Here's another one for those interested:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=1&artpage=2590&articID=581
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=1&artpage=2590&articID=581
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Though it looks like in Europe the 8800 is the same price as the 2900, so it's not that bad of a deal over there.
Actually it is not, that is what I thought the table said at first, but you have to look around to find:
"Additionally we set the price of both cards to the same number to see which card would be the better deal if both were indeed available at the same 273 price tag."
So in essence they are saying the 2900 would have the best bang/buck if it was the same price as the GTS. Which is just a tad weird. Back in reality they are not the same price and it loses the bang/buck pretty badly.
Actually it is not, that is what I thought the table said at first, but you have to look around to find:
"Additionally we set the price of both cards to the same number to see which card would be the better deal if both were indeed available at the same 273 price tag."
So in essence they are saying the 2900 would have the best bang/buck if it was the same price as the GTS. Which is just a tad weird. Back in reality they are not the same price and it loses the bang/buck pretty badly.
Not exactly in the same price range.
Sigh... Here we go again....
Nope. Benchmarking a card that has 256Mb less memory, and less potential (hardware specs), and that 8800GTS 320 does as well as it does. Also, bear in mind that they did NOT overclock the GTS.
Why not? That point alone makes their review loose weight in my mind with regards to legitimacy. Good review, but it's just regurgitating what most of us already know.
and that normalizing chart at the end is a misleading piece of crap, winning by 1-2 frames average frames per second doesn't matter
So there's 5 ties and the 2900 wins at oblivion, that's not very good for a hotter, louder, more expensive card, and where's the stalker testing ?
Which is just a tad weird. Back in reality they are not the same price and it loses the bang/buck pretty badly.
that chart is very misleading and pointlesswhere did it say that it does? All it does is summarize the benchmarks results... where is stated that 1-2 FPS is a large win?
I may as well cut and paste....
If your going to include results of an overclocked 2900XT, to balance it out, include the results of an overclocked GTS320. Why would you NOT include that in your spiffy graphs and charts.
Hmm probably because the author didn't want those results to skew the image that he / they wanted to present. I'm not throwing stones, but before you declare a certain card a winner / better value, whatever, make all things consistant / and let the results speak for themselves.
The XT has more memory, improved architech., later release, etc, etc. and the 320 is the only card they tested against it. Why was the 640GTS not included?. The XT was designed to go against the 640GTS. By overclocking the XT, and benchmarking the 320GTS only (and at stock speeds, not even an OC2), you are inherently skewing the results.
This leads to my general dismay at the way reviews (especially video cards) are skewed. Pro ATI / nVidia, whatever. I don't care, just give us correct non-horseshit result (see Tom's / Inq for specifics).
that chart is very misleading and pointless
Hmm probably because the author didn't want those results to skew the image that he / they wanted to present. .
I don't think he was exactly saying it was a good buy, although that whole chart at the end was rather strange... why make them the same price and see which did better?
*shrug*
more like suggestive reviewing, I hope, if ATI decides to lower their price to make HD 2900 more competitive, they have to at least match the GTS 320's price.
They should have just flat out said: "If this card was $100 cheaper, it would be a good card, however we have to recommend the 320mb 8800gts instead." or something similar.
way to not quote the rest of my postPointless "how" ? comparing in % the performance difference of the games tested, what were they thinking! OMG!
way to not quote the rest of my post
you choose to not put in the tomb raider demo (you should have also gotten rid of the quake 4 score as well since it doesn't really stress the cards)
and the chart shows in favor of ATI when infact the games were a lot closer than it suggests
point taken, thank you, that is more straightforward; added this under the chart:
"If the ATI HD 2900 XT was 100 cheaper, it would be a very good deal, but as it stands, the Geforce 8800 GTS 320Mb is the better choice."
Tomb Raider Anniversary edition is quite taxing game engine those cards were doing 200+FPS 1600x1200 4xAA max detail -- could have also been Q3A and seen large differences
The game chart shows in performance favor of the ATI because, in most benchmarks it comes in front; maybe just by a few FPS, but when the average is 33FPS, only a few FPS extra translates into a few % extra too. you'll have a hard time spotting the difference between 100FPS average or 110FPS average, it's more noticeable when it's 33 vs 40 fps, but also look at the minFPS, they tend to annoy us the most . Under the chart all detail is shown too for those looking 1cm under it Nothing incorrect is shown there.
It's also the reason that, IF (if!) both cards were priced the same, the HD 2900 XT would make a better deal
you just pick and choose what points you want to respond to
i'm over it now since you actually picked a side and said the 2900xt has poor value
you just pick and choose what points you want to respond to
I get the impression you guys think that piece was PRO ATI? If you look at last page in the price/performance overview, you can see that the GTS holds a healthy 30% lead over the HIS and 24% over the Jetway model; so GTS 320 still remains best bang for the buck.