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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

darkguset

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,140
0
19,460
50
Oh i agree with you, only you are missing the point! We are not comparing the cards in the future, we are comparing two cards right now. Too bad that AMD's card is new and still can't compete head to head with NVIDIA's solutions, which yes, they too had issues in the beggining. But if someone has to buy a card NOW, i don't see why he should lean towards AMD's shaky solution instead to the NVIDIA's one, which to tell the truth has been on the market for far far longer. Not to mention the thermal design and requirements...

NVIDIA's cards are a bit of a disappointment too in the DX10 area, but let's not forget that they have been in the market for far longer, have matured and in DX9 they still kick ass!

The part that ATI disappointed in was the fact that this huge delay on the release should have come as an advantage. It did not. 8 months of press releases and this is the best they could get at? I would have preffered not to hear anything about it and see this card out of the blue.

Maybe it has something to do with the AMD - ATI merge. Could be. The facts are facts though and until we see something better, ATI disappoints.

I, too pray that there will be a 65nm solution some time after July, with a revised core. But as everything stands at the moment... still disappointed.

The only dissappointment from my side is the fact that the 2900 does not display things right! What good is a card that can't display what it is supposed to display?
And this didn't occur early on with every generation of cards sofar in some app or another? :?:
If you even look at the release notes of the latest nV driver there's some display/render issues even now. Like see through trees in Oblivion or AA making the crosshair disappear in STALKER. So really, is either perfect yet? Or have they ever been?

Can't remember the site, where they did a comparison of a DX10 application, and although both NVIDIA and ATI's solutions where slow, at least on NVIDIA everything was there! on the 2900 there was no snow
In the Lost Planet benchmark? C'mon that's far from a balanced test. It's a TWIMTBP benchmark that needed nVidia beta drivers to run properly after it had been optimized for nV hardware already. C'mon.

and no fence where it was supposed to be!
Yes that's an issue, and a strange one, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the edge detection setting, but it is an interesting artifact that appears in other cards as well.

Regarding the same benchmark (HL2 episode 1) I notice you don't mention the FOG issue, would that be because the GF8800 suffered the same fog problem at it's launch not rendering the scenecorrectly using MSAA only when using SSAA (see the original G80 review if you want to compare the MSAA to SSAA screenies)? Xbit mentions that both the GF8800 and HD2900 suffered from FOG at launch in their review;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r600-architecture_16.html#sect0

That is utterly ridiculous! Actually the ATI solution should have fared better since it didn't even display half of the stuff on screen! LOL!
'Half the stuff', far from it, it didn't display a very small portion of all that is on the screen. Seriously, if you need hyperbole to sell your argument, you don't have much of a case.

ATI, make it work properly first, THEN make it faster!!!

ATI X1950XTX is still the best card...
Did you notice that the X1950XTX only renders part of that fence too?
They didn't compare under SSAA because the results are similar to the G80, but MSAA the X1950XTX also suffers the same issue, but with a few links being rendered instead of none.

Right now I think that they're working on both, performance and quality. But like nV shows with their current buglist in their drivers, it's a long process that won't happen overnight and will be an ongoing thing, the question is what issues garner the most attention and thus get the most focus from the Catalyst crew.
 

shellofinsanity

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
114
0
18,680
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
hahaha

the HD2400 and HD2600 are not there big OEM chipsets, as a matter of fact the market share for OEM is more like this

70% Intel
25% Nvidia (6100, 7000, 6200TC)
10% ATI (x200, x300 x1150)
5% OTher (S3 mainly with some others)

thats actully how it really looks. The reason for the nvidia intergrated control right now is easy to really understand, nvidia has contracts with Dell, HP, E-Machines, and IBM. Intel intergrated is on any Intel based OEM system pretty much, while ATI is in older OEM boxes with the x300, but most using the nvidia based solutions because of SM3 support which gives them one more check box feature to say on there box, while they cant with the ATI platform which also costs more.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,028
0
20,810
5
So you're just shootin' your mouth off, eh? Spouting fud.... spreading bs....

You've been all over this (and several other) thread like some kind of guru of gpu's.

Show me the links or slink away.
 

cynewulf

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2007
50
0
18,630
0
Some interesting massaging of those percentages there shellofinsanity, or do you really believe that ATI would have lost 13% of their market share in 2 quarters? If so then I suggest you don't venture into the stock trading business :roll:
 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070205075010.html

its changed a bit from Q2 of last year, last time i read anything on it, but its still about setup Intel then Nvidia then ATI, and i dont imagine much has changed yet.
None of that information supports your stements about OEM distribution, in fact it says absolutely nothing about OEMs in that, and while John Peddie often does mention the distribution of OEM to Retail in their anually mega charts (when they breakdown into workstation, enthusiast, mobile, IGP, etc as well) your has no such information. And while he X300SE sucked, it sure as heck was in alot of DELLs and such as the base card and the X200 was in alot of laptops too, so your 10% figure seems way off too, especially since your percentages add up to 110% not 100% that's alot of rounding on your part. :roll:

Also, as if nothing has changed since Q2 of last year, Q2 of last year was pre-AMD even, so those numbers are way out of date.

Here's a more recent statement specifically about OEMs, and while the source is FUAD it's still more than your link supports;

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1360&Itemid=34

60% OEM deals for AMD versus 40% for nV. Kinda goes against your theory even if it's discrete market alone.
 
Oh i agree with you, only you are missing the point! We are not comparing the cards in the future, we are comparing two cards right now.
I was talking about right now. As in right now the HD2900 is showing the same growing pains that the GF8800 did at it's launch. The difference is that there's competition in the market it's launched into.

I wouldn't hazard a guess at whether or not they will be more/less successful at addressing their problems, but it's not like they were the only ones with these issues.
 

petevsdrm

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2007
533
0
18,980
0
I know the topic of blatant fanboyism is of great interest to everyone in this thread, but please, take a break, a breather, a brief siesta from the stress of argument about your favorite corporation and click on the link that GrapeApe has so generously provided in his signature block aptly named "HD freedom"


Once you've done that you may continue your consumately astute rhetoric.

(I know it's totally off topic guys, that's kind of the point. I mean really where was this thread going anyway?)
 

Insane_Maniac

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2006
62
0
18,630
0
Well I have to say that that R600 did not live up to it's hype. The way AMD/ATI portrayed the care to be the next El Diablo of GPU's. I was so hyped and thought oh man this is going to be great, but I think a major problem for that 2900XT is a flop in some parts. To get acceptable performance against the 8800GTS people have to most likely buy a new power supply. Now that is the biggest problem for the 2900XT. Honestly I am not one to pay the power premium for a card that only gives me acceptable performance. The card's architecture looks very nice on paper, but in real world performance it is not holding up.

There are a lot more cons to the pros of the 2900XT, honestly I am a consumer that would be expecting a lot more for the premium of power. Added in that the card outputs a lot of heat and sound. Sad to say, I am not very impressed by the performance numbers of the R600. Moving on, the next fab of the R600 might see a vast design change and improvement on the architectural side. For now the R600 has lost this battle.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,124
3
19,815
14
The part that ATI disappointed in was the fact that this huge delay on the release should have come as an advantage. It did not. 8 months of press releases and this is the best they could get at? I would have preffered not to hear anything about it and see this card out of the blue.
The 1800XT was late because of problems. It was not a killer card. The 2900 was late due the problems. It's not the killer card either.
But it definitely is not a flop.

Just hope that ATI can do the same thing as with 1800. They have separete teams developing cards. So the next new card can be in time, and can be even better... like the 1900 was. We all need that, regardless we likes more ATI or Nvid.
 

shellofinsanity

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
114
0
18,680
0
except your missing something, and so is fuad, that does not make mention of intel, which we all know is the largest supplier of descrete chips world wide, and there isnt a person alive that isnt aware of that, so your link is only geared towards AMD based systems where IMO no intel chipsets appear.
 

shellofinsanity

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
114
0
18,680
0
So you're just shootin' your mouth off, eh? Spouting fud.... spreading bs....

You've been all over this (and several other) thread like some kind of guru of gpu's.

Show me the links or slink away.
show me or anyone else proff from a reputable site, aka x-bit, firingsquad, hardOCP as to proof that anything i have said is false. I get on here is links to toms reviews and legion hardware, which IMO neither site is considered highly by the community and by the admission of members here, they take the reviews on this site with a grain of salt, prove me wrong with reputable sites, or maybe all you read is those numbers that show that ATI is some god and NVidia is garbage?
 

DJ_Jumbles

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2007
191
0
18,680
0
show me or anyone else proff from a reputable site, aka x-bit, firingsquad, hardOCP as to proof that anything i have said is false. I get on here is links to toms reviews and legion hardware, which IMO neither site is considered highly by the community and by the admission of members here, they take the reviews on this site with a grain of salt, prove me wrong with reputable sites, or maybe all you read is those numbers that show that ATI is some god and NVidia is garbage?
First of all, it's not on someone else to prove you wrong, but for you to prove that you're not talking out of your ass and making things up. Yeah, the quality of your information is important, so I'd take a review from Tom's anyday over you saying that you're a better source. Get over yourself. :roll:

Honestly, you're getting kind of heated over someone calling you out to back up your information with some hard numbers. They are all asking for a link to the data that you are espousing. That said, I agree that you might have a point with Intel's integrated chipset offerings. I'm sure that the use of the cheapest and worst option of integrated graphics does have an impact on overall market share.

What effect? I can't say. I don't have the data (nor am I going to go delving for it) or the links to back up my statement, so I'll leave mine vague with no de-facto percentages that don't add up to 100, let alone have any validity to them because you don't source the SPECIFICS that you are touting as truth. That's the point they are making (with a sledgehammer or a scapel). Don't say that AMD has 10% of the market when you can't prove that they do or don't. Oh, and how the total market share = 110% of sales? Yeah... you're a real fountain of specific, credible, and germaine information.
Are you just saying: "Trust me, idiots... because you are all on here (you were implying that Tom's isn't a reputable source), I know better than you?" Well... where the hell are you? ON TOM'S HARDWARE! Guess that makes you an idiot, too.
 
except your missing something, and so is fuad, that does not make mention of intel, which we all know is the largest supplier of descrete chips world wide, and there isnt a person alive that isnt aware of that,
I don't think I'm missing anything on that, I think you are missing alot though.

Do you even know what the discrete graphics segment is? What discrete solution does intel have right now that is currently shipping to OEMs? Or even anything that isn't just an R&D part.

so your link is only geared towards AMD based systems where IMO no intel chipsets appear.
Once again you're reading things in that aren't there. Nowhere does FUAD or anyone make mention of them being AMD or intel based systems. There can easily be sales to intel or AMD based system, go check DELL, HP, Gateway, ACER, eMachines, and IBM/Lenovo and look at the myriad of different combinations OEMs offer with intel+AMD/ATi and intel+nV and AMD+nV and AMD+AMD/ATi, now those are the discrete solutions since there is no intel+intel option yet let alone AMD+intel; and the i/A + (S3 or Matrox or SIS) doesn't register on the radar as more than a minute fraction of the market.

Like I said, you post something more than numbers you obviously don't understand, and preferably numbers or articles that speak directly to the OEM market and then maybe you'd have something to contribute, until then you're posting out of date information that doesn't even relate to what you're stating.

Remember, I'm not arguing that intel doesn't sell the most graphics chips or that anyone else sells more or less, I'm simply saying yor numbers are bogus and have no basis in reality for what you say, and specifically your rebutal to the HD2400/2600 statement by crazypro, which my link supports, and which you still have yet to find anything supporting your counter statements.

So put up the numbers or else blow boy!
 

DJ_Jumbles

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2007
191
0
18,680
0
Seems we are all missing the point,ATI intended the HD 2900XT to compete with the GTS,which leaves us wandering when the said XTX version of the series comes out coz I figure its going to kill the GTX,at least until the 8850 or 8900 comes out!
Funny, because I remember a lot of people waiting 8 months for the XT model to come out and be the GTX killer only to be greatly disappointed.
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

On a serious note: I hope that ATI can pull it together and launch something that performs up to the hype and can seriously compete with the top-end offering from Nvidia. Oh, and on schedule would be nice, too. Oh, and if it didn't cause my case to melt like a thermite disposal bag was sitting on it because of the heat, that would be nice, too...
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
0
I don't think everyone was thinking the XT models were the GTX killers, I was under the impression that the XTX was the GTX killer. And since it hasn't released yet, the only thing left to compete is the XT, and it does compete with the GTX in a few cases.... obviously not enough though. Where did you here people saying the XT was going to wax the GTX?

wes
 

SuperG

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2006
28
0
18,530
0
I to thought the XTX was gTX competor.
xT is a tad more affordable. so gTS

Then there are only a few heavy Dx9 games wich can put a g80 and R600 to good use. G80 Architekture is made with Dx9 power in mind with DX10 on top of it. It's a more conventional architekture. Being out long before we are flooded with DX10 titles not a bad choice.

While R600 is more a DX10 tech Architecture more innovotive more aimed at the future.

So for those Fast Upgraders wich must have the fastest every 6 months the G80 Dx9 king is the choice.

While a very heavy DX10 feature Shader resolved AA is more R600 thing and G80 can't handle well. The new CoJ bench show that.

I took a amble and went for HD2900XT.

Why.

1 HD2900XT is a good competitor for it's price against 8800GTS
2 holding my card long I don't see the GTS320 is it's competor more the GTS640 wich is with 640MB more future prove.
A 1GB GDDR4 XT would be even better. Or XTX for future proofness.
3 Dx9 games not so relevant DX10 would be most DX10 will be in normal setting far under 100fps. Where would G80 vs R600 be.
So wonder what those 2 do with Crysis.
4 Drivers Drivers Drivers. it took very long for nV to get so far and still arent done. Same goes for R600 it's not weeks or a month but lot's of month where with each driver the go to come close to or reach or beyond GTX performance. They have some time wenn Crysis comes out.

For Dx9 games it's good enough.

So wonder how it all unfolds in the future.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
I believe this is an old and tiring argument coming from two camps, fanboys and those disappointed with no competition coming from ATI, whether its to beat nVidia, move tech along to a higher grade or just to slam ATI. Its a non-issue at this point. The XT is what it is, and what its supposed to be, a product that competes rather well with the GTS and is priced accordingly. The leaky core has hurt this card, as we all know, otherwise, thered have been an XTX that would clock up well and compete with the GTX. To slam the XT because it doesnt compete with a card that costs alot more is like complaining my VW doesnt kick the Porsche on the track. Non-issue. Delays? The XT is here now, non-issue. Does it do good compared to comparibly priced competition? Yes. Does it have drawbacks? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes. The next driver release will be the telling tale of this card, this should be the one that makes it or breaks it. If it improves and truly falls between GTX/GTS, its priced competively and will do well, if not and theres still AA and AF as well as inconsistant game/fps issues, then Im afraid, no, itll have to come down in price quickly
 

shellofinsanity

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
114
0
18,680
0
your using CoJ DX10 benchmark as a comparsion, that benchmark is an aplha leaked last febuary, with no current benchmark out. Nvidia dominates in AA.

Also more in tune with what i was saying, taken from the valve hardware survey from May, updated in June, here is a simple breakdown of cards, i know this is a small segment, but its rather interesting to note this

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

intergrated graphics analysis from xbit

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070413235044.html

and current breakdown for Q1

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/card-wars/intel-graphics-business-still-champ-but-nvidia-is-showing-rockys-pluck-257035.php
 

Chubz

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2007
37
0
18,530
0
My short (and probably irrelevant) opinion:

The 2900 XT does NOT "suck," it's just slightly overpriced and consumes way too much power. Also, the lack of an ability to perform on par with competition when using AA/AF only hurts it even more.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
The steam survey shows that the average user (70%) uses less than or equal to 1 gig or ram. It also shows that over 77% use single core cpu's, and the AMD's are mostly 2.2 ghz or less. It also shows that over 37% use 128mb of vram or less. And you can look at all those 2nd gen cards being used as well. In the Peddie article, it shows ATI/AMD losing 1.1% to Via and others, while Intel and nVidia stayed flat. AMD currently has 21.(% overall, and thats for Q1 07, also without releasing any new products since the fall refresh. Think thats about it....
 

shellofinsanity

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
114
0
18,680
0
it does show that in the descrete that Nvidia is more powerful, in the overall sales of graphics chipsetsets intel wins by just selling intergrated and AMD is loosing market share.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS