8800GTX or HD2900XT?

unleashed said:
..............................................
Click to expand...

If the delusion that the ATI drivers will somehow make the card rock beyond reality some how comes true then Nvidia will react with a flood of 8850's for 649.00
 
unleashed said:
Who cares about MSRP???
How much the Nvidia 8800 series cards were when they just came out, with the sucky drivers?
Giv the HD2900XT a few weeks to build up inventory.
The real world prices will come down (unless the new set of ATI drivers totally rock).
Then Nvidia will have to react with lower prices.
Either way, this summer the prices will be coming DOWN!
Especially after the release of the 65nm ATI cards.
Click to expand...

Guys I just got the HD2900XT and it is not impressive. It can't do 8xaa in Battlefield2 at 1680 x 1050. It chokes--I get like 25 FPS.

It can't do anything more than 2xaa in Oblivion or it totally chokes in forest areas.

It doesn't render Counterstrike source correctly. There is all kinds of funky things going on.

Nvidia's cards, according to [H] can do 16x aa in BF2. What is going on here? Can this be a driver thing? That is a massive difference. This one might be going back to Newegg.
 
jacuzz1 said:
If the delusion that the ATI drivers will somehow make the card rock beyond reality then Nvidia will react with a flood of 8850's for 649.00
Click to expand...
Keep dreaming.
ATI is getting ready to unload a real and sure GTX killer - a 65nm 2900XT.
The market forces setting the prices are all supply/demand.
Even if ATI can not squeeze more performance out of its current crop of the 80nm 2900XTs, they will still have to sell a shit load of pretty good cards on the open market.
The only way to unload those is through attractive pricing.
Nvidia will have to follow if they want to maintain volumes.
They're not a DX10 monopoly anymore.
More competition=lower prices.
Anything will sell if the price is right.
 
Oh you mean the one that was supposed to have gddr4 that got scrapped? The rest of your points were sound but on this one you are dreaming. Real GTX killer...........right.

unleashed said:
Keep dreaming.
ATI is getting ready to unload a real and sure GTX killer - a 65nm 2900XT.
.
Click to expand...
 
unleashed said:
Who cares about MSRP???
How much the Nvidia 8800 series cards were when they just came out, with the sucky drivers?
Give the HD2900XT a few weeks to build up inventory.
The real world prices will come down (unless the new set of ATI drivers totally rock).
Then Nvidia will have to react with lower prices.
Either way, in the summer the prices will be coming DOWN!
Especially after the release of the new 65nm ATI cards.
Click to expand...
Well, considering what the price is now for a 2900XT, I'd say anyone buying one is stupid, a fanboy, or both. The 8800 didn't have any competition when it came out, but the 2900XT does. Why spend more money when a 8800GTS 640MB can be had for as low as $309 w/MIR?

Of course the prices will come down. And come down hard they will once demand for them dries up.
 
apcor said:
Oh you mean the one that was supposed to have gddr4 that got scrapped? The rest of your points were sound but on this one you are dreaming. Real GTX killer...........right.
Click to expand...
It was supposed to be 2900 XTX and released together with the 2900 XT.
But things haven't worked out according to the plans.
It seems the problems have been solved and AMD/ATI just signed up a new contract with TSMC to manufacture the most of its graphics chips on the 65nm process.
The'll be cool running and allow much faster clocks.
 
Blackstone said:
Guys I just got the HD2900XT and it is not impressive. It can't do 8xaa in Battlefield2 at 1680 x 1050. It chokes--I get like 25 FPS.

It can't do anything more than 2xaa in Oblivion or it totally chokes in forest areas.

It doesn't render Counterstrike source correctly. There is all kinds of funky things going on.

Nvidia's cards, according to [H] can do 16x aa in BF2. What is going on here? Can this be a driver thing? That is a massive difference. This one might be going back to Newegg.
Click to expand...

Looks like you have found the reality beyond the marketing. Getting an 8800GTS 640 would definitely make your day.
 
think of the 2900xt as a good value for moeny card but if you want the best then that goes easly to the gtx
 
I think we have some ATI fanboys here. The 2900xt is good value? What the hell are you smoking? The 640mb GTS is about 100 less, and gives better performance.

The 2900 sucks, it failed, its going to suck in a few months, etc. The 8800 Ultra was nVidia's answer to the 2900xt, and it was basically a kick in the nuts while ATI was down and trying to get up. Stop preaching this failure of a GPU, your not going to get anywhere.

Clearly underdeveloped? No shit. Even after all the delays, still underdeveloped. The reality is the the 2900xt was delayed for a very long time, time enough that it should have been released with near perfect drivers, and should have been better than the GTX. The drivers arent going to improve the card anymore than 10%.
 
nissanztt90 said:
I think we have some ATI fanboys here. The 2900xt is good value? What the hell are you smoking? The 640mb GTS is about 100 less, and gives better performance.

The 2900 sucks, it failed, its going to suck in a few months, etc. The 8800 Ultra was nVidia's answer to the 2900xt, and it was basically a kick in the nuts while ATI was down and trying to get up. Stop preaching this failure of a GPU, your not going to get anywhere.

Clearly underdeveloped? No shit. Even after all the delays, still underdeveloped. The reality is the the 2900xt was delayed for a very long time, time enough that it should have been released with near perfect drivers, and should have been better than the GTX. The drivers arent going to improve the card anymore than 10%.
Click to expand...
O, man...That's real deep stuff...
 
nissanztt90 said:
I think we have some ATI fanboys here. The 2900xt is good value? What the hell are you smoking? The 640mb GTS is about 100 less, and gives better performance.

The 2900 sucks, it failed, its going to suck in a few months, etc. The 8800 Ultra was nVidia's answer to the 2900xt, and it was basically a kick in the nuts while ATI was down and trying to get up. Stop preaching this failure of a GPU, your not going to get anywhere.

Clearly underdeveloped? No shit. Even after all the delays, still underdeveloped. The reality is the the 2900xt was delayed for a very long time, time enough that it should have been released with near perfect drivers, and should have been better than the GTX. The drivers arent going to improve the card anymore than 10%.
Click to expand...

We still have no DX10 benchmarks to prove any of this. ;)

but to some, like me, current game performance is all that matters.
 
unleashed said:
The reality is that it's been only 10 days since the 2900XT release.
The drivers are still clearly underdeveloped.
Click to expand...

You registered here less than three weeks ago and started pumping the pre-release hype for R600. Your only posts are either pimping it, defending it, or pimping Barcelona. Ain't public profiles and post logs a bitch?

Paid shills bore me.
 
I don't know but a bunch of guys over at Rage is saying they are not having the same problems as in the review. I got a 2900 coming, shoot me, it's my money, if this don't work, I'll RMA back to newegg.
 
I hope you enjoy your new card impact. Nothing like getting new stuff. :cool:
 
Right now, the GTX is definatly better...

But I'd reserve judgement until the DX10 games come out. I would not be suprised if the R600 takes a better swipe at running those games.

The fact that the R600 is all over the place with DX9 games makes me feel like it wasn't engineered for them (funny that) it was actually designed for DX10!

Perhaps (and this is speculation) AMD had their eye on DX10 the WHOLE time. And nvidia had their eye on the DX9 performance crown instead...

Time will tell.
 
buffbiff21 said:
We still have no DX10 benchmarks to prove any of this. ;)

but to some, like me, current game performance is all that matters.
Click to expand...

True enough there are no DX10 benches, but like you said, current game performance is all that matter. By the time DX10 games start rollin around anyway, there will be second gen DX10 cards, and G80 vs R600 in DX10 gaming performance will be somewhat moot anyway.
 
nissanztt90 said:
True enough there are no DX10 benches, but like you said, current game performance is all that matter. By the time DX10 games start rollin around anyway, there will be second gen DX10 cards, and G80 vs R600 in DX10 gaming performance will be somewhat moot anyway.
Click to expand...

Well there sort of are... Lost Planet and that Jsomething game are both DX10 but not optimized very well (like Crysis)
 
I call shennanigans on the OP for even starting a flame bait thread such as this. "Shennanigans! Shennanigans!" :p
 
Commander Suzdal said:
You registered here less than three weeks ago and started pumping the pre-release hype for R600. Your only posts are either pimping it, defending it, or pimping Barcelona. Ain't public profiles and post logs a bitch?

Paid shills bore me.
Click to expand...
How about personal insults?
Guess, it's coming next.
What's the deal?
Do you feel personally offended by my posts?
Paid shills... Jeesh....
 
jmackay said:
Well there sort of are... Lost Planet and that Jsomething game are both DX10 but not optimized very well (like Crysis)
Click to expand...

I believe the J something you are referring to is Call of Juarez. I didnt mention them for the reason you stated, they are not optimized, and neither are Vista drivers really, so even that being said its somewhat pointless to argue which one is better in DX10, since the one thing we can definitely all agree on is that Vista is not really running full steam ahead yet and Vista drivers are still not mature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top