• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

2900XT is making a big comeback!

arg...I'm sick of all these threads. The 2900XT hasn't shown any significant improvements with the latest drivers as is evidenced by the latest [H] review (where it lost to an 8800GTS 320), and the card is a failure with respect to performance, punctuality, heat, price (considering how poorly it performs) and power consumption.

I was just as hopeful that the 2900XT would be all that and a bag of chips, but it's obvious that the card isn't what we all were looking for. We'll have to see what happens in the next round to see if AMD/ATi pulls it together.
 
it would not suprise me if some sections of the r600 core are broken and or disabled because of lack of functionality at higher clocks

me thinks 65nm r650 will be a winner. but i have been wrong b4
 
KENNYB said:
I don't recall a card taking a comparable kick in the ass once AA and AF are enabled...lol.
Click to expand...

There are whispers that the AA AF section of the r600 is broke and it relies on the shaders to compensate or something
 
In that Tweaktown review, the GTS beat the 2900XT in every single test that used anti-aliasing. Then they list as cons "anti-aliasing" performance like it is no big deal. They are basicially downplaying the anti-aliasing issue. It never fails--the sites that like the card don't use anti-aliasing. In my opinion, games look like absolute garbage without anti-aliasing set at 4x minimum.

A benchmark that doesn't use anti-aliasing is useless to me. Some of these review sites should be ashamed of themselves for their half-assed analysis. I bought a 2900XT based on these kinds of reviews but when I got my hands on the card I realized that the [H] review was the only review that got it right--the 2900XT is crap.
 
Sigh.. People, just accept the fact that the 2900XT (and probably the XTX, but who knows) are too little performance, too late for this evolution, too much heat and power consumption when compared to the 320/640MB GTS.

That's it. Nothing more to say. Yes, performance will improve as drivers mature, but nVidia released the 8800 series 8+ months ago.. 2900?? Hmm last month? I, like several others waited, (in vain I might add), with the words of "released when it's ready", or the show stopping "Drivers will provide performance required by.....".

Fan-Boi's.. take a breath.... Have a long hot bath, light some candles, listen to Yanni or John Tesh.. This release has not been a good one for Ati. Hopefully lessons will be learned and implemented with the R700 (Hopefully).

Until then, I'll enjoy my EVGA 640GTS @626/1017, with AA/AF enabled ;)
 
My favorite part of the Tweak Town review? The part where they don't test S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on the card with the game art plastered all over its HSF. Why? Maybe because the 2900's play it terribly, to the point where you have to disable large potions of the lighting code just to get reasonable framerates. Come on people -- the game is bundled with /both/ cards, newer than just about everything else you tested with, and you don't include it in the benchmarks?
 
The pros and cons should be more like:

2900XT
pros:

-It propably does run most games at fair framerates without AA

cons:

-80w more power consumption (compared to 8800 gts, according to their own numbers)
-Noisy
-Antialising performance lacks big time
-doesn't have really any advantage over the 8800 series
-did we really wait 7 months for this?

8800 ultra
pros:

-consumes less energy
-very fast with or without aa
-quiet

cons:

-expesive, sure. But that's what the GTX and GTS are for.

Hell, why did they even compare it to the ultra? makes no sense to me. For me personally numbers without aa are absolutely useless, because I don't play any games without aa unless I can't get it to work at all.
 
Yeah, ATI should just close shop and never make another video card again. Hell we should start an online petition (we all know how those go) to make this happens....:rolleyes: Better yet, let's grab our pitch forks and torches and head over to ATi and burn it down. Sheesh, wasn't Ati on top since the 9700Pros until now?
 
SuperKeijo said:
No, it hasn't been on top since 6800 ultra.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think thats accurate as fact, maybe as opinion, since opinions can be neither proven nor disproven. I seem to recall the nVidia offerings being either even or on par up through the 7900/1950 timeframe.
 
SuperKeijo said:
No, it hasn't been on top since 6800 ultra.
Click to expand...

The 6800 series and 7900 series were in fact faster than their ATi competition. I had an ATi card at this point, and recall being good and pissed I hadn't gone Nvidia on a regular basis, even 'betrayed' after being served so well by my original Radeon and Radeon 9700 Pro.
 
some one is PAYING ALOT OF MONEY TO SKEW THE boundaries of truth and REALITY in order to falsify benchmarks.

how can it SUCK, and then all the sudden "its better than the 8800 ultra"?

wtf?

M A N I P U L A T I O N
 
whip me,beat me,but do not make me write hot checks.One more lets beat the shit out of the hd2900xt thread.The editors are even getting into the act.jeez.Everyone has their likes and dislikes.Oh well.
 
silent-circuit said:
The 6800 series and 7900 series were in fact faster than their ATi competition. I had an ATi card at this point, and recall being good and pissed I hadn't gone Nvidia on a regular basis, even 'betrayed' after being served so well by my original Radeon and Radeon 9700 Pro.
Click to expand...

The 6800 series lost to the X850XTPE and then 7900 series to the X1950XTX, plus Crossfire actually works in DX10...
 
hell, I just read rhe article over at tweaktown.This card is not that bad.It is a little louder,runs a smidgen hotter,great AA performance,optional ps.....What else do you want?:D
 
i wish the 8800 had a HDMI output that would be cool

the 8800 rules
 
Umm, I read that review this morning, does anyone actually bother looking through the tests? even with AA off, it still loses in some cases to the 8800GTS, granted its faster then the last driver, but no miracle, and still no AA, I'm not buying a card that will get me 150fps without aa and 25fps with, what kinda use that would that have as a high end card =p?
 
It used to be that ATI did not take a hit using AA. That's what drew me to ATI to begin with. I refuse to pay any money for a card that will not do AA without taking a frame rate hit. I went from a 9800 AIW to an X800XT PE to an X1950 PRO. I am building a computer now in the next 2 months, and unless I see some significant improvements to X2900 XT AA performance, my next card will be NVIDIA.
 
Blackstone said:
In that Tweaktown review, the GTS beat the 2900XT in every single test that used anti-aliasing. Then they list as cons "anti-aliasing" performance like it is no big deal. They are basicially downplaying the anti-aliasing issue. It never fails--the sites that like the card don't use anti-aliasing. In my opinion, games look like absolute garbage without anti-aliasing set at 4x minimum.

A benchmark that doesn't use anti-aliasing is useless to me. Some of these review sites should be ashamed of themselves for their half-assed analysis. I bought a 2900XT based on these kinds of reviews but when I got my hands on the card I realized that the [H] review was the only review that got it right--the 2900XT is crap.
Click to expand...

Umm, most new games have broken AA these days. Rainbow Six, etc etc etc.

So what the fuck are you even talking about?

AA IS BROKEN ON MOST PC GAMES. Or they just use only HDR instead..

I dont know why reviews pay so much attention to AA and then you read the fine print and find that 99% of the time it doesn't work in todays games. It's like a big what the hell am I missing here?

It seems to me that games coded without AA are now the norm not the exception. Especially due to UE3. If anything you can say AA is falling by the wayside. Doesn't Stalker also not use AA? Just for another recent example. Those few games that do have AA, you have to jump through hoops and then it's usually borked in some fashion (again, I think Stalker, and every other game released in the last year with AA.)

I'm thinking with higher res, I guess game makers just dont care about AA anymore. I head some ATI official say "It's not a priority for the average game programmer anymore" or something.

Then if you turn on control panel AA, well that's usually broken nowdays too, as the games are becoming too complex and the right surfaces aren't being AA'd.
 
Sharky974 said:
Umm, most new games have broken AA these days. Rainbow Six, etc etc etc.

So what the fuck are you even talking about?

AA IS BROKEN ON MOST PC GAMES. Or they just use only HDR instead..

I dont know why reviews pay so much attention to AA and then you read the fine print and find that 99% of the time it doesn't work in todays games. It's like a big what the hell am I missing here?

It seems to me that games coded without AA are now the norm not the exception. Especially due to UE3. If anything you can say AA is falling by the wayside. Doesn't Stalker also not use AA? Just for another recent example. Those few games that do have AA, you have to jump through hoops and then it's usually borked in some fashion (again, I think Stalker, and every other game released in the last year with AA.)

I'm thinking with higher res, I guess game makers just dont care about AA anymore. I head some ATI official say "It's not a priority for the average game programmer anymore" or something.

Then if you turn on control panel AA, well that's usually broken nowdays too, as the games are becoming too complex and the right surfaces aren't being AA'd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is all extremely vague, and three-quarters of it is just outright wrong.

If games have 'broken AA' the devs are being lazy. Or it's a driver issue, like the HDR/AA issue with Oblivion and ATi cards at initial release, later resolved by driver updates.

What fine print are you referring to? Because it must be /really/ fine for me to have overlooked it... pretty much every time, for every review I've ever read.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. uses AA. UE3 games use AA. I had no issues with AA in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Or Dirt. Or the Overlord demo. Or the Lost Planet demo. Or Call of Juarez. Half Life 2. Oblivion. Two World. Or... anything else I've played on this machine since I built it a month ago.

Where did you get all this supposed info in the first place?
 
silent-circuit said:
My favorite part of the Tweak Town review? The part where they don't test S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on the card with the game art plastered all over its HSF. Why? Maybe because the 2900's play it terribly, to the point where you have to disable large potions of the lighting code just to get reasonable framerates. Come on people -- the game is bundled with /both/ cards, newer than just about everything else you tested with, and you don't include it in the benchmarks?
Click to expand...

I agree completely. The ridiculously terrible nature of the mentioned review leads me to think that the author at Tweak Town is on ATI's payroll? I would never trust anything from that site again.

P.S.: this thread is so pwned :D
 
Sharky974 said:
Umm, most new games have broken AA these days. Rainbow Six, etc etc etc.

So what the fuck are you even talking about?

AA IS BROKEN ON MOST PC GAMES. Or they just use only HDR instead..

I dont know why reviews pay so much attention to AA and then you read the fine print and find that 99% of the time it doesn't work in todays games. It's like a big what the hell am I missing here?

It seems to me that games coded without AA are now the norm not the exception. Especially due to UE3. If anything you can say AA is falling by the wayside. Doesn't Stalker also not use AA? Just for another recent example. Those few games that do have AA, you have to jump through hoops and then it's usually borked in some fashion (again, I think Stalker, and every other game released in the last year with AA.)

I'm thinking with higher res, I guess game makers just dont care about AA anymore. I head some ATI official say "It's not a priority for the average game programmer anymore" or something.

Then if you turn on control panel AA, well that's usually broken nowdays too, as the games are becoming too complex and the right surfaces aren't being AA'd.
Click to expand...

Dunno what you talk about. Stalker has great benefits with AA, and UE3 will make use of it. AA is a very, VERY important graphical feature, and I dont think they will shy away from using it, otherwise everything will look like crap (think jaggy ps2 graphics).


HEY! Doesnt anybody remember when ATI laid down claims that the R600 would offer "free" AA, meaning that it wasnt to experience any performance difference with 4xAA or something, as compared to none? LOLS!
 
Why do you all think that the r600 is bad, the new 7.6 cats have shown its getting faster every time, it may even be a competitor to the 8800GTX.
 
Sharky974 said:
Umm, most new games have broken AA these days. Rainbow Six, etc etc etc.

So what the fuck are you even talking about?

AA IS BROKEN ON MOST PC GAMES. Or they just use only HDR instead..

I dont know why reviews pay so much attention to AA and then you read the fine print and find that 99% of the time it doesn't work in todays games. It's like a big what the hell am I missing here?

It seems to me that games coded without AA are now the norm not the exception. Especially due to UE3. If anything you can say AA is falling by the wayside. Doesn't Stalker also not use AA? Just for another recent example. Those few games that do have AA, you have to jump through hoops and then it's usually borked in some fashion (again, I think Stalker, and every other game released in the last year with AA.)

I'm thinking with higher res, I guess game makers just dont care about AA anymore. I head some ATI official say "It's not a priority for the average game programmer anymore" or something.

Then if you turn on control panel AA, well that's usually broken nowdays too, as the games are becoming too complex and the right surfaces aren't being AA'd.
Click to expand...

Right, so now AA is broken in games ?
AA is not broken, it's just that deferred lighting is the most common way of doing this and DX9 has limitations that does not allow AA to work. DX10 however, does not have those limitations.
So, as you see, that has nothing to do with the fact that the HD 2900 XT performs so poorly with AA on. If there's anything broken, its the HD 2900 XT AA capabilities.
 
ganstafm said:
Why do you all think that the r600 is bad, the new 7.6 cats have shown its getting faster every time, it may even be a competitor to the 8800GTX.
Click to expand...

Its faster with out all the extra additional AA/AF, obviously something isn't working on this card to processing AA/AF seeing how big of a hit it takes, even compared to their older generation of cards

its getting faster, just not in the right area's, i'd say if it can handle 1920x1080 with out AA but maxed out AF and max details then yea I'd say its worth it, but even at 1280x1024 the card takes a nose dive when AA is applied

the only thing I think looks promising for this card is the post processing AA methods it introduces, which should get better as time goes on, which will only benefit us in the long run, definetly not a card seller right now though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top