2900XT vs 8800GTS 320

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
well for you i guess he must be your Messiah

what *i* am saying is that you are right ... IF he tested like EVERYONE else and the HD2900xt lost like he is making it to be worse than the GTS 320 ... he would look like a bigger nvidia fanboy and no one would take anything he writes seriously again

as it is he "hides" his prejudice with his flawed methodology

So ... we are going to *compare* my HD2900xt [and others] with similar rigs with GTS 320/340 and GTX is welcome to share

OK with you

confirm or debunk him

He most definitely is not my "Messiah".

I'm perfectly alright with the tests you and keys are going to perform, but I dont expect the results to be any different than what we see in the HOCP review. BTW, are you going to be running the tests on your 1440x900 monitor, or did you get a new screen? I'm not quite sure how the tests are going to work since you are running a resolution that is lower than the one Keys is running.

I wish we could finally figure out of there is going to be a driver miracle for HD2900XT because I want one bad, but I'm unwilling to throw down $400 hoping that AMD will come through with drivers.

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

well, according to tracking, it is "on time" for Friday

... the only thing that might be late is my Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme CPU Cooler and Scythe S-FLEX 120mm fan ... so i may not get the OC i want ... and my Crucial Ballistix (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 won't be here till Monday or Tuesday as it is coming from Tennessee and i will get stuck with using 2GB PC6400 for now [although XMS is pretty oc'able]

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: bfdd
I have a long way to go because you guys would rather trust a site that lists no specific settings for cards vs one that is giving you SPECIFIC settings and WHY they had to use them? How do you justify that? Because it's not the results you like? You guys are morons.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with being 12 or 13, but you have a lot more to learn. There are pretty much two paths you will be able to take from this point.

A) You will learn of your ignorance and think back to these moments and blush

Or

B) You will remain ignorant of your own ignorance and think the entire world is wrong and you are right.

I am not sure which one I would put my money on... It could go either way.

Besides that, I think you will do best not to NAME call. I believe you have violated the TOS by many things you have done. 1) Calling me a douche (grow up dude!), 2) Using "F__K" in a post and 3) Calling us morons who do not agree with you. Now, we are all grown up here and can look past petty insults, but seriously, why get worked up over all of this?

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: bfdd
I have a long way to go because you guys would rather trust a site that lists no specific settings for cards vs one that is giving you SPECIFIC settings and WHY they had to use them? How do you justify that? Because it's not the results you like? You guys are morons.

You want some real information on R600 : # read this idiot !

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/16/1

1st understand the architecture and then

http://www.techreport.com/revi...hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=1 read this :!

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...t_performance_preview/ read this !

http://translate.google.com/tr...prev=%2Flanguage_tools and then read the best 1st wave of review on the official release drivers.

Main problem that ATI was burn alive was for Stalker , Half life 2 episode 1 , lost planet and company of heroes.
1. Stalker ati fix was not released until some one actually tweaked the code and turned on the float32 to fix ATI performance issue
2. Company of heroes and Lost planet ... ATI never got to tweak the game like nvidia had access to them because they were "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" title.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: bfdd
I have a long way to go because you guys would rather trust a site that lists no specific settings for cards vs one that is giving you SPECIFIC settings and WHY they had to use them? How do you justify that? Because it's not the results you like? You guys are morons.

You want some real information on R600 : # read this idiot !

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/16/1

1st understand the architecture and then

http://www.techreport.com/revi...hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=1 read this :!

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...t_performance_preview/ read this !

http://translate.google.com/tr...prev=%2Flanguage_tools and then read the best 1st wave of review on the official release drivers.

Main problem that ATI was burn alive was for Stalker , Half life 2 episode 1 , lost planet and company of heroes.
1. Stalker ati fix was not released until some one actually tweaked the code and turned on the float32 to fix ATI performance issue
2. Company of heroes and Lost planet ... ATI never got to tweak the game like nvidia had access to them because they were "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" title.

Can ya just wait for our dang results??
All will be answered soon enough. No more than a week from today, guaranteed.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

well, according to tracking, it is "on time" for Friday

... the only thing that might be late is my Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme CPU Cooler and Scythe S-FLEX 120mm fan ... so i may not get the OC i want ... and my Crucial Ballistix (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 won't be here till Monday or Tuesday as it is coming from Tennessee and i will get stuck with using 2GB PC6400 for now [although XMS is pretty oc'able]

Well, don't go too crazy with o/c'ing. I only have the stock cooler for the E6420. I have hit 2.8 at stock voltage (never messed with anything higher nor messed with voltage).
So, If I can hit 2.6, you should be somewhere around 2.8 ish. I'm actually just wild guessing.
I suppose we could use PCMark to get our CPU's in line. And I have G.Skill PC6400. 2GB.

 

[chunkylafanga]

This thread is awesome, some comments are good, but its rife with so many stupid ones its great. This is my first official post (after months of trolling, i only registered yesterday), hopefully not my last.

I would start by saying apoppin, i'm on your side on this and would luv to see the benchies soon. Hopefully my rig specs come up when i post.

I being a man of logic (as all men are), am not all that impressed by HardOCP's shoddy review techniques (and i will elaborate don't worry).

So, lets see the issues that I have with the Hreview

1. The Hreview deems 60 frames per second (average) as being playable...hmm ok, everybody knows that its the user that decides what is playable for them and what isn't (75 might be good for fps - especially in multiplayer; you be fine with 40 for rpgs - whos knows, its your eyes right).
2. Now just think about it like this; how many possible combinations (i don't think permutations would come into this) of the resolution, AA level (and AA type in the case of ATI), AF level, in game setting levels (which are too many to list here probably, e.g. filtering, sound, detail etc etc etc) will give you 60 frames per second in a particular game, i'm confidently betting more then one. Some people might prefer higher res (like me 24" of 1920x1200 goodness) and can live with AA being at 2X instead of 4X and others might prefer to game at a lower res with all the bells and whistles turned on. All I'm saying is theres a multitude of combinations that might give you a playable value

If there was no bias Hreview should have given the reader every single combination of settings which gave a playable framerate (whateva that is), but they were too slack to do that, or rather took the liberty to choose one to present.

On top of that, i'm reading a lot of negativity from people about the ATI in general - basically, you've all wholeheartedly accepted the Hreview with praises all round. I just read a post on this exact site about the many issues with Nvidias 320mb 8800 gts card - and apparently its happening to a lot of people (wasnt' mentioned in the Hreview)

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2059101&enterthread=y

As to the choice of choosing either card...hmmm I choose neither, I think this generation of cards has been kind of screwed over by microsoft AND game developers.

Nvidia came out with dx10 cards (but no dx10 drivers) early, so you could all continue playing dx9 games on. ATI came out with dx10 cards late (some people are screaming 7-10 months late! here as a reason why the card should be better). How can a card be "late" if theres no dx10 games to play on it, you guys are scrounging for nuts here by testing out dx10 demos here and there (whateva you can get your hands on) in an effort to say which card "might" be better in dx10.

Anyways on to my final point - i'll go into the debate about the 2900xt thing in future posts

I've gone through a lot of forums, and one thing that strikes me is that (you guys all love computers thats a given, but come on you know i know that we make up such a small percentage of society) is that even most posters in forums don't generally run monitors above 1650x1080 (i havent' seen all that many go up to 2560). So just imagine sort of setup a casual gamer has.

And don't give me that those guys don't really matter when it comes to video games, just look at the top ten best selling games ala firingsquad (WOW, sims and mostly sims expansions), so either the number of people playing these other pc games is quite lower, or theres a lot of piracy going on (hmmm).

 

[chunkylafanga]

by other pc games, i mean the hard core shooters (stalker, Half life), oblivion, etc etc

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: chunkylafanga


Nvidia came out with dx10 cards (but no dx10 drivers) early, so you could all continue playing dx9 games on. ATI came out with dx10 cards late (some people are screaming 7-10 months late! here as a reason why the card should be better). How can a card be "late" if theres no dx10 games to play on it, you guys are scrounging for nuts here by testing out dx10 demos here and there (whateva you can get your hands on) in an effort to say which card "might" be better in dx10.

I'm gonna reserve any comments on the rest of your post, but what I quoted here needs a little TLC.

In bold above: What kind of logic is this? The R600 was "supposed" to be lauched in November of 2006. The card is "early" for DX10. Nothing more. It was deliriously late in all other aspects. In fact, It actually launched over it's own refresh time. In other words, when it did finally launch, the R600 refresh should have been launched. That is how long it was postponed for. Not to mention all the BS lies AMD FUD spinners laid on us about launching the whole "family" of 2xxx series cards at one shot. I'm not laughing at that one.

And, welcome to the forums!

 

[chunkylafanga]

thanks keyplayr2003,

I bet AMD has the ATI staff chained to their desk (like they're currently doing to their cpu guys) until they had finished the product. So they probably released this card a little early so they could finally go home to see their families

But personally, i do think its a bit sad (i'm definitely agreeing with you keysplayr - my intention was to state that the card is early for dx10) that the driver side of things isn't handled better. Is it really hard to do? I don't know, i'm not in graphics industry? i'm sure both companies do get this sort of feedback; is it possible to shorten the time required to get decent drivers by putting more people on the job? who knows.

And yes AMD did spin the FUD (because it just like nvidia needs money - YOUR money) to make a profit and keep bringing out more innovative products and paying its employees who work so hard (a lot harder then the fat guy at your local convenience store).

Don't forget Intel used to spin the FUD about how great its P4s were and clockspeed was everything - i wasn't too impressed and bought an AMD duron 750, AMD athlon 1800xp and an AMD athlon 2800xp and now i have an Intel processor (such is life).

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: chunkylafanga


Nvidia came out with dx10 cards (but no dx10 drivers) early, so you could all continue playing dx9 games on. ATI came out with dx10 cards late (some people are screaming 7-10 months late! here as a reason why the card should be better). How can a card be "late" if theres no dx10 games to play on it, you guys are scrounging for nuts here by testing out dx10 demos here and there (whateva you can get your hands on) in an effort to say which card "might" be better in dx10.

I'm gonna reserve any comments on the rest of your post, but what I quoted here needs a little TLC.

In bold above: What kind of logic is this? The R600 was "supposed" to be lauched in November of 2006. The card is "early" for DX10. Nothing more. It was deliriously late in all other aspects. In fact, It actually launched over it's own refresh time. In other words, when it did finally launch, the R600 refresh should have been launched. That is how long it was postponed for. Not to mention all the BS lies AMD FUD spinners laid on us about launching the whole "family" of 2xxx series cards at one shot. I'm not laughing at that one.

And, welcome to the forums!

i think ati meant for oem.. like intel does too. They did sell over 2million gpu to HP alone in the 1st month for 2400/2600. also mobile too.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
well for you i guess he must be your Messiah

what *i* am saying is that you are right ... IF he tested like EVERYONE else and the HD2900xt lost like he is making it to be worse than the GTS 320 ... he would look like a bigger nvidia fanboy and no one would take anything he writes seriously again

as it is he "hides" his prejudice with his flawed methodology

So ... we are going to *compare* my HD2900xt [and others] with similar rigs with GTS 320/340 and GTX is welcome to share

OK with you

confirm or debunk him

He most definitely is not my "Messiah".

I'm perfectly alright with the tests you and keys are going to perform, but I dont expect the results to be any different than what we see in the HOCP review. BTW, are you going to be running the tests on your 1440x900 monitor, or did you get a new screen? I'm not quite sure how the tests are going to work since you are running a resolution that is lower than the one Keys is running.

I wish we could finally figure out of there is going to be a driver miracle for HD2900XT because I want one bad, but I'm unwilling to throw down $400 hoping that AMD will come through with drivers.

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

Yeah, but i'm concerned the low resolution will skew the results. I'd like to see at least 1680x1050 to stretch the legs of these cards a bit. Plus apoppin said that he wants to use your comparison to debunk or verify Kyle's numbers. That's not going to be possible when you guys are running 1440x900 and the review was using 1600x1200 mostly. If you do end up using 1440x900, I want to see some high levels of AA, TRAA, AAA and the like.

 

[blanketyblank]

Does 289 seem a bit high for a 320 8800 gts to anyone?
Anyways what I take from this review is the new ati drivers are still crap and people should wait till they get better before they get one. When the drivers can handle all the big games then it's time to buy.

 

[bfdd]

Insulting my age because I don't read HardOCP and happen to find the review a lot more in depth than most others and finding you to be idiots for thinking they some how cheated the hd2900xt? Please. BTW I don't really care if I violate TOS or get banned it's not going to destroy my world to not be able to come on here and post replies to morons such as yourselves. Also, to the guy that posted the R600 stuff, I've read it all before it's quite similar to the gpu in the 360 which I've read a lot up on too. I had high hopes and it's not what I thought it would be, sucks because the graphics card I had before this was ATI too x800xt.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: blanketyblank
Does 289 seem a bit high for a 320 8800 gts to anyone?
Anyways what I take from this review is the new ati drivers are still crap and people should wait till they get better before they get one. When the drivers can handle all the big games then it's time to buy.

Even if the card has lots of performance yet to be unlocked, at this rate there will be a refresh from nvidia and it wont matter how good the HD2900XT becomes.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

well, according to tracking, it is "on time" for Friday

... the only thing that might be late is my Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme CPU Cooler and Scythe S-FLEX 120mm fan ... so i may not get the OC i want ... and my Crucial Ballistix (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 won't be here till Monday or Tuesday as it is coming from Tennessee and i will get stuck with using 2GB PC6400 for now [although XMS is pretty oc'able]

Well, don't go too crazy with o/c'ing. I only have the stock cooler for the E6420. I have hit 2.8 at stock voltage (never messed with anything higher nor messed with voltage).
So, If I can hit 2.6, you should be somewhere around 2.8 ish. I'm actually just wild guessing.
I suppose we could use PCMark to get our CPU's in line. And I have G.Skill PC6400. 2GB.

i am already at 2.82Ghz [from 1.8G] with a [relatively] crippled MB, stock voltage and the stock intel cooler and Corsair XMS PC6400 ... i got the most extreme air cooling solution i could find [that will fit in my case] ... so i AM going for it
... but no doubt i will have to wait for the Crucial RAM to really kick it way up there with a screaming FSB at tight timings
[afaik, the Crucial stuff uses the best Dominator 1333 DDR-2 ... and cheap as hell ... this stuff IS special ... if 4GB shows promise, i will sell the XMS and get a 2nd set of the Ballistix]

and ... my old CRT may still work ... i have to see ... it became very unreliable which forced me to get my 14x9 ... if it works, i can do 16x12

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: chunkylafanga


Nvidia came out with dx10 cards (but no dx10 drivers) early, so you could all continue playing dx9 games on. ATI came out with dx10 cards late (some people are screaming 7-10 months late! here as a reason why the card should be better). How can a card be "late" if theres no dx10 games to play on it, you guys are scrounging for nuts here by testing out dx10 demos here and there (whateva you can get your hands on) in an effort to say which card "might" be better in dx10.

I'm gonna reserve any comments on the rest of your post, but what I quoted here needs a little TLC.

In bold above: What kind of logic is this? The R600 was "supposed" to be lauched in November of 2006. The card is "early" for DX10. Nothing more. It was deliriously late in all other aspects. In fact, It actually launched over it's own refresh time. In other words, when it did finally launch, the R600 refresh should have been launched. That is how long it was postponed for. Not to mention all the BS lies AMD FUD spinners laid on us about launching the whole "family" of 2xxx series cards at one shot. I'm not laughing at that one.

And, welcome to the forums!

i think ati meant for oem.. like intel does too. They did sell over 2million gpu to HP alone in the 1st month for 2400/2600. also mobile too.

Proof?

All these posts im reading are just poor excuses in covering up just how R600 was a failure. It was meant for OEMs.. it was meant for GTS.. it has hidden potentials.. it has that.. it has this .. you just wait!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
well for you i guess he must be your Messiah

what *i* am saying is that you are right ... IF he tested like EVERYONE else and the HD2900xt lost like he is making it to be worse than the GTS 320 ... he would look like a bigger nvidia fanboy and no one would take anything he writes seriously again

as it is he "hides" his prejudice with his flawed methodology

So ... we are going to *compare* my HD2900xt [and others] with similar rigs with GTS 320/340 and GTX is welcome to share

OK with you

confirm or debunk him

He most definitely is not my "Messiah".

I'm perfectly alright with the tests you and keys are going to perform, but I dont expect the results to be any different than what we see in the HOCP review. BTW, are you going to be running the tests on your 1440x900 monitor, or did you get a new screen? I'm not quite sure how the tests are going to work since you are running a resolution that is lower than the one Keys is running.

I wish we could finally figure out of there is going to be a driver miracle for HD2900XT because I want one bad, but I'm unwilling to throw down $400 hoping that AMD will come through with drivers.

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

Yeah, but i'm concerned the low resolution will skew the results. I'd like to see at least 1680x1050 to stretch the legs of these cards a bit. Plus apoppin said that he wants to use your comparison to debunk or verify Kyle's numbers. That's not going to be possible when you guys are running 1440x900 and the review was using 1600x1200 mostly. If you do end up using 1440x900, I want to see some high levels of AA, TRAA, AAA and the like.

Ah, true. Well, since Apoppin is on a major spending spree, maybe he could just pick up a 22 or 24" LCD to toy with ?
And this doesn't have to be just apoppin or myself doing this test. Others with similar rigs could definitely join in. By similiar, I mean Intel Core2Duo CPU, 2GB memory. and a 8800GTS 320/640 or HD2900XT.

One other problem I see is if he uses only Vista. I have no intention of purchasing Vista until Service Pack 1 comes out or Crysis is released. So, I'll be on XP pro.

 

[tuteja1986]

R600 wasn't a failure only to eyes who were seeking for an ultra high end gpu ATI GPU. Ohh you think a $400 card will completely take down a 8800GTX !! grow up

Anyways these type oem deals are not usually advertised but ATI is counting on them... ATI is on track to ship over 100million 65nm gpu by the end of year to its oem so no ATI isn't trouble.

believe what you want but AMD gpu division it is not trouble.

In Q1 07 AMD GPU division lost 32million because of the delay of R600 but in Q3 and Q4 they are on track of making that and more profit.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
R600 wasn't a failure only to eyes who were seeking for an ultra high end gpu ATI GPU. Ohh you think a $400 card will completely take down a 8800GTX !! grow up

Anyways these type oem deals are not usually advertised but ATI is counting on them... ATI is on track to ship over 100million 65nm gpu by the end of year to its oem so no ATI isn't trouble.

believe what you want but AMD gpu division it is not trouble.

In Q1 07 AMD GPU division lost 32million because of the delay of R600 but in Q3 and Q4 they are on track of making that and more profit.

I think AMD has bigger fish to fry right about now. Linky

We can see that you are believing what you want to believe. That's kewl. Just please do try to stop apologizing for them. It's making me nauseous. ANYONE can plainly see they are in a bit of trouble. Including schedules, deadlines, finances, performance, bad PR.

And I can't believe you actually said this: "R600 wasn't a failure only to eyes who were seeking for an ultra high end gpu ATI GPU."

EVERYONE was expecting R600 to throttle a G80. This is fact. I even did. With those specs, who wouldn't?

R600 was all but guaranteed to annihilate the 8800GTX since it's launch in november. That eventually dwindled down to "R600 will be competitive with Nvidia's G80". And then THAT dwindled down to "R600 will not be able to best Nvidia's top offering, but offer a competitive product."

THIS is why folks were angered. The BS.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

More important than MAX framerate is AVERAGE framerate. And more important than AVERAGE framerate is MINIMUM framerate. If you guys don't understand the review, take a few extra minutes and go through it again. Eventually you'll say, "Hmmm. Now I see what they are trying to show us.".

It is important to compare conclusions of other websites so you can reasonably assess the experience which can be expected from a graphics card. Sites like Anandtech run FRAPS based on certain parts of a level which makes their conclusions just as valid as they would be able to see drastic drops in performance and comment on them. Xbitlabs and Firingsquad, for instance, generally show minimum framerates as well. So it's not like other sites do not provide a valid insight. The main difference is that they do so while testing at all equal settings which takes "opinion" out of the equation. However, HardOCP choose themselves what they feel is an appropriate level of playability.

It perfectly makes sense what they do when they test graphics cards, but it is their methodology that is somewhat questionable. Consider that someone likes to play at 1600x1200 with 8AF and no AA and increase draw distance to 75% and shadows to Max instead, while at HardOCP they'd rather play at 1280x1024 4AA/8AF with 25% draw distance and 0 shadows. We know that Nvidia and ATI are affected differently when AA is enabled or when shadows are enabled. The frames could be very similar but what does that tell you about image quality? Also, I personally never in my life ran 2AA. It's just pointless to me, but HardOCP has several benches with it. Similarly I'd rather play at 1600x1200 with 0AA and 0AF with textures and all details maxed out first, before i consider enabling those IQ features. You simply wont find the performance numbers for such a scenario on their site. On these forums alone if you were to ask some people would prefer AA and lower resolution vs. no AA and higher resolution. But then comparing graphics cards becomes impossible when someone else chooses what is "playable."

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
R600 wasn't a failure only to eyes who were seeking for an ultra high end gpu ATI GPU. Ohh you think a $400 card will completely take down a 8800GTX !! grow up

Anyways these type oem deals are not usually advertised but ATI is counting on them... ATI is on track to ship over 100million 65nm gpu by the end of year to its oem so no ATI isn't trouble.

believe what you want but AMD gpu division it is not trouble.

In Q1 07 AMD GPU division lost 32million because of the delay of R600 but in Q3 and Q4 they are on track of making that and more profit.

I think AMD has bigger fish to fry right about now. Linky

We can see that you are believing what you want to believe. That's kewl. Just please do try to stop apologizing for them. It's making me nauseous. ANYONE can plainly see they are in a bit of trouble. Including schedules, deadlines, finances, performance, bad PR.

And I can't believe you actually said this: "R600 wasn't a failure only to eyes who were seeking for an ultra high end gpu ATI GPU."

EVERYONE was expecting R600 to throttle a G80. This is fact. I even did. With those specs, who wouldn't?

R600 was all but guaranteed to annihilate the 8800GTX since it's launch in november. That eventually dwindled down to "R600 will be competitive with Nvidia's G80". And then THAT dwindled down to "R600 will not be able to best Nvidia's top offering, but offer a competitive product."

THIS is why folks were angered. The BS.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules...ticle&artid=292&page=1

I am not saying AMD is in trouble... I know the CPU division is screwed. but analyst are always wrong on about the sales.

=====================================================================================
chipsets up 15%

321 million loss in computing segment

179 million rev in graphics up sequentially, 35 million operating loss

==========================================

I am not saying AMD Q2 report is negative but they haven't lost 50% server sales... Peddie Research has been wrong in may occasion. They only look at numbers and what you people are saying about AMD. You should just wait for Q2 report for some real fact than a stupid research firm. If i remember correctly they predicted ati loose 60% oem sales but instead they gained more. Yes ATI stuffed and nothing was wrong with the architectural choices , it was that no one followed it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
well for you i guess he must be your Messiah

what *i* am saying is that you are right ... IF he tested like EVERYONE else and the HD2900xt lost like he is making it to be worse than the GTS 320 ... he would look like a bigger nvidia fanboy and no one would take anything he writes seriously again

as it is he "hides" his prejudice with his flawed methodology

So ... we are going to *compare* my HD2900xt [and others] with similar rigs with GTS 320/340 and GTX is welcome to share

OK with you

confirm or debunk him

He most definitely is not my "Messiah".

I'm perfectly alright with the tests you and keys are going to perform, but I dont expect the results to be any different than what we see in the HOCP review. BTW, are you going to be running the tests on your 1440x900 monitor, or did you get a new screen? I'm not quite sure how the tests are going to work since you are running a resolution that is lower than the one Keys is running.

I wish we could finally figure out of there is going to be a driver miracle for HD2900XT because I want one bad, but I'm unwilling to throw down $400 hoping that AMD will come through with drivers.

I can run my screen at 1400x900. It'll be fine.

Yeah, but i'm concerned the low resolution will skew the results. I'd like to see at least 1680x1050 to stretch the legs of these cards a bit. Plus apoppin said that he wants to use your comparison to debunk or verify Kyle's numbers. That's not going to be possible when you guys are running 1440x900 and the review was using 1600x1200 mostly. If you do end up using 1440x900, I want to see some high levels of AA, TRAA, AAA and the like.

Ah, true. Well, since Apoppin is on a major spending spree, maybe he could just pick up a 22 or 24" LCD to toy with ?
And this doesn't have to be just apoppin or myself doing this test. Others with similar rigs could definitely join in. By similiar, I mean Intel Core2Duo CPU, 2GB memory. and a 8800GTS 320/640 or HD2900XT.

One other problem I see is if he uses only Vista. I have no intention of purchasing Vista until Service Pack 1 comes out or Crysis is released. So, I'll be on XP pro.

apoppin is done with his "spending spree" ... the only thing i probably want is a 20.1" 10x16 display ... but am waiting to see "next gen" ... and possibly a 2nd HD2900xt or a single GTX [as determined by my x-fire MB] when the new games come out this Summer

what choice do i have other than Vista? if it runs OK on Win2K, it will be with the 7.4 Cats - not the 7.5s ... i will certainly try my x2900xt [if it arrives today, as expected]

Your package is on time with a scheduled delivery date of 06/15/2007.
06/15/2007 5:12 A.M. OUT FOR DELIVERY

so i will see if it even works in my current 4xMB with the 2nd latest drivers and give a few "impressions" ... THEN i have to do an entire build ... and i never did a SATA RAID-0 before ... and it looks like my Thermalright CPU cooler will arrive also today - without the fan - it STILL will cool better than the stock intel HSF according to Anand's review ... but i can't get any "maximum" cpu OCs

finally, if i am *stuck* at the very mainstream 14x9, we DO want to see the maximum levels of details/AA-AF ... if i can get my old CRT going, i can test 12x16 ... it was refusing to turn on [reliably] when i unplugged it

 

[dadach]

i can help provide some info with my: e4300@3.0, infinity dark p965, 4gb ram, club3d 2900xt, vista 64-bit, catalyst 7.5...so if u have some scores to comapre on similar setup, fire away

sorry about some nvidiot bashing, just gets on my nerves when people go out of their way to prove something that noone is really denying

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
R600 wasn't a failure only to eyes who were seeking for an ultra high end gpu ATI GPU. Ohh you think a $400 card will completely take down a 8800GTX !! grow up

The R600 is worse than the FX5800 was. At least the FX series rebounded quickly. So far we have seen nothing to conclude that the R600 will rebound.

Anyways these type oem deals are not usually advertised but ATI is counting on them... ATI is on track to ship over 100million 65nm gpu by the end of year to its oem so no ATI isn't trouble.

Got a link for the 100million number? They have not even released a 65nm part yet and the year is about half over.

believe what you want but AMD gpu division it is not trouble.
In Q1 07 AMD GPU division lost 32million because of the delay of R600 but in Q3 and Q4 they are on track of making that and more profit.

Again got a link to back up those numbers? The last financial report released by AMD was dire indeed and had none of you gloss to it.

I want AMD to succeed as I love their CPUs, however right now their GPU division is holding them back.