• 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.

X2900XT Benchmarks

They might not. Im just repeating info. Personally as buggy as the latest testing drivers are I dont have high hopes. As you are right, 3 weeks isnt far away. So unless they have been holding out some better drivers on people, it could be rough.

I still may give it a shot, as I cant get rid of these reoccurring nvlddmkm errors in vista on my 8800 series card, or lock ups in xp after two cards now. So if there is a glimmer of hope in stability from these 2900 series cards, im all for it.
 
if they are holding on out stable vista drivers then I'm selling my card, I don't appreciate being put on hold for STABLE drivers so that NV could dim ATIs spotlight on launch time, though the latest drivers have been pretty decent
 
I still don't understand the whole "it's too late" argument. We now (well in 2 weeks or so) have the choice between 2 cards. One has drivers that work in Vista and one does not. They both cost the same.

<shrug>

If anyone is too late, it's NV with their working drivers...
 
jebo_4jc said:
I agree with you to some extent....but if the 8800GTS can't drive 60fps in COD2 or Oblivion at 12x10, then why would anybody try to run it at 16x12?
Click to expand...


You are looking at a canned benchmark that is NOT representative of real gameplay so please do not equate the framerates to real gameplay. I figured most of our readers would have learned that by now. I still find it odd that people tell us, "You must be wrong as your results are different from the "canned benchmark" sites." Well no shit, we don't evaluate that way as most of the time it does not show you what the cards are truly capable of.

On your 60fps comment, many find that 60fps is hardly needed for a smooth gameplay situation.

All that said, I will reserve full judgement till we have final hardware and drivers in our hands. I know the full story is yet to be told. But for the love of God, please don't base your R600 opinions on benchmarks such as these. It is like evaluating two top fuel funny cars on an oval dirt track.
 
ScYcS said:
I still don't understand the whole "it's too late" argument. We now (well in 2 weeks or so) have the choice between 2 cards. One has drivers that work in Vista and one does not. They both cost the same.

<shrug>

If anyone is too late, it's NV with their working drivers...
Click to expand...

Granted ATi's drivers actually work decent. Which who knows? They could be equally as horrible.
 
jebo_4jc said:
I agree with you to some extent....but if the 8800GTS can't drive 60fps in COD2 or Oblivion at 12x10, then why would anybody try to run it at 16x12?
Click to expand...

Well, if an 8800GTS can't drive COD2 at that resolution and a decent FPS but the 2900XT can (as we have seen), then I would say the 8800GTS is not a good card and the money would be better spent on a 2900XT at the same price. :p Not really complicated logic here. The cards should have been benchmarked with 4xAA, 8xHQAF, and 1680x1050 (this is the 21st century people, can we please move on to widescreen resolutions?), and if the 8800GTS couldn't keep up a decent FPS, then tough luck, there's no reason to make special accommodations for a weak card.

Neist said:
Granted ATi's drivers actually work decent. Which who knows? They could be equally as horrible.
Click to expand...

My X1950Pro says ATI's Vista drivers work just fine.

Which reminds me, I need a new smartass comment in my sig....
 
i'm not sure where all the big issues are with ATI's drivers (but then again, i get the feelign lately everyone just like to decry Vista + any driver, its sortof become the buzz word)..

i'm 30 days on Vista with my X1900XTX and, to be honest, the ATI drivers have been pretty transpartent between when i was running XP and now that i am running Vista..

all my old games work, the image quality is the same, etc.. etc..


infact i would go so far as to say, right now ATI's drivers and the fact they haven't missed a beat for monthly releases with Vista launched should be a good bonus for them (and the fact that the drivers work great IMO)...

I'm pretty confident ATI has got a good handle on their drivers, i won't be suprised to see the R600 released with good solid, functioning drivers, if their past record is any indication..
 
InorganicMatter said:
My X1950Pro says ATI's Vista drivers work just fine.
Click to expand...
The X1950's also equipped with a chip with a very traditional architecture, very much not unlike the "ancient" R520. The move to unified is akin to turning the world upside down.

It could certainly go either way. They might be stellar, or they may not work at all. My guess is that they'll be near the same midpoint as NVIDIA's, unfortunately.
 
If the HD2900XT is under $400 then it will be awesome. At this point I think it will all depend on the price this sells at.
 
rmed64 said:
Not only do you do HORRIBLE "reviews" of video cards these days......now you actually have the cohonas to call out REPUTABLE sites on their reviews and tell people what resolution they should play at?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? You think DailyTech's benchmarks (at 1280x1024) are better than [H]ard's? May I ask if you are a crack addict? :confused:
 
rmed64 said:
Not only do you do HORRIBLE "reviews" of video cards these days......now you actually have the cohonas to call out REPUTABLE sites on their reviews and tell people what resolution they should play at?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: = sarcasm right? :D

.....right?
 
Moofasa~ said:
Are you kidding me? You think DailyTech's benchmarks (at 1280x1024) are better than [H]ard's? May I ask if you are a crack addict? :confused:
Click to expand...

Way better and TRUTHFUL. Canned benchmarks are what [H] does to make cards seem more powerful than they really are.

Look me in the eye and tell me the 8600 series cards are great and blow away the 7 series.

If you can do that, you should be an [H] "reviewer".
 
rmed64 said:
Way better and TRUTHFUL. Canned benchmarks are what [H] does to make cards seem more powerful than they really are.

Look me in the eye and tell me the 8600 series cards are great and blow away the 7 series.

If you can do that, you should be an [H] "reviewer".
Click to expand...

Oh my.....I think we have a sore fan=boy on our hands who doesn't like the fact that [H]ardOCP's review show how bad his card got its ass whipped.
 
rmed64 said:
Way better and TRUTHFUL. Canned benchmarks are what [H] does to make cards seem more powerful than they really are.
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahahah

Clearly you:
A. don't understand the relationship between a CPU and a GPU.
B. have a strange misconception that [H] has some kind of crazy alternate agenda to misrepresent videocard performance (because people will return to your site if the reviews are misleading! what a great business tactic!).
C. don't understand what a canned benchmark really is.
D. were dropped on your head as a child.
E. make me laugh.
 
rmed64 said:
Way better and TRUTHFUL. Canned benchmarks are what [H] does to make cards seem more powerful than they really are.

Look me in the eye and tell me the 8600 series cards are great and blow away the 7 series.

If you can do that, you should be an [H] "reviewer".
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, they are noted.

Just remember that when you are using our free services we supply you here, you are actually helping us push out our brainwashing agenda. ;) So really you are to blame for my terrible actions in defrauding the community.

On a serious note, I really don't think you understand what you are talking about, but to each his own. I still wish you a great gaming experience. :)
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
You realize the first shot's not running in the DX9 mode or "HD" mode or whatever the heck it's called. That's not the card, it's a setting.
Click to expand...

And if the card can't provide stable FPS at that setting then what good is it?

Thats like saying a 8500 is just as good as a 8800gtx even though the 8500 gets 1 fps vs 70 with the same quality settings.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Oh my.....I think we have a sore fan=boy on our hands who doesn't like the fact that [H]ardOCP's review show how bad his card got its ass whipped.
Click to expand...

I WANTED the 8600 series to beat my card, but it barely can in SOME games, and it loses in OTHER games. I take no *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*! crap with my PC hardware, unlike [H].

I've had plenty of Nvidia cards, 6600GT, 7900GS, 5600 so why would I crap on the 8600 for no reason?

Oh thats right, 95% of the reviews out there say the cards suck and underwhelm, yet Kyle and his buddies kiss it's behind like it is the second coming of jesus himself.

Saying it blows out the 7 series is an outright lie. And I will continue to call [H] out on any information on videocards that they misrepresent to the public.

Just tellin it like it is boy
 
quadnad said:
bahahahahahahahah

Clearly you:
A. don't understand the relationship between a CPU and a GPU.
B. have a strange misconception that [H] has some kind of crazy alternate agenda to misrepresent videocard performance (because people will return to your site if the reviews are misleading! what a great business tactic!).
C. don't understand what a canned benchmark really is.
D. were dropped on your head as a child.
E. make me laugh.
Click to expand...

Oh look, someone who sticks his nose where it doesnt belong and makes himself look like an ass. GJ
 
dot_Zen said:
Although, I was really hoping get in on a Folding@Home team, too. Is there anyone who can direct me on how Nvidia's latest does with the Folding@home stuff? That info seems rather obscure at best, and I know the Ati' cards have always done loads better.
Click to expand...
It's simple, Nvidia's cards are not supported at all by Stanford. If you want to fold with the GPU client you'll have to use one of ATI's 19XX cards, and preferably one with more than 256MB of memory, FWIU. Better yet, just wait for the R600 if you're like me and curious what it will accomplish in F@H. It's one of the reasons I'm greatly anticipating the release of this series. Hopefully the benchmarks are indicating something big in the works.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the amazing workstation benches it accomplished. I know this is primarily a gaming forum, but those workstation benches against a Quadro FX5500 are nothing to sneeze at, especially considering the multi-thousand dollar price tag.
 
APOLLO said:
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the amazing workstation benches it accomplished. I know this is primarily a gaming forum, but those workstation benches against a Quadro FX5500 are nothing to sneeze at, especially considering the multi-thousand dollar price tag.
Click to expand...


Hmm thats against the 5500 that which is based on the gf7 tech. The 5600 and 4600 quadros are based on the gf8 tech.
 
Haven't seen it posted here so here goes.

NEW! RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By Anh Huynh (blog) on 4/24/07, Rating: 6
By Anh Huynh (blog) on 4/24/2007 11:30:06 AM , Rating: 6

The quality settings for the games were as follows:

Call of Duty 2 - Anisotropic filtering, 4xAA (in game), V-Sync off, Shadows enabled, a high number of dynamic lights, soften all smoke edges and an insane amount of corpses.

Company of Heroes - High shader quality, High model quality, Anti-aliasing enabled (in game), Ultra texture quality, high quality shadows, high quality reflections, Post processing On, High building detail, High physics, high tree quality, High terrain detail, Ultra effects fidelity, Ultra effects density, Object scarring enabled and the model detail slider all the way to the right.

F.E.A.R. - 4x FSAA (in game), maximum light details, shadows enabled, maximum shadow details, soft shadows enabled, 16x anisotropic filtering, maximum texture resolution, maximum videos, maximum shader quality.

Half Life 2: Episode 1 - High model detail, high texture detail, high shader detail, reflect all water details, high shadow detail, 4x multi-sample AA (in-game), 16x anisotropic filtering, v-sync disabled, full high-dynamic range.

Pretty much as high as you can crank it.
Click to expand...

[EDIT]As for the resolution problem:

NEW! RE: Why 1280x1024?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/07, Rating: 2
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 6:11:05 AM , Rating: 2

We had the misfortune of getting one-on-one time with the card but there were no displays capable of higher resolutions at the facility. We'll get more cards and benchmarks later this week.
Click to expand...

[EDIT2]
NEW! RE: Impressive
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/07, Rating: 5
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 5

Unless something changed -- Sven got an XTX about 2 hours after Anh got the XT. Sven is benchmarking now and we should have that up this week.
Click to expand...

NEW! RE: For engineering, this card might be incredible...
By Anh Huynh (blog) on 4/24/07, Rating: 2
By Anh Huynh (blog) on 4/24/2007 8:35:27 PM , Rating: 2

The card is an early sample that had all the workstation features enabled. However, we'll reveal more on upcoming workstation products later ;)
Click to expand...
 
razor1 said:
Hmm thats against the 5500 that which is based on the gf7 tech. The 5600 and 4600 quadros are based on the gf8 tech.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is very misleading. My now aging QX6700 / 8800GTX still manage to hold its own against the ATI's new R600 outbenching it in the tests I've run. I'm still kinda of confused why when the card has 50 times the geometry performance and an estimated 50 -70&#37; performance lead why ATI is apparently crippling it with these drivers. Why don't they let the full capability of the card loose before its release instead of holding back the performance like these early benchmarks indicate. Isn't this only going to hurt their sales? Why not let loose with both barrels and unleash the potential of their new architecture while Nvidia is readying the 8900 series??

Video Card: eVGA 8800GTX @ 1280x1024
Display Type:Direct3D
File Name | FPS
=================================================
4viewports.MAX | 278.552
8direct.MAX | 711.744
8omni.MAX | 638.978
8spot.MAX | 607.903
blitting.MAX | 1097.29
dualplanes.MAX | 1120.97
geometry1.MAX | 480.0
geometry2.MAX | 282.486
multitex.MAX | 80.0
rasterize.MAX | 744.048
textured1.MAX | 551.471
textured2.MAX | 174.14
textured3.MAX | 206.441
transpar.MAX | 340.599
wireframe1.MAX | 138.185
wireframe2.MAX | 74.129

Comp High: 332.844
Comp Low: 328.369
 
i wanna see how good the g-8900 is. if it beats 2 8800gtx's then ill get one of them not another gtx :)
 
loafer87gt said:
I agree that this is very misleading. My now aging QX6700 / 8800GTX still manage to hold its own against the ATI's new R600 outbenching it in the tests I've run. I'm still kinda of confused why when the card has 50 times the geometry performance and an estimated 50 -70% performance lead why ATI is apparently crippling it with these drivers. Why don't they let the full capability of the card loose before its release instead of holding back the performance like these early benchmarks indicate. Isn't this only going to hurt their sales? Why not let loose with both barrels and unleash the potential of their new architecture while Nvidia is readying the 8900 series??

Video Card: eVGA 8800GTX @ 1280x1024
Display Type:Direct3D
File Name | FPS
=================================================
4viewports.MAX | 278.552
8direct.MAX | 711.744
8omni.MAX | 638.978
8spot.MAX | 607.903
blitting.MAX | 1097.29
dualplanes.MAX | 1120.97
geometry1.MAX | 480.0
geometry2.MAX | 282.486
multitex.MAX | 80.0
rasterize.MAX | 744.048
textured1.MAX | 551.471
textured2.MAX | 174.14
textured3.MAX | 206.441
transpar.MAX | 340.599
wireframe1.MAX | 138.185
wireframe2.MAX | 74.129

Comp High: 332.844
Comp Low: 328.369
Click to expand...


Yeah I don't even know why they wanted to run a r600 against any quadro anyways, doesn't make any sense

Really think the GS figures are over exaggerated but lets wait and see.
 
rmed64 said:
Oh look, someone who sticks his nose where it doesnt belong and makes himself look like an ass. GJ
Click to expand...

hah, I'm pointing out the fact that people who obviously don't understand the review process should either make an effort to understand it or leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top