x2900xt outperforming 8800gtx with latest drivers

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

9mmSpliff

So the major power draw, overclocking difficulties (a six and eight pin connector), severe overheating, and a vast majority of the tests that show the 8800 ultra is leagues faster will all be history in one month? This card is comparable to a 8800 gts 640mb, but not an ultra. Please show me one test of average frames at somewhat respectable settings in which the 2900xt beats the 8800 ultra. I'll keep waiting. At least wait before speculating with such confidence. These forums have little credibilty (i.e. Krauser and don't get me started with the 2560x1600 thread on a 5:4 monitor), so don't contribute without waiting first. You could easily be wrong.

In my opinion, you get what you pay for. This 2900xt>8800 gtx has almost completely been argued on forums. I have yet to see Guru 3d, Hard OCP, Cnet, Extreme Tech,Techspot....anywhere confirm this. Except this Tweaktown article, which barely even used AA and showed comparable performance in certain tests. The 2900xt has its place, but if it did compete with the 8800 gtx and Ultra it would be much higher priced. In my opinion, I simply cannot spend $375+ on a card that can't handle AA. Jaggies can easily overshadow the best textures and lighting around. Thus I think the highest end competition clearly belongs to Nvidia until further notice. ATI has quite a few kinks to work out (just like Nvidia during their launch). Here is the card, which was supposedly built to beat the 8900s and HardOCP is comparing it to a 320 mb 8800 gts! I've been quite dissapointed based on those expectations and by the time Catalyst has matured for 6-8 months (like the 8800 series) it will be too late for me. My DX10 card will have already been bought. Then again, maybe 9mm is right and 7.7 will work miracles. Stranger things have happened. However, in all likelyhood, it looks like Nvidia claims my dollar this time.

I think Guru3d states it best here:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/26/

So the major power draw,

Roughly 15w more than the GTX. :|

overclocking difficulties (a six and eight pin connector),

Because one would use a cheap PSU for a GTX? :roll:

Also, will it kill you to buy an 8 pin adapter? :|

severe overheating

Where?

Not once does it crash in the review from heat. :|

and a vast majority of the tests that show the 8800 ultra is leagues faster will all be history in one month?

...which costs twice as much. :|

In my opinion, you get what you pay for. This 2900xt>8800 gtx has almost completely been argued on forums. I have yet to see Guru 3d, Hard OCP, Cnet, Extreme Tech,Techspot....anywhere confirm this. Except this Tweaktown article, which barely even used AA and showed comparable performance in certain tests. The 2900xt has its place, but if it did compete with the 8800 gtx and Ultra it would be much higher priced. In my opinion, I simply cannot spend $375+ on a card that can't handle AA. Jaggies can easily overshadow the best textures and lighting around. Thus I think the highest end competition clearly belongs to Nvidia until further notice. ATI has quite a few kinks to work out (just like Nvidia during their launch). Here is the card, which was supposedly built to beat the 8900s and HardOCP is comparing it to a 320 mb 8800 gts! I've been quite dissapointed based on those expectations and by the time Catalyst has matured for 6-8 months (like the 8800 series) it will be too late for me. My DX10 card will have already been bought. Then again, maybe 9mm is right and 7.7 will work miracles. Stranger things have happened. However, in all likelyhood, it looks like Nvidia claims my dollar this time.

Yes, you do get what you pay for.

In the case of the 2900 XT, you pay for a card that will most likely perform on par to a GTX once drivers have improved. Did I mention that it's around $180 cheaper than the GTX too?

Also, the 2900 XTX was made to compete with the 8900 or whatever. But due to difficulties (in manafacturing and drivers) it never got released. Just try and find a statement from AMD/ATi that says the 2900 XT was to compete with the ULTRA/9 series.

I find it hilarious how no one complained about NVIDIA's power hungry approach regarding the 7950 GX2 and its poor scaling. I also find it funny how NVIDIA fanboys seem to forget how the 7900 GTX flopped in the face of the older X1900 XTX. Also, I find it funny how NVIDIA fanboys forgot how NVIDIA cards couldn't run AA + HDR at the same time, but now, AA is the biggest thing in the world. :|

:roll:

I love NVIDIA. WhiteSnake5000

So long as that doesn't blind you from facts, it's totally fine.

For now i think that 8800 GTS is better value than 2900XT. IF you spend 400$ on a GPU you are probably going to run AA and thats when 8800 GTS beats 2900XT. IF you dont use AA 2900 XT certanly is much much better value. This may improve. But if Lord is right that R600 has AA through shaders i think that AA performance wont improve whit drivers, but whit games. If and when games will start using that AA on 2900XT it will probably easily beat 8800 GTS. Whitout AA i think that 2900XT will catch up Ultra nd beat it. But whit AA 8800 GTS will be better than 2900XT till develpoers start to better use that technology on 2900XT. Teselation looks promising, but when you ask anyone which game will use it he cant tell you one SINGLE game that will use tesselation. The same is on G80 whit quantum effects which should run physix.

Both G80 (quantum effects) and R600 (tesselation) have technologys that have yet to be used through games. In my opinion quantum effects will be used in games when both ATi and Nvidia will support it, and same goes for tesselation. Developers arent that stupid that they will make a game that ATi cards will run it and nvidia cards wont, or other way. For now i think we shouldnt talk about how more future proof is 2900XT or G80. As sad above both have futureproof technologys but non is used. We have to look at performance these days, not try to guess what will be in future. ANd for now is it as it stands.

Whit AA on 2900XT is a bit behind 8800GTS, 8800GTX is better than 8800GTS and Ultra beats them all.

Whitout AA GTS is last one 2900XT and GTX are somehow the same and Ultra is still the fastes if we look at only high end cards.

So i think it is useless saying how 2900XT will beat Ultra whit new drivers. Lets wait and see. Till then is it as i wrote above.

I wouldnt so easy say that hahaha whit 7.7 2900XT will beat Ultra and that kind of stuff. Some of you have burned couple of months bakc whit statsments that 2900 will EASILY beat 8800 GTX and how it will be twice as powerfull, some were even insulting me and laughing me when i stated that i amnot soo sure, that i think 8800 GTX will still be the king. AN see what happened. At the end i was laughing to those guys.

I agree with most of your points, domke. But as I said, all of us were expecting a 2900 XTX from ATi that would cream the G80...but that didn't come. Instead, we go its little brother, the 2900 XT which most of us knew WOULDN'T beat the GTX.

Also, what's this physics accelerator that you mentioned for the GTX?

I agree with most of your points, domke. But as I said, all of us were expecting a 2900 XTX from ATi that would cream the G80...but that didn't come. Instead, we go its little brother, the 2900 XT which most of us knew WOULDN'T beat the GTX.

Also, what's this physics accelerator that you mentioned for the GTX?

Wesker776

Havnet you heard of it?? Its called quantum effects and runs through shaders. Great Nvidia technology for physics, but sadly, as tesselation it isnt used for now. You can google it to find out more. And it isnt just on GTX als GTS i think has it. Not sure.

Itisphysicsprocessor,whichwasprobablycreatedtosomehowreplacephysicscardfromageia.

check the new gamespot graphics review.

2900xt is beating 8800gts 640 in every case with or without AA and only a few frames behind gtx.but in few games like stalker it lags.

and it even defeats gtx in COH in vista performance by a margin

thats shows that when it has a room for improvement./

enen in the latest 7.6 catalyst there was a performance increase of x1950xtx. that mean the performance can continue increasing with the new drivers coming on and on.

check the new gamespot graphics review.

2900xt is beating 8800gts 640 in every case with or without AA and only a few frames behind gtx.but in few games like stalker it lags.

and it even defeats gtx in COH in vista performance by a margin

thats shows that when it has a room for improvement./

enen in the latest 7.6 catalyst there was a performance increase of x1950xtx. that mean the performance can continue increasing with the new drivers coming on and on.

harooon

GS tests you say. Hmmmmm. It would be better to look at some other pages for HW reveiws.

[QUOTE="Deamon321"]and for the value its much better than an 8800gts.THA-TODD-BEAST

Not true .. in fact, not even close.

GTS: Less than $300
2900 XT: Usually around $400

Who wants to pay around $400 for a card that can't even withstand performance hits with AA applied? With any new video card, you're going to want to use at least SOME anisotropic filtering to get rid of those jaggies .. and by the time you apply it on the 2900XT, you're at GTS performance-levels and you've spent about $100 more.

what has anisotropic filtering got to do with jaggies?

[QUOTE="Wesker776"]

I agree with most of your points, domke. But as I said, all of us were expecting a 2900 XTX from ATi that would cream the G80...but that didn't come. Instead, we go its little brother, the 2900 XT which most of us knew WOULDN'T beat the GTX.

Also, what's this physics accelerator that you mentioned for the GTX?

domke13

Havnet you heard of it?? Its called quantum effects and runs through shaders. Great Nvidia technology for physics, but sadly, as tesselation it isnt used for now. You can google it to find out more. And it isnt just on GTX als GTS i think has it. Not sure.

Itisphysicsprocessor,whichwasprobablycreatedtosomehowreplacephysicscardfromageia.

Oh, I think I remember.

It uses the Havok physics engine instead of the ageia one, right?

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

I agree with most of your points, domke. But as I said, all of us were expecting a 2900 XTX from ATi that would cream the G80...but that didn't come. Instead, we go its little brother, the 2900 XT which most of us knew WOULDN'T beat the GTX.

Also, what's this physics accelerator that you mentioned for the GTX?

Wesker776

Havnet you heard of it?? Its called quantum effects and runs through shaders. Great Nvidia technology for physics, but sadly, as tesselation it isnt used for now. You can google it to find out more. And it isnt just on GTX als GTS i think has it. Not sure.

Itisphysicsprocessor,whichwasprobablycreatedtosomehowreplacephysicscardfromageia.

Oh, I think I remember.

It uses the Havok physics engine instead of the ageia one, right?

Yup.

Might I add that game developers are simply using geometry shaders to do these physics...

Might I add that game developers are simply using geometry shaders to do these physics...

Baselerd

Might i add that developers can simply use geometry shaders for tesselation. Please why you try to put 2900XT in advantage. G80 also has some future technologys that are just as important as tesselation. Tesselation can easily be run through geometry shaders. Also physics. But R600 has special tesselation engne, and G80 has special physiscs processor.

The 2900xt looks cooler too:Plettuceman44

:P.But you have to addmit that 8800GTX looks badass whit that cooler.

I can't really tell the difference between 8xAA and 4xAA, but I can slightly see the difference between 8xAF and 16xAF. I just use 4xAA/8xAF.

I would have to cut my eyes out to play games without AA and AF maxed. The HD2900XT is great if you game @ low resolutions with AA, but I game @ no less than 8x AA 16xAF. If I can I go higher. Most of my games run flawless with 16x AA and 16x AF. The 2900 is just not powerful enough for people like me.MadExponent

Me 2. I HATE thoose jaggies. Soo annoying. Cant play whit them. I rund every single game i have at 16xAA even oblivion. And than some also whit transparency AA but not oblivion whihc is simply too demanding to run it whit transparency AA whit frames allways above 30.