2900 is getting better by the day

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Well there's no real good DX10 app yet.

In true DX10 benchies it does phenominally better than the G80, however those benchies are not hobbled by texture and other aspects that are really crippling the R600's potential.

Lost Planet and Call of Juarez sofar are DX9 games with DX10 tacked on as an afterthought. Te visuals aren't impressively different in a way that REQUIRES DX10, nor did they already do anything in DX9 that was so heavy that replacing it by DX10 efficiency shows much difference (hey if they were heavily vertex loaded with multi-pass procedural rendering and replaced it by geometry shading then that'd be something.

FS' investigation into LP shows that really it's DX9 with DX10 tacked on, and it suffers a huge performance hit for turning on DX10 code path for what isn't a huge improvement other than better shadows.

I would say we're a long way from knowing anything about true DX10 performance, and even then I think regardless of some of the benefits of the R600 over the G80, it's terrible held back by it's render back end, that most of that benefit will be lost or mitigated.

 

[Phrozt]

Lol.. you ati fanboys are hilarious.

the 2900 wins in benchmarks that are meaningless (aka 3Dmark).

It also is SLIGHTLY better in one game. In everything else it gets stomped by the GTX, and the only way it can win is to be compared to a card 2/3rds its price.

Why is the 640MB GTS not in there?? Gee I wonder...

 

[enewmen]

Well there's no real good DX10 app yet.

In true DX10 benchies it does phenominally better than the G80, however those benchies are not hobbled by texture and other aspects that are really crippling the R600's potential.

Lost Planet and Call of Juarez sofar are DX9 games with DX10 tacked on as an afterthought. Te visuals aren't impressively different in a way that REQUIRES DX10, nor did they already do anything in DX9 that was so heavy that replacing it by DX10 efficiency shows much difference (hey if they were heavily vertex loaded with multi-pass procedural rendering and replaced it by geometry shading then that'd be something.

FS' investigation into LP shows that really it's DX9 with DX10 tacked on, and it suffers a huge performance hit for turning on DX10 code path for what isn't a huge improvement other than better shadows.

I would say we're a long way from knowing anything about true DX10 performance, and even then I think regardless of some of the benefits of the R600 over the G80, it's terrible held back by it's render back end, that most of that benefit will be lost or mitigated.

Think Crysis will finally be a good DX10 app? Can you think of any others?
Thanks!

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

what are you yapping about now?

the 2900 wins in benchmarks that are meaningless (aka 3Dmark).

Actually it also excels in actual games as well, even against the GTX (like in Company of Heroes and, perhaps you need to do a little more research. It's still early, but it's not just 3Dmark where the card does well, and not just one game.

Why is the 640MB GTS not in there?? Gee I wonder...

Why is it not in where? It's benchmarked right alongside the GTS-640 and the 320, GTX and Ultra are beside it. You must be thinking of another thread, 'cause neither the on you replied to nor the OP's match your little story there.

 

[bfellow]

For some reason my 2900 is not getting better by the day. It hasn't upgraded itself.

 

[Phrozt]

what are you yapping about now?


the 2900 wins in benchmarks that are meaningless (aka 3Dmark).

Actually it also excels in actual games as well, even against the GTX (like in Company of Heroes and, perhaps you need to do a little more research. It's still early, but it's not just 3Dmark where the card does well, and not just one game.

If you put my quote in context, I admitted it was better in ONE game. Show me more where it beats the GTX.

I was mistaken about the GTS 640.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

For some reason my 2900 is not getting better by the day. It hasn't upgraded itself.

Considering that the drivers are intertgral to the functioning of the hardware, then the enitre package is getting better.

Seemed pretty obvious to everyone else. Guess it's that obtuse reason that was holding you back.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

If you put my quote in context, I admitted it was better in ONE game. Show me more where it beats the GTX.

OK. Now I could show a ton with no AA, but there's no point, since really it should perform well with/without AA which seems to kill the R600 in many cases because of it's weak back end AA resolve.

Beats an Ultra with the new drivers in Quake4;
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/671-11/ati-radeon-hd-2900-xt.html

It's funny, cause suddenly ATi is better in OGL than DX in many cases, which is a switch.
In Prey, Riddick, etc it's doing much better than the GTS and running close behind the GTX. SS2 seems to be the biggest hole in their OGL performance. Heck even AA performance is OK on those GL titles.

Test Drive Unlimited (that's come up in a few areas a one of the titles showing a major benefit);
http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/radeon_hd_2900_xt/index16.php

Te main thing is that it's still early to be saying much, especially considering the amount of improvement that coame from drivers in pretty much every previous release of cards. What seems apparent is that while early tweaks only brought a little performance gain, the R600 drivers are getting things from dismal write-off to competative part range.

I don't expect any miracles any time soon, but it's nice to see it do what it was retargeted to do and compete with the GTS for performance/value, and it's getting better at doing that than before. The GTSs will remain attractive for a while with price differences, but with prices of the HD2900 already dropping to 389 within the first week and performance improving, it seem well slotted in performance/price between the GTS-640 and the GTX.

 

[Vokofpolisiekar]

It's the same old same old.

New cards come out, fanboys screaming joy or anger. And then the pointing of fingers and blaming of the companies making such hardware.

The timing of both these cards are just plain wrong. With little to none DX10 games available, I wouldn't even think of buying "DX10" hardware now.

The problem is, that when DX10 games that were built from the ground up around the DX10 code path start appearing more, the second iteration of DX10 hardware will most likely be on the shelves. The only good coming from now is driver streamlining on current DX10 hardware and worst case a architecture review, but the downside is that arguments are being made based on the current state of affairs: DX10 hardware now being tested on games that don't actually benefit from the architecture of either card.

Time will tell just how good both architectures are, but for now, I couldn't care less on who "beats" who and all the nonsensical logic that accompanies each argument. The bottom line here is what suits your pocket, and in doing so: can it play the games you like at the appropiate levels of detail? Favouritism breeds from blindness.

I'll sit back, twiddle my thumbs and get into dx10 the next round when there's actually some benefit or reason to go to DX10.

EDIT: Reply was sent in general - not to Phrozt

 

[tamalero]

im not gonna buy it
i already got my 8800

congrats, want a hug too?

 

[freshazzburu]

Firingsquad's Lost Planet Demo

Don't know if anyone has taken a peak at this review, but the HD2900XT was performing in between the GTS cards and the GTX.

Just food for thought.

I'm still waiting on the DX10 games to finally hit the shelves, so I can finally decide which to get. Plus, I'm sure both prices will drop by then.