# NVIDIA 8800 GTX beats AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 26, 2007)

After impressive benchmark results for the Radeon HD 2900 XT, the Radeon HD X2900 XTX (AMD's flagship DirectX 10 card) has failed to impress in the same way. When compared to NVIDIA's 8800 GTX, the 2900 XTX is lagging behind in frames per second when it comes to games such as _Company of Heroes, F.E.A.R., Half Life 2: Episode 1_ and _Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion_. You can see the results for yourself (as well as pictures of the card) by clicking the images below - all tests were run on an ASUS P5N32-E SLI motherboard with a Core 2 Extreme QX6800 processor and 800MHz Corsair XMS2 RAM. The HD 2900 XTX is based on the same GPU as the HD 2900 XT, but uses GDDR4 memory running at 1010MHz instead of GDDR3 memory running at 800MHz. There aren't any comparisons between the cards when they are overclocked, nor is there any data on DirectX 10 performance, but at present it looks like NVIDIA could be a step ahead of AMD. The card used by DailyTech was a sample released to board members in the second week of April, and the benchmarks were made with the drivers AMD plans to provide when the new cards hit retail.



 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## GJSNeptune (Apr 26, 2007)

Wow. Impressive. Poor AMD.


----------



## Taz100420 (Apr 26, 2007)

as soon as it comes out, Ill be the judge.
one says Ati is better then another says Nvidia is better, WTF?!?!?!?


----------



## GJSNeptune (Apr 26, 2007)

The 8800 is just a damn powerhouse. I hope AMD can manifest a miracle. I don't want to see them die, nor do I want ATI to disappear.


----------



## BXtreme (Apr 26, 2007)

If 2900XTX can't keep up with the 8800GTX, then 8900 series will seriously overpriced AND it'll pwn the whole R600 series 
C'mon AMDTI, you can do it *crosses fingers and hoping they'll do something about it*....


----------



## demonbrawn (Apr 26, 2007)

Don't those games favor Nvidia anyway? I know for sure that Elder Scrolls and FEAR do. Either way, I guess the score shouldn't have THAT high of a disparity.... sad day for AMD/ATI


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (Apr 26, 2007)

As far as I'm concerned these results aren't conclusive.  There have been zero final drivers released!

When an HD 2900XT is in "our" hands, then we can judge.


----------



## erocker (Apr 26, 2007)

What a lame news story considering it's not released yet.  I want some REAL news.


----------



## Taz100420 (Apr 26, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> As far as I'm concerned these results aren't conclusive.  There have been zero final drivers released!
> 
> When an HD 2900XT is in "our" hands, then we can judge.


 exactly my point!


----------



## ktr (Apr 26, 2007)

lol, the xt performed around the same as the xtx, surely something is wrong...maybe the computer cannot handle the true power of the XTX 

any who...consumers win


----------



## SkylinGTR26 (Apr 26, 2007)

wow, this is clearly some crappy benchmarks IMO.
AMD come out of the gutter PLEASE!

Intel and Nvidia have been pwning too long, come back AMD!!!


----------



## ktr (Apr 26, 2007)

Maybe this xtx is like the GX2...it only performes well when you crank up the heat...

We need some dx10 benchs, only then we can surely tell the winner is.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 26, 2007)

ktr said:


> lol, the xt performed around the same as the xtx, surely something is wrong...maybe the computer cannot handle the true power of the XTX
> 
> any who...consumers win



It's very possible that (once at speeds such as those) memory speed/quantity becomes less of an issue in modern games and the GPU becomes the bottleneck - which would explain such results. At the end of the day, there could well be an excess of memory on the XTX.


----------



## EviLZeD (Apr 26, 2007)

this cant be accurate im sure when its finally out itll perform much better maybe its the drivers


----------



## ktr (Apr 26, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> It's very possible that (once at speeds such as those) memory speed/quantity becomes less of an issue in modern games and the GPU becomes the bottleneck - which would explain such results. At the end of the day, there could well be an excess of memory on the XTX.



who knows, maybe the xtx performs better on its own ati/amd chipset...not on the i680.

lol, nvidia secretly program the bios of the i680 to reduce performance when it detects a r600....


----------



## wickerman (Apr 26, 2007)

Honestly I can see good things to come with those numbers. The high resolution numbers are pretty close (and why buy a $500 card to pair with a $100 1280x1024 monitor  ) and typically thats where performance suffers with immature drivers. I would certainly hope to see a quick turn around like ATI did with the x1900 to x1950 going the extra step to increase performance, and decrease power and heat numbers. 

Its worth noting the 8800GTX used was clocked at a higher 650mhz core (compared to 575mhz stock) which is closer to the rumored "8800 ultra", but saying an overclocked 8800GTX is faster than a stock x2900xtx is not much different than what people said before with the core 2 being much faster than the AMD X2 offerings when one overclocks the core 2 to 3ghz or so. 

If AMD improves upon the performance of the x1950xtx, adds the DX10 compliance, and they offer it at a competitive price I see no reason why the card wont sell well. Anyone who has watched the launches of new video cards since...well..the dawn of the mainstream video card...knows that there is always hype, let down, and typically just flat out lies or BS speculation about numbers, but the bottom line is bring a decent card to market and it will sell. 
Hell if AMD can match the 8800GTX in performance and have a new F@H client Id prolly upgrade my 8800GTS 320 for the hell of it, if the price is right.


----------



## BXtreme (Apr 26, 2007)

I agree! The XT and XTX performed near and poor due to the same laggy beta drivers...so AMDTI couldn't make the drivers....
Nvidia succeeded in delivering the cards first AND in making gd drivers then


----------



## EviLZeD (Apr 26, 2007)

maybe its direct x 10 performance will be better


----------



## 15th Warlock (Apr 26, 2007)

There were rumors that AMD is having problems with the GDDR4 version of this card, there's a reason this card has not been released yet, let's wait for benchmarks with the final cards, instead of engineering samples.

The performance gap, it seems, won't be as big as most ppl (myself included) expected though, and it may be nil once the 8800 Ultra is released, although it may be overpriced and have low availability. But everything indicates that nVidia will ruin AMD's launch once again...

I was hoping AMD's cards would create a price war, which would benefit all consumers... but if these benchmarks are any indication of what to expect, I doubt nVidia will be forced to lower the prices of the GTX and Ultra models too much... the GTS is another story though.

If nVidia however, was forced to compete against AMD cards by lowering their prices, and AMD would have to follow suit accordingly, this would create a cycle that would be of great benefit for all of us waiting to migrate to DX10 cards; AMD's performance dominance however (or lack of) is imperative to create the required conditions for this to happen...


----------



## ktr (Apr 26, 2007)

all aboard the banwagon...


----------



## a111087 (Apr 26, 2007)

i wouldn't make any decisions based on this numbers, until 2900 is not on newegg every bench mark is pretty ... well, not fake, but a lot could change after the release


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 26, 2007)

i have to say i am surprised that 1gb of ddr4 didn't help the card, oh wait, no i'm not

cards don't need more than 512mb for dx9 stuff, dx10 might be different, but nothing uses that yet so we don't know

interesting to see that the 2900xt outperforms the 2900xtx in some of the tests, looks like ati has a long way to go with their drivers


----------



## mandelore (Apr 26, 2007)

HANG ON:

just checked the benchy website and the 8800 card is overclocked, the 2900xtx is not.. thats not fair

(fair enuff it may be vendor oc'd, but you know, apples for apples etc) using a not stock manufacturer card for the bench is lame imo

So, we get ahold of one and oc it like a whore, then lets compare the cards. Feel somewhat better now, since once the drivers are sorted out, it may not be so terrible, and lets wait for proper dx10 benchies, after all who knows how they will both perform in dx10 benchmarks, the 2900xtx may simply blow the rival out of the water??


----------



## a111087 (Apr 26, 2007)

mandelore said:


> HANG ON:
> 
> just checked the benchy website and the 8800 card is overclocked, the 2900xtx is not.. thats not fair



BURN 8800!!! BURN IT !!!


----------



## GJSNeptune (Apr 26, 2007)

Heh, well that leaves us to wonder how well the 2900XT will OC. Maybe it won't so well, maybe it'll pummel the 8800. Can't wait to see.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 26, 2007)

mandelore said:


> HANG ON:
> 
> just checked the benchy website and the 8800 card is overclocked, the 2900xtx is not.. thats not fair
> 
> (fair enuff it may be vendor oc'd, but you know, apples for apples etc) using a not stock manufacturer card for the bench is lame imo



Yes, but the 8800 OC'd to 650 is still 100Mhz slower than the stock clock of the XTX @ 750.


----------



## ktr (Apr 26, 2007)

mandelore said:


> HANG ON:
> 
> just checked the benchy website and the 8800 card is overclocked, the 2900xtx is not.. thats not fair
> 
> (fair enuff it may be vendor oc'd, but you know, apples for apples etc) using a not stock manufacturer card for the bench is lame imo


----------



## SpookyWillow (Apr 26, 2007)

lol i'm suprised no-one else noticed that theres a big variation in fps from that screenie and the one they did the other day http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7043

the other day the 2900xt got 47.9 fps but today it gets a whopping 101.4 fps


----------



## GJSNeptune (Apr 26, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> You are the one who doesn't know what a bottleneck is
> 
> A bottleneck is when something holds back or gets in the way of another component.
> 
> ...




|
|
|
V



ktr said:


>


----------



## a111087 (Apr 26, 2007)

we need to make a rule that each member of tpu can reply to each news only once... seriously


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 26, 2007)

SpookyWillow said:


> lol i'm suprised no-one else noticed that theres a big variation in fps from that screenie and the one they did the other day http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7043
> 
> the other day the 2900xt got 47.9 fps but today it gets a whopping 101.4 fps



Probably different settings coupled with a better CPU and possibly better RAM.


----------



## mandelore (Apr 26, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> Curse you! I was rather enjoying that few seconds of thinking AMD was going to bounce back.



yeah, but what when we oc the 2900xtx like a whore? maybe even some nutter with a voltmod? i think its gonna rip some serious fatality wounds in the 8800 
(bleedin well hopes so, " does the ATI triumph dance " )


----------



## GJSNeptune (Apr 26, 2007)

Aye, I hope. I'm not partial to either, but I appreciate competition, and AMD could really use a holy grail right now.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 26, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> Curse you! I was rather enjoying that few seconds of thinking AMD was going to bounce back.



They are. Just perhaps not in this round of the fight


----------



## mandelore (Apr 26, 2007)

unless the cards being given out atm were crippled intentionally, a possibility, it was quoted on the review site that its been done b4 by ati


----------



## Steevo (Apr 26, 2007)

Again, I recall the drivers being the difference in me ripping up a friends 7800GTX SLI setup or not in 3D05.


Plus the higher image quality.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 26, 2007)

What is weird is that the 2900 xt wins a benchmark or two from the 2900xtx. Could ATI have released an engineering sample that was made before the discovery of the ddr4 problems or was their a slip in the production of this card and it used the old memory chips before the fix? Its all interesting. The way it gets handled though in DX9 games is unreal and unbelievable. I find it hard to see it lose by so much, when it has a hell of alot more going for it than the 8800 gtx.(God does exist you atheist idiots (j/k about the atheist idiots part) Im not sure if ATI uses what nvidia has dubbed "Stream processors" though. Perhaps that third clock is whats making it better for nvidia. Im sure ATI should dominate in DX10 games. Perhaps this card was made for THAT specific deal. However, with all the games currently at DX9 (and so very very very very very very few Dx10 games coming) it wouldnt make sense to shorten performance for dx 9 to win dx10. I dont know what to believe honestly. Im hoping for a bad card. But if it holds true. the delay should get ATI bombed.


----------



## Xtant25 (Apr 26, 2007)

Just wondering if anyone actually read the article at dailytech if not at least read the bottom half of it interesting stuff.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 26, 2007)

I did.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 26, 2007)

Am i the only one that finds these benchmarks a little fishy? The 8800GTX completely murders the 2900xtx... actually funny enough even the 2900xt beats the 2900xtx on some of the benchmarks. I'm going to have to see some more benchmarks before i believe this. (everyone seems to get their information from the same source) The board has to have something seriously wrong with it.


----------



## L|NK|N (Apr 26, 2007)

Well regardless of what those benchmarks indicate,  the REAL benefactor will be DirectX 10 performance.  I mean isnt that the whole reason we want the 8800/2900 series anyways?  Soon all DirectX 9 benchmarks wont mean a thing, unless your still running XP.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2007)

Well...... for all those fanboi's (and I won't mention what side of the fence they are from) who were prepared to assume from what they had read to date that the R600 was going to "blow away" the 8800 series, why is it that they seem now not to want to beleive anything until they have a card in "their hands" (is it because it is negative now?) when they were prepared to beleive anything that was positive about the card before WITHOUT the card being in their hands?

Sorry just a little rant there, don't mind fanboi's.....we can all be them from time to time, I just like to see a bit of consistency.

Are we not missing something here?.........these test are DX9, whether they are accurate or not, the true measure of the card when put up against NVidia's offerings are surely going to be their performance in DX10 games which may well be a very different story, you know, different processes, different rendering methods etc, etc, damn if we were buying those cards on test to play DX9 games we would be wasting our money, buy a 1950XTX or 7900GTX or GX2 which will handle DX9 at most resolutions with ease.

Edit:  Just seen Linkin's post.....great minds think alike!


----------



## GJSNeptune (Apr 26, 2007)

We're always starving for new information on the latest technology. Obviously this benchmark session was just a reststop. We still have driver revisions and DX10 to come out. The 8800 series, minus the Ultra, has been out for quite awhile. It's already established. The 2900, on the other hand, is upcoming, so it has a lot more promise/potential. Can't wait. C'mon, AMD! Don't be dyin' on us.


----------



## erocker (Apr 26, 2007)

SK-1 said:


> Totally classic post!!!Although I only needed 9.5 of my IQ points to deduct this!!
> In reality,...If ATI FAILS on this R600,...I can see ATI/AMD saying by by to the graphics card market and concentrating on integrated graphics from now on.
> 
> This would be a major bummer IMHO.No more competition for Nvidia.
> ...



S3 has some DX10 cards coming out!!!


----------



## erocker (Apr 26, 2007)

a111087 said:


> BURN 8800!!! BURN IT !!!



LMFAO!!!


----------



## ktr (Apr 26, 2007)

erocker said:


> S3 has some DX10 cards coming out!!!



lol, there were like the first to show there dx10 card...


----------



## erocker (Apr 26, 2007)

And here it is!  Posted long ago on TPU! Can't wait to see some benchies!!!


----------



## D007 (Apr 26, 2007)

we'll see where they stand in the final quarter... after release and driver updates.. the 8800 series wouldn't even run on alot of computers at first lol.. it's expected that the first numbers will be crap from my perspective.. nvidia has had alot of time to fix their drivers and we have gained signifigant frame rates due to that alone and the bios updates for some of us as well that were conflicting with those original drivers. in about 4 monts i'll have my final opinion but as of now I'm just hapy I got the 8800 gts lol.. safe, secure and rock solid at a great price.. I'm happy.. I really hope amd picks it up though. Like I've said before it's never good to have any one company cornering the market.. if nvidia was alone they'd of made the 8800 gtx cost more like 700 than 500.. i wouldnt doubt it one bit..


----------



## mandelore (Apr 26, 2007)

D007 said:


> we'll see where they stand in the final quarter... after release and driver updates.. the 8800 series wouldn't even run on alot of computers at first lol.. it's expected that the first numbers will be crap from my perspective.. nvidia has had alot of time to fix their drivers and we have gained signifigant frame rates due to that alone and the bios updates for some of us as well that were conflicting with those original drivers. in about 4 monts i'll have my final opinion but as of now I'm just hapy I got the 8800 gts lol.. safe, secure and rock solid at a great price.. I'm happy.. I really hope amd picks it up though. Like I've said before it's never good to have any one company cornering the market.. if nvidia was alone they'd of made the 8800 gtx cost more like 700 than 500.. i wouldnt doubt it one bit..



Plus wed have less drive to develop better cards imo. Sure theyd update them, but without the head on competition the drive just wouldnt be as strong


----------



## petepete (Apr 26, 2007)

who believes these benchmarks.. what a joke. This card is supposed to compete directly against the 8800 series and you would think the card gets about 5 fps greater/less at least.. This is a complete joke. From a marketing standpoint do you think AMD/ATI would release this to test if it performed this terrible against the 8800? I didn't think so either


----------



## Conti027 (Apr 26, 2007)

lol these ati vs nvidia forum really bring out the fan (fanboy) in us all. lol i personally like nivdia even tho i dont like the color green


----------



## Neohazard (Apr 26, 2007)

*Chipset*

Someone see that mobo is for SLI (Nvidia) and not for cross fire (ATI)? 
P5N32-SLI use SLI Tech and not Cross fire! 
HUMMMM theses benchs are not equal someone could test a mobo with cross fire Tech?
If im not equivocated, a mobo that have a cross fire tech or suport ATI tech can increase some numbers in PCI-X Cards from ATI, and some videocards give better responses in diferents mobos and models.

bye


----------



## Keiki (Apr 26, 2007)

I think we're all forgetting that flagship cards don't make the most money. The middle range and low end cards makes up more of the sales for Nvidia/ATI. I think that whoever offers the most while keeping their prices down will earn more money.

Flagship cards are merely a display of "I've got the performance crown" but shouldn't be a display of whether that company will disappear or not.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 26, 2007)

Neohazard said:


> Someone see that mobo is for SLI (Nvidia) and not for cross fire (ATI)?
> P5N32-SLI use SLI Tech and not Cross fire!
> HUMMMM theses benchs are not equal someone could test a mobo with cross fire Tech?
> If im not equivocated, a mobo that have a cross fire tech or suport ATI tech can increase some numbers in PCI-X Cards from ATI, and some videocards give better responses in diferents mobos and models.
> ...



It's true that some mobos work well with different cards, but unless you are using two cards, SLI shouldn't really matter in this case. I may be mistaken, but I wouldn't have thought one card really benefits from the technology, but the motherboard could still work better with NVIDIA cards.

And as people are saying, assuming these benchmarks are right it's not the end of the world because ATI may completely blow NVIDIA away in DX10 for all we know, there are just early indications of DX9 performance.


----------



## a111087 (Apr 26, 2007)

here is what vr-zone reported:
http://vr-zone.com/
"AMD has decided to push forward the launch of the Radeon HD 2900 series to May 2nd instead of the original date on May 14th. Products demonstrations and reviews are allowed to appear on that date so it is considered a soft launch. However, AMD is still keeping Radeon HD 2600 and 2400 under wraps until the big day on May 14th. Radeon HD 2900 XT cards will be available from that day onwards for the price of US$399 to be positioned against the GeForce 8800 GTS. The final clocks for Radeon HD 2900 XT stood at 740MHz core and 825MHz for memories."
btw, its comment #100


----------



## zekrahminator (Apr 26, 2007)

Thread CLEANED. 

The faggot you guys know as "Contact" was none other than our most ban-smacked user, Track. He's ignorant, he's an asshole, and most of all, he's tenacious. It's people like him that make me glad I have the "physically remove post" button, the "delete spam" button, and the "ban user" button.


----------



## mandelore (Apr 26, 2007)

YEAY FOR ZEK!!!


----------



## POGE (Apr 26, 2007)

Wow, 6 months and they cant even make a better product...


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 26, 2007)

Well done but was some of that language necessary Zek?

JK good thing we have a mod who doesnt go crazy with things.

Now, back to the card. Hey, if its true, thats fine, its a dx10 card. Im not changing my story one bit on performance (  Tatty_one) I still like to believe the final release will be able to spar with Nvidia.  Honestly, the biggest gripe here is the huge delay of R600 only to be released on a test bed and get smacked by Nvidia. Someone a couple posts ago mentioned this to a degree and he is right. However, noting the different boards, it has long been reported (CPU magazines and such) that for some mystical reason, ATI boards performed slightly better in nvidia chipset motherboards, than in ATI mobos, via mobos, etc. Funny aint it?


----------



## NympH (Apr 27, 2007)

Fake benchmarks FTW!


----------



## zekrahminator (Apr 27, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> Well done but was some of that language necessary Zek?


To be honest, it probably wasn't, I'm just that fed up with Track.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 27, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> Well done but was some of that language necessary Zek?
> 
> JK good thing we have a mod who doesnt go crazy with things.
> 
> Now, back to the card. Hey, if its true, thats fine, its a dx10 card. Im not changing my story one bit on performance (  Tatty_one) I still like to believe the final release will be able to spar with Nvidia.  Honestly, the biggest gripe here is the huge delay of R600 only to be released on a test bed and get smacked by Nvidia. Someone a couple posts ago mentioned this to a degree and he is right. However, noting the different boards, it has long been reported (CPU magazines and such) that for some mystical reason, ATI boards performed slightly better in nvidia chipset motherboards, than in ATI mobos, via mobos, etc. Funny aint it?



Awwwww, I'm hurt


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 27, 2007)

Conti027 said:


> lol these ati vs nvidia forum really bring out the fan (fanboy) in us all. lol i personally like nivdia even tho i dont like the color green



lol well thats kinda bad considering both nv and ati are green now lol.


----------



## PyroInc (Apr 27, 2007)

all I can say is WOOOOOOTTT


----------



## Mussels (Apr 27, 2007)

I skipped over most of this thread - people are ignoring a few things.

X2900XTX = pwned by GTX
X2900XT = pwned the GTS640

Which ones more likely to sell? If ATI can keep up in mid-range, and Nv have the king, everyone still gets a happy place. (Honestly, the 8500/8600 series are rather slow)


----------



## Protius (Apr 27, 2007)

^ you gota very good point


----------



## hat (Apr 27, 2007)




----------



## ktr (Apr 27, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> Thread CLEANED.
> 
> The faggot you guys know as "Contact" was none other than our most ban-smacked user, Track. He's ignorant, he's an asshole, and most of all, he's tenacious. It's people like him that make me glad I have the "physically remove post" button, the "delete spam" button, and the "ban user" button.










all hail the uber banstick!


----------



## raymerjacques (Apr 29, 2007)

nvidia might have better benchmarking results, but ATI/AMD has far more supperior vista support and is far more stable in windows vista. i would rather have a more stable card with more working features than a card with more framerates ( and to tell you the truth, weither you playing on top of the line AMD/ATI or Nvidia, you won't notice the difference really. )


----------



## Mussels (Apr 29, 2007)

Raymer:

On the drivers front, AMD/ATI are definately NOT perfect - quite a few things arent working right yet.

My server is on an X1950GT 512MB, and its a crossfire mobo. I've recently been testing various video cards in the system (all ATI, of course) just making sure they work, 3Dmark runs etc, and ATI certainly have screwups - If you change an ATI card over without completely uninstalling the drivers (even in a different PCI-E slot with the original card in place, or directly swapping them) the system BSOD's. Good one ATI, safe mode is fun to use.

Oh and you're right on the framerate part... you wont notice 100FPS to 90FPS, but to people with massive HDTV screens, performance really matters... and so does features. ATI still dont have scaling for non-widescreen apps on widescreen monitors, quite horrible that.
(as for other features, TV out quality, HDTV decoding etc, no one knows yet)


----------



## raymerjacques (Apr 29, 2007)

well, it comes down to preference really.

i have 3 pc's. an old pentium 2 i use for internet connection sharing, a athlon 3400 and a athlon 3800 dual core. the 3400 has a nvidia 6600gt, the 3800 has a ati 1650 pro. both the athlons run on vista ultimate.

my problems with nvidia :

1. nvidia menu does not function properly, alot of features are missing, greyd out etc .. )
2. TV-out full screen mirror function does not work, and nvidia has announced that this feature is dicontinued permanently. ( i use this ALOT. )
3. even the tv out itself sometimes resets for no reason when i reboot and i have to set the tv format back to pal again, it keeps jumping to ntsc.
4. fps is alot lower in vista than in xp.
5. nvidia are sloppy in delivering updates, they do 1 driver release in about 3 months.
6. i also HATE the new menu, it just sucks piles.
the list goes on ....

AMD/ATI

1. Menu works perfectly, with new 7.4 release all tv-out features that i need are working, even before 7.4 there were definitely far more features working than nvidia.
2. full screen theater mode works perfectly with certain players, i can't stress enough how important this is for me.
3. ATI has released 3 drivers in the last 2 months, and they have made noticable difference in performance and features in windows vista.
4. i have noticed that with each driver release fps has gone up alot in vista.
5. the ATI menu is just so much better than the nvidia one, atleast you have many more options to work with and it just feels so comfotable doing it.

in the end it really comes down to 2 things, i can handle nvidia's pethetic excuse for a menu if i must, but i cannot handle waiting around for 6 years for them to release new drivers, and most of all I NEEED FULLSCREEN VIDEO MIRROR FEATURE, i live on it, and nvidia has dicontinued this feature, and altho it only works with certain players on ati in vista, atleast it is working and they have not written it off. I am sure that ati does not see it as a priority at the moment, but they will get to it in due time, this is a comforting thought for me.

also have you tried their latest drivers ? it is a vast improvement over the last ones.

so in the end it comes down to preference, i prefer ati, it feels more stable to me, more features are working, drivers are less bugged. in the end ati gives me less headaches. but others might feel the same way about nvidia. 

my point of the post above was that only little 12 year old children will go around and compare the top 2 cards and make 12 page threads about a 10fps difference when you really won't notice it with the avarage user, to me features and stability are more important than fps, unless the fps gap is huge.


----------



## zekrahminator (Apr 29, 2007)

Remember guys, if these tests are somehow legitimate, they were used with beta drivers that haven't been released yet on a video card that's still NDA. I'm fairly sure the G80 was just like this while it was under NDA, we just didn't make such a big deal out of it. Why don't we wait until the R600 is actually available to the public before making any premature conclusions?


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 29, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> Remember guys, if these tests are somehow legitimate, they were used with beta drivers that haven't been released yet on a video card that's still NDA. I'm fairly sure the G80 was just like this while it was under NDA, we just didn't make such a big deal out of it. Why don't we wait until the R600 is actually available to the public before making any premature conclusions?



Agreed, I find it amusing to say the least how people can say ATi will have better/and Vista ready drivers on release when they havent been released yet.


----------



## TooFast (Apr 30, 2007)

POGE said:


> Wow, 6 months and they cant even make a better product...
> 
> 
> do you even know how to read!!!!!!!!!!!
> these benchmarks are bs


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2007)

TooFast said:


> POGE said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, 6 months and they cant even make a better product...
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2007)

raymerjacques said:


> well, it comes down to preference really.
> 
> i have 3 pc's. an old pentium 2 i use for internet connection sharing, a athlon 3400 and a athlon 3800 dual core. the 3400 has a nvidia 6600gt, the 3800 has a ati 1650 pro. both the athlons run on vista ultimate.
> 
> ...



Double post, but this is a big quote so it deserves its own message.

Your ATI comments are spot on with my observations, except that ATI dont support disabling aspect scaling on widescreen monitors. If the game doesnt support widescreen (Battlefield 2, BF 2142, both modern games that dont) the game just distorts and goes blurry.

Nvidias latest drivers have a new driver panel, fair bit easier to use - but i get taht bug where you cant see the options til you mouse over them. They also get me better FPS in Vista than i got in XP (Excluding 3dmarks - those are slower, games are faster)

Oh and i dont use TV out, sorry i cant comment there.


----------



## Kursah (Apr 30, 2007)

It's hard saying what will happen. If AMD/ATI looses this bout, it'll be hard for them to pull out of the top-end loser rut. But they can still pull off the mid range, where I've been a fan of since I bought my 9600 pro years ago. They need to have their pro be unlockable and oc-able up to the xtx or xt. Kind of like my x850 pro was unlocked to 16 pipes and surpasses the xt pe 540/590 speeds. 

Maybe they have some tricks up their sleeves they are waiting to unleash, or maybe these results show the true meaning to going back to the green side. I will be waiting and using my x1950 pro for a while to see what happens and how far prices come down to once again get the most bang for my buck.


----------



## D007 (Apr 30, 2007)

Mussels said:


> Double post, but this is a big quote so it deserves its own message.
> 
> Your ATI comments are spot on with my observations, except that ATI dont support disabling aspect scaling on widescreen monitors. If the game doesnt support widescreen (Battlefield 2, BF 2142, both modern games that dont) the game just distorts and goes blurry.
> 
> ...



lol it works for who? I cant rescale my HD tv sizes at all. it doesnt even recognise im trying to rescale my destop size.. I hook up my 2 thousand dollar 50" HD 1080 tv and use my 130 dollar gold plated cables and my 50 dollar platinum nvidia pure decoder with my 250 dollar graphics card on a system that would retail for about 3-4 grand.. and i cant even use my dam HD cables.. the second i go from pc to hd my picture becomes to big to fit on my screen.. and the rescaling does not work for xp.. so here i am with thousands of dollars of high end equiptment and I can't even use the stuff.. yea the drivers work..lol. half the time.. the other half of the time their to busy causing conflicts for me to think about the good they actually do.. Hence the common "Nvdll" has stopped working, etc etc etc.. thir drivers are still crap lol.. just because you can play a game on them doesnt make them stable..


----------



## digzz (May 5, 2007)

*full screen theater mode works perfectly with certain players?*

Hello,

Quote: 
1.full screen theater mode works perfectly with certain players?


Does any one Know What players do this????  



Quote:
Originally Posted by raymerjacques  
well, it comes down to preference really.

i have 3 pc's. an old pentium 2 i use for internet connection sharing, a athlon 3400 and a athlon 3800 dual core. the 3400 has a nvidia 6600gt, the 3800 has a ati 1650 pro. both the athlons run on vista ultimate.

my problems with nvidia :

1. nvidia menu does not function properly, alot of features are missing, greyd out etc .. )
2. TV-out full screen mirror function does not work, and nvidia has announced that this feature is dicontinued permanently. ( i use this ALOT. )
3. even the tv out itself sometimes resets for no reason when i reboot and i have to set the tv format back to pal again, it keeps jumping to ntsc.
4. fps is alot lower in vista than in xp.
5. nvidia are sloppy in delivering updates, they do 1 driver release in about 3 months.
6. i also HATE the new menu, it just sucks piles.
the list goes on ....

AMD/ATI

1. Menu works perfectly, with new 7.4 release all tv-out features that i need are working, even before 7.4 there were definitely far more features working than nvidia.
2. full screen theater mode works perfectly with certain players, i can't stress enough how important this is for me.
3. ATI has released 3 drivers in the last 2 months, and they have made noticable difference in performance and features in windows vista.
4. i have noticed that with each driver release fps has gone up alot in vista.
5. the ATI menu is just so much better than the nvidia one, atleast you have many more options to work with and it just feels so comfotable doing it.

in the end it really comes down to 2 things, i can handle nvidia's pethetic excuse for a menu if i must, but i cannot handle waiting around for 6 years for them to release new drivers, and most of all I NEEED FULLSCREEN VIDEO MIRROR FEATURE, i live on it, and nvidia has dicontinued this feature, and altho it only works with certain players on ati in vista, atleast it is working and they have not written it off. I am sure that ati does not see it as a priority at the moment, but they will get to it in due time, this is a comforting thought for me.

also have you tried their latest drivers ? it is a vast improvement over the last ones.

so in the end it comes down to preference, i prefer ati, it feels more stable to me, more features are working, drivers are less bugged. in the end ati gives me less headaches. but others might feel the same way about nvidia. 

my point of the post above was that only little 12 year old children will go around and compare the top 2 cards and make 12 page threads about a 10fps difference when you really won't notice it with the avarage user, to me features and stability are more important than fps, unless the fps gap is huge.


----------



## CrashChris (Jun 10, 2007)

*Unbelievable....*

Unbelievable....

I have been drooling for a while imagined ATI HD 2900 XTX performance...

It's not fair. ATi/AMD HD 2900 XTX at its pure speed, not OCed like Nvidia 8800 GTX!! I hope ATi/AMD could fix 2900 XTX's perf... Perhaps the next Catalyst could fix it. Anyway, what's the mean of benchmark score? I think, if my graphic card could run the most "heavy calibre" game in the max AA and AAF and the best image (of course in highest resolution) in above 79.99 FPS, it is more than good...

Long live AMD/ATi !!!


----------

