new comparison

[Master_Pain]

What do you guys think of the new comparison between the 2900 and the 8800 GTS on hard ocp? I thought it was showing some improvement.

 

[Silus]

What do you guys think of the new comparison between the 2900 and the 8800 GTS on hard ocp? I thought it was showing some improvement.

Well, under Vista we already knew that the performance difference between the two, was not that big. In XP, the 8800 GTS 640 wins and in Vista it's more or less a tie.
But still, these evaluations tell us the value of each card and if two cards, perform more or less the same, one must recommend the cheapest of the two, which is still the GTS 640. However, if you live in a country where the XT is cheaper and you want to run Vista, then definitely grab the XT.

 

[inZane]

I still think it is a personal preference.

I got an nVidia card a long time ago (GF2) and it sucked compared to the ATI at that time. So since then, I just buy ATI. Sure, I look at all of these benchmarks and such. But I feel that ATI has been good to me all these years, so I will continue to support them.

Everyone can keep posting how ATI sucks or Nvidia sucks. But the decision at the end is the person shelling out the bucks. So if they want to buy a 2900XT, leave them alone when they post for help. Not a point in flaming them, as we all see all the time.

So educate yourself and make your own decisions. Don't let another user try to tell you what you should do as it is not their money.

(Prob a bit off topic. But still worth typing)

 

[Eagle156]

I got an nVidia card a long time ago (GF2) and it sucked compared to the ATI at that time. So since then, I just buy ATI. Sure, I look at all of these benchmarks and such. But I feel that ATI has been good to me all these years, so I will continue to support them.

Yes, that's called being a fanboy.

 

[phide]

Nah. I'd say a fanboy is someone who not only has a brand-affinity, but also advertises the benefits of products from said brand whenever the possibility arises (and sometimes when it's completely uncalled for). In many cases, a fanboy's sole task is to spread misinformation in an attempt to get someone else to buy a particular product (so trolling is naturally the fanboy's forte). There are many here -- on both sides of the fence.

I have an affinity for NVIDIA due to past experiences with ATi products, but that doesn't make me a fanboy. It's reasonable to assume that a disgusting taste in one's mouth regarding a certain company's products will stick around for a while and influence their buying decisions.

In any case, I still don't see much value in the 2900, especially the 1GB version. Other than the value factor, and the abysmal AA performance, I think it's fine.

 

[Master_Pain]

bah, i was asking what everyone thought about the new review and comparisons of whether or not it was showing improvement, not what a fanboy is.

 

[phide]

You get what you pay for, kiddo.

 

[tickle_me_emo]

didn't care much for the review, it seems like a repeat of the last couple of video card reviews

all that work to show that poorly coded dx10 games still don't run well on current hardware and that nvidia still holds an edge (sometimes a slight edge) most of the time over ATI

i appreciate the effort, i just wish they'd tell us something new, like if MSI's customer service is any good (bring back [H] consumer!)

 

[nösferatu]

i'd go with silus and as for the latest comparison, yes, i also thought it was showing some improvement.

IMO if you think it's reasonable (for whatever reason) to buy 2900XT, then go for it.

 

[debello_64]

It is nice they have moved onto Vista 64 with the last two reviews.

Only thing I saw in the review which I am sure they didn't mean to word it that way. Was that they kind of implied that Nvidia drivers would get better performance in Vista, but the 2900 was already at the wall.

 

[Pepsiennis]

Hi Master_Pain!
I'm kind of infamous around here for being a vocal proponent of the 2900XT, to the point where I was once referred to as the 'forum idiot' (though I expect he was just jealous I took his crown). Well, I've got a new build coming together for a computer to use at work, and I thought it would be a fine opportunity to compare the 8800GTS to my 2900XT. So, I picked up an XFX 8800 GTS 320mb XXX OC (580/1800), which in review benchmarks often comes darned close to the GTX in most games except for the highest resolutions where the diminished GRAM let's it drop out of contention. Initially had all kinds of problems getting the drivers properly installed until I figured out it was my antivirus not playing well with the driver configuration (even though I'd disabled antivirus during driver install, go figure). Now the Nvidia card is up and running without a problem, though it took the better part of three days and reinstalls of Vista64 and XP to get to this point. Now I haven't had time to run through many games yet, but my initial impressions are that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two cards in terms of in-game impressions. They each have their fortes and their drawbacks in particular areas. The two companies obviously have different approaches to the various technologies. Do I like the Nvidia card? Sure, it's a great product, and so is the 2900XT. I don't want to say more because it wouldn't be much use with so little time using the new card. But now that my antivirus and the Nvidia drivers are playing nice-nice, it's going to be fun comparing the two!

 

[Master_Pain]

well, let us know how they do.

 

[solobaricsrock]

I agree with Phide's statement. Ive been a fan of Nv and SLI since the 6800 series was out, but am thinking a complete switch to Intel C2D, ATI, and Vista. I just want to see for myself what it can do. Ive seen 1900's and 1950's in action, and the visuals are comprable, but I (for whatever reason want to give ATI a go. Its going to be interesting to see what happens as Xmas and the new lines roll out. Maybe ATI has a bombshell up their sleeves....?

 

[!Waffles!]

I still think it is a personal preference.

I got an nVidia card a long time ago (GF2) and it sucked compared to the ATI at that time. So since then, I just buy ATI. Sure, I look at all of these benchmarks and such. But I feel that ATI has been good to me all these years, so I will continue to support them.

Everyone can keep posting how ATI sucks or Nvidia sucks. But the decision at the end is the person shelling out the bucks. So if they want to buy a 2900XT, leave them alone when they post for help. Not a point in flaming them, as we all see all the time.

So educate yourself and make your own decisions. Don't let another user try to tell you what you should do as it is not their money.

(Prob a bit off topic. But still worth typing)

I agree with you, It doesn't matter if you card is nvidia or ati it matters what it better,

 

[Pepsiennis]

well, let us know how they do.

Will do! Although it's bound to ruffle feathers no matter what I say after making an (informed? incompetent? incomprehensible?) comparison, since I'm in a position to compare the cards from a more, ahem... pedestrian perspective, I think it might be of use to many here as the next red and green refreshes are still some months off.

 

[Jalidi]

I wish the 2900 was on 65 nm. I'm surprised that hasn't come out already, I was expecting to see it on the 1 gig version. They seem to have a handle on the technique for their 2400 and 2600's but it hasn't transferred to their high-end yet. I'm pretty sure there's alot of headroom in the architecture, they just got to shrink the die and drop power consumption. The 8800 GTS is very attractive... but the 9800 GTS is coming and it's going to be a monster.

I'm passing on this generation. I'm betting that the refreshes coming from both DAAMIT and Nvidia around Christmas will be worth the wait.

 

[Pepsiennis]

I wish the 2900 was on 65 nm. I'm surprised that hasn't come out already, I was expecting to see it on the 1 gig version. They seem to have a handle on the technique for their 2400 and 2600's but it hasn't transferred to their high-end yet. I'm pretty sure there's alot of headroom in the architecture, they just got to shrink the die and drop power consumption. The 8800 GTS is very attractive... but the 9800 GTS is coming and it's going to be a monster.

I'm passing on this generation. I'm betting that the refreshes coming from both DAAMIT and Nvidia around Christmas will be worth the wait.

The 2400/2600 use the 65nm which is a standard die shrink, while the 2900XT uses the irregular 80nm, and that obviously didn't work as well is it might have. And it's still a great card! Ah, what might have been had it also been 65nm? We find out exactly that round about the new year, if rumors are even partially accurate.

 

[nösferatu]

my friend had just bought 2900xt last week and now he is complaining his new purchase for not being as fast his 8800gts 320mb which now idling inside his brother's pc.

i'm telling him that's the way it meant to be anyway since he likes to turn AA/AF all the way up in his relatively low res gaming of 1280x1024.

 

[debello_64]

my friend had just bought 2900xt last week and now he is complaining his new purchase for not being as fast his 8800gts 320mb which now idling inside his brother's pc.

i'm telling him that's the way it meant to be anyway since he likes to turn AA/AF all the way up in his relatively low res gaming of 1280x1024.

Im a sorry anyone who has bought a 2900XT knows exactly what they are getting, there has been far to many reviews of the card for one not to know.

The 2900XT is a a very good card running under Vista, wiether that is just because Nvidia cant figure out how to write Vista drivers or AMD had the 2900XT planed for Vista all along and is just half assing the XP drivers,

 

[Trimlock]

I agree, the new review did show some improvement, but it also shows the lack of AA ability the card really has, no matter what the resolution the card really can't go above 2xAA, at 4xAA we start seeing performance plumet, and anything above...

One of the problems with competing against the 8800 is the inefficient use of shaders on the R600's, they do have a good system put in to use it very effectively but thats alot of programming, if they can carry this onto their next generation so they can have a foot hold on whats supported and coded for already then it will be beneficial, but until that time ATI will always be behind.

 

[nösferatu]

the problem with my friend is, he likes the red-colored huge-sized 2900xt too much, i remembered the other day that he said he doesn't believe the 2900xt can't handle AA & AF at 1280x1024 considering 1280x1024 is a low res right now.

now he can't take the 320mb gts back, he's much too proud for that, hehe, that 26 years old gamer, at least has something other than his games at mind.

 

[Pepsiennis]

Well, I've yanked the 'XFX 8800GTS 320mb blah,blah,blah' out and thrown the 2900XT back in and reinstalled. I haven't played any games yet with the ATI back 'home' but MAN, the Vista desktop is a lot snappier and responsive with the 2900XT. No doubt the 8800GTS is a hell of a card and can throw around the eye candy while keeping good frame rates, but in terms of overall experience (both everyday usage and gameplay) I was missing the 2900XT.

 

[nösferatu]

since my last visit on friday last week, it was xp sp1 on his pc, so i'm throwing the "vista desktop is a lot snappier blah blah blah" out for him and i don't care.

 

[debello_64]

since my last visit on friday last week, it was xp sp1 on his pc, so i'm throwing the "vista desktop is a lot snappier blah blah blah" out for him and i don't care.

Make sure to keep us updated on weither he likes his card or not

 

[nösferatu]

well it's not my concern, i'm telling you that RIGHT NOW he's far from happy while i'm not sure if it's caused by the card itself or something else like catalyst version etc.

he's using X2 4400+ with 2 gigs of ram, that's all I know and what i'm willing to know, it's not my pc anyway.

 

[Pepsiennis]

since my last visit on friday last week, it was xp sp1 on his pc, so i'm throwing the "vista desktop is a lot snappier blah blah blah" out for him and i don't care.

Oh, a touch! A most palpable touch!

 

[aztec61]

Hi guys. Thought I'd jump in for a few words.

Ah, the much maligned HD2900XT! I like my 2900XT in games thus far and for all of the other usual tasks. I'm using "Edge Detection" mode in CCC with 4x AA (Cat 7.7) and I'm seeing minimal slow down, so it doesn't bother me - except in STALKER with Full Dynamic Lighting on it does bog down. Otherwise, I don't know why there's so much griping about this GPU because it's done a very good job for me thus far.

Pepsiennis -

It's interesting that we have very similar rigs, (same mobo/CPU/GPU, PC2-8500 RAM, and 2 of what I think are the best 700w PSU's on the market ). But I'm still on XP while you're on Vista 64.

So the obvious question: have you used the 2900 in XP yet to compare performance in Vista 64?

 

[Pepsiennis]

...Pepsiennis -

It's interesting that we have very similar rigs, (same mobo/CPU/GPU, PC2-8500 RAM, and 2 of what I think are the best 700w PSU's on the market ). But I'm still on XP while you're on Vista 64.

So the obvious question: have you used the 2900 in XP yet to compare performance in Vista 64?

Hi aztec61! Sorry for getting back to you late, I wasn't around much yesterday (wife problem... i.e., she is still here!). Actually, yes I have quite a bit. I live in China, and some games (PREY, for example) are only available in the 'hacked' edition, which will only often run in XP (though that's changing fast). And I also compared it against an XFX 8800GTS 320 OC for a week in both Vista64 and XP, which was, frankly, a lot of fun! My impression is that the 2900XT gives a balanced performance moving between the two platforms (the slight loss in FPS gaming in Vista entails is compensated for by the 2900XT's excellent Vista compatibility), with gameplay so similar you can't really tell the difference, though to my eye Vista puts a little polish on its version of DX9. The Nvidia GTS is an excellent card in XP, providing slightly more fluid gameplay. But, it loses a deal of its luster when moving into Vista64. I expect some of that is drivers (they don't install, they simply extract to a directory, then you have to update driver from device manager. Whatever, it gets working eventually), and the low 320 mb GRAM doesn't like being filled with Aero's 24/7 3D desktop. I say that because menus lurch open, web pages scroll in a jerky fashion, and it's just noticably sluggish. All of which disappears in a game. But I use my computer for many tasks, not just gaming, and in this specific usage context the 2900XT is much better... in Vista. It's your choice between the two in XP, where they are both awesome cards.

 

[aztec61]

Hi aztec61! Sorry for getting back to you late, I wasn't around much yesterday (wife problem... i.e., she is still here!).

LOL! No prob! It happens. You should meet my ex-woif.

(Well, mebbe not. That could be construed as a Crime Against [H]umanity. )


Have you seen this thread?: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1213120&goto=newpost New Cat 7.8 drivers, tho' Beta not final. I've not installed them yet but will right after this post. May make a diff in XP or Vista, both or neither.

I'm not that much of a gamer anymore, well not as rabid as I once was. I pick & choose the titles I buy now, b/c there just aren't that many that are so good IMHO. Meanwhile, these 2900's should be folding monsters when the new GPU F@H client comes out for the HD-series, the sooner the better.

But for other tasks I have no complaints thus far. Like you said, it games well AND handles the desktop well.