The 2900 takes a major beating when AA is applied. So since it loses some benchmarks to the 8800 plus the power\heat\noise issues, the GTS is a better card even at the same price or a little higher for that matter.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: spittledip
They need to drop that price to make it competitive... Nvidia could raise the price on their GTS's and still get people to buy at this point.
Why would you buy an 8800GTS when you could get an HD 2900XT? Besides consuming less power, there's no real advantages to the GTS. If the GTS is $70 less (which it is now but will not be soon) then I could possibly see why, but at the same price the 2900XT is a better card. If you compared nVidia's cards at release to the 2900XT right now, things would be a different story. All ATI needs is to improve drivers and things will change.
Even right now, the 2900XT is ahead of even an overclocked GTX in Rainbow Six Vegas, which is based on the Unreal 3 engine. UT 2007 and numerous other games are based on that engine, and it is seen as one of the next-generation gaming engines (along with CryTek 2). If the 2900XT shines here, it will likely shine in those games.
The two things that I think are causing the HD 2900XT to not perform as well as it should are a) only 16 TMU's, and b) immature drivers (especially with AA performance). The majority of games today are still very texture dependant and the 8800GTX with 32 TMU's has a huge advantage over the HD 2900XT's 16. This is one of the reasons, along with drivers, the 2900XT doesn't see a huge advantage over the X1950XTX in some games - it only has slightly more texture power from the higher clockspeed (750MHz vs 650MHz). "Next-gen" games like Company of Heroes and those based on the Unreal 3 engine are much more shader dependant, and here the HD 2900XT shines.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Tridus
Originally posted by: Extelleron
[Why would you buy an 8800GTS when you could get an HD 2900XT? Besides consuming less power, there's no real advantages to the GTS. If the GTS is $70 less (which it is now but will not be soon) then I could possibly see why, but at the same price the 2900XT is a better card. If you compared nVidia's cards at release to the 2900XT right now, things would be a different story. All ATI needs is to improve drivers and things will change.
Even right now, the 2900XT is ahead of even an overclocked GTX in Rainbow Six Vegas, which is based on the Unreal 3 engine. UT 2007 and numerous other games are based on that engine, and it is seen as one of the next-generation gaming engines (along with CryTek 2). If the 2900XT shines here, it will likely shine in those games.
Right now its $70 less for similar performance. That alone is reason enough.
Power is also an issue. the 2900XT draws insane amounts of power for the performance, far more then the 8800GTS. Power costs money, both in the power itself and in a PSU that can feed it (not a problem if you bought a 600w PSU, but lots of us don't have those). Plus, all that extra power gets converted into extra heat.
There isn't much to recommend the 2900XT against a cheaper 8800GTS.
The most advanced games featured in the test suites (CoH as one of them, Rainbow Six another which is based on the UE3 engine) run very well on the HD 2900XT. In CoH the 2900XT is significantly faster than the GTS, and with 2048x1536 4x/8x settings in Vista beats the GTX. In Rainbow Six the 2900XT is faster than an overclocked GTX. (In one review at least, Anandtech shows the GTX and XT with equal performance. Perhaps legitreviews used a newer driver)
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: spittledip
They need to drop that price to make it competitive... Nvidia could raise the price on their GTS's and still get people to buy at this point.
Why would you buy an 8800GTS when you could get an HD 2900XT? Besides consuming less power, there's no real advantages to the GTS. If the GTS is $70 less (which it is now but will not be soon) then I could possibly see why, but at the same price the 2900XT is a better card. If you compared nVidia's cards at release to the 2900XT right now, things would be a different story. All ATI needs is to improve drivers and things will change.
Even right now, the 2900XT is ahead of even an overclocked GTX in Rainbow Six Vegas, which is based on the Unreal 3 engine. UT 2007 and numerous other games are based on that engine, and it is seen as one of the next-generation gaming engines (along with CryTek 2). If the 2900XT shines here, it will likely shine in those games.
The two things that I think are causing the HD 2900XT to not perform as well as it should are a) only 16 TMU's, and b) immature drivers (especially with AA performance). The majority of games today are still very texture dependant and the 8800GTX with 32 TMU's has a huge advantage over the HD 2900XT's 16. This is one of the reasons, along with drivers, the 2900XT doesn't see a huge advantage over the X1950XTX in some games - it only has slightly more texture power from the higher clockspeed (750MHz vs 650MHz). "Next-gen" games like Company of Heroes and those based on the Unreal 3 engine are much more shader dependant, and here the HD 2900XT shines.
The 2900 takes a major beating when AA is applied. So since it loses some benchmarks to the 8800 plus the power\heat\noise issues, the GTS is a better card even at the same price or a little higher for that matter.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The most advanced games featured in the test suites (CoH as one of them, Rainbow Six another which is based on the UE3 engine) run very well on the HD 2900XT. In CoH the 2900XT is significantly faster than the GTS, and with 2048x1536 4x/8x settings in Vista beats the GTX. In Rainbow Six the 2900XT is faster than an overclocked GTX. (In one review at least, Anandtech shows the GTX and XT with equal performance. Perhaps legitreviews used a newer driver)
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: spittledip
They need to drop that price to make it competitive... Nvidia could raise the price on their GTS's and still get people to buy at this point.
Why would you buy an 8800GTS when you could get an HD 2900XT? Besides consuming less power, there's no real advantages to the GTS. If the GTS is $70 less (which it is now but will not be soon) then I could possibly see why, but at the same price the 2900XT is a better card. If you compared nVidia's cards at release to the 2900XT right now, things would be a different story. All ATI needs is to improve drivers and things will change.
Even right now, the 2900XT is ahead of even an overclocked GTX in Rainbow Six Vegas, which is based on the Unreal 3 engine. UT 2007 and numerous other games are based on that engine, and it is seen as one of the next-generation gaming engines (along with CryTek 2). If the 2900XT shines here, it will likely shine in those games.
The two things that I think are causing the HD 2900XT to not perform as well as it should are a) only 16 TMU's, and b) immature drivers (especially with AA performance). The majority of games today are still very texture dependent and the 8800GTX with 32 TMU's has a huge advantage over the HD 2900XT's 16. This is one of the reasons, along with drivers, the 2900XT doesn't see a huge advantage over the X1950XTX in some games - it only has slightly more texture power from the higher clockspeed (750MHz vs 650MHz). "Next-gen" games like Company of Heroes and those based on the Unreal 3 engine are much more shader dependent, and here the HD 2900XT shines.
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The most advanced games featured in the test suites (CoH as one of them, Rainbow Six another which is based on the UE3 engine) run very well on the HD 2900XT. In CoH the 2900XT is significantly faster than the GTS, and with 2048x1536 4x/8x settings in Vista beats the GTX. In Rainbow Six the 2900XT is faster than an overclocked GTX. (In one review at least, Anandtech shows the GTX and XT with equal performance. Perhaps legitreviews used a newer driver)
So in other words, you want us to buy the 2900XT for the crappy console port that is R6V because nothing will change and all UE3 games will favor it?
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: spittledip
They need to drop that price to make it competitive... Nvidia could raise the price on their GTS's and still get people to buy at this point.
Why would you buy an 8800GTS when you could get an HD 2900XT? Besides consuming less power, there's no real advantages to the GTS. If the GTS is $70 less (which it is now but will not be soon) then I could possibly see why, but at the same price the 2900XT is a better card. If you compared nVidia's cards at release to the 2900XT right now, things would be a different story. All ATI needs is to improve drivers and things will change.
Even right now, the 2900XT is ahead of even an overclocked GTX in Rainbow Six Vegas, which is based on the Unreal 3 engine. UT 2007 and numerous other games are based on that engine, and it is seen as one of the next-generation gaming engines (along with CryTek 2). If the 2900XT shines here, it will likely shine in those games.
The two things that I think are causing the HD 2900XT to not perform as well as it should are a) only 16 TMU's, and b) immature drivers (especially with AA performance). The majority of games today are still very texture dependent and the 8800GTX with 32 TMU's has a huge advantage over the HD 2900XT's 16. This is one of the reasons, along with drivers, the 2900XT doesn't see a huge advantage over the X1950XTX in some games - it only has slightly more texture power from the higher clockspeed (750MHz vs 650MHz). "Next-gen" games like Company of Heroes and those based on the Unreal 3 engine are much more shader dependent, and here the HD 2900XT shines.
R600 has inferior Anisotropic-Filtering, and that is hardware-based, it won't change through driver updates.
R600 has inferior power-consumption efficiency for its given performance than the GTS and GTX.
R600 is still at the moment more expansive than a GTS 640MB at some places, and it is now that is important. Being less expansive "soon" isn't relevant, when you launch a product you want people to be interested in it when it gets shown, not a month of two later.
Let me tell you this, I would have been the first to write something against G80, I like ATi, I bought six cards from them in total since the past four years, but this time I see no real advantages to the HD 2900XT, to take back your words.
Originally posted by: bigsnyder
I think the folks holding out for a miracle from the drivers are going to be disappointed. AMD/ATI
has had an extra six months to work on them. If this beast was released "on time", then there would
be an argument for the issue.
C Snyder
Originally posted by: bigsnyder
I think the folks holding out for a miracle from the drivers are going to be disappointed. AMD/ATI
has had an extra six months to work on them. If this beast was released "on time", then there would
be an argument for the issue.
C Snyder
Originally posted by: jaykishankrk
How did they Bench for a crossfire setup when it is clearly mentioned that they have used only Intel setup in their TEST BED.. we need to know the AMD setup for test bed, so that the figures indicated are True. some may argue that the Test setup holds nothing against Game Performance, but i disagree with that conception.
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Seems pretty good. Edges out the 8800gts (except in stalker), enough for it to be competitive at that price point. But, with some downward price pressure on the 8800gts 640mb...and the drawbacks on the R600 of a louder cooler and high power consumption its kind of a wash to me.
ATI had a hefty performance advantage and vastly superior IQ last generation to make up for its crummy coolers and weak selection of board partners. Not so this time around. With how much these cards cost, I feel like the 8800gts is still a better choice.
Originally posted by: Nightmare225
We should hopefully see more DX10 content very soon. The DX10 patch for Company of Heroes should be released later this month, while a DX10 version of the hit Xbox 360 shooter Lost Planet is expected to be released later this summer.
The X1950XTX beats the 8800GTS in several tests. When pushed to the limit at high-resolutions with AA/AF, the X1950XTX is faster in several games (CoH as you say is one of them, FEAR is another).Originally posted by: MadBoris
Originally posted by: Nightmare225
We should hopefully see more DX10 content very soon. The DX10 patch for Company of Heroes should be released later this month, while a DX10 version of the hit Xbox 360 shooter Lost Planet is expected to be released later this summer.
Company of heroes is an ATI star game. You can say Relic geared the game rendering engine very well to utilize ATI hardware or maybe you can say they did poorly for utilizing Nvidia hardware. The x1950xtx even beats out the 8800gts in COH (yet the GTS is definitely superior to the 1950 overall).
I would expect the DX10 patch for COH to be favorable to ATI as well. I would be very suprised if COH wasn't ATI's DX10 hero.
Originally posted by: Regs
The whole review I got the impression that Derek was trying to say "Well at least it's not a complete flop".
Though brand loyalty is much stronger for a GPU part than it is for a CPU part. You can label brand loyalty "fanboi" all you want but people are going to buy what they most feel comfortable with.
If they want to ignore the signals that this card shows obvious drawbacks and needs a revision to show it's worth for the near future, then I almost feel sorry for them for wasting the 400 dollars for games that wont be out until later this year. DX10, I agree with many others, is for the 65nm parts coming from both Nvidia and hopefully ATi later this year.
However if you want better performance today from a x800 or x1900, and continue to be loyal to ATi, then I see no reason why not to buy the X2900. Just don't ask me to recommend it to you.
is it a *feeling* ?Originally posted by: MadBoris
I'm starting to thing some of the great specs are being crippled by some bottleneck internally. 512 bit memory bus, 320 shaders is great and all but...something is holding this thing back and it isn't just drivers.
Originally posted by: gneGne
Extelleron, do you have visions of the future?
Originally posted by: apoppin
is it a *feeling* ?Originally posted by: MadBoris
I'm starting to thing some of the great specs are being crippled by some bottleneck internally. 512 bit memory bus, 320 shaders is great and all but...something is holding this thing back and it isn't just drivers.
And here's what AMD did wrong:
First, they refuse to call a spade a spade: this part was absolutely delayed, and it works better to admit this rather than making excuses. Forcing MSAA resolve to run on the shader hardware is less than desirable and degrades both pixel throughput and shader horsepower as opposed to implementing dedicated resolve hardware in the render back ends. Not being able to follow through with high end hardware will hurt in more than just in lost margins. The thirst for wattage that the R600 displays is not what we'd like to see from an architecture that is supposed to be about efficiency. Finally, attempting to extract a high instruction level parallelism using a VLIW design when something much simpler could exploit the huge amount of thread level parallelism inherent in graphics was not the right move.