HD 2900XT, rate how bad this card sucks! or not?

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
0
Ok, HD 2900XT is a disaster its too hot and too late we all know that!

As a hardcore x-ati fan, i waited faithfully for my version. I even built a system in anticipation, around 2 x2900xtx then sold it in complete disappointment.

The good news: as a water cooled home theater system this card has great potential as an hdmi component - but that is a slim market.

Is it a gaming disaster or not? The bad news: Why should I have to spend $500 on water cooling system just because amd can not compete with nvidia?

The 8800 wins hands down at $250 lvl to $650 lvl. I was never an nvidia fan, a die hard P4 and ati guy!

Now i am a 650i.680i builder - who cares about p35 and hd2900xt

nvidia is the true winner here - what do you think?









5TB HTPC sever under construction above








well you can see i use both!
 

crazypyro

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
325
0
18,780
0
the 2900XT is only a flop to anyone who expected to perform on par with the GTX.

AMD clearly said it wouldn't compete with the GTX and it was meant for the GTS. Hence it was priced right for that segment of the market. At this price point it is what you'd expect and then some with all the extra features. Now if you're concerned with heat and power usage then, yes its not the card for you.

Disappointment: only to the few who can't comprehend the simplest of sentences, and were hoping for a miracle.



All that matters right now to ATi is the OEM business which they now have 60% of with there 2400/2600 series cards, and that alone will give them capital to bring out a true high end chip.

Doom and Gloom threads are old, pointless, and accomplish nothing. Just provide a review of your cards, experience, and conclusion.

Rd. 1 of DX10 goes to nVidia
Rd. 2 should swing into ATi's favor*
and by Rd. 2 i don't mean this generations revisions like the 2950 series or the 8850** series, i mean R700 and G90

*game developer dependent and on nVidia's G90 design
**unconfirmed
 

srgess

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
556
0
18,990
1
AMD clearly said it wouldn't compete with the GTX and it was meant for the GTS.
They started to said that at the launch and they realize there because they are so dumb. If i remember couple month ago they said it was very powerful and going to be the competition.
 

crazypyro

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
325
0
18,780
0
AMD clearly said it wouldn't compete with the GTX and it was meant for the GTS.
They started to said that at the launch and they realize there because they are so dumb. If i remember couple month ago they said it was very powerful and going to be the competition.

the months leading up to its launch the power they kept talking about was its Tflop performance for GPGPU applications, or simply put its stream processing power, and in which case its extremely powerful at doing, theres no lie there. They never said it would be the high end competitor. We all expected to be, and all the media outlets reported it as such, but it was never claimed to be by AMD directly
 

Dr_asik

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2006
607
0
18,980
0
It was natural to expect ATI's new generation of video cards, released six months after NVidia's, to at least challenge the G80. But the HD 2900XT, when you consider what performance it gives for the money, barely matches the 8800GTS. It may do slightly better overall, I'm not sure, but it also costs significantly more. Here in Canada the cheapest R600 is 446$, while the cheapest 8800 GTS is 350$. You'd almost be nuts to go with the ATI solution.

NVidia have impressed us all with an extremely solid product. They've won this round, definitely.

I started to really like ATI when they got the X1900 and X1950 series out, which made the GeForce 7 pale in comparison. But I must say I've no enthusiasm for their new series at all. I'm waiting the next generation.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,028
0
20,810
5
AMD never clearly SAYS anything... They might imply it, or outright lie about it... UVD comes to mind as well as the lvl505 fiasco. Then there were the many stories they put out about the reason for the delays in the launch...
 

T8RR8R

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
748
0
18,980
0
I think to delay something 6 months and not really be ALOT better or at least par is just disgusting. I don't think the 2900XT is totally bad but it doesn't do much better than the 8800GTS and since it uses much more power, has so many more stream processors but doesn't outperform the GTX is just sad. I've said it before, I'm no fan of any brand but right now ATI is kind of lack luster. I will say the same for the 8600 and 8500 cards but who really knows how the 2600's will be. 3Dmark doesn't mean that much anymore.
 

bfellow

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
779
0
18,980
0
These are reasons why I wouldn't buy it:
A) It's not the best performance/watt card
B) It's not the best performance/price card
C) It's not the best overall performing card
D) It's not the best mainstream card
E) It's overpriced based on its performance.
F) Does horribly with AA and AF on (why wouldn't it be on for high end card?)
G)Performs horribly for applications heavily utilizing TMUs and ROPs
 

TonyStark

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2007
162
0
18,680
0
I wouldn't call the card a flop, that is a bit excessive. The HD2900XT performs better than the 8800GTS in most games, loses in a few, and matches the GTX in a game or two. *

If I had $550AUD to spend on a vid-card right now, I'd choose the HD2900XT over the 8800GTS 640MB. GTS costs about 570-600 here, so I'd save 20-50 bucks and buy some damn beer.





EDIT: Added source. See asterisk.
 

crazypyro

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
325
0
18,780
0
Same thing happened to ATi with the x1800 series. It was to come out and compete with the 7800's and more the most part it was on par but clearly lost in the end. Then nVidia pushed the 7900 series, and ATi brought out the x1900 series. I do believe history will repeat itself.

The x1800 series brought about a new design and approach to GPU design and it brough some performance but not enough to dominate. x1900 series was a revision and modification of the original x1800 series, and its performance was superb.

The 2900 series is a radical approach and it has a lot of different stuff going on inside that hardware.
 

FireWater

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2006
82
0
18,630
0
I just think its disappointing how so many people (including the ones on this forum) hyped up the R600 so much.

I would rather spend the money on an 8800GTS then a 2900. It appears to be disappointing because ATI waited 6 months later to release a card that is only at about par with the second fastest (not fastest) model of the competitor.

My theory is because the card draws so much power and runs so damn hot, they probably couldn't have jazzed it up more, and had to start production on it so they could cash in on R&D.
 

crazypyro

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
325
0
18,780
0
I just think its disappointing how so many people (including the ones on this forum) hyped up the R600 so much.

I would rather spend the money on an 8800GTS then a 2900. It appears to be disappointing because ATI waited 6 months later to release a card that is only at about par with the second fastest (not fastest) model of the competitor.

My theory is because the card draws so much power and runs so damn hot, they probably couldn't have jazzed it up more, and had to start production on it so they could cash in on R&D.

Your not too far off base there. Its design is too complex for 80nm, they have problems with leakage, heat, and power draw. If people stayed patient and let them delay the card into 65nm, I believe it would have been a different story.
 

T8RR8R

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
748
0
18,980
0
In my opinion(don't grill me) the 8800GTS 320 is one of the best things since sliced bread. It's the 7600GT of yesteryear but better. :eek: Does anyone game drunk?????
 

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
0
Flop or not a flop, I like mine. It performs much better than my old X1800XT.

no heat isses? what your set up?

thx!


In my opinion(don't grill me) the 8800GTS 320 is one of the best things since sliced bread. It's the 7600GT of yesteryear but better. :eek: Does anyone game drunk?????
yes this is the total truth

if your building a $750 gamer
or a $1500 gamer the 8800GTS 320 is the "best thing since sliced bread" as you said!


I still use the 8800 GTS as my starter card for $1699 system:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=140125635881&rd=1&rd=1
 

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
0
It was natural to expect ATI's new generation of video cards, released six months after NVidia's, to at least challenge the G80. But the HD 2900XT, when you consider what performance it gives for the money, barely matches the 8800GTS. It may do slightly better overall, I'm not sure, but it also costs significantly more. Here in Canada the cheapest R600 is 446$, while the cheapest 8800 GTS is 350$. You'd almost be nuts to go with the ATI solution.

NVidia have impressed us all with an extremely solid product. They've won this round, definitely.

I started to really like ATI when they got the X1900 and X1950 series out, which made the GeForce 7 pale in comparison. But I must say I've no enthusiasm for their new series at all. I'm waiting the next generation.

yes -I totally agree - i owned x1900xt x1900xtx x1800xtx and crossfire versions - i have a x1950 pro on my sons system. I am, a ati fan, i am typing on system i build 2003 with x9600xt.

Did amd ruin ati? or was the r600 always going to be a loosers - the hd audio is cool!

i wonder? with the big delay - think about this!

With the big delay, and the emergence of HMDI as the standard in home theater systems - did ati add the HD audio as a after thought since the chip was a flop?

think about it?
 

bfellow

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
779
0
18,980
0
Your not too far off base there. Its design is too complex for 80nm, they have problems with leakage, heat, and power draw. If people stayed patient and let them delay the card into 65nm, I believe it would have been a different story.
Well there won't be a 65nm version. You'll have to look at the more expensive 1 GB DDR4 version 80nm version to stack it up against the 8800s now.
 

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
0
yes, they sheleved it!

I just wonder if they added the HD audio as an after thought - since this is the same technolgy on the x1250 chipsets

more good points:

These are reasons why I wouldn't buy it:
A) It's not the best performance/watt card
B) It's not the best performance/price card
C) It's not the best overall performing card
D) It's not the best mainstream card
E) It's overpriced based on its performance.
F) Does horribly with AA and AF on (why wouldn't it be on for high end card?)
G)Performs horribly for applications heavily utilizing TMUs and ROPs
the aa and af may be fixable - be honest i was not aware of it - the heat issues has kept it of my own machines
 

0p3n

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2006
54
0
18,630
0
Flop or not a flop, I like mine. It performs much better than my old X1800XT.

no heat isses? what your set up?

thx!




Well whats your definition of heat issues, it runs at around 60 which is not that bad for me because my x1800 ran at around 55-58. As for my setup I have a
Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4 GHZ
Evga 650i Ultra
Patriot 2GB DDR2 800
HD 2900 XT
Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
Thermaltake Toughpower 750W
 

mrmez

Splendid
My 2c...
Never used a 2900...
Just sold my 1950XT for a GTS320.

Sooo happy.

The XT ran HOT and LOUD.
The 8800 spanks it and is quiet AS.

Id agree. NV have won this round over ATI
 

jadeite

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2007
44
0
18,530
0
As far as I can see the 2900XT: (1) doesn't give you a performance reason to buy it over the 8800, (2) doesn't give you a price reason to buy it over the 8800, and (3) doesn't give you a cooling reason to buy over the 8800. Just try to ignore 8800 owners having a good laugh at those who patiently waited for this thing. Seriously, why would someone new to the market choose a 2900XT today? Is there any technical reason or is it just the brand name?
 

SEALBoy

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,303
0
19,290
4
That's not entirely true. The card is overall faster than the 8800GTS, and its price is just over $400. That's a bit more than an 8800GTS 640MB, and significantly less than the 8800GTX.
 

FireWater

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2006
82
0
18,630
0
Well the benchmarks I have reviewed said that the 8800GTS beat out the 2900xt in a lot of games. The features on the R600 really don't mean anything to mean as I am a competitive gamer, and I really just care about my system running smooth, and keeping cool.

The 8800gts excels at both of those aspects quite well. Even if the R600 is better, it still runs VERY hot and costs more. I'll save my money and get a superclocked 320 GTS, ATi really has seem to shit the bed this time, as it is kind of a disappointment overall
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY