X2900XT vs 8800GTX (ATI delivers best bang in a big way!)

Keep in mind the X2900XT has some very premature drivers, things will likely get much better in time as they did for the 8800 which got huge gains from drivers shortly after the launch.

From Tom's Hardware

These are only a few games and these are hardly thorough benchmarks, even with the aplha phase like drivers ATI has it still for it's price shows the X2900XT is the best bang for the buck period.

Toms Hardware shows that the X2900XT shows some impressive numbers at high res

At 2560 by 1600 4AA 8AF

DOOM 3

8800GTX 59.2 fps
X2900XT 62.4 fps
8800GTS 39.4 fps

Not only does the X2900XT completely crush the GTS here, but it beats the 200 dollar more GTX!

FEAR (same settings)

8800GTX 34 fps
X2900XT 32 fps
8800GTS 17 fps

Here the X2900XT is right behind the 200 dollar more card and completely crushes it's competition the GTS

OBLIVION No AA/AF .
.
8800GTX 22.67 fps
X2900XT 18.21 fps
8800GTS 15.91 fps

The GTX wins here, and the X2900XT beats the GTS it's competition, but doesn't crush it like the other tests.

Pretty impressive considering how bad the drivers are.

From GURU

2560 by 1600 4AA/8AF 

Prey
.
8800GTX 32 fps
X2900XT 40 fps
8800GTS 32 fps

Here the X2900XT smokes the 200 dollar more GTX  

STALKER (same, but no AA game doesnt support it)  

8800GTX 136 fps
X2900XT 93 fps
8800GTS 51 fps

GURU shows us much different results then the Gamespot test which has the X2900 doing poorly, here it doesn't beat the 200 dollar more GTX, but it flat out smokes it's competitor with almost double the frame rate.

 FEAR

8800GTX 25 fps
X2900XT 32 fps
8800GTS 17 fps

I already showed Tom's results for FEAR, these are roughly the same only the X2900XT actually wins by an even greater margin here soundly beating the dollar more card.

BATTLEFIELD 2

8800GTX 66 fps
X2900XT 55 fps
8800GTS 61 fps

ATI cards have never been to fond of BF2, the GTS actually manages to win here by a squeek

GHOST RECON ADVANCED WAR FIGHTER

8800GTX 32 fps
X2900XT 33 fps
8800GTS 24 fps

Here the 2900XT yet again manages to just topple the almighty 200 dollar more GTX with it's competition the GTS eating dust.

Splinter Cell 3

8800GTX 53 fps
X2900XT 56 fps
8800GTS 37 fps

 Amazingly AGAIN the X2900XT manages to edge out the 200 dollar more GTX and crush it's GTS competition

Another amazing thing GURU showed is that in GRAW FEAR BF2 STALKER the X2900XT showed little to no loss when running under vista in fact FEAR actually runs FASTER under vista for the 2900!

Are these confirmed and legit?

I've only read about 2 or 3 reviews so far, and they point to the X2900XT being comparable to the 8800GTS, and getting utterly smashed by the GTX. They've also said that the GTS is a better value since it draws some 100W less and is cheaper. 

Are these confirmed and legit?

I've only read about 2 or 3 reviews so far, and they point to the X2900XT being comparable to the 8800GTS, and getting utterly smashed by the GTX. They've also said that the GTS is a better value since it draws some 100W less and is cheaper.

blurb1324

100w less? Wow, more like 2/3 of that. The 2900xt needs about 60w more then the GTS, since there is about a 40w gap between the GTS and GTX and a 20w gap between the GTX and XT.

I think we can trust Tom's Hardware and GURU more then we can some of the other sites.

 I mean look at HardOCP they posted right on their front page X2900XT is a "FLOP" even IF that were true that's extremely unprofessional, clearly they have no credability.

Anandtech shows results in line with HardOCP so you can't trust them really either.

If you read Tom's Hardwares introduction you will see them talking about how many of the other sites show biased and how they show it.

I think we can trust Tom's Hardware and GURU more then we can some of the other sites.

I mean look at HardOCP they posted right on their front page X2900XT is a "FLOP" even IF that were true that's extremely unprofessional, clearly they have no credability.

Anandtech shows results in line with HardOCP so you can't trust them really either.

If you read Tom's Hardwares introduction you will see them talking about how many of the other sites show biased and how they show it.

SirWrinkles

[QUOTE="SirWrinkles"]

I think we can trust Tom's Hardware and GURU more then we can some of the other sites.

I mean look at HardOCP they posted right on their front page X2900XT is a "FLOP" even IF that were true that's extremely unprofessional, clearly they have no credability.

Anandtech shows results in line with HardOCP so you can't trust them really either.

If you read Tom's Hardwares introduction you will see them talking about how many of the other sites show biased and how they show it.

PixelChief

Hes sayin gcause they said flop and thats not to manner like for a business.  Thats what hes getting at smart ass.

im gonna wait for the 2600. all it has to do is beat out the 8600 by a good margin and i think the world has a new prefered card.blazethe1

The RV6*0 is already the world's preferred card, AMD is planning on shipping 100 million R600 based GPUs by the end of the year. These new cards are the perfect solution for OEMs, super low power consumption, small profile, low heat, great video/audio solution, HDCP compliant and the list goes on.

Keep in mind the X2900XT has some very premature drivers, things will likely get much better in time as they did for the 8800 which got huge gains from drivers shortly after the launch.

 

From Tom's Hardware

 

These are only a few games and these are hardly thorough benchmarks, even with the aplha phase like drivers ATI has it still for it's price shows the X2900XT is the best bang for the buck period.

Toms Hardware shows that the X2900XT shows some impressive numbers at high res

At 2560 by 1600 4AA 8AF

DOOM 3

8800GTX 59.2 fps
X2900XT 62.4 fps
8800GTS 39.4 fps

Not only does the X2900XT completely crush the GTS here, but it beats the 200 dollar more GTX!

FEAR (same settings)

8800GTX 34 fps
X2900XT 32 fps
8800GTS 17 fps

Here the X2900XT is right behind the 200 dollar more card and completely crushes it's competition the GTS

OBLIVION No AA/AF .
.
8800GTX 22.67 fps
X2900XT 18.21 fps
8800GTS 15.91 fps

The GTX wins here, and the X2900XT beats the GTS it's competition, but doesn't crush it like the other tests.

 

Pretty impressive considering how bad the drivers are.

SirWrinkles

Interesting indeed, but who plays on that resolution... it must be for a few people?

Nobody wants to play with 30-20 frames per secondes... 

Then turn down other settings! What do you mean who play at that res? The people in which own these monster cards are just probably just as far and  few in between as those who have 30 inch monitors.

 The bottom line really is the X2900Xt gets more impressive the higher the resolution and my guess is most people who buy monster cards are more likely to play on a monster monitor then a 17 incher. Maybe not 30 inch big, but honestly your really just wasting your money if you buy any of these cards for a resolution south of 1600 by 1200

[QUOTE="SirWrinkles"]

Keep in mind the X2900XT has some very premature drivers, things will likely get much better in time as they did for the 8800 which got huge gains from drivers shortly after the launch.

 

From Tom's Hardware

 

These are only a few games and these are hardly thorough benchmarks, even with the aplha phase like drivers ATI has it still for it's price shows the X2900XT is the best bang for the buck period.

Toms Hardware shows that the X2900XT shows some impressive numbers at high res

At 2560 by 1600 4AA 8AF

DOOM 3

8800GTX 59.2 fps
X2900XT 62.4 fps
8800GTS 39.4 fps

Not only does the X2900XT completely crush the GTS here, but it beats the 200 dollar more GTX!

FEAR (same settings)

8800GTX 34 fps
X2900XT 32 fps
8800GTS 17 fps

Here the X2900XT is right behind the 200 dollar more card and completely crushes it's competition the GTS

OBLIVION No AA/AF .
.
8800GTX 22.67 fps
X2900XT 18.21 fps
8800GTS 15.91 fps

The GTX wins here, and the X2900XT beats the GTS it's competition, but doesn't crush it like the other tests.

 

Pretty impressive considering how bad the drivers are.

Bebi_vegeta

Interesting indeed, but who plays on that resolution... it must be for a few people?

Nobody wants to play with 30-20 frames per secondes...

Well i shure as hell dont. i could but i dont see the point when you could just add a little AA and take less of a performance hit.

I have a 7300GT (beastly little card) i can play oblivion with High textures (no HDR) and the view distance set to max with 8xAA and 16xAF it may ba little slow but it still plays fine. oh my point is even though i can play at a higher resolution i choose not to because i think its kinda stupid. 1024x768 RULZ TEH WORLD!!!! 

Then turn down other settings! What do you mean who play at that res? The people in which own these monster cards are just probably just as far and few in between as those who have 30 inch monitors.

The bottom line really is the X2900Xt gets more impressive the higher the resolution and my guess is most people who buy monster cards are more likely to play on a monster monitor then a 17 incher. Maybe not 30 inch big, but honestly your really just wasting your money if you buy any of these cards for a resolution south of 1600 by 1200

SirWrinkles

Have you played the lastest games? They require lots of power if you play with all the eye cnadys on 1600*1200.

If I was to game on 2500*1600, i would atleast get SLI or crossfire.

Splinter cell, raibow six, oblivion, GRAW, CoC3, fear ? PLaying in the 30 ish frame/sec is not an option for me.

And I am very far away from wasting my money, since i'll keep this card longer... hopefully lasting me another 2 years just like my 7800GTX did. 

I think anyone who has a 30 incher also has a smaller monitor for games that their card can't handle that res,

Sure the few top games might need SLI/Crossfire to max out at the super high res, but theirs plenty of PC games you could max out just fine like that including CnC3/Stalker and SplinterCell all games you mentioned.

I think if you play at a lower res your better off buying a 200 dollar card ever 8 months or so then you are buying a 400 dollar card every year and a half.SirWrinkles

When I buy something, I wish to settle for the best and be confortable for a few years without the need to overclock for some time.

The less trouble and worryness is what I like. 

In this day of super advancing technology I don't think you can buy a card to last you that long unless your will to run at the min on the later games :?SirWrinkles

My 7800GTX lasted me almost 2 years and could still handle the resolution I play  1280*1084. I had to change it for my other computer built.

keep in mid that nvidia's vista drivers arent exactly optimized yet either lots of stuff is still disabled with the vista driver or crashes the game if you use it.Subjekt83

I have no clue why people would wanna game on Vista now, since there is no dx10 games and alots of bugs. 

keep in mid that nvidia's vista drivers arent exactly optimized yet either lots of stuff is still disabled with the vista driver or crashes the game if you use it.Subjekt83

New Vista drivers for you my friend.... 

You maybe right but i sorta tired of trying to keep up with the tech and buying something every few months so i want something that will last me aslong as possible of course though i do have a buget or i might be buying a 8800gtx.

Anyone know if the R600s hold up well on P5W DH Deluxe (Crossfire Ready) as far as Crossfire goes?

And is it true that it adopted the Bridge connector, like Nvidia's SLi? 

Anyone know if the R600s hold up well on P5W DH Deluxe (Crossfire Ready) as far as Crossfire goes?

And is it true that it adopted the Bridge connector, like Nvidia's SLi?

 

450tantrum

i don't see why it won't work with your mobo, and yes its internal crossfire, with the crossfire bridge between the two cards now.

Anyone know if the R600s hold up well on P5W DH Deluxe (Crossfire Ready) as far as Crossfire goes?

And is it true that it adopted the Bridge connector, like Nvidia's SLi? 

P5W that stand for 500 watts? I think they said they recommend 700 watts for X2900 CF :O

 

450tantrum

I wonder why the benchmarks out there are show such varied results, meh I think the more credible sites are the ones showing the X2900XT shine like Tom's hardware.SirWrinkles

They are using many different drivers, either 8.36 or 8.37, even in different increments of the driver as well, eg. 8.37.4, 8.37.4.2, 8.37.4.3, etc etc.... 

I really want the hd 2900xt to work, but here's what I see...

It's benchmarks show inconsistent performance. That leads me to believe the potential is there, but it may have bad drivers? Hopefully they can bring all of those benchmarks up to be consistently nipping at the gtx's heels.

If not, what a shame :-S.  I think I'll wait till mid summer to see what happens. The truth of the matter is, I don't see performance skyrocketing after a driver release.

On another note, do you guys think my psu will run this card? I would imagine so, it has 40A on the 12v rail, but just making sure. 

I really want the hd 2900xt to work, but here's what I see...

It's benchmarks show inconsistent performance. That leads me to believe the potential is there, but it may have bad drivers? Hopefully they can bring all of those benchmarks up to be consistently nipping at the gtx's heels.

If not, what a shame :-S. I think I'll wait till mid summer to see what happens. The truth of the matter is, I don't see performance skyrocketing after a driver release.

 

On another note, do you guys think my psu will run this card? I would imagine so, it has 40A on the 12v rail, but just making sure.

Baselerd

Theoretically, the max headrooms you need are 250w (75w from the pci-e slot + 75w from six-pin pci-e connector + 100w from the 8-pin connector) or about 20.83A just for the card, or 225w (75w from the pci-e slot + 75w from six-pin pci-e connector x2) or 18.75A without the Overdrive feature. In all practicality, the card runs well below this max head room so your 40A psu will do just fine.

the 2900 is pretty much on the same level as far as bang for buck goes and slots nicely inbetween the GTS and GTX. However if Nvidia drop theur prices a bit that might change.Ospi

Nvidia Plans on dropping price of current GTS 640 to $350 area and release new GTS 640 SuperClocked cards to compete at $400 level

sorry i have no link of source but it is in a thread in xtremesystems, just cant remember which one 

BATTLEFIELD 2

8800GTX 66 fps
X2900XT 55 fps
8800GTS 61 fps

ATI cards have never been to fond of BF2, the GTS actually manages to win here by a squeek

You act as though 2 fps is a difference when the X2900 does better, but you say 6 FPS is a "squeek." You're clearly biased....just putting that out there.

[QUOTE="Ospi"]the 2900 is pretty much on the same level as far as bang for buck goes and slots nicely inbetween the GTS and GTX. However if Nvidia drop theur prices a bit that might change.450tantrum

Nvidia Plans on dropping price of current GTS 640 to $350 area and release new GTS 640 SuperClocked cards to compete at $400 level

sorry i have no link of source but it is in a thread in xtremesystems, just cant remember which one

superclocked? like evga superclocked? that's their trademark i believe... 

hey the 2900 in crossfire kills the 8800 ultra at the same price.

now dont fire at me by saying that the ultra is not even a proper card. hust saying how 2900 is best bang

Max settings for Doom 3 is 1600 x 1200...jamesgj

lmfao, alot of games like BF2 also don't natively support super high resolutions, but if you go into the Config file you can manually input them in.

hey the 2900 in crossfire kills the 8800 ultra at the same price.

now dont fire at me by saying that the ultra is not even a proper card. hust saying how 2900 is best bang

saifiii

if they could take it out with a single card i'd be amazed, but you take the single gtx and single 2900 xt.... yeah.....  

hey look guys, untill now am really mixed out,

r600= X?????

the 8800GTS version of ati name = ?2900?

sorry for the noobish question but am really lost.

And logically the 320 is really large, and from what i read the ati has really crappy drivers right now.

As supposed , the r600 is now running 2/5 from its original performance????

hey look guys, untill now am really mixed out,

r600= X?????

the 8800GTS version of ati name = ?2900?

sorry for the noobish question but am really lost.

And logically the 320 is really large, and from what i read the ati has really crappy drivers right now.

As supposed , the r600 is now running 2/5 from its original performance????

r3351925

Well firstly, AMD dropped the "X" prefix and now its officially the HD 2900 XT. 320? As in shader processors? Well actually its 64 sp vect5D (5 math operation/clock) so 64 x 5 = ??? Yeah...

As for the drivers, driver ver. 8.38 is supposedly rolling out soon, so that should help the card a bit in performance. 

[QUOTE="r3351925"]

hey look guys, untill now am really mixed out,

r600= X?????

the 8800GTS version of ati name = ?2900?

sorry for the noobish question but am really lost.

And logically the 320 is really large, and from what i read the ati has really crappy drivers right now.

As supposed , the r600 is now running 2/5 from its original performance????

jfelisario

Well firstly, AMD dropped the "X" prefix and now its officially the HD 2900 XT. 320? As in shader processors? Well actually its 64 sp vect5D (5 math operation/clock) so 64 x 5 = ??? Yeah...

As for the drivers, driver ver. 8.38 is supposedly rolling out soon, so that should help the card a bit in performance. 

thanks, :lol: ur avatar got freaked out