2600XT Crossfire Becnhes

Well, another 1950xtx would be cool however I would like to go with a directx 10 card. So I guess for now I will keep the 1950. The card is plenty quick enough for the games I play and I can wait to see what ati is going to do next. Thanks again though for everyone's advice.
 
Silus said:
I don't know where you've been, but this is a forum where people come to give and receive advice. The proper advice in this situation, is to avoid buying 2 HD 2600 XTs and get a better card than the X1950 XTX and that is either a 8800 card or a 2900 XT.
If you want to come here and mislead the person who's asking for help, go ahead. If you can't get past you brand loyalty and provide good advice, you really shouldn't be in these forums.
I don't flame. I give my advice over current hardware. I couldn't care less that you think I'm a NVIDIA fanboy. I'm here to help and learn. If you don't want to do either, then don't say anything.

On to your question if a single 8800 GTS 320 is faster than 2 2600 XTs. Yes it is. As I pointed out, the 8800 GTS 320 rivals the HD 2900 XT, in most cases. Since not even two 2600 XTs can touch a single 2900 XT, you do the math.
Click to expand...

No offense but you're misleading him

With new Drivers the Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB is faster then both the Geforce 8800GTS 320/640MB cards 9/10 times.

Of course you have to factor in the noisier fan and higher power consumption of the Radeon HD 2900XT cards.

Click here for numbers.
 
ElMoIsEviL said:
No offense but you're misleading him

With new Drivers the Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB is faster then both the Geforce 8800GTS 320/640MB cards 9/10 times.

Click here for numbers.
Click to expand...

Thats easy when you you're not running any sort of AA/AF. :rolleyes:

Once you get to the numbers where AA/AF is turned on things change. It's good to see the 2900XT move up a spot to competing with the 640 GTS though.
 
jmackay said:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/14/page_13_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html

Still slower...
Click to expand...

I'd consider that within the margin of error. It's not slower. It's a tie with AA and AF and a win without them.

We've been through this before... Look at the margin of error from any review site. When the speed difference is 0.6FPS to a max of about 4FPS.. that's within the margin of error. But when it's like 10FPS or more faster.. safe to conclude that isn't.

:)

Thats easy when you you're not running any sort of AA/AF.

Once you get to the numbers where AA/AF is turned on things change. It's good to see the 2900XT move up a spot to competing with the 640 GTS though.
Click to expand...

Things change? Do you consider a 0.6FPS - 4FPS (varying on the game) performance advantage change?

Also people need to realize something. There was a bug at 1600x1200 and the WD screen variant 1680x1050. It was fixed with Catalyst 7.6.

I'm no fan of the Radeon HD 2900XT. It's too loud and runs far too hot consuming far too much power for my liking. But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. In this case too many people still have that picture a few months ago when the Radeon HD 2900XT came out that it was sub par. Well now with new drivers it's a direct competitor to the 8800GTS 640MB, holding it's own with AA and AF while surpassing it without AA.
 
ElMoIsEviL said:
I'd consider that within the margin of error. It's not slower. It's a tie with AA and AF and a win without them.

We've been through this before... Look at the margin of error from any review site. When the speed difference is 0.6FPS to a max of about 4FPS.. that's within the margin of error. But when it's like 10FPS or more faster.. safe to conclude that isn't.

:)



Things change? Do you consider a 0.6FPS - 4FPS (varying on the game) performance advantage change?

Also people need to realize something. There was a bug at 1600x1200 and the WD screen variant 1680x1050. It was fixed with Catalyst 7.6.

I'm no fan of the Radeon HD 2900XT. It's too loud and runs far too hot consuming far too much power for my liking. But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. In this case too many people still have that picture a few months ago when the Radeon HD 2900XT came out that it was sub par. Well now with new drivers it's a direct competitor to the 8800GTS 640MB, holding it's own with AA and AF while surpassing it without AA.
Click to expand...

You are so right, so I guess that means that no improvements have been made to AA at all then eh?

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1123/7/page_7_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html

Which means we can use a larger sample of games which were tested with AA on, and conclude that the old results still stand.
 
AA is an essential part of modern gaming with medium or high end video cards, benchmarks without AA turned on are for the large part, meaningless.

Whats the point in matching Nvidia speeds without AA on but only when the FPS is going to be really high? (so high the difference means nothing) Most people will see their FPS is high and then enable AA to "spend" the remaining extra performance on cranking up the AA and AF quality, at this point Nvidia users can make their games look significantly better where as ATI users are left in the dust because as soon as they touch that "AA Dial" performance becomes unacceptable and they have to trim down the settings.
 
I'm curious to those people who keep complaining about the HEAT of the 2900XT,

my 8800GTS ran at 60+ idle(66 usually), and 80+ load, I see the 2900XT running at bout the same temps

so whats up with that?
 
Frosteh said:
AA is an essential part of modern gaming with medium or high end video cards, benchmarks without AA turned on are for the large part, meaningless.

Whats the point in matching Nvidia speeds without AA on but only when the FPS is going to be really high? (so high the difference means nothing) Most people will see their FPS is high and then enable AA to "spend" the remaining extra performance on cranking up the AA and AF quality, at this point Nvidia users can make their games look significantly better where as ATI users are left in the dust because as soon as they touch that "AA Dial" performance becomes unacceptable and they have to trim down the settings.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even at 2560x1600 aliasing is still noticable in games. It's just not as bad as it would be on a lower end display.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I'm curious to those people who keep complaining about the HEAT of the 2900XT,

my 8800GTS ran at 60+ idle(66 usually), and 80+ load, I see the 2900XT running at bout the same temps

so whats up with that?
Click to expand...

Heheh, I have been meaning to ask the very same question in various threads. I understand the noisier/consumes more power arguments but the heat issue seems to be completely untrue. Maybe joe-sixpack people put two and two together when thinking that more power = more heat :)

edit:

ok technically more power = more heat migth be true, not sure since Iam no expert. Or maybe 2900 heatsink is just more efficient than the one on 8800 since they output heat about the same amout?
 
So0o0o where do i get those "hacked" drivers everyone talks about. i have an sli board but wanna try out cross fire 2600xt's .
 
tvdang7 said:
So0o0o where do i get those "hacked" drivers everyone talks about. i have an sli board but wanna try out cross fire 2600xt's .
Click to expand...

I've never heard of hacked ATI drivers that allow you to run Crossfire on non-Intel or ATI chipset based boards. There are hacked drivers to run SLI on non-NVIDIA chipsets, but they are very old now and don't support anything newer than the 7900GTX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top