yer very true i think the real high end battle will be between the 8900gtx and 2950xtx. For ATI sake i hope there is a load more power under the r600/r650's hood. but as i understand it they are skiping the hd2900xtx becaus of silicon issues and going straight to the hd2950xtx (R650) i think apart from the die shrink(65nm) they will also be improving the texture powers of the chip as this is where the r600 was fairly week and it may clock around 1Ghz and will consume less power and i think i herd thet they are aiming for aug/sept realease which is fairly quick lol
WTF does someone else owning an SLI rig that you claim is better than mine have to do with knowing any thing about the fuking launch drivers you ignorant ass hat? :roll:
I have had an 8800GTX since launch so I am completely familiar with the progress in drivers since day 1. Just because someones rig is supposedly better than mine is besides the point idiot :roll:
Hmmm....lets see..........7 months after the release of the GTX perhaps? :roll:
Ummmm no. It wasnt until right up to the release of the R600 that ATI decided to announce that they would only be competing with the 8800GTS, (ATI played you all for a fool and waited to the last minute to make this announcement when they knew this Fact long before they officially made it public, they were afraid all the ATI fanboys wouldnt wait around any longer if you knew the truth, YOU ATI CLOWNS WERE PLAYED FOR A FOOL AND IT WORKED) Before that point all of us 8800GTX owners got nothing but (R600 iS GonNA PwNERS tHe 8800gTx!!!!)
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Yeah its real fukin funny that I pointed out the fact that he doesnt know WTF he is talking about concerning the latest Vista Drivers for the 8800GTX now isn't it? :roll:
Instead of making even more of an ignorant ass out of yourself why dont you do some research on the subject.
Nvidias latest Vista drivers for the 8800's are great, performance is on par with XP for DX9 games and its an extremely stable set of drivers.
People that have not owned a G80 since launch really need to STFU about the drivers as you don't even have a clue to what you are talking about :roll:
The 8800GTX's launch drivers presented a few bugs in some games but the performance it self was nothing short of anything but stellar, Unlike what we are seeing with ATI's bad image quality plus unusually low performance. :roll:
Unusually low performance compared to what? Certainly not the 8800GTS (which is in the same price range). Further, if I'm not mistaken, the 8800GTS also has a 140 MB RAM advantage over the HD2900XT (640 MB vs. 512 MB). Right now, pretty much *all* the advantage the 8800GTS has is due to driver refinements in the case of the GTS (and partially due to the aforementioned memory advantage the GTS has). So given that, the possibility that the GTS and XT can actually even out performancewise as the Catalyst drivers improve is not as farfetched as you would think.
Finally, you really don't think that HD DVD and/or Blu-Ray playback is unimportant? Or you really don't think that support of HDCP over dual-link DVI (for those really large displays) is important? There are enough people with exactly those issues with SLI 8800GTS/GTX cards to make a not-exactly-insignificant data-point (and I'm going *just* by the posts on the subject in the EVGA forums; I'm not even counting the posts here). I am simply saying that such issues could (and in some cases *will*) be a deal-breaker when choosing one card over another (just as the lack of HDCP support itself could be a deal-breaker, and has been in some cases). I'm not saying this to be a cheerleader for one side or the other, even though I've owned pretty much nothing but ATI cards (and AIWs at that) for the past nine years and currently; my currently-planned next build is based around an nForce 680i motherboard and dual 8800GTX cards in SLI. However, I do know (from my own usage) that HDCP support (specifically the lack thereof) could indeed be a VERY ugly problem (for me) going forward, and that if nVidia doesn't address it, I may very well be sent back to the drawing board.
iocedmyself
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2006
- 95
- 17
- 18,635
The HD 2900xt is a DX10 card. In fact, it is actually the first card designed from scratch specifically for dx10, unlike the 8800. Also it's logical to take into account the fact that AMD has been working one on one with microsoft in order to design hardware to take full advantage of Vista, and ATI started pushing back the release of the R600 around the time that AMD announced it's acquisition of ATI.
Vista has been plauged with driver problems, especially the 64bit version, which i suspect factors in to them deciding to release a 32bit version after claiming for quite awhile that Vista would be exsclusivly 64bit. But there are no DX10 games out, there won't be for another several months so right now performance comparison doesn't mean a hell of alot.
The 8800 is a beast of a card, no doubt. If someone wanted to know the best card available now, for today's games i'd have to go with the gtx ultra. But the card was designed as a dx9 card with dx10 support, not as a full DX10 card, which is what the HD2000 family is.
The 8800 was plauged with driver issues when it first came out, and there were recalls on some, and hardware revisions done to fix some major issues (yes, i did have an 8800 right after they came out, i had nothing but problems with it and it was like a space heater so i returned it and bought 2 x1950s for CF). But as has been mentioned, and was pointed out in the THG article, the HD2900 is aimed at competing against the 320 GTS, yet is comparing with the gtx. Also it should be noted that the 2900 actually has a lower power consumption under load compared to the 8800gtx ultra, it's a gaming card...so that's somewhat important.
The actual hardware design, and stock features on the r600 cards, blow nvidia away. But again, there isn't anything available yet to take advantage of all the cards features. These benchmarks, really don't mean anything, and they won't until the 2900 is compared with the 8800 using the same, motherboard, cpu, ram hard drives and PSU's while running on 64bit Vista ultimate with fully compatible DX10 games.
Right now all this comparing is about the same as Intel saying the Conroe is 50% faster then anything AMD has out. Which is true...if you're using a 32bit OS. If you compare them in a 64bit OS intels lead drops to 5-10% over the 939 stuff that was largely unchanged for a couple years. It doesn't really matter who's hardware is the fastest when using near obsolete software. Which is going to be the case very soon since microsoft finally, formally announced that they will no longer be producing or supporting 32bit OS's or software come 2008.
This doesn't matter as much as everyone seems to think. So as far as the 2900:
There are obvious driver issues with the card, and no software to actually make use of it.
No one knows how the 8800 will shape up in DX10 either, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS.
The hardware design is better, anyone that has a decent understanding of hardware should grasp that. Think of trying to run a PS2 emulator on your PC, any PC made with in the past 4 years is easily better then the PS2, but it doesn't mean it will run a PS2 game better, because the game wasn't designed to.
The 1gig r650 or r680 whatever it is, will be coming out in a few months, which is really the test between Nvidia and ati. When the 512 ati card is comparing with the 768 gtx ultra in some things i think it's worth waiting for it to come out especially since by that time there may actually be some DX10 games available.
If you feel you just have to get a new vid card today, If you want the fastest thing around right now and have $700 to spare get the 8800gtx ultra, but be prepared for the possibility of regretting it in a few months. If you want something with longevity that performs quite well now, is DX10 compatible and will be useful even after you've replaced it as your top end gaming card go with the $400 HD2900.
If you have a card that you paid $400 for in the last 6 months, just wait it out. I can run everything in 1600x1200 with everything maxed including oblivion, most things in 2048x1536 with everything maxed and numerous things in 2560x1920 with AA on 2x using only one x1950 card...not even a concern running in CF, so there isn't much out really regarding current game titles to expeirence that much discomfort unless the rest of your comp sucks.
Vista has been plauged with driver problems, especially the 64bit version, which i suspect factors in to them deciding to release a 32bit version after claiming for quite awhile that Vista would be exsclusivly 64bit. But there are no DX10 games out, there won't be for another several months so right now performance comparison doesn't mean a hell of alot.
The 8800 is a beast of a card, no doubt. If someone wanted to know the best card available now, for today's games i'd have to go with the gtx ultra. But the card was designed as a dx9 card with dx10 support, not as a full DX10 card, which is what the HD2000 family is.
The 8800 was plauged with driver issues when it first came out, and there were recalls on some, and hardware revisions done to fix some major issues (yes, i did have an 8800 right after they came out, i had nothing but problems with it and it was like a space heater so i returned it and bought 2 x1950s for CF). But as has been mentioned, and was pointed out in the THG article, the HD2900 is aimed at competing against the 320 GTS, yet is comparing with the gtx. Also it should be noted that the 2900 actually has a lower power consumption under load compared to the 8800gtx ultra, it's a gaming card...so that's somewhat important.
The actual hardware design, and stock features on the r600 cards, blow nvidia away. But again, there isn't anything available yet to take advantage of all the cards features. These benchmarks, really don't mean anything, and they won't until the 2900 is compared with the 8800 using the same, motherboard, cpu, ram hard drives and PSU's while running on 64bit Vista ultimate with fully compatible DX10 games.
Right now all this comparing is about the same as Intel saying the Conroe is 50% faster then anything AMD has out. Which is true...if you're using a 32bit OS. If you compare them in a 64bit OS intels lead drops to 5-10% over the 939 stuff that was largely unchanged for a couple years. It doesn't really matter who's hardware is the fastest when using near obsolete software. Which is going to be the case very soon since microsoft finally, formally announced that they will no longer be producing or supporting 32bit OS's or software come 2008.
This doesn't matter as much as everyone seems to think. So as far as the 2900:
There are obvious driver issues with the card, and no software to actually make use of it.
No one knows how the 8800 will shape up in DX10 either, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS.
The hardware design is better, anyone that has a decent understanding of hardware should grasp that. Think of trying to run a PS2 emulator on your PC, any PC made with in the past 4 years is easily better then the PS2, but it doesn't mean it will run a PS2 game better, because the game wasn't designed to.
The 1gig r650 or r680 whatever it is, will be coming out in a few months, which is really the test between Nvidia and ati. When the 512 ati card is comparing with the 768 gtx ultra in some things i think it's worth waiting for it to come out especially since by that time there may actually be some DX10 games available.
If you feel you just have to get a new vid card today, If you want the fastest thing around right now and have $700 to spare get the 8800gtx ultra, but be prepared for the possibility of regretting it in a few months. If you want something with longevity that performs quite well now, is DX10 compatible and will be useful even after you've replaced it as your top end gaming card go with the $400 HD2900.
If you have a card that you paid $400 for in the last 6 months, just wait it out. I can run everything in 1600x1200 with everything maxed including oblivion, most things in 2048x1536 with everything maxed and numerous things in 2560x1920 with AA on 2x using only one x1950 card...not even a concern running in CF, so there isn't much out really regarding current game titles to expeirence that much discomfort unless the rest of your comp sucks.
is it completely impossible for you to have a normal discussion without insulting people? Anyways.. the r600 is not that great, ill admit that. I do think however it will become alot better as we see new drivers in the coming month or so. Will it be able to completely ownz the crap out of nvidia's lineup (yes i know it's 7 months old... ) probably not. Is this a bad thing? Well it performs slighty less costs abit more.. that sucks. But it does offer some very nice features.
In the end all that matters is your personal opinion. If people want to buy a nvidia/ati card. So be it, there's not much point calling anyone a retard over it.......
In the end all that matters is your personal opinion. If people want to buy a nvidia/ati card. So be it, there's not much point calling anyone a retard over it.......
locherbread
Distinguished
- Mar 23, 2006
- 55
- 0
- 18,630
Jeez Rob man your pumping way to many steriods, your aggressive nature is hitting new heights
Oh & when your calling all these people fanoys, why don't you call yourself one as well, you undoubtedly are
Before you start on me I am an nvidia 8800 GTS owner ^ ^
Oh & when your calling all these people fanoys, why don't you call yourself one as well, you undoubtedly are
Before you start on me I am an nvidia 8800 GTS owner ^ ^
Stealth_JAG
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2006
- 62
- 0
- 18,630
There seems to be a perverse "sour grapes" pathology going on with SOME GTX owners (like RobsSLI). They seem insecure that the toy they have invested so much of their money and ego in might be bettered by something new and cheaper. In the [H]OCP forums, a guy was getting amazing results with his Sapphire 2900XT with the latest drivers showing that it was competing well against the GTX. A GTX owner called him out and sais that the 8.38 catlyst drivers he used didn't exist and neither did the NVIDIA drivers so therefore his results must be fake. No matter how many other posters tried to show him that the drivers and results were legit (supported by links and pictures), he still refused to believe. At one point, the GTX offender even took the low road of mocking the guys trouble with english (I think the OP was Chineese) and accusing him of working for ATI.
For those of you that bought the GTX when it was first released - Good on you. You got a great card and have been enjoying superior gaming performance for the last 7 months. Furthermore, your cards should continue to deliver great performance into the forseeable near future. However, for those of that have trouble believing some obvious good points about the ATI card (features, price point, increasing performance with driver updates) you need to seperate your GPU from your self-esteem. The GTX has been out long enough that we probably won't see much more drastic performance improvement with driver updates. Meanwhile, ATI could continue to develop drivers and see awesome performance increases because it is just starting its real world experience. Those of you with NVIDIA GPU security issues need to warm up to the fact that your GPU may not always be the top performer.
The fact that your card may eventually lose its top spot doesn't invalidate your original purchase. You were smart in obeying the axiom that you buy the best available equipment when you have the money to make the purchase (something newer is always around the corner). However, it also doesn't give you a good reason to blind yourself to evidence of ATI increased performance or give you moral license to be abusive to people who are leaning towards the 2900 XT.
Just my .02.
For those of you that bought the GTX when it was first released - Good on you. You got a great card and have been enjoying superior gaming performance for the last 7 months. Furthermore, your cards should continue to deliver great performance into the forseeable near future. However, for those of that have trouble believing some obvious good points about the ATI card (features, price point, increasing performance with driver updates) you need to seperate your GPU from your self-esteem. The GTX has been out long enough that we probably won't see much more drastic performance improvement with driver updates. Meanwhile, ATI could continue to develop drivers and see awesome performance increases because it is just starting its real world experience. Those of you with NVIDIA GPU security issues need to warm up to the fact that your GPU may not always be the top performer.
The fact that your card may eventually lose its top spot doesn't invalidate your original purchase. You were smart in obeying the axiom that you buy the best available equipment when you have the money to make the purchase (something newer is always around the corner). However, it also doesn't give you a good reason to blind yourself to evidence of ATI increased performance or give you moral license to be abusive to people who are leaning towards the 2900 XT.
Just my .02.
)
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
I couldnt care less what some poster on H OCP forums says about his 2900XT competeing against an 8800GTX because until reviews start popping up on reputible sites such as anandtech or firingsquad that shows the 2900XT actually competeing with the 8800GTX instead of getting its butt handed to it then its all meaningless fanboy hype as far as im concerned.
Fact is up until ATI decided to make their announcement that the 2900XT would only compete with the 8800GTS they had all you fanboys waiting around for 7 long months with the anticipation that the R600 was going to be an 8800GTX killer and take back the crown making the wait worth it.
Another pathetic thing about the R600 is the price point. ATI claims its to compete with the 8800GTS yet when looking on Newegg.com you can get a 640mb anywhere from $80.00-$100.00 less and have a card that #1 doesnt consume as much power. #2 runs much cooler. #3 has better image quality and overall better performance especially when enabling AA and AF. After all who buys a next gen card to play games with no AA or AF :roll:
Now that its finally out and its not all that it was hyped up to be you ATI clowns are having to eat lots of Crow as you rightfully deserve it considering the fact how many of us early 8800GTX adopters took so much MOUTH off of you based on our purchasing decision.
As for the drivers the 8800GTX was only faced with bugs when playing certain games off of its first batch of drivers, Performance however was off the charts and the card was and still is smoking fast.
Fast foward R600 and you have very poor performance at start especially when AA and AF is being utilitzed plus certain things are not being rendered correctly.
There is more power to extract from both cards but anyone denying that its gonna be a rocky road for ATI is just a total and complete FANBOY IN DENIAL.
nobody is saying the r600 isn't going for a rocky ride. I'm just not making up my mind yet. I prefer to have all facts before jumping to conclusions and bashing people for no obvious reason on forums.... Please .. do me a favor and try to grow up and be slightly friendlier :roll: If you can't discuss something without disrespecting others your just sad.
dude your right. before R600 launch they were saying 2900Xt is GTX killer lol. but after launch another excuse it's drivers it will improve or R650 will be GTX killer. wake Up ATI people. Nvidia will also release 8900. and saying that 2900XT was made from ground to directx 10 is bull crap. try running any directx 10 demo. oh wait you can't . lost planet is optimzed for nvidia okay ( but 2900xt should run it atleast ) or the another directx 10 game demo try that. oh that doesn't run on 2900xt either (maybe 2900xt is to superior to run dirextx 10 games LOL) and now wait for directx 10 drivers for another 7 months from ATI( then it will be GTX killer lol). XTX will be GTX killer oh yeah by being 1 year late. (XTX oh i give 5 framrates more then GTX after being year late and i need dedicated power supply and nitrogen cooling ) get up from your high horse and accept it was not a killer as AMD made you guys believe it. NVIDIA screwed there 5800 So did ATI with there R600 BIg deal life goes on. 6 months will get newer cards and everbody will forget 8800 and 2900XT
thanks for info man. i checked lot of websites don't know which to believe. but most of them said 2900Xt comsumes more power
Heyyou27
Splendid
- Jan 4, 2006
- 5,164
- 0
- 25,780
You're crazy if you returned an 8800GTX to instead get two X1950XTXs in Crossfire.
1) Crossfire and SLI both suffer from driver and application support, or lack thereof.
2) You say you traded in that "space heater", but according to VR-Zone, the 8800GTX only consumes about 23W more than an X1950XTX. So you then decided to take two of them? :roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question upgraded to 32gb ddr4 and now it wont boot above 2133mhz - help appreciated- Started by SophieTheMeh
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram