# ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT Performance Benchmarks



## malware (Apr 24, 2007)

The title speaks for itself. DailyTech has managed to run through some benchmarks with the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT 512MB graphics card. The tests were conducted on an Intel D975XBX2 BadAxe2, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and 2x1GB DDR2-800 MHz. The operating system on the test system was Windows XP, with a fresh install before benchmarking each card. Testing of the AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT was performed using the 8.361 Catalyst RC4 drivers, while the GeForce 8800 GTS used ForceWare 158.19 drivers. All game tests were run with the maximum detail settings at resolutions of 1280x1024. 





The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is expected to be widely available in mid-May, with a suggested retail price of $499.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Bonerheimer_c (Apr 24, 2007)

Wow that card absolutely trounces NVIDIA in the HL2 benchmarks.  That almost doesn't seem right that NVIDIA scored that low, my friend has a core 2 and an 8800 gts 320mb and plays counter strike source with everything maxed out @ 1440x900 at an average of at least 100 fps.  If it really is that big of a difference this answers my question about what card to get as I am a CS:source addict.


----------



## malware (Apr 24, 2007)

Actually DailyTech claims that there's something wrong with this particular benchmark:


> * Our benchmarks for Half Life 2: Episode 1 showed an abnormal framerate for the NVIDIA 8800 GTS card that scaled with lower resolutions -- we are still investigating what occurred there.


----------



## Bonerheimer_c (Apr 24, 2007)

Also, It came as a big surprise to me that it beat the quadro in professional benchmarks.  Gaming graphics cards usually don't stand a chance against the workstation specific models.


----------



## Bonerheimer_c (Apr 24, 2007)

Ahhh, guess I should have read the article instead of just looking at the picture :shadedshu haha


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 24, 2007)

i don't care, i want to see dx10 benchmarks before i make any decisions


----------



## jocksteeluk (Apr 24, 2007)

no doubt when these new AMD cards are released the Nvidia will release another new card pushing these 8800 cards into the middle order of its products.

value for money > performance but who says you cant have both.


----------



## freaksavior (Apr 24, 2007)

i'm an ATI fan my self although i bought my dad a 8800gts for his b-day, but i am considering getting a 8600gts but am going to wait for amd/ati to release there dx10 mid range cards


----------



## tvdang7 (Apr 24, 2007)

Bonerheimer_c said:


> Wow that card absolutely trounces NVIDIA in the HL2 benchmarks.  That almost doesn't seem right that NVIDIA scored that low, my friend has a core 2 and an 8800 gts 320mb and plays counter strike source with everything maxed out @ 1440x900 at an average of at least 100 fps.  If it really is that big of a difference this answers my question about what card to get as I am a CS:source addict.



cs doesnt need a great card. just get a midrange and you are fine.overclock your cpu and you get more frames.


----------



## mdm-adph (Apr 24, 2007)

not bad, not bad.

I know nVidia's probably just going to come out with something even faster soon after the HD 2900's release, but anything that gets ATI anywhere near the top is great for business (and competition).


----------



## overcast (Apr 24, 2007)

Bonerheimer_c said:


> Also, It came as a big surprise to me that it beat the quadro in professional benchmarks.  Gaming graphics cards usually don't stand a chance against the workstation specific models.


In all the years I've dealt with "workstation" branded quadro cards and the like. We never found any benefit in using them over any type of highend "gaming card". In fact the gaming cards usually trounced them in any type of CAD / Rendering stuff.


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

mdm-adph said:


> not bad, not bad.
> 
> I know nVidia's probably just going to come out with something even faster soon after the HD 2900's release, but anything that gets ATI anywhere near the top is great for business (and competition).



"*Well.. at the end of the day, when the smoke clears and the artillary goes silent, 
       ATI will be standing amidst a ring of bodies holding the flag of victory*"

mwahaha, couldnt help it.

ATI  RoX

Edit: Just wish i had the money take one of those bad ass cards on, or 2 even. Meh, sods law im poor atm. Anyways, I agree with a few peeps that id rather wait for our own in-house testing and benching b4 believing anything


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 24, 2007)

and all these 8800 owners where insisting their cards would pwn amd's cards,,,,,


oh and dx10 benches, then wait a year or 2 for some real dx10 games, dx10 for the next 2 years will be like dx9 was for the first 2 years, sure some games supported it, but now real pure dx9 games excisted, hell valve plans to keep supporting dx8 for at least 2 more years.......


----------



## JrRacinFan (Apr 24, 2007)

I am just waiting to see what pricing difference if any, the existing "line-up" of grfx cards will be.

Although, those are some hella benches!


----------



## bruins004 (Apr 24, 2007)

SpoonMuffin said:


> and all these 8800 owners where insisting their cards would pwn amd's cards,,,,,
> 
> 
> oh and dx10 benches, then wait a year or 2 for some real dx10 games, dx10 for the next 2 years will be like dx9 was for the first 2 years, sure some games supported it, but now real pure dx9 games excisted, hell valve plans to keep supporting dx8 for at least 2 more years.......



A year or 2?
Crysis is coming out in Q3 which is DX10


----------



## raven009 (Apr 24, 2007)

looks like waiting could have been worth it.


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 24, 2007)

its not pure dx10 buddy, its dx10 mode just uses the gpu to do more, they have even said that crisys on dx9 hardware will only be limmited by the hardwares power, if you have x1900xtx/1950xtx cf you should be seeing dx10 level detail, if you add a 3rd card as a pure PPU that should let the game use the 3rd card purly for PPU/game prosessing.

amd/ati have yet to put out the drivers for 3way crossfire but im sure its due out soon to support games that use havoc's new version as well as new games that can acctualy run game prosessing on the gpu not just gfx prosessing.

you wont see a pure/true dx10 game for a year or 2.

if you have ati hardware(x1k class) your going to beable to do ALOT more then nvidia 7x owners, because 7x cards dont got the shader power to run anything but the gfx on them.

read up, i have no life i read alot, the videos you saw of "dx10" mode that where so impressive, where just crysis on vista using x1950xtx crossfire(also read someplace they had 3 card working with a 3rd x1950xtx as a ppu)


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 24, 2007)

overcast said:


> In all the years I've dealt with "workstation" branded quadro cards and the like. We never found any benefit in using them over any type of highend "gaming card". In fact the gaming cards usually trounced them in any type of CAD / Rendering stuff.



Way true... the driver certification is the only issue, and that's all just a bunch of bloody marketing for the most part.


----------



## EviLZeD (Apr 24, 2007)

the card looks real impressive


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 24, 2007)

I want to see what the DDR 4 will do not DDR3


----------



## Greek (Apr 24, 2007)

for me i would probably get an ati card, but only after crysis has been benchmarked on the cards, and depending on the price range, hopefully by the end of july these test shud be done so i can get  a gd birthday prezie


----------



## bruins004 (Apr 24, 2007)

Greek said:


> for me i would probably get an ati card, but only after crysis has been benchmarked on the cards, and depending on the price range, hopefully by the end of july these test shud be done so i can get  a gd birthday prezie



I am doing this as well, but not looking to buy until late in the year.


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> I want to see what the DDR 4 will do not DDR3



I second that notion, its always difficult when a product is so hyped up. I "REALLY" hope that it exceeds half the rubbish that has been touted as genuine for the r600 line


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 24, 2007)

bruins004 said:


> A year or 2? Crysis is coming out in Q3 which is DX10


That's just one game


----------



## Gian-Pa (Apr 24, 2007)

why not comparing with a 8800 GTX? afraid of bad results?


----------



## magibeg (Apr 24, 2007)

Its not supposed to go against the 8800GTX, thats the job of the 2900XTX not the XT. It does look pretty impressive though.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 24, 2007)

Gian-Pa said:


> why not comparing with a 8800 GTX? afraid of bad results?


you don't compare a hd 2900xt with a 8800GTX when you know good and well HD 2600XTX exists.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 24, 2007)

True, its not meant to compete against the GTX (hell the 640MB version has 128MB more of GDDR3 memory and probably 128Bit more memory ring bus (384bit versus 256bit) and yet it still gets trumped by the card. Id love to see this card go against the GTX though, just from a pure my card can kick your cards ass standpoint (even though Im willing to bet the 8800GTX will put a small hurting on it.)


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

Gian-Pa said:


> why not comparing with a 8800 GTX? afraid of bad results?



is the gtx the equivelent of the xtx? if so thats why, coz its just an xt

oh, didnt read page2, doh


----------



## devguy (Apr 24, 2007)

Gian-Pa said:


> why not comparing with a 8800 GTX? afraid of bad results?



I think the hd 2900 xt is supposed to compete with the 8800gts and the xtx is supposed to compete with the gtx/ultra.

Purely guessing, though.

nvm, someone already posted before me.


----------



## RickyG512 (Apr 24, 2007)

man by da time DX 10 games come out nvidia will have its next gen cards, and ati will be working on there new ones


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 24, 2007)

Love your quote ricky ::haha::


----------



## TooFast (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm sure the x2900xtx (ddr4) will beat the gtx/ultra by 10-25%. I'll wait for that to come out.


----------



## ktr (Apr 24, 2007)

Isnt there a dual gpu r600?


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

ktr said:


> Isnt there a dual gpu r600?



yeah its the 2900 x2 or summit like that


----------



## Chewy (Apr 24, 2007)

yeah Im considering the 2900xtx2 its going to be the same price as a 2900xtx.. the xtx has higher clocks on both ram and core.. I'm looking for a top end single pci-e solution.. I may get a 2900xt nexted month instead of waiting around though.. atm I have nothing =-S need to flash my card back.


----------



## Darkrealms (Apr 24, 2007)

Thats pretty good results, especially with lower ram (hopefully an indicator of the ddr4 power over ddr3).


----------



## RickyG512 (Apr 24, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> Love your quote ricky ::haha::



which quote i didnt qoute anyone else or did u mean my comment lol


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

Chewy said:


> yeah Im considering the 2900xtx2 its going to be the same price as a 2900xtx.. the xtx has higher clocks on both ram and core.. I'm looking for a top end single pci-e solution.. I may get a 2900xt nexted month instead of waiting around though.. atm I have nothing =-S need to flash my card back.



not sure wot im gonna do, want to have a dual card solution, but lol.. i have zero money atm.   and ill need to get a new mobo, new processor, new ram, and an extra sata hdd for a raid config.. Im gonna b screwed if i put it on my credit card, so thats not an option. 

I could always whore myself out, or sell a kidney, but maybe thats extreme, anyways, my fiancee may object to the whoring out part..


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

wait a minute, 47.9 fps with max setting in oblivion at just 1280x1024????


I run it at 1920x1200 and get that fps and more? with HDR and AA enabled.. that cant be right?

Edit: wait, nm, I didnt have interior shadows to max, that makes a fair difference, and i have some tweaks on it apart from god knows how many mods


----------



## jpierce55 (Apr 24, 2007)

jocksteeluk said:


> no doubt when these new AMD cards are released the Nvidia will release another new card pushing these 8800 cards into the middle order of its products.
> 
> value for money > performance but who says you cant have both.



Maybe Nvidia will but read that is just the XT, there is also an XTX coming at the release.

The price is what seems promising, some price war stuff would be good for the consumer and it sure beats the price off of BFG's 8800's


----------



## HaZe303 (Apr 24, 2007)

Wow what a chocker... A new GFX card beats an 6 months old card in benchmarks... Im truely chocked... And it does it barely...? Is this really the monster we were waiting for?? Im really disapointed... I was expecting much more from ATI. And yes i know this isnt the 1gb XTX, but still!


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

HaZe303 said:


> Wow what a chocker... A new GFX card beats an 6 months old card in benchmarks... Im truely chocked... And it does it barely...? Is this really the monster we were waiting for?? Im really disapointed... I was expecting much more from ATI. And yes i know this isnt the 1gb XTX, but still!



6month old card thats "just" getting ok drivers, against a card that will surely have better driver support on initial release


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 24, 2007)

jocksteeluk said:


> no doubt when these new AMD cards are released the Nvidia will release another new card pushing these 8800 cards into the middle order of its products.
> 
> value for money > performance but who says you cant have both.



They already have one......just sat there waiting (supposidly according to reports), a 8900GTX/GTS, the 8800 series is actually a cut down disabled 8900GTX apparently, there are a couple of threads in here on the very subject.  I can't remember what the shader count etc was but I do recall doing a little maths when reading it that based on the additional shaders etc etc it should come in roughly 30-40% faster than the 8800GTX but thats was just a personal guesstimate, you know what these spurious news sorces can be like.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 24, 2007)

here is but one of those links, just found it  

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=25536


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 24, 2007)

$500? An 8800GTS can be had for <$300 right now, $250 after rebates.


----------



## ghost101 (Apr 24, 2007)

wazzledoozle said:


> $500? An 8800GTS can be had for <$300 right now, $250 after rebates.



A 640MB 8800GTS for $300? Where?

The ones i can see are ~$400.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 24, 2007)

ghost101 said:


> A 640MB 8800GTS for $300? Where?



320mb, because at 1280x1024, there wont be a difference.


----------



## ghost101 (Apr 24, 2007)

wazzledoozle said:


> 320mb, because at 1280x1024, there wont be a difference.



Only reason they are testing at 1280x1024 is because they didnt have a higher resolution monitor at hand. This card isnt exactly for people that game at those resolutions.

Basically, this isnt ATIs answer to the 320mb 8800gts.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 24, 2007)

ghost101 said:


> Only reason they are testing at 1280x1024 is because they didnt have a higher resolution monitor at hand. This card isnt exactly for people that game at those resolutions.



640mb for $325


----------



## ghost101 (Apr 24, 2007)

wazzledoozle said:


> 640mb for $325



Thats not the point. You dont know what price ATI cards will reach with rebates and maturity in the market. Only thing you can say is that it is supposed to compete with the 8800gts with an MSRP of $450.

The price of the ATI card hasnt been mentioned, but it is inferred that it will have a similar MSRP. If newegg wants to sell the item at $100, they can go right ahead.


----------



## mandelore (Apr 24, 2007)

When we get some in-house benching on the new cards i wanna see then done at high rez, eg 1920x1200 +, thats where ATI really shines compared to nvidia at hi rez + hi quality settings, then lets see how far ahead we get


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 24, 2007)

Shame the card isn't also tested against the X850 and X1950XT for a inter-generation comparison.  Helps us know the gains from an upgrade. I couldn't really care if the card is +/- a few % better than the competitions best card. I want to see BIG ++% over the X1950XT to know it was worth the wait.


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 25, 2007)

remmber sometimes ingame settings give diffrent results then driver based settings, this is sometimes better sometimes worse, we will see, really i want 1600x1200 class benches but hey, its early and im quite happy with my current card.


----------



## ghost101 (Apr 25, 2007)

Contact said:


> Can i be the first to say that these benchmarks are bullshit?
> 
> Its not just HL2, the GTS is scoring FAR below what it should be. 50 FPS in COD2 at only 1280x1024?? Thats crazy. You should be getting that with 16xQAA.



Erm, doesnt seem farfetched to me.

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/bfg8800gts/6.html


----------



## erocker (Apr 25, 2007)

These were posted at Daily Tech today:  http://www.dailytech.com/Overclocking+the+R600/article7044.htm


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 25, 2007)

Contact said:


> Can i be the first to say that these benchmarks are bullshit?
> 
> Its not just HL2, the GTS is scoring FAR below what it should be. 50 FPS in COD2 at only 1280x1024?? Thats crazy. You should be getting that with 16xQAA.


It pays to read the comments:


> The quality settings for the games were as follows:
> 
> Call of Duty 2 - Anisotropic filtering, *4xAA* (in game), V-Sync off, Shadows enabled, a high number of dynamic lights, soften all smoke edges and an insane amount of corpses.
> 
> ...


1/3 way down using a green title


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 25, 2007)

One thing you all have to remember is that AMD/ATI are planning to pull down the prices of GPUs... This GPU wont burn your pocket upon release and it will be cheaper than the 8800s..


----------



## LonGun (Apr 25, 2007)

If only EVGA also makes ATI cards (don't they?), so I aim for the Trade-in program they offered. But then shortly after getting the new 2900, the 8900 will be out... maybe I'll pass on this.. Anyway, nice benching!


----------



## LonGun (Apr 25, 2007)

Contact said:


> Alright, maybe i should have read the article other than just looking at the pictures.
> 
> But the differences in performance are too big in any case!
> 
> Everyone has to remmember that we wont know for sure till the card is released.



Say this benchmarks showing true tested results (no points of making this up, right?), 2900 will beat 8800 for sure we're all kind of figured it out long before having the results in today. And soon we will be comparing it with the Geforce 8900 series, and no doubt the results are going to be different. My point here is Nvidia and ATI should use this strategy to make the shows hotter to have more sales, rather than releasing both products at the same time.


----------



## strick94u (Apr 25, 2007)

Seems to me everyone that has been waiting for this card should be pissed. It is the new flagship card from ATI and it beats the 8800 gts 640 slightly. This makes me wonder is that website biased towards ATI if not why did it not go head to head with a GTX? Or is it about price I got my gts 640 for 350.00 most are under 400 now so big deal its 499 msrp tigerdirect has a gtx for 529.99 Whats up ATI?

or is there a 3900 xtx


----------



## strick94u (Apr 25, 2007)

Ok I see this is the card that is supposed to be in same class as the gts and its numbers prove its a little better? maybe it will clock like a wild whore


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 25, 2007)

or maby in higher res tests where its not CPU LIMITED it will show its true power, they where limmited to 1280 res due to the monotor on hand, cant test something u cant display guy.

and the xtx will be 8800gtx/8900 class, but as i understand it, thats not due out for a while yet.

and also remmber, amd plans 100% WORKING vista and 2k+ drivers when the card comes out, nvidia has had over 6 months and STILL DOSNT GOT A GOLD LEVEL VISTA DRIVER!!!!!! shows what kinda support your getting from the great nvidia......... you would think they could have a good driver by now....... i mean vista sucks, but they should beable to get a working driver made by now.

everybody i know with an 8800 and vista is pissed, they all admit they "hope they can run dx10 someday" and they all worrie that they payed for a dx10 card that wont be any good in dx10..... FX seirse all over again..........

im sticking with my x1900xtx at 700/1600 at least its drivers are mature oh and i payed 278bucks for it last aug.......hehe


----------



## Casheti (Apr 25, 2007)

I'm glad to see these benchmarks but as others have said, they've only been done on low res. They are still pretty impressive and I'd choose ATi anyday. A good combination of image quality and performance, which smashes nVIDIA into the ground.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 25, 2007)

Contact said:


> Can i be the first to say that these benchmarks are bullshit?
> 
> Its not just HL2, the GTS is scoring FAR below what it should be. 50 FPS in COD2 at only 1280x1024?? Thats crazy. You should be getting that with 16xQAA.



I agree, on my rig at 1600 x 1050 on max everything I am getting 100FPS+ in CSS.


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 25, 2007)

Actually, The more i read it the less genuine it looks... where is "that system" that they mention. The NDA hasnt been lifted yet fyi.


----------



## mandelore (Apr 25, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I agree, on my rig at 1600 x 1050 on max everything I am getting 100FPS+ in CSS.



i run it at 1920x1200 and i get well above 100fps, thats why i was a lill concerned at the scoring on that 2900, and i run everything maxed out...

lol I started HL2 again for the hell of it and was shocked at getting 300fps at points, wow, considering i last played on an x800 card


----------



## Gam'ster (Apr 25, 2007)

Very nice card, and the price aint that steep but lets wait and see what the actual stock price will be on release   , but nice work AMD/ATI


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 25, 2007)

i personaly commend amdti for waiting to relece their cards till the full line is ready and they got somewhat mature driver support, far better then having a card for half a year and still not having proper driver support for it IMHO.

also the fact the whole lines due out at once leads me to belive that we will see better prices allaround, and wont be seeing 2600 cards for the price of x19*0xtx cards!!!! (look back at the x1600/7600 cards,when they hit it was crazy, they where as high priced as an x8*0xt pe, yet gave about 1/3-1/4 the perf!!!!!


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 25, 2007)

SpoonMuffin said:


> i personaly commend amdti for waiting to relece their cards till the full line is ready and they got somewhat mature driver support, far better then having a card for half a year and still not having proper driver support for it IMHO.
> 
> also the fact the whole lines due out at once leads me to belive that we will see better prices allaround, and wont be seeing 2600 cards for the price of x19*0xtx cards!!!! (look back at the x1600/7600 cards,when they hit it was crazy, they where as high priced as an x8*0xt pe, yet gave about 1/3-1/4 the perf!!!!!



I agree but you wont know for sure that the driver support is that good till you can try the drivers on a card, how will you feel if there are driver issues on release of the cards?


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 25, 2007)

i will bitch as much about nvidia and amdti alike, but from what i have seen with the drivers for the current ati cards they are FAR more mature then the nvidia drivers are, hell my buddys quad boot system gets better perf in ogl using his ati card then his nvidia card under vista, xp/2k/2k3 are all about the same for perf, very close with the same settings, but nvidias drivers......well they got issues......the 8800 he has in his other box he gave up on vista with, he stuck in a 7600gt he had and set vista to use it insted of the 8800.....haha


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 26, 2007)

RickyG512 said:


> which quote i didnt qoute anyone else or did u mean my comment lol



This quote. ::muhahaha::


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2007)

SpoonMuffin said:


> i will bitch as much about nvidia and amdti alike, but from what i have seen with the drivers for the current ati cards they are FAR more mature then the nvidia drivers are, hell my buddys quad boot system gets better perf in ogl using his ati card then his nvidia card under vista, xp/2k/2k3 are all about the same for perf, very close with the same settings, but nvidias drivers......well they got issues......the 8800 he has in his other box he gave up on vista with, he stuck in a 7600gt he had and set vista to use it insted of the 8800.....haha



I dont doubt that and again I agree with you but my point was, just before the release of the 8800 the becnhes were looking good, I dont beleive there were any reporting of significant driver issues prior to release (cause NVidia would never tell us they were crap BEFORE release) and then we found out they were crap.  I dont actually doubt that ATi will have it sorted and make NVidia's release a laughing stock regarding driver support/issues we just dont know for sure yet......well I dont


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 26, 2007)

im thinking nvidias issues are due not just to software like they imply but also due to hardware issues.

think their unified shader design may be having problems with being used in dx10 mode, just seems fishy to me that the card wouldnt have working drivers yet when nvidia is one of the top computer chipset companys on the market and has so much $ to throw at the problem.

seems like they may not want to bother fixing it, i mean shit if they can get it working 1/2 ass like dx9 was on the FX line they can force people to buy the next gen cards like the 8900 or such, ok 1/2 ass dx9 support was being to kind maby 1/1000 support.....it kinda worked.....almost......not really......


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2007)

SpoonMuffin said:


> im thinking nvidias issues are due not just to software like they imply but also due to hardware issues.
> 
> think their unified shader design may be having problems with being used in dx10 mode, just seems fishy to me that the card wouldnt have working drivers yet when nvidia is one of the top computer chipset companys on the market and has so much $ to throw at the problem.
> 
> seems like they may not want to bother fixing it, i mean shit if they can get it working 1/2 ass like dx9 was on the FX line they can force people to buy the next gen cards like the 8900 or such, ok 1/2 ass dx9 support was being to kind maby 1/1000 support.....it kinda worked.....almost......not really......



I know but many people do not like ATi driver support either and until I see them working on the new cards with smooth Vista compatibility I am not going to praise ATi for getting something right before they actually have got it right.  Crap issues aside with support from NVidia for the 8800, they have still got the whole of the market share in this newest generation of cards, when the ATi series cards are FINALLY released, most will move in that direction and then the 8900 series will be out like a week later and the momentum will shift, but once you have your nose in front in this game it's very difficult to be caught, even if the company playing catchup has a more stable product with better support.


----------



## Zalmann (Apr 26, 2007)

*ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX, Doomed from the Start*

I've just read an article from DailyTech which is titled:
"ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX, Doomed from the Start"







Link to the article is: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7052

It categorically states that the HD2900XTX is NOT what it's made out to be, which conflicts with this article. The benchmarks are certainly not flattering. Obviously the flagship device does not meet anywhere near the performance of the 8800GTX.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Apr 26, 2007)

Man thats wierd, I thought in that other review the 2900xt was just beating the 8800gtx????  That one has the XTX getting pwned by the 8800gtx..  who to believe,  I can tell you now that I don't reckon ATI would make everyone wait all this time for a card that is not as fast as the opositions card, unless they are trying to go bust...  Maybe thats what they are doin',....Oh well I will believe it when I see actually see it.  How long now, 3 weeks??


----------



## Zalmann (Apr 26, 2007)

DrunkenMafia said:


> Man thats wierd, I thought in that other review the 2900xt was just beating the 8800gtx????  That one has the XTX getting pwned by the 8800gtx..  who to believe,  I can tell you now that I don't reckon ATI would make everyone wait all this time for a card that is not as fast as the opositions card, unless they are trying to go bust...  Maybe thats what they are doin',....Oh well I will believe it when I see actually see it.  How long now, 3 weeks??



I think they were quoting the 8800GTS and not the GTX. Still, it doesn't add up as these new benchmarks state different numbers to those originally posted.

The HD 2900XT benchmarks used release candidate drivers. These new benchmarks use the drivers supplied to thier partners, which are pretty much the final release.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Apr 26, 2007)

Are you seriously telling me that the flagship ATI card that ISNT even OUT yet is not as good as a 9 month old Nvidia one......   oooooh that would be a bad bad bad move on ati's part...  heh.  that would be like the 8800gtx coming out and being slower than a X1950....  that didnt happen...

I couldn't care less about optimised drivers either, that card SHOULD tromp any of the existing cards on the market....  maybe the ATI supernerd techies just aren't as good as the nvidia supernerd techies...


BTW "supernerd techies" is by no means an actual REAL life position...  haahaa


----------



## Zalmann (Apr 26, 2007)

DrunkenMafia said:


> Are you seriously telling me that the flagship ATI card that ISNT even OUT yet is not as good as a 9 month old Nvidia one......



In a nutshell, Yes, that is what the article is stating.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Apr 26, 2007)

Whoa that sux bigtime.....  do i believe these benches though....


----------



## Zalmann (Apr 26, 2007)

I have a theory, maybe this is the cause of the delays in getting the R600 out into the public. It was probably to buy time for them to look at how to extract more performance out of the GPU. This is only my (conspiracy) theory though, whether or not it's true is another thing.


----------



## Casheti (Apr 26, 2007)

If this whole ATi fiasco is true, then I'm pissed 

But seeing as I dislike AMD, and like ATi, I can comfort myself by simply saying this is AMD's fault


----------



## newbielives (Apr 26, 2007)

Looks like this may all be true since they've been hiding their benchmarks for so long instead of bragging about it like they should


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2007)

Zalmann said:


> I have a theory, maybe this is the cause of the delays in getting the R600 out into the public. It was probably to buy time for them to look at how to extract more performance out of the GPU. This is only my (conspiracy) theory though, whether or not it's true is another thing.



I think you may well have a very valid point there!


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 26, 2007)

from what i read the xtx wasnt going to be a valable till later, oh well, we will see the real numbers once the cards are in  real test labs and the NAD's are gone.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 27, 2007)

I dont care about DX10 cards performance in DX9, I care about DX10. For all we know, the R600 could be utter shit in current games but own it up in Crysis etc.

Radeon 9700 anyone?


----------



## theonetruewill (Apr 27, 2007)

I'm confused about the X2900XTX's performance, but actually more concerned with the 8800GTX's supposed results. 

The Oblivion fps is just too high imo at 1920x1200 - 98.4??!!. Surely it can't be that high. Same with FEAR's result at this resolution.


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 27, 2007)

wazzledoozle said:


> I dont care about DX10 cards performance in DX9, I care about DX10. For all we know, the R600 could be utter shit in current games but own it up in Crysis etc.
> 
> Radeon 9700 anyone?



then again wazzle, once the 9700 got driver updates it started pulling ahead of the fx59*0 cards, hell the 9600 256mb i use to own was faster then the 5800ultra i had, ALOT faster, even in dx7 and 8 games at decent resolutions(1152 range)  and dx9, well we all know how the fx line did/dos in dx9 games.

Dont take any current results as gosple, its like anything else, proof in the pudding as my grandfather use to say.

i will stick with my current card till i see a real valid reasion to upgrade, specly if i can add a 2nd card to run as a PPU in this system.

I avoid first gen cards anymore, because the fx line was first gen and sucked ass, gf6 line was better BUT still had problems due to poor driver support, i went from a 9600 to a 9800SE 256bit hard moded to pro@higher then xt clocks(my buddy still uses the card, hes now the 4th owner, went from friend to friend to friend lol) 
then i got a x800pro vivo that i flashed to xt pe the day i got it, this after i tryed  a 6800gt and sold it due to driver problems(3 of us all had the same problems with the 6800gt/ultra cards driver...) thankfully the 6800gt was selling for VERY nice prices at the time, so selling it got me more then enought to get the x800pro vivo and a good addon cooler 
b4 anybody says that the x800 was a first gen card, it wasnt, it was/is effectivly an evolution on he 9700 core, alot more powerfull sure, but still, very simlar.

i avoided the x1800 line because, why upgrade to something thats going to give you no performance advantege over what you have?
i got a nice price for a laptop i sold to a buddy, as payment i had him order my parts for this system at newegg, worked out really well imho, i payed 278bucks for an x1900xtx and 28bucks for a vf900cu


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 27, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> I'm confused about the X2900XTX's performance, but actually more concerned with the 8800GTX's supposed results.
> 
> The Oblivion fps is just too high imo at 1920x1200 - 98.4??!!. Surely it can't be that high. Same with FEAR's result at this resolution.



I never saw that,...very astute of you to notice.I am not sure about these benchmarks at all now.A few posts back mentioned that IF the R600 was really kickin-it,then they would be letting loose a LOT of benchies,...I do tend to believe this.


----------



## SpoonMuffin (Apr 27, 2007)

true, Fear is CPU limmited in most cases not GPU, and oblivion, is horribly unoptimized for video and cpu, somebody needs to recode the damn thing so it runs properly on pc hardware.......*grummbles about how poor it runs on even the best systems*


----------



## Kasparz (Apr 27, 2007)

If these benchmarks are right(i know its not right  )then explain this : 2900XT are *lot* faster than 8800GTS. 2900XT is *lot* slower than 8800GTX. So, its seems that 8800GTS is twice slower than 8800GTX. But it isn't. Second. GDDR4 have weaker timings than GDDR3, but thats not hurting performance that much. 2900XTX has much faster ram, little faster GPu speed, and extra 512MB ram. Thats lot faster than 2900XT. In some benchmarks XTX are slower than XT. Yeah, but me a Barbie...
So there are two reasons of this. Either card are defective(remember 8800GTX wrong resistor value?) and didn't switch to 3D mode or some driver problems, or Nvidia paid for dailytech to do all this.


----------



## Casheti (Apr 27, 2007)

SpoonMuffin said:


> true, Fear is CPU limmited in most cases not GPU, and oblivion, is horribly unoptimized for video and cpu, somebody needs to recode the damn thing so it runs properly on pc hardware.......*grummbles about how poor it runs on even the best systems*



A friend with E6600 and 7950GT SLi still lags *sometimes* on Oblivion at 1280x1024


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 27, 2007)

Kasparz said:


> If these benchmarks are right(i know its not right  )then explain this : 2900XT are *lot* faster than 8800GTS. 2900XT is *lot* slower than 8800GTX. So, its seems that 8800GTS is twice slower than 8800GTX. But it isn't. Second. GDDR4 have weaker timings than GDDR3, but thats not hurting performance that much. 2900XTX has much faster ram, little faster GPu speed, and extra 512MB ram. Thats lot faster than 2900XT. In some benchmarks XTX are slower than XT. Yeah, but me a Barbie...
> So there are two reasons of this. Either card are defective(remember 8800GTX wrong resistor value?) and didn't switch to 3D mode or some driver problems, or Nvidia paid for dailytech to do all this.



  Nice theory there Kasparz. Im not sure whats going on, but it could be the reason ATI was holding off on the DDR4 models on this model (not the x1950xtx which uses GDDR4 too if Im not mistaken.) There are inconsistencies in the 8800gts, gtx and the hd2900xt from the first post of the hd2900xt vs the gts. As was said, that worries me as well. However, we can banter back and forth on the numbers, however, if they are true, it seems ATI cant exactly catch nvidia with this generation, but perhaps with the hd3000XTx (just throwing this out there, I would have went with the hd2800xt and xtx first, but who knows why they chose these monikers.)


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 27, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> I'm confused about the X2900XTX's performance, but actually more concerned with the 8800GTX's supposed results.
> 
> The Oblivion fps is just too high imo at 1920x1200 - 98.4??!!. Surely it can't be that high. Same with FEAR's result at this resolution.



Why would you be concerned about the 8800GTX's benches and performance in those tests?  You quote for example it's scores at 1920 x 1200 in Fear, are you aware that a 1950XTX crossfire setup in Fear cannot compete with a single 8800GTX at stock if you use "average framerate acheived", I mention this as purely a real world comparison as there is a guy on another forum that I visit who has owned both and actually did a comparison and detailed it in a thread, He got an Average of 89FPS and a MAX of 184! at those specicific resolutions.......it is here......POST 25:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1118553&page=2

I could not find a bench with those particular resolutions for oblivion specifically for the 8800GTX but I foind one for 1600 x 1200 and it was running with AA/AF and HDR enabled and acheiving 123FPS!!  Now I am not saying this release is accurate at all and TBH I have some doubts over the comparison of the 2 cards in question, I have little doubt though that on the right rig the 8800GTX can acheive around what they said it can in this thread starter.


----------

