Newer 2900Xt reviews? (people saying it matches a GTX)

[aztec61]

It's on the internets! It must be true!

Notice that it says at the top of the list: " This list is not free from errors, please use it as a guide only. If you are unsure if one Video Card is indeed faster than another please refer to a Product Review."

Just can't stand it that the 2900XT is faster than the GTS, eh Jack? Tough shit.

 

[Citizen86]

Notice that it says at the top of the list: " This list is not free from errors, please use it as a guide only. If you are unsure if one Video Card is indeed faster than another please refer to a Product Review."

Just can't stand it that the 2900XT is faster than the GTS, eh Jack? Tough shit.

lol, do you notice you just discredited anything you said with your first sentence? Nice one there Jack

 

[jmackay]

Notice that it says at the top of the list: " This list is not free from errors, please use it as a guide only. If you are unsure if one Video Card is indeed faster than another please refer to a Product Review."

Just can't stand it that the 2900XT is faster than the GTS, eh Jack? Tough shit.

So if a website said the 2900xt was worse than a 7900gs, but said there were errors on the page, it would be true anyway?

lol

 

[JackAshley]

Notice that it says at the top of the list: " This list is not free from errors, please use it as a guide only. If you are unsure if one Video Card is indeed faster than another please refer to a Product Review."

Just can't stand it that the 2900XT is faster than the GTS, eh Jack? Tough shit.

You're absolutely right - it does have a big glaring error on it. The placement of the 2900xt My apologies.

 

[aztec61]

Sorry Nv fanboys, but most people smarter than a small soap dish know the 2900XT beats GTS.

Nice try tho'.

 

[Rattle]

Sorry Nv fanboys, but most people smarter than a small soap dish know the 2900XT beats GTS.

Nice try tho'.

yeah it beats it untill you turn on AA lmao

nice flaming buddy get your facts straight first at least

 

[Citizen86]

Round and round we go.....

 

[JackAshley]

Round and round we go.....

Where it stops, only nvidia knows...ok I apologize to everyone, i'm done here Amusing, but i'm without a point anymore.

 

[aztec61]

yeah it beats it untill you turn on AA lmao

nice flaming buddy get your facts straight first at least

Funny, but the facts are that I can use 8xAA in most games with no probs. More than that doesn't improve the picture IMO.

The 2900XT bitch slaps the GTS. Get over it.

Laugh My Ass Off.

 

[Rattle]

haha your retarded

as long as your happy with it.

 

[Master_Pain]

good news guys
















I just saved a ton of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!!!

 

[Scroatdog]

Funny, but the facts are that I can use 8xAA in most games with no probs. More than that doesn't improve the picture IMO.

The 2900XT bitch slaps the GTS. Get over it.

Laugh My Ass Off.

Really?????

Show me the benchmarks then. The 2900xt may edge out a 320 meg GTS but the 640 GTS beats it hands down. Let's not forget that the both the GTX and the Ultra hand the 2900xt its ass.

And no, I'm not a fanboy. Look at my sig.

 

[FrgMstr]

Actually there have been plenty of sites saying this since day one. They however have not been testing real gameplay at high resolutions with AA turned on. I spent a good amount of time with AMD last week and no breakthrough has been made on AA. They did however point out some pretty big increases with their next-gen drivers that are not out yet. But I am not sure what settings the scores where taken at.

I sitll consider AA broken on the 2900. It will be interesting to see what they squeeze out of the drivers to come.

 

[Rattle]

watch out kyle this aztec fellow might get mad at you and bitch slap and bust caps and cuss and stuff lmao oh and he may call you a fan boy too

 

[aztec61]

Plenty of test results are out there. I'm not wasting my time proving something to nit-wits that can't admit reality.

 

[Rattle]

what reality ? yours??

I have owned every card since 9800pro days and I know what the deal is with people like you who are the real fanboys and wont buy whats best each generation because of some psychotic loyalty to a logo. Its people like you that ruin forums like these and its too bad they wont ban you and your mouth.

 

[Droc]

Reality is, the 2900 fell short. It wasnt a total flop, but it isnt going to give the GTX anything to worry about.
Yes, there are a few occasions where the 2900 gets a bench better then the GTX, but lets face it, those are few and far between. The GTX is a better card then the 2900.

Can the 2900 beat the GTS? sure. But its a toss up as to what card is actually better.
We all know that when released, the 2900 was more along the lines of the GTS 320mb, but now, with driver help, it can occasionally compete with the GTS 640mb. Yes, the 2900 beats the GTS in some games, and looses in others.

It was a toss up for me, but when it came down to consistent performance in a variety of games and the ability to use features that I paid for to obtain better IQ, the 8800 is simply a better card.

That and I dont need to drop hundreds of dollars to wait around for a magical driver to make a card run better then one from close to a year ago.

Overall, Id put the 2900 slightly above the 8800GTS 320mb

 

[FrgMstr]

Plenty of test results are out there. I'm not wasting my time proving something to nit-wits that can't admit reality.

Here's my research.

http://www.hardocp.com/reviews.html?cat=MyxWaWRlbyBDYXJkLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

Where is YOURS? Oh, you don't have any? Whodathunkit.

 

[FrgMstr]

Reality is, the 2900 fell short. It wasnt a total flop, but it isnt going to give the GTX anything to worry about.
Yes, there are a few occasions where the 2900 gets a bench better then the GTX, but lets face it, those are few and far between. The GTX is a better card then the 2900.

Can the 2900 beat the GTS? sure. But its a toss up as to what card is actually better.
We all know that when released, the 2900 was more along the lines of the GTS 320mb, but now, with driver help, it can occasionally compete with the GTS 640mb. Yes, the 2900 beats the GTS in some games, and looses in others.

It was a toss up for me, but when it came down to consistent performance in a variety of games and the ability to use features that I paid for to obtain better IQ, the 8800 is simply a better card.

That and I don't need to drop hundreds of dollars to wait around for a magical driver to make a card run better then one from close to a year ago.

Overall, Id put the 2900 slightly above the 8800GTS 320mb

QFT.

2900 is not a bad product, it just has such stiff competition in terms of gaming experience and value that it is hard for me to justify buying one or suggesting to our readers that they buy one.

I watch how we get the "fan boy" label applied to us for the things we write here at HardOCP. One day we are red, the next day we are green, the next day blue.... The funny thing about it is this, and I have never ever mentioned this, HardOCP makes more money when products are in tight competition with each other. So stepping away from any code of ethics arguments, there is NO MOTIVATION for us to tell you one is better than the other. When the race is neck-and-neck, we serve more readers more ads and make better profits. When companies are getting blown out, our readership goes down and so do our profits. Think about that next time you read some dufus preaching about how we have an agenda. It just does not make sense.

 

[aztec61]

That's where you're wrong, Rattle-brain (and Kyle, and anyone else that this may apply to). It's got nothing to do with dumb assumptions about "logos" or brands.

TBH, I bought the 2900XT with an eye to it's primary "high-end" function being F@H, not gaming. BUT, since it does game so well I consider that to be sort of a bonus - but then I'd expect at least half-decent gaming out of any $300.-$400.+ card anyway. The 2900 games very well so it's not a prob.

If Nv had a GPU that could fold I might have bought one, but they don't so I didn't. I don't game nearly as much as I used to, so whether one card does 10%-15% better FPS than another doesn't mean jack to me. This card handles the games I like just fine at my res of 1680x1050.

The other thing that people forget is the ATI also has features that Nv's don't - like HDMI and SS audio, which is much more useful to some of us than 5, 15, or 25 extra FPS. Not to mention that in the bundle I got some fairly decent games: TF2, HL2 - Ep. 2, STALKER, and Portal.

However, there IS more to do in life with a PC that just waste hours on end playing silly games....or max o/c'ing a GPU/CPU for useless "highest FPS" scores.

If you want a card that just gives raw FPS, then certain Nv models are good choices. But the morons that go around yapping that the 2900XT is a "bad" GPU or a "bad value" are simply talking bullshit.

 

[Droc]

That's where you're wrong, Rattle-brain (and Kyle, and anyone else that this may apply to). It's got nothing to do with dumb assumptions about "logos" or brands.

TBH, I bought the 2900XT with it's primary "high-end" function being F@H, not gaming. BUT, since it does game so well I consider that to be sort of a bonus - but then I'd expect at least half-decent gaming out of any $300.-$400.+ card anyway. The 2900 games very well so it's not a prob.

If Nv had a GPU that could fold I might have bought one, but they don't so I didn't. I don't game nearly as much as I used to, so whether one card does 10%-15% better FPS than another doesn't mean jack to me. This card handles the games I like just fine at my res of 1680x1050.

The other thing that people forget is the ATI also has features that Nv's don't - like HDMI and SS audio, which is much more useful to some of us than 5, 15, or 25 extra FPS. Not to mention that in the bundle I got some fairly decent games: TF2, HL2 - Ep. 2, STALKER, and Portal.

However, there IS more to do in life with a PC that just waste hours on end playing silly games....or max o/c'ing a GPU/CPU for useless "highest FPS" scores.

If you want a card that just gives raw FPS, then certain Nv models are good choices. But the morons that go around yapping that the 2900XT is a "bad" GPU or a "bad value" are simply talking bullshit.

Well that depends on your specific bias to the topic.
Considering that you did alot of direct flaming about FPS performance, your post is as close to foot-in-mouth-backpeddling as it can get.

But if your going to argue how your card folds, has bundled software, and OMG...HDMI...makes the 2900 better, then go for it. My cheaper G80 came with extras also, and I can easily grab up a DVI to HDMI cable for $4....
I mean, when your argument is that the G80 is about pure FPS rather then IQ....then this is your cue to try arguing this somewhere other then a hardware enthusiast forum. AA anyone?

Dont take offense to what I say. I know your just trying to justify the money you spent. But stop flaming like a kid backed against the wall.

 

[aztec61]

Reality is, the 2900 fell short. It wasnt a total flop, but it isnt going to give the GTX anything to worry about.
Yes, there are a few occasions where the 2900 gets a bench better then the GTX, but lets face it, those are few and far between. The GTX is a better card then the 2900.

The reality also is that the GTX costs far more than the 2900XT. So you might expect higher FPS from a more expensive card. AND as I said above, even at its higher cost the GTX doesn't have some features that the 2900XT does.

So...if you:

1. don't need those features and,
2. need more FPS than what the 2900XT can give and,
3. don't mind spending $100.-$150. more to get it then

...buy the GTX.

 

[Scroatdog]

But the morons that go around yapping that the 2900XT is a "bad" GPU or a "bad value" are simply talking bullshit.

Uhh, that's not the issue at hand here, sport. You made a baseless claim that the 2900xt handily beats the GTS and said "tough shit" to people who think otherwise.

And now you're spouting off about F@H and HDMI? That's not what this is about. You made a baseless claim, you were called out on it. Deal with it and move on.

 

[aztec61]

Well that depends on your specific bias to the topic.
Considering that you did alot of direct flaming about FPS performance, your post is as close to foot-in-mouth-backpeddling as it can get.

But if your going to argue how your card folds, has bundled software, and OMG...HDMI...makes the 2900 better, then go for it. My cheaper G80 came with extras also, and I can easily grab up a DVI to HDMI cable for $4....
I mean, when your argument is that the G80 is about pure FPS rather then IQ....then this is your cue to try arguing this somewhere other then a hardware enthusiast forum. AA anyone?

Dont take offense to what I say. I know your just trying to justify the money you spent. But stop flaming like a kid backed against the wall.

Just stating the facts Droc. You can try to characterize them any way you like.

 

[FrgMstr]

That's where you're wrong, Rattle-brain (and Kyle, and anyone else that this may apply to). It's got nothing to do with dumb assumptions about "logos" or brands.

Can you be specific as to what exactly I am wrong about?

 

[aztec61]

Uhh, that's not the issue at hand here, sport. You made a baseless claim that the 2900xt handily beats the GTS and said "tough shit" to people who think otherwise.

And now you're spouting off about F@H and HDMI? That's not what this is about. You made a baseless claim, you were called out on it. Deal with it and move on.

Got news for ya sport - the 2900XT does beat the GTS in both RAM sizes. Sorry you're having trouble with that.

I'm merely saying to you nimrods the reason I bought the ATI over the Nv's - and it's great gaming performance was simply the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

You're young. You'll get over it.

 

[FrgMstr]

The next person I see name call will be banned for life. That goes for everyone.

 

[phide]

If you want a card that just gives raw FPS, then certain Nv models are good choices. But the morons that go around yapping that the 2900XT is a "bad" GPU or a "bad value" are simply talking bullshit.

It's a bad value depending upon your priorities. For those that don't fold and who don't leverage audio-over-HDMI (AMD actually brought very little to the table with their HDMI audio implementation). For such people, the 2900 is a poor value. It consumes more power whilst delivering less of what such people care about.

 

[aztec61]

It's a bad value depending upon your priorities. For those that don't fold and who don't leverage audio-over-HDMI (AMD actually brought very little to the table with their HDMI audio implementation). For such people, the 2900 is a poor value. It consumes more power whilst delivering less of what such people care about.

It's also a good value depending on your priorities. Like I said, the card gives me plenty of FPS and image quality in the games I play currently, so what's another 10 or 30 or 50 more FPS when it's makes no diff to actual gameplay? This is the kind of propaganda that gets blown out of all proportion.

The only other near-future game that I care about is UT3. If it won't run that at reasonable FPS and IQ, then I'd be surprised. Of course I haven't played UT3 or the full demo yet, but the UE3 engine (Bioshock) runs fine at max settings. Much beyond that and it'll be about time for a new GPU anyway, (that is - IF I still give a crap about gaming) but this one will still be folding like a banshee and giving decent sound.

Will any 8800 be doing that once it's "old"? Umm...nope. So yeah - it depends on what you consider "value".

 

[jmackay]

Got news for ya sport - the 2900XT does beat the GTS in both RAM sizes. Sorry you're having trouble with that.

I'm merely saying to you nimrods the reason I bought the ATI over the Nv's - and it's great gaming performance was simply the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

You're young. You'll get over it.

A) What do ram sizes have to do with anything? And 640 is greater than 512 btw, if you think there is anything special about the 1gb cards besides their higher price...
B) How well does your 2900 fold anyway? What kinda PPD do you get?

 

[phide]

...what's another 10 or 30 or 50 more FPS when it's makes no diff to actual gameplay? This is the kind of propaganda that gets blown out of all proportion.

Pardon me, but were you not the one propagandizing the so-called superior performance of the 2900?

When we do it, it's propagandizing. When you do it, it's "just stating the facts" (with a little name calling tossed in for good measure, of course). Would you consider this a correct statement?

Seems to me you need to re-evaluate your intentions here.

 

[reswob]

I must admit...the red does match my computer coloring scheme.

 

[aztec61]

A) What do ram sizes have to do with anything?

Ask the GTS owners that think the 640 is so much faster than the 2900XT. They're the ones doing the harping.

...if you think there is anything special about the 1gb cards besides their higher price...

Well, that's an invention of yours, because I never said anything about the 1GB cards.

How well does your 2900 fold anyway?

Pande Group is still working on the client for it. But with 320 shaders it should fold better than most dual or even quad cores. But since you mentioned 1GB VRAM model, F@H is where it should beat the 512 model.

 

[aztec61]

Pardon me, but were you not the one propagandizing the so-called superior performance of the 2900?

It's not propagandizing if it's real. The 2900's performance does beat the GTS', and in many cases equals or beats the GTX.

When we do it, it's propagandizing. When you do it, it's "just stating the facts" (with a little name calling tossed in for good measure, of course). Would you consider this a correct statement?

No I would not say that's correct, since there were a few names tossed my way as well, and what I meant by 'propagandizing the performance' of GPU's is giving the impression that 150+ (or whatever ridiculously high FPS rate) is needed to play, when it really is not.

 

[jmackay]

Ask the GTS owners that think the 640 is so much faster than the 2900XT. They're the ones doing the harping.

They aren't talking about RAM size, they are talking about processing power.

Well, that's an invention of yours, because I never said anything about the 1GB cards.

*Boggle* you are the one saying the 2900xt has more ram, yet 512 is less than 640, 1gb is more... so what are you talking about then?

Pande Group is still working on the client for it. But with 320 shaders it should fold better than most dual or even quad cores. But since you mentioned 1GB VRAM model, F@H is where it should beat the 512 model.

Ahhh, so your 2900xt doesn't fold either eh... shame. Just so ya know, they are working on a 8800 client as well

 

[phide]

Ask the GTS owners that think the 640 is so much faster than the 2900XT. They're the ones doing the harping.

In the case of 320MB versus 640MB, there can actually be significant benefits. There's no linear or logarithmic scale to how memory benefits performance -- it's very case-by-case. Look at Call of Juarez, for instance.

People that state that the GTS 640 is faster than the 2900 XT are often right (sometimes quite wrong), but they don't state that because it has a 128MB VRAM advantage. They state that because it has other architectural advantages.

It's not propagandizing if it's real. The 2900's performance does beat the GTS', and in many cases equals or beats the GTX.

Firstly, propaganda does not specifically imply misleading or misinformation. That's not inherent in the definition of propaganda.

The GTS 640 beats the XT in some scenarios, as does the GTS 320, so stating that the GTS outperforms the XT in some scenarios isn't propagandizing. Constantly proclaiming the so-called benefits of one product while avoiding and/or distorting truth while doing so would be considered propagandizing by the grand majority of individuals.

To put it bluntly, stating that the GTS is always faster, or stating that the XT is always faster is to display pure ignorance, and that's what I would consider propaganda. Everyone here, as far as I've seen, has a completely reasonable perspective on this issue. I'm afraid that you're the exception.

...what I meant by 'propagandizing the performance' of GPU's is giving the impression that 150+ (or whatever ridiculously high FPS rate) is needed to play, when it really is not.

Anyone would have a hard time convincing anyone that 150 FPS is required to play a game. Most folks are quite content with 60-75, while others are quite content with 30.

I don't think anyone said anything about needing absurd frame rates, so I'm not sure why you're fabricating. We want performance for a singular purpose: to enjoy high-quality rendering at playable frame rates.

 

[JackAshley]

More than 4AA/8AF I've never seen make a visual difference in any game on any card. All it does is unnecessarily eat up frame rate. But if you want to psyche yourselves out that high AA/AF is great, go ahead.

Any more than 4xAA just eats up frame rate, according to you. Then you go on to say essentially that anybody who uses more is being wonky and just imagining the difference.

Funny, but the facts are that I can use 8xAA in most games with no probs. More than that doesn't improve the picture IMO.

The 2900XT bitch slaps the GTS. Get over it.

Laugh My Ass Off.

But Lo and Behold! Now its all about that 8xAA action you're getting! Again and again you contradict yourself...Should I mention when you pulled up that video card chart link to prove that the 2900xt is better, then in your next post state that those numbers may in fact be in error and we cant assume it's true? Then you go on about how great at folding the 2900xt is, then you go on to say that well, its not really proven yet, there is no folding for it. Ahhhh...

Now, nowhere in my post (this post) have I said anything about which card is better. This post is a question to you, Aztec:

Why so many contradictions? I'm all up for a coherent argument, but it's getting hard to do that with so much information flying from ya here.

 

[aztec61]

They aren't talking about RAM size, they are talking about processing power.

What, more revisionist history? They are talking about both GTS cards, and some have said here that the 640 vers. is faster. Again, more confusing BS from you. No cigar this time either.

*Boggle* you are the one saying the 2900xt has more ram, yet 512 is less than 640, 1gb is more... so what are you talking about then?

Where did I say anything about 2900 having "more RAM"? So when you have no coherent argument you start inventing even MORE crap??

Ahhh, so your 2900xt doesn't fold either eh... shame. Just so ya know, they are working on a 8800 client as well

Yes, they've "been talking" about a G80 client for some time now, for longer than the R600 has been on the market. Still haven't seen it. However, there has been a client for X1xxx cards for a long time. I'd also venture to say that due to ATI's shader performance they'll (R600) handily beat the G80's at folding when both clients are out.

 

[aztec61]

Anyone would have a hard time convincing anyone that 150 FPS is required to play a game. Most folks are quite content with 60-75, while others are quite content with 30.

I don't think anyone said anything about needing absurd frame rates, so I'm not sure why you're fabricating. We want performance for a singular purpose: to enjoy high-quality rendering at playable frame rates.

Then tell us: why is it that the GTS or GTX is supposedly "better"? Because of high (16x) AA ability over the 2900, which adds virtually nothing to IQ over say 8x? Or the relatively few (and unnecessary) added FPS in certain games (but not other games)?

Like I said: propaganda. Or BS. Or marketing. Take your pick.

 

[aztec61]

...Should I mention when you pulled up that video card chart link to prove that the 2900xt is better, then in your next post state that those numbers may in fact be in error and we cant assume it's true?

What you should mention is if you have any conclusive proof that the list is substantially in error. Otherwise, you're just tossing around cheap shots & innuendo.

Then you go on about how great at folding the 2900xt is, then you go on to say that well, its not really proven yet, there is no folding for it....

Based on the performance of similar architecture GPU's such as the X1xxx's, I'd say the F@H performance of the 2xxx's can be reasonably estimated.