x2900xt outperforming 8800gtx with latest drivers

I can do that too:

dq6 f3,e, r2, r2

:|

Unless he's a developer, an AMD/NVIDIA employee or is a proper tech analyst he won't have much here say or reliability.

Also, if he thinks VLIW are bad in all cases, then he is grossly misinformed.

Wesker776

OK. All i know is that on that forum you can tell what you are. It says nV tech person at his profile. Dont know if he is, but hereally knows soo much about GPUs that it is possible.

I can do that too:

dq6 f3,e, r2, r2

:|

Unless he's a developer, an AMD/NVIDIA employee or is a proper tech analyst he won't have much here say or reliability.

Also, if he thinks VLIW are bad in all cases, then he is grossly misinformed.

Wesker776

Sorry for double post. I have to say that he dont think that VLIW are bad in all cases. He says that in some cases it is usefull.

I can give you link, but you wont understand a thing:http://oc-lab2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1437&sid=53154e358fea3102dff68c81f55fbb08

Can he prove he is what he says? He could be 10yr old lolskinnypete91

He is 24 years old.

lol, This thread is delicious flamebait... Sorry for the late post - the first benchmarks posted are without AA/AF enabled and therefore I don't give a crap about them, the second benchmarks posted are with high levels of AA/AF enabled and we can CLEARLY see the HD2900XT getting butchered.

Any gamer that spends $400-800 on a new graphics card will WANT to use the HIGHEST levels of AA/AF or close to it so again, those benchmarks without AA/AF are worthless.K_r_a_u_s_e_r

I agree with him, who doesnt play with AA on?

Sorry for double posting. This is what i read on forums form a guy who is prgraming graphics engines, and he is an expert. HE knows all the stuff about GPUs. Here is what he sad about programable tesselationandprogramableAA:

"This teselator on R600 is transformed from 360 and is partly programable, which makes it completely useless for DX10.1 (which will again have new shaders especialy for that stuff).
Same goes for programable AA."

He also sad many other things (which i am not in a mood to translate) to which i belive, cause they seem VERY possible so i think he is not lying. Basicly from what he sad R600 isnt as futureproof cause of teselation because DX10.1 will need new sahders for that, also that programable AA isnt much futureproof.

And please dont ban me. I didnt say that. I only posted what a guy whit big knowledge about GPUs sad.domke13

He wrote that ATis biggest problem is that it is soo late whit R600 and that whole DX10 code is written whit G80 in mind just cause it was on market before.

All in all he knows what hes saying and i belive him.domke13

OK... Originally I was believing what you were saying about this guy, it sounds like he knows coding and has some GPU architecture knowledge a step or two above me but now there are a few things that are glaringly obvious...
#1 He is an Nvidia fan boy and bias (duh he is living on some Nvidia forum)
#2 Not as knowledgeable as he originally sounded

This is not the same tessellator as the Xenos, just like the R600 architecture is not the same as Xenos.
I have no idea how he can believe he KNOWS MS requirements and specifications BEFORE they are even created... MS was thinking about adding tessellation to DX10.1 spec BECAUSE of how it is implemented on the R600.

Yes, I am sure that the 4-5 years of R&D on the R600 and their year or so advance in working with MS on DX10 spec/requirements is going to make them pull code from the G80(Are we talking driver code here? Or something coded into the GPU itself?) If he honestly thinks that he needs a good kick in the head...

[QUOTE="Wesker776"]

I can do that too:

dq6 f3,e, r2, r2

:|

Unless he's a developer, an AMD/NVIDIA employee or is a proper tech analyst he won't have much here say or reliability.

Also, if he thinks VLIW are bad in all cases, then he is grossly misinformed.

domke13

Sorry for double post. I have to say that he dont think that VLIW are bad in all cases. He says that in some cases it is usefull.

I can give you link, but you wont understand a thing:http://oc-lab2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1437&sid=53154e358fea3102dff68c81f55fbb08

what language is that?

[QUOTE="domke13"]Sorry for double posting. This is what i read on forums form a guy who is prgraming graphics engines, and he is an expert. HE knows all the stuff about GPUs. Here is what he sad about programable tesselationandprogramableAA:

"This teselator on R600 is transformed from 360 and is partly programable, which makes it completely useless for DX10.1 (which will again have new shaders especialy for that stuff).
Same goes for programable AA."

He also sad many other things (which i am not in a mood to translate) to which i belive, cause they seem VERY possible so i think he is not lying. Basicly from what he sad R600 isnt as futureproof cause of teselation because DX10.1 will need new sahders for that, also that programable AA isnt much futureproof.

And please dont ban me. I didnt say that. I only posted what a guy whit big knowledge about GPUs sad.LordEC911

He wrote that ATis biggest problem is that it is soo late whit R600 and that whole DX10 code is written whit G80 in mind just cause it was on market before.

All in all he knows what hes saying and i belive him.domke13

OK... Originally I was believing what you were saying about this guy, it sounds like he knows coding and has some GPU architecture knowledge a step or two above me but now there are a few things that are glaringly obvious...
#1 He is an Nvidia fan boy and bias (duh he is living on some Nvidia forum)
#2 Not as knowledgeable as he originally sounded

This is not the same tessellator as the Xenos, just like the R600 architecture is not the same as Xenos.
I have no idea how he can believe he KNOWS MS requirements and specifications BEFORE they are even created... MS was thinking about adding tessellation to DX10.1 spec BECAUSE of how it is implemented on the R600.

Yes, I am sure that the 4-5 years of R&D on the R600 and their year or so advance in working with MS on DX10 spec/requirements is going to make them pull code from the G80(Are we talking driver code here? Or something coded into the GPU itself?) If he honestly thinks that he needs a good kick in the head...

Uf. That was harsh Lord. Please dont blame me. Thats what he sad and i just wanted to know if he is right. I guess he isnt.

But i still need to know your opinion. I am planning to have my 8800GTX for 2 years till early 2009. You think that it would be smart to sell GTX and go for 2900XT if it is much more future proof, or should i get new card in early 2009??

[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"]

I can do that too:

dq6 f3,e, r2, r2

:|

Unless he's a developer, an AMD/NVIDIA employee or is a proper tech analyst he won't have much here say or reliability.

Also, if he thinks VLIW are bad in all cases, then he is grossly misinformed.

wklzip

Sorry for double post. I have to say that he dont think that VLIW are bad in all cases. He says that in some cases it is usefull.

I can give you link, but you wont understand a thing:http://oc-lab2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1437&sid=53154e358fea3102dff68c81f55fbb08

what language is that?

Slovenian language.

[QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"]

I can do that too:

dq6 f3,e, r2, r2

:|

Unless he's a developer, an AMD/NVIDIA employee or is a proper tech analyst he won't have much here say or reliability.

Also, if he thinks VLIW are bad in all cases, then he is grossly misinformed.

domke13

Sorry for double post. I have to say that he dont think that VLIW are bad in all cases. He says that in some cases it is usefull.

I can give you link, but you wont understand a thing:http://oc-lab2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1437&sid=53154e358fea3102dff68c81f55fbb08

what language is that?

Slovenian language.

i cant find any translator that translates that, ive tried some but they dont work :(

[quote="tweaktown.com"]Catalyst 7.4, HD2900XT 47096LordEC911

/you

Buddy, first of all I was saying "/thread" because the threadstarter was claiming that THOSE benchmarks were proof that the 2900XT were beating the GTX, which simply isn't true when AA/AF are applied.

Second of all, if you want to whine about Catalyst versions or claim they're using an early sample card, here are the latest results with Catalyst 7.6:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1123/7/page_7_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html

Clearly, AA/AF are still broken, so my point still stands.

Thank you.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

[quote="tweaktown.com"]Catalyst 7.4, HD2900XT 47096THA-TODD-BEAST

/you

Buddy, first of all I was saying "/thread" because the threadstarter was claiming that THOSE benchmarks were proof that the 2900XT were beating the GTX, which simply isn't true when AA/AF are applied.

Second of all, if you want to whine about Catalyst versions or claim they're using an early sample card, here are the latest results with Catalyst 7.6:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1123/7/page_7_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html

Clearly, AA/AF are still broken, so my point still stands.

Thank you.

Ok... and my point still stands...
Where did anyone say anything about AA/AF?

I'm glad you care about realistic comparisons...
Also, you did post 7.4 drivers when the title clearly states "latest."

BTW- testing two games at near max settings @ 2560x1600 isn't really a great way to test out performance differences in new drivers...

lol, Yeah LordEC911 is quite the AMD/ATI fanboy he shows his colors a lot.K_r_a_u_s_e_r

No fanboy, I just post facts and have common sense... Glad it doesn't get held against me.
Your ignorance and lack of acuity is astounding!

If people still aren't listening that the GTS is better than the 2900 XT, here you go:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/14/page_13_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html

I know it's been said a million times before, but this is an even better set of benchmarks .. it's meant for showing the 8800 ULTRA, but look at where the 2900 XT stands when AA/AF is on. The GTS is even past it .. and the GTX gives it a beating.

Ok... and my point still stands...
Where did anyone say anything about AA/AF?

I'm glad you care about realistic comparisons...
Also, you did post 7.4 drivers when the title clearly states "latest."

LordEC911

Just forget it. My point is that the GTS is better than the 2900 XT unless you're wanting to pay lots of money for a new card only to turn off AA/AF completely, else you'll be getting the frame rates of a card that's nearly more than $100 cheaper.

That's all.

If people still aren't listening that the GTS is better than the 2900 XT, here you go:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/14/page_13_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html

I know it's been said a million times before, but this is an even better set of benchmarks .. it's meant for showing the 8800 ULTRA, but look at where the 2900 XT stands when AA/AF is on. The GTS is even past it .. and the GTX gives it a beating.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

Ok... and my point still stands...
Where did anyone say anything about AA/AF?

I'm glad you care about realistic comparisons...
Also, you did post 7.4 drivers when the title clearly states "latest."

THA-TODD-BEAST

Just forget it. My point is that the GTS is better than the 2900 XT unless you're wanting to pay lots of money for a new card only to turn off AA/AF completely, else you'll be getting the frame rates of a card that's nearly more than $100 cheaper.

That's all.

That second tweaktown link is really slow/broken so I can't comment on it atm.
As for finding a 8800GTS 640mb for $100 cheaper, please be my guest, find me one for $270. GO!
Why would anyone turn off AA and AF, do you not notice the performance is still fine with it on?

As for finding a 8800GTS 640mb for $100 cheaper, please be my guest, find me one for $270. GO!LordEC911

Obviously, I was referring to the 320MB version of the GTS, which can be found as low as $280, at about $250 w/ a rebate on Newegg.

The 640MB version isn't worth commenting on unless you play at very high resolutions, which it can do with its extra video memory.

I know, I know, they're using 640MB GTS's in that Tweaktown article .. but both cards are equal to or better than the 2900 XT when AA/AF is applied, regardless of the amount of video memory, and again, that is my point - I'm talking about AA/AF here, not video memory.

Also, even if the 640MB version isn't exactly (or near) $100+ cheaper, it still IS cheaper than the 2900 XT and therefore you're still getting a better deal with the GTS!

Why would anyone turn off AA and AF, do you not notice the performance is still fine with it on?LordEC911

Because when you turn on AA/AF, frame rates drop to GTS levels and suddenly the "GTX" performance of the 2900 is thrown out the window.

Unless you have a gigantic monitor and play at huge resolutions, AA is almost a necessity and without it games generally look pretty ugly .. unless you like seeing a whole bunch of those mean jaggies! :D

Obviously, I was referring to the 320MB version of the GTS, which can be found as low as $280, at about $250 w/ a rebate on Newegg.The 640MB version isn't worth commenting on unless you play at very high resolutions, which it can do with its extra video memory.

I know, I know, they're using 640MB GTS's in that Tweaktown article .. but both cards are equal to or better than the 2900 XT when AA/AF is applied, regardless of the amount of video memory, and again, that is my point - I'm talking about AA/AF here, not video memory.
Also, even if the 640MB version isn't exactly (or near) $100+ cheaper, it still IS cheaper than the 2900 XT and therefore you're still getting a better deal with the GTS!THA-TODD-BEAST

So now you are trying to say the 320mb is faster then an XT? Go take your HardOCraP outta here.
Kyle and Brent are two of the sorriest hardware reviewers out there and are easily swayed by whatever Nvidia is giving/paying them.
320mb can't handle AA and AF at above 1600x1200, it is even worse then a XT...
A better deal only cause there are MIRs on the GTS, the $320 for a XT is a much, much better deal then a $340 640mb or $250 320mb.

Because when you turn on AA/AF, frame rates drop to GTS levels and suddenly the "GTX" performance of the 2900 is thrown out the window.
Unless you have a gigantic monitor and play at huge resolutions, AA is almost a necessity and without it games generally look pretty ugly .. unless you like seeing a whole bunch of those mean jaggies! :DTHA-TODD-BEAST

Facts?! By facts do you mean extremely biased AMD/ATI fanboish facts?

EDIT: Not only are you incredibly biased but you just love to prove me wrong, just a shame that your inability to read made you look like a tool. Remember this Thread?K_r_a_u_s_e_r

Please look through my posts and find me one that isn't true/fact, where it isn't obvious speculation.
You cant...
Grow the **** up Krauser and stop flaming me every chance you get. You can't discuss stuff with me maturely so you resort to this ****.

Edit- How is what I posted not true? Like I said your lack of acuity is astounding!

PS- Do you not remember the numerous threads where I corrected the many mistakes/BS you posted?
I remember when you were trying to tell people that Raptors are quiter, cooler and massively faster then normal hard drives.

A better deal only cause there are MIRs on the GTS, the $320 for a XT is a much, much better deal then a $340 640mb or $250 320mb.LordEC911

$320 for an XT? Where? That deal is long gone as far as I know.

Because when you turn on AA/AF, frame rates drop to GTS levels and suddenly the "GTX" performance of the 2900 is thrown out the window.
Unless you have a gigantic monitor and play at huge resolutions, AA is almost a necessity and without it games generally look pretty ugly .. unless you like seeing a whole bunch of those mean jaggies! :DTHA-TODD-BEAST

Ok... so now GTS performance isn't good enough... So why buy a GTS?
Why would you spend more then $300 if you don't have a monitor larger then 1600x1200?
Pretty pointless and contradicts your points...

LordEC911

You didn't understand me correctly .. and I apologize because I am flipping back and forth here and I know that it's probably hard to keep up, but here's an overview:

2900 XT = Somewhere close to $400
8800 GTS 320 = Somewhere around $300
8800 GTS 640 = Somewehre around $400

With the 2900 XT, when you apply AA/AF, frames fall to GTS 320 levels, which means that the extra $100 or so you spent is not really worth it. (Though I believe it was you who made a point about the game bundle with some of the 2900 XT cards, which indeed IS awesome.)

HOWEVER, even though the 320MB version of the GTS can't handle higher resolutions very well, that's when you choose the 640MB version (if you have a large monitor), and you still get:

- Better price than the 2900 XT (usually)
- Better performance than the 2900 XT w/ AA & AF turned on
- Higher resolutions than the GTS 320MB
- 640MB of video memory compared to the 2900 XT's 512MB (The 1GB version of the 2900 XT beats this, but it's not worth discussing.)

Do you know what I'm saying now? Maybe this will make it a bit easier to grasp without all of those points flying around in 1000 posts. :P

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

A better deal only cause there are MIRs on the GTS, the $320 for a XT is a much, much better deal then a $340 640mb or $250 320mb.THA-TODD-BEAST

$320 for an XT? Where? That deal is long gone as far as I know.

Because when you turn on AA/AF, frame rates drop to GTS levels and suddenly the "GTX" performance of the 2900 is thrown out the window.
Unless you have a gigantic monitor and play at huge resolutions, AA is almost a necessity and without it games generally look pretty ugly .. unless you like seeing a whole bunch of those mean jaggies! :DTHA-TODD-BEAST

Ok... so now GTS performance isn't good enough... So why buy a GTS?
Why would you spend more then $300 if you don't have a monitor larger then 1600x1200?
Pretty pointless and contradicts your points...

LordEC911

You didn't understand me correctly .. and I apologize because I am flipping back and forth here and I know that it's probably hard to keep up, but here's an overview:

2900 XT = Somewhere close to $400
8800 GTS 320 = Somewhere around $300
8800 GTS 640 = Somewehre around $400

With the 2900 XT, when you apply AA/AF, frames fall to GTS 320 levels, which means that the extra $100 or so you spent is not really worth it. (Though I believe it was you who made a point about the game bundle with some of the 2900 XT cards, which indeed IS awesome.)

HOWEVER, even though the 320MB version of the GTS can't handle higher resolutions very well, that's when you choose the 640MB version (if you have a large monitor), and you still get:

- Better price than the 2900 XT
- Better performance than the 2900 XT w/ AA & AF turned on
- Higher resolutions than the GTS 320MB
- 640MB of video memory compared to the 2900 XT's 512MB (The 1GB version of the 2900 XT beats this, but it's not worth discussing.)

Do you know what I'm saying now? Maybe this will make it a bit easier to grasp without all of those points flying around in 1000 posts. :P

Oh, and I never saw the XT for $320. Oh and I always saw the XT more expensive, in the $400

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

A better deal only cause there are MIRs on the GTS, the $320 for a XT is a much, much better deal then a $340 640mb or $250 320mb.THA-TODD-BEAST

$320 for an XT? Where? That deal is long gone as far as I know.

Because when you turn on AA/AF, frame rates drop to GTS levels and suddenly the "GTX" performance of the 2900 is thrown out the window.
Unless you have a gigantic monitor and play at huge resolutions, AA is almost a necessity and without it games generally look pretty ugly .. unless you like seeing a whole bunch of those mean jaggies! :DTHA-TODD-BEAST

Ok... so now GTS performance isn't good enough... So why buy a GTS?
Why would you spend more then $300 if you don't have a monitor larger then 1600x1200?
Pretty pointless and contradicts your points...

LordEC911

You didn't understand me correctly .. and I apologize because I am flipping back and forth here and I know that it's probably hard to keep up, but here's an overview:

2900 XT = Somewhere close to $400
8800 GTS 320 = Somewhere around $300
8800 GTS 640 = Somewehre around $400

With the 2900 XT, when you apply AA/AF, frames fall to GTS 320 levels, which means that the extra $100 or so you spent is not really worth it. (Though I believe it was you who made a point about the game bundle with some of the 2900 XT cards, which indeed IS awesome.)

HOWEVER, even though the 320MB version of the GTS can't handle higher resolutions very well, that's when you choose the 640MB version (if you have a large monitor), and you still get:

- Better price than the 2900 XT (usually)
- Better performance than the 2900 XT w/ AA & AF turned on
- Higher resolutions than the GTS 320MB
- 640MB of video memory compared to the 2900 XT's 512MB (The 1GB version of the 2900 XT beats this, but it's not worth discussing.)

Do you know what I'm saying now? Maybe this will make it a bit easier to grasp without all of those points flying around in 1000 posts. :P

for the 8800 320 version, what would you say would be a resolution that is too high for it?

Stop complaining that the x2900 is not as powerful or more powerful!

The next series of Nvidia and Ati are really close, acording to some articles the geforce 9800 GTX (if that is named) will be 3 times more powerful than the geforce 8800 GTX! And also Ati mentioned that the R600 had some problems and released late, but the R700 will show the true power of the new chip!. This video card war is over, Nvidia won this time, lets see next time.

for the 8800 320 version, what would you say would be a resolution that is too high for it?

Deamon321

Don't quote me on this, but 1600x1200 is probably around its limits, and anything past that can get ugly when you compare it to the 640MB version.

If you play at 1280x1024 or something like that, though, the 320MB version is more than fine.

[QUOTE="Deamon321"]

for the 8800 320 version, what would you say would be a resolution that is too high for it?

THA-TODD-BEAST

Don't quote me on this, but 1600x1200 is probably around its limits, and anything past that can get ugly when you compare it to the 640MB version.

If you play at 1280x1024 or something like that, though, the 320MB version is more than fine.

the 320mb can handle 1600x1200 fine
lettuceman44

Yeah I just took a look at some comparison benchmarks (with the 640 versus 320 versions) and you're right .. at 1600x1200 the 320MB version still holds up very well.

The only resolution I could find that really begins hurting the 320MB version is 1920x1200, but again it depends on a lot of factors so this isn't like an official "limit" or anything like that.

The 320MB version is really identical to the 640MB version until you start hitting the "extreme" resolutions and also pack on a lot of AA/AF, and it will do just about anybody good .. it's still a great card for the price.

one thing though, at high resolutions you don't really need AA, and the 2900xt beats the GTX without AA, so that is something to think about. Still not sure which card to choose, the 640mb GTS or the XT. Will 640mb memory have a huge diff over 512 mb? lettuceman44

Very good point there .. at higher resolutions, AA loses importance and without it you'd probably not notice as much, so the 2900 XT does gain a lot of credibility there.

Kyle and Brent are two of the sorriest hardware reviewers out there and are easily swayed by whatever Nvidia is giving/paying them.LordEC911

The facts are pretty clear, I don't know why you guys are arguing when there is evidence:

8800GTS 320MB is $300ish and performs the same as 8800GTS 640MB version if you play 1280x1024 or less.

8800GTS 640MB is $400ish and performs substantially worse than the HD2900XT with AA low or off. With AA enabled at 4X or higher this is better than the HD2900XT by a relatively large margin.

HD2900XT is $400ish and performs right in between the 8800GTS and GTX w/o AA enabled. With AA enabled, it is below the 8800GTS by a large margin.

So there you have it :)

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]one thing though, at high resolutions you don't really need AA, and the 2900xt beats the GTX without AA, so that is something to think about. Still not sure which card to choose, the 640mb GTS or the XT. Will 640mb memory have a huge diff over 512 mb? THA-TODD-BEAST

Very good point there .. at higher resolutions, AA loses importance and without it you'd probably not notice as much, so the 2900 XT does gain a lot of credibility there.

it really depends on who you are, frankly, i can see pixels even at 2500 by 1900 on my freinds moniter without AA.

This is not totally true. The hd 2900xt has an extremely good value without AA. Put some AA though and it falls behind the Gts.Dwarfius2

Lovin' my 8800GTS. Wish I could afford to get it a sibling and go SLi, but money's just going to be tight for a while at least until after I can secure a car.

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"][QUOTE="LordEC911"]

A better deal only cause there are MIRs on the GTS, the $320 for a XT is a much, much better deal then a $340 640mb or $250 320mb.lettuceman44

$320 for an XT? Where? That deal is long gone as far as I know.

Because when you turn on AA/AF, frame rates drop to GTS levels and suddenly the "GTX" performance of the 2900 is thrown out the window.
Unless you have a gigantic monitor and play at huge resolutions, AA is almost a necessity and without it games generally look pretty ugly .. unless you like seeing a whole bunch of those mean jaggies! :DTHA-TODD-BEAST

Ok... so now GTS performance isn't good enough... So why buy a GTS?
Why would you spend more then $300 if you don't have a monitor larger then 1600x1200?
Pretty pointless and contradicts your points...

LordEC911

You didn't understand me correctly .. and I apologize because I am flipping back and forth here and I know that it's probably hard to keep up, but here's an overview:

2900 XT = Somewhere close to $400
8800 GTS 320 = Somewhere around $300
8800 GTS 640 = Somewehre around $400

With the 2900 XT, when you apply AA/AF, frames fall to GTS 320 levels, which means that the extra $100 or so you spent is not really worth it. (Though I believe it was you who made a point about the game bundle with some of the 2900 XT cards, which indeed IS awesome.)

HOWEVER, even though the 320MB version of the GTS can't handle higher resolutions very well, that's when you choose the 640MB version (if you have a large monitor), and you still get:

- Better price than the 2900 XT
- Better performance than the 2900 XT w/ AA & AF turned on
- Higher resolutions than the GTS 320MB
- 640MB of video memory compared to the 2900 XT's 512MB (The 1GB version of the 2900 XT beats this, but it's not worth discussing.)

Do you know what I'm saying now? Maybe this will make it a bit easier to grasp without all of those points flying around in 1000 posts. :P

Oh, and I never saw the XT for $320. Oh and I always saw the XT more expensive, in the $400

Sorry Lord. But i agree. That guy has some strong points there.

Just for the record, the prices of 8800GTS's are back up to around $400 now.. its not a $350 8800GTS vs. $400 HD2900XT. Baselerd

Just for the record, the prices of 8800GTS's are back up to around $400 now.. its not a $350 8800GTS vs. $400 HD2900XT. Baselerd

Even if they were same price 8800GTS would be better value if you use AA.

[QUOTE="Baselerd"]Just for the record, the prices of 8800GTS's are back up to around $400 now.. its not a $350 8800GTS vs. $400 HD2900XT. domke13

Even if they were same price 8800GTS would be better value if you use AA.

The facts are pretty clear, I don't know why you guys are arguing when there is evidence:

8800GTS 320MB is $300ish and performs the same as 8800GTS 640MB version if you play 1280x1024 or less.

8800GTS 640MB is $400ish and performs substantially worse than the HD2900XT with AA low or off. With AA enabled at 4X or higher this is better than the HD2900XT by a relatively large margin.

HD2900XT is $400ish and performs right in between the 8800GTS and GTX w/o AA enabled. With AA enabled, it is below the 8800GTS by a large margin.

So there you have it :)

Baselerd

Man Krauser is usless. He never even posts facts he just rips on the person in GS with the most GPU knowledge out of anyone in here. Because hes stating the facts.

You people are absolutely insane if you are thinking the 8800gts is abetter GPU then the 2900xt. hahahaha. 2900xt is a much better card, just wait till new Catalyst. I like how the card has been out for 6 weeks and people are not even giving it a chance to get a couple drivers in. Its built on a much better architecture, just some game developers havent even started using it yet.

Isay by Catalyst 7.7 this card will be rivaling the 8800Ultra no problems

Well, not to burst your bubble 9mm but that's what people said about 7.6... however I would hope you're right considering I have one :-D

And, when I stated those prices, those were the cut and dry prices. Yes, you can find an 8800GTS 640MB for $350ish, however you can find an hd2900XT for $370. To me, that price difference isn't enough to justify buying one over the other based on price alone... my point being, they are in the same relative price bracket, so we should compare their performance. And yes, the 320MB version of the GTS is a great value and is definitely the best price performance around.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

Please look through my posts and find me one that isn't true/fact, where it isn't obvious speculation.
You cant...
Grow the **** up Krauser and stop flaming me every chance you get. You can't discuss stuff with me maturely so you resort to this ****.
K_r_a_u_s_e_r

Edit- How is what I posted not true? Like I said your lack of acuity is astounding!
LordEC911

PS- Do you not remember the numerous threads where I corrected the many mistakes/BS you posted?
I remember when you were trying to tell people that Raptors are quiter, cooler and massively faster then normal hard drives.LordEC911

Yeah dude, just chill lol. Theyre just graphics cards...

Yeah dude, just chill lol. Theyre just graphics cards...

Baselerd

Yeah, for real .. sure, he and I were debating as well, but it isn't like it's personal or anything. I don't even know anything about the guy. There's no need to act hostile towards one another over PC hardware.

[QUOTE="Baselerd"]

Yeah dude, just chill lol. Theyre just graphics cards...

THA-TODD-BEAST

Yeah, for real .. sure, he and I were debating as well, but it isn't like it's personal or anything. I don't even know anything about the guy. There's no need to act hostile towards one another over PC hardware.

but you have all the right, we are in pc hardware discussion, so if we are going to speak about something... is hardware :p

I'll play devils advocate here because I like the 8800GTX better than the 2900XT, but I think 9mm is right. Note: These are the AVERAGE numbers.

GPU____________Core____Stream_____Memory__Memory__Memory___RAMDAC
________________Clock___Processors__Clock____Size______Interface________

________________(MHz)______________(MHz)____(MB)_____(-bit)______(MHz)

8800 GTX________575______128_______1800_____768______384______400
HD 2900 XT______750______350_______1650_____512______512______400

The 2900 XT is supposed to be faster than the 8800 GTX. Clocked higher, and more stream processors...

Correct me if i'm wrong.