use AA in new games It is one of the most important setting in any game.I dont use transperancy AA.Multi sampling hardly affects the image and supersampling kills the performance although it's a wonder to use in a game like crysis.

That site was using multisampling which unnecassrily reduces performance and does not improve the quality so how can you say such a review to be reliable.And let's take it that DX10 doesnt matter i showed normal performance comparasions as well.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts

I have another source for the ATI fanboys.I have already seen enough denial with this already.

"If you're looking to squeeze the most frames out of your budget in the high-end category, look no further than the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB. It sailed through our benchmarks with ease, and you can easily find overclocked variants of the card selling for marginally more than stock versions. The GeForce 8800 GTX and Ultra offer excellent performance, but the premium pricing kills the value angle. ATI's Radeon HD 2900 XT comes close to the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB, but the GTS still maintains a slight edge in price and frame rates."

/thread.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

Why are you showing me older benchmarks when i show you benchmarks with newer drivers.Becnhmarks with older drivers are irrevalent when newer drivers show a different story.And how about the DX10 shootout.You people keep showing me your links and ignore mine.We cant go anywhere with this.

And do you know that i also got a free game with my card which saved me $50:|.Sorry but that black box thing is laughable.And you are talking about things not related to performance and not mention the power consumption.You mention HDMI as being something.The last time i saw the majority of PC gamers dont have HDMI capable screens.Sorry but these are simply ridiculous points.

I am not going to argue with anything else as that's just opinion.However i am going to leave you with a fact and that is that the 640GTS beats any single ATI card.I have given enough proof and this is my last.And this is using new drivers where the 640MB GTS comfortably beats the 3870.

And BTW the 640GTS loses to the 3870 in 3dmark but wins in the majority of games.So much for your real world performance.

Thinker_145

Last time i checked nobody plays in dx10 mode, since it looks very much like dx9. Even in crysis you can unlock the very high settings in dx9.

You cannot get DX10 effects of bioshock in XP and bioshock runs like a charm in DX10.

You cannot get AA in DX9 in gears of war.That game also runs fine.

Crysis is ofcourse a non issue for DX10 performance but they dont even have crysis on that test.They have games which can actually be played in DX10.I only have 3 DX10 games so far and 2 have run without any performance issues.

I can't even tell the difference between Dx9 & Dx10 in Bioshock

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp/2223/11


Make sure you check out the other pictures.

As for gears of wars... as you said yourself, you don't put AA for new games.

What are the games that play Dx10.1?

The difference is in the water spurlings but admidtedly there is not much difference.When did i say that i dont use AA in new games It is one of the most important setting in any game.I dont use transperancy AA.Multi sampling hardly affects the image and supersampling kills the performance although it's a wonder to use in a game like crysis.

That site was using multisampling which unnecassrily reduces performance and does not improve the quality so how can you say such a review to be reliable.And let's take it that DX10 doesnt matter i showed normal performance comparasions as well.

Oh sorry you said you only use mininal AA on new game since you didn't see the whole quality of full AA anyways.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

I have another source for the ATI fanboys.I have already seen enough denial with this already.

"If you're looking to squeeze the most frames out of your budget in the high-end category, look no further than the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB. It sailed through our benchmarks with ease, and you can easily find overclocked variants of the card selling for marginally more than stock versions. The GeForce 8800 GTX and Ultra offer excellent performance, but the premium pricing kills the value angle. ATI's Radeon HD 2900 XT comes close to the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB, but the GTS still maintains a slight edge in price and frame rates."

/thread.

Thinker_145

Catalyst 7.6, Forceware 158.22.

Avatar image for LordEC911
LordEC911

9972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 LordEC911
Member since 2004 • 9972 Posts
The difference is in the water spurlings but admidtedly there is not much difference.When did i say that i dont use AA in new games It is one of the most important setting in any game.I dont use transperancy AA.Multi sampling hardly affects the image and supersampling kills the performance although it's a wonder to use in a game like crysis.

That site was using multisampling which unnecassrily reduces performance and does not improve the quality so how can you say such a review to be reliable.And let's take it that DX10 doesnt matter i showed normal performance comparasions as well.Thinker_145

This is why I ask if you know what you are talking about...
If you are not contradicting yourself, you are lying and/or making stuff up.

Do you know what all those different AA settings do?
Yes, it is a rhetorical question since you obviously don't.

If you actually want to understand what you are talking about you can read this article.
Basically, SS is the old "bad" performance, MS is newer with better performance and CSAA is Nvidia's newest and performs the best. So MS actually INCREASES performance over SS and CS increases the performance even more over MS.

HQ AA is an opinion, the higher the AA the better the IQ but you may not even be able to notice it, depending on your settings. I can see the difference between the AA settings all the way up to 12x, but from 12 to 16x I cannot see a difference.

Avatar image for Thinker_145
Thinker_145

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 Thinker_145
Member since 2007 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]The difference is in the water spurlings but admidtedly there is not much difference.When did i say that i dont use AA in new games It is one of the most important setting in any game.I dont use transperancy AA.Multi sampling hardly affects the image and supersampling kills the performance although it's a wonder to use in a game like crysis.

That site was using multisampling which unnecassrily reduces performance and does not improve the quality so how can you say such a review to be reliable.And let's take it that DX10 doesnt matter i showed normal performance comparasions as well.LordEC911

This is why I ask if you know what you are talking about...
If you are not contradicting yourself, you are lying and/or making stuff up.

Do you know what all those different AA settings do?
Yes, it is a rhetorical question since you obviously don't.

If you actually want to understand what you are talking about you can read this article.
Basically, SS is the old "bad" performance, MS is newer with better performance and CSAA is Nvidia's newest and performs the best. So MS actually INCREASES performance over SS and CS increases the performance even more over MS.

HQ AA is an opinion, the higher the AA the better the IQ but you may not even be able to notice it, depending on your settings. I can see the difference between the AA settings all the way up to 12x, but from 12 to 16x I cannot see a difference.

Well ok but what does that have to do with high quality filtering and transperancy AA.
Avatar image for LordEC911
LordEC911

9972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 LordEC911
Member since 2004 • 9972 Posts

Well ok but what does that have to do with high quality filtering and transperancy AA.Thinker_145

It has to do with you not knowing what you are talking about...
Which I said the first time I read one of your posts.