X2900XT preview

Looks abit fishy, but time will tell.

someone should tell this site that there is more to a review then just graphs.:D

 
Seems to be either bad drivers or fiction. Or let's hope it's fiction because it doesn't cast ATI in very good light.
 
snaggletooth said:
i found the ultra high res results particularly interesting
Click to expand...

Go-go super ungodly bus width?

If these results are true, then while nice, I dont see it entirely necessary until games either run at HUUUGE AA/AF or giant resolutions.
 
Silvermirage said:
Seems to be either bad drivers or fiction. Or let's hope it's fiction because it doesn't cast ATI in very good light.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
If this is true, it's worse than I thought. The HD 2900 XT loses most of the tests, against the GTS 640...
Latest rumors said that it would be a little bit faster than a GTS 640. Really hoping these numbers do NOT reflect the truth. It would be nice to see the HD 2900 XT beating the GTS 640, since the 8800 GTX seems to be unreachable for AMD/ATI, at this point.
 
Neist said:
Go-go super ungodly bus width?

If these results are true, then while nice, I dont see it entirely necessary until games either run at HUUUGE AA/AF or giant resolutions.
Click to expand...


i don't have a monitor capable of displaying their 'advantage', so while the ultra-high res 'results' (of course, i use the term loosely) were interesting to me, the rest of the benchmarking was really disappointing to see.

not much explanation on exactly what was done with regards to their 'benchmarking' :p
 
If the benchmarks are real, ATI won't be in a very good place. Even the rumored revised 2950XTX w/ 1GB GDDR4 w/ a 65nm core isn't going to save them.
 
I just tested Oblivion and Farcry (the only two games on the list I own) and at the same 1920x1200 resolution, AA, and AF settings and everything else at maximum in game I got similar numbers to the 2900xt on my x1950xt 256.
 
evilmedic said:
If the benchmarks are real, ATI won't be in a very good place. Even the rumored revised 2950XTX w/ 1GB GDDR4 w/ a 65nm core isn't going to save them.
Click to expand...

Yea, I had this thought as well. If this is supposed to compete at some level around a 8800GTS, and it only gains advantage at extreme resolutions, then it just seems rather odd. The marketability of a lower high-end card that is going to be played at that resolution cant be too high.

I mean.. if you play on a 30 inch dell, I'm sure you can afford a more expensive card.
 
Mcmlxxx IV said:
I just tested Oblivion and Farcry (the only two games on the list I own) and at the same 1920x1200 resolution, AA, and AF settings and everything else at maximum in game I got similar numbers to the 2900xt on my x1950xt 256.
Click to expand...

Ah... then that smells fake to me.

Thanks for the info!
 
Silus said:
It would be nice to see the HD 2900 XT beating the GTS 640, since the 8800 GTX seems to be unreachable for AMD/ATI, at this point.
Click to expand...

Even if it beats the GTS by a slight margin, then I wouldn't consider it a victory. More than half a year late, with only slightly better performance is a loss. I just hope ATI bounces back for the next generation (like nvidia did with the gf6).
 
It is priced at around the price of the 8800GTS and at a higher resolution, it performs as good as the GTX, I think it is not bad card at all.
 
Angelus897 said:
Even if it beats the GTS by a slight margin, then I wouldn't consider it a victory. More than half a year late, with only slightly better performance is a loss. I just hope ATI bounces back for the next generation (like nvidia did with the gf6).
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not even in question. R600 is already a "fiasco", even without confirmed numbers to back it up, since it's so late in the game.
However, if they at least have a card, such as the HD 2900 XT, which beats NVIDIA's second best and is priced at around the same price ($350-370), then they may have a saving grace.
 
I doubt its real but if it is then I would assume drivers are to blame. I would think, even after its release, it would take some time for the drivers to catch up. Ive never owned an ATI card so maybe thats just a Nvidia problem;)

I mean.. if you play on a 30 inch dell, I'm sure you can afford a more expensive card.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah right. I foolishly jumped into one on a good deal and shouldve done some more reading. Most games I want to play wont open with my 7800GTX, not enough vram. Ive been waiting for this card for 2 months, hoping it beats the 8800GTS or knocks Nvidias prices down. The GTX is out of my price range and the GTS doesnt perform well at 2560x1600 in my opinion. At least not for $350-$400. I want the best bang for my $400 at 2560x1600.

And of course FPS arent everything. Who knows the games might look alot better from ATI. Id sacrafice a few frames per second for superior quality. ATI has been know for this in the past so Im hoping they pull something off.

All these sites just keep showing benchmarks! I want to see some screenshot comparisions between the 2900XT, 8800GTS, and 8800GTX. Alot of the well know places do this but all of these BS benchmark previews have failed to do so.
 
The benchmarks are really odd, very odd results...

CoH plays the best for some unknown reason, and the other games are playing worse than a GTS, sometimes by a substantial amount. Either the 2900XT is a shitpile or the 8800GTS is a magnificent device.
 
practal said:
I doubt its real but if it is then I would assume drivers are to blame. I would think, even after its release, it would take some time for the drivers to catch up. Ive never owned an ATI card so maybe thats just a Nvidia problem;)

Lol, yeah right. I foolishly jumped into one on a good deal and shouldve done some more reading. Most games I want to play wont open with my 7800GTX, not enough vram. Ive been waiting for this card for 2 months, hoping it beats the 8800GTS or knocks Nvidias prices down. The GTX is out of my price range and the GTS doesnt perform well at 2560x1600 in my opinion. At least not for $350-$400. I want the best bang for my $400 at 2560x1600.

And of course FPS arent everything. Who knows the games might look alot better from ATI. Id sacrafice a few frames per second for superior quality. ATI has been know for this in the past so Im hoping they pull something off.

All these sites just keep showing benchmarks! I want to see some screenshot comparisions between the 2900XT, 8800GTS, and 8800GTX. Alot of the well know places do this but all of these BS benchmark previews have failed to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm sure HardOCP will have some nice benchmarks with some screenshots. :) I'm actually hoping for superior IQ too, but who knows. The only thing that really concerns me at the moment with the R600 is the heat. Hopefully the giant copper heatsink of doom will be able to dissipate it fairly well.

Of course, the heat rumors could be completely false too. Only time will tell. But if it has very good IQ along with not being 'too' hot (and I expect it hotter than G80, as ATi usually is over NV), then I wouldnt consider it an entire fiasco.

Only time will tell though.
 
i have to say it is kindof interesting, if they are real just looking at the numbers difference betwen 4XAA and 8XAA @ 2560

COH: <.01% Decrease
FEAR: 7% Decrease
FarCry: 2% Decrease
Oblivion: 8% Decrease
Prey: 30% Decrease
Stalker: 0% Decrease - this looks very suspect for all 3 cards
SC: 2% increase
X3; 20% Decrease

those are some pretty good numbers IMO, with an average 8% decrease in performance

when you compare it to the Nvidia's drop in framerate from going between 4X to 8XAA of the same res, it comes out to about an average of 33% drop in framerate in just going from 4x to 8xAA..

i can't say whether these numbers are legit or not, but if they are.. it might be a good sign for hi-res/high AA/ high AF gamers indeed..
 
wth.gif
 
snaggletooth said:
i found the ultra high res results particularly interesting
Click to expand...



Yeah me too,especially since how Dell 3007's are only pennies on the dollar,and most everyone owns one right ?....well....right ? :D

8800 series = very well balanced architecture,very efficient,uses finesse instead of brute force.

R600 series = seemingly lopsided technology,that uses brute force.(higher clocks,wider bus,and 'more' shaders procs.) yet after all this waiting,look at the results ?

I want to see more reviews,but so far ? so bad.
 
Manny Calavera said:
R600 series = seemingly lopsided technology,that uses brute force.(higher clocks,wider bus,and 'more' shaders procs.) yet after all this waiting,look at the results ?
Click to expand...
Interesting, but that's about it.
I need to see the retail cards tested with the latest drivers to make any kind of a conclusion.
 
Manny Calavera said:
Yeah me too,especially since how Dell 3007's are only pennies on the dollar,and most everyone owns one right ?....well....right ? :D

8800 series = very well balanced architecture,very efficient,uses finesse instead of brute force.

R600 series = seemingly lopsided technology,that uses brute force.(higher clocks,wider bus,and 'more' shaders procs.) yet after all this waiting,look at the results ?

I want to see more reviews,but so far ? so bad.
Click to expand...

Like the XboX 360 and PS3 :rolleyes:

Fake.
 
Wow they killed the credibility with that obviously modified image of the guy with the cards.
 
The card is more competitive with a GTS than that. I wonder if they were using the older drivers, or question the validity of the whole thing.
 
yea this is complete bullshit. No doubt in my mind.:rolleyes:

1. Never heard of the site in my life. (not saying it makes the site less credible.)
2. Why in hell would ATI send 6 cards to a really minor site? And the picture is photoshopped any way.
3. My 3 yr. old cousin could bench a card better, with better graphs mind you.
4. It's fake, fake,fake,fake.
 
stoney_titan said:
yea this is complete bullshit. No doubt in my mind.:rolleyes:

1. Never heard of the site in my life. (not saying it makes the site less credible.)
2. Why in hell would ATI send 6 cards to a really minor site? And the picture is photoshopped any way.
3. My 3 yr. old cousin could bench a card better, with better graphs mind you.
4. It's fake, fake,fake,fake.
Click to expand...

not to mention the way the article is written.. very unprofessional
they mention they had 100 hours of testing.. yet only a few graphs and no pictures of the video cards
 
H-street said:
i can't say whether these numbers are legit or not, but if they are.. it might be a good sign for hi-res/high AA/ high AF gamers indeed..
Click to expand...

I'd call it poor driver optimization. Looks like it's not using the CPU as efficiently as it could be. There's potential for this to top the GTS, but I think the GTX has it beat (except for one game).

So, THIS is what we waited 4 months more to see? They should have just releasd the 90nm version back in February.
 
I think it's a Photochop

Download the jpg of goofy grin man. Zoom in on the cards. The cards seem to be at a lower resolution than the rest of the image. If it's true, means they're from a different picture. However, the pixelation could have been caused by overzealous jpg optimization. By default, highly saturated colors like the reds in the cards will be given less space in a compressed color gamut by most jpg optimizers. But I think it's a chop.
 
Sr7 said:
How would you know?
Click to expand...
NCIX's "Mother's Day" sale running for the next 6 days has an eVGA GTS 640 at a $77 discount + another $30 mail-in rebate. Grand total of $365CDN. What does that suggest to you? That the 2900XT isn't price/performance competitive with last week's 8800 prices?
 
Dwight said:
NCIX's "Mother's Day" sale running for the next 6 days has an eVGA GTS 640 at a $77 discount + another $30 mail-in rebate. Grand total of $365CDN. What does that suggest to you? That the 2900XT isn't price/performance competitive with last week's 8800 prices?
Click to expand...
But you don't know what the prices are going to be for the 2900XT...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top