Wow the x2900xt is far poorer then i expected - i am so disappointed after waiting so long. The r600 cards should ship with water cooling nozzles built into the existing air cooling systems seeing as you can cook eggs plus bacon on this "not so bad boy"! AMD might copy the ocz flex ram for their gpu coolers.

As a true ATI fan, I have finally given up. Why should anyone buy a x2900xt when you can get a much cooler GTS? Maybe I just got a bad card?

Will amd's x4 be just as poor - with all the hype that amd boosts of their "true quad core" is worth the wait and how "amd did it right"?

Google amd's prediction in June of 2006 of 30%+ market share next month?

I got ask can amd save itself? This R600 is a prelude or a predictor of amd's all talk and no show technology.

Well the stock is at $15.5 or so i would expected it will tank when the gpu sales tank. It might be a great shorting opportunity next revenue release.

Yeah, ATM the 8800gts is a better deal, but as the prices stabilize and the drivers mature, the 2900xt will start looking ALOT better.

card is a flop
1) it does not perform as expected -
2) after a 6 month delay its still way too hot, performance should be better
3) the really cool audio features are really limited and will not help sales much.

ok - its not a flop sts more like a dud?

plus amd claimed they delayed for a total product line launch - what to they do? launch one card and the rest next month - if u believe amd. at this point if might 2-3 months

stock should hist its 50% retracement price of $20 - Fidelity is not dumb
maybe they (Fidelity read your thread a month or 2 ago when i told you the stocked had bottomed) - just a lucky guess on my part not doubt.
expect the stock to peak in the mid low to mid 20"s on exceptional news.

Are you saying that you have a 2900?

Or is this a typo? or pure speculation about the wrong card to begin with?

A question of semantics, I guess... But what do you call a card that is released almost a whole generation late, has piss-poor drivers, and is not even competitive with Nvidia's lower range cards let alone the higher range? In most of the benches that I have looked at it barely beats out the 320 gts most of the time, squeaks past the 640 gts some of the time and never pips the gtx. Then there's the gtx ultra's, and various overclocked versions of both the gts and gtx flavours... It comes out priced almost twice the 320 gts... Not to mention the power requirements!

I have to call that a flop, and AMD's vaunted delay so that they could launch a full range of product is now a paper launch.

AMD has really disappointed me, at least. Now my bx2 will have to settle for one evga ko card.

I agree with the original poster, the card is a flop.

As a customer I expect each generation of card to perform significantly better than the last and that includes the competitiors cards.

With ATI's latest card we have a card that can only compete with the middle range 8800. WTH would anyone want to buy that over Nvidia's choice?

@Verndewd, who cares about the trick architecture, thats like saying my cars got a better ecu than yours. It counts for squat if my car performs 100mph faster than yours.

Fact is ATI have produced a card that doesn't compete with Nvidia's 8800 GTX and doesn't take graphics performance (in fps) any further forwards than it is now. Its also far more complex, has allegedly had problems, has allegedly been pushed to extremes and allegedly heats like a bunsen burner and so with all of this is an unknown quantity as for reliability as well.

Add in the fact that even when the XTX version comes out which should hopefully for ATI beat the GTX and Ultra, Nvidia allegedly still have the next generation ready, the 8900's on a new smaller fab process.

There's a famous saying, your only as good your last performance and its very true.

We've already seen that with CPU's. AMD couldn't surpass Intel for a long time and lost a lot of business as a result. No reason to suppose GPU's are any different. The majority of buyers are fickle and will go with whats best, especially when those who are loyal have had their loyalty dragged out and tested for so long with delayed releases only to get a product that doesn't beat the competitors product.

Unfortunately reviews says its hot and noisy http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/13/ and therein lies another problem. You talk about crossfire, well be my guest. Unfortunately two flame throwers in your case running at 90C are definately not better than one, (from a heating point of view), unless of course you live in the arctic. But even then the global warming effect could be a problem with that extra wattage.

First of all TSMC did the chips. At 80nm they suck...alot of juice and output alot of heat. Secondly, other than when it was launched AMD had little to do with this card, and the 2900 series, thats ATI. I go with Vern, despite its obviuos heat/power concerns its good tech

Edited so as not to offend the OP... too much

This is what every person who is not an intel fanboy wants to do to you

I think prices have dropped substantially already . They have a 400 dollar card now so the old stuff will drop. The 1950 has gone down in price recently.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814102067

169 with MIR for an xt Can't wait till the price drops hits us this side as well. I'll grab me an X1950 pro/xt depending on how far the prices drop...

Maybe I had false expectations but I was expecting this job to be the 8800GTX killer.

I do not see how releasing a card that is already beaten by previous technology a worth while card. I have to define it as a flop because its competitor who has had a their cards in release for a few months already now, still beat the competition.

If thats a narrow view then so be it, but I do not see how this card could be viewed as successful other than ego-defense crazy Fanboys.

I am open to other opinions though, please convince me why this is not a bust.

Trust me, he deserved it.

It is known that ATI's best card goes XTX. Currentkly there isnt one. The XT however is the second, thus it goes against gts. There are a few technologies in this card that simply doesnt exist on the 88s. If it makes a difference, we will see. The sound chip, full HD conversion done on the card, not going to the cpu. These are improvements in the right direction. It does compete well with the gts, so we only know after the people have (with their wallets) spoken. Its not top tier tech, a XTX would be. I dont see one out. And there may never be one. Tho there is the 2950, which will be done on 65nm, and more than likely use GDDR4, if they can get some good ram this time thatll oc.

Verns makin money just sittin there

educated consumers like your and me may not look twice at it, but Dell and HP etc will buy em up and they will sell millions

Silly me, I waited for the R600 too... (and waited... and waited...)

Am I dissappointed? Yes, I am.

Is the GTX faster than the XT? Yes, it is. (although I do find that comparison a bit strange and skewed... it IS a GTS competitor)

Is the XT a shit card? No.

I think nVidia has truely won this round at this point. Well done to them. They have done a good job, and I wish I had bought a GTS 320 six months ago.
But that doesn't make the XT a dud and obsolete.

If car A tops 250km/h, and car B tops 180km/h, does that make car B a useless peice of crap? What if car A is a just a simple 2 door chasis with a simple, albiet powerful, engine in it, while car B has loads of storage space, sun roof, big sound system, mags, power steering, etc etc.
Still shit? What's your comparison?
If you want to go fast, car A kicks ass. But if you like features, it's the crap one.

What do YOU want it for? How are you going to USE it? No point buying a Ferrari if you're a fridge delivery man.

I want a good framerate at high res. Therefore I want nVidia - it's got what I want.
I also want full HDMI capability, and some futureproofing. So now I want ATI.

What's your perspective? Just because something doesn't have what you want, it doesn't mean it's worthless. I don't want to drive at 200km/h. So is the Ferrari dud, obsolete, and should be taken away in shame?






[/i]


(Me personally, I don't like the GTX's lack of features, esp. HDMI, and high power consumption. I don't like the XT's slower fps, and [/i]incredibly [i] high power consumption. I like the GTX's speed. I like the XT's innovation. Above all, and at least I think most of you agree, I LIKE THE COMPETITION SO WE CAN KEEP MOVING FORWARD!!)

That's how I feel; these sensationalist "AMD is t3h DOOMED!" threads are getting really old and tiring.

I would've thought RobSLI or whatever he's called himself in his 500th reincarnation would've created this "anti ATi" thread

P.S. Yes, I do know about the thread he created recently...and the fun that him and Ape are having

Luckily you didn't post this in the GPU forum... I posted that with article quotes and links... yet the "veteran" posters flamed me bad. Luckily folks over here in the CPU thread seem to be a little more civil. I've learned a ton from reading your threads Jack... thanks!

Yeah, it's clear that the delays were not some brillant marketing plan to have a full family launch of products with solid drivers (as was claimed by Henri).

Seems like the R600 may be competitive cards, but I doubt they'll win over any existing Nvidia customers. The only way they get back market share is via Dell/OEMs @ drastically reduced margins.

Does anybody remember the Inq article stating that Dell was going to buy up every single r600 card "they could get their hands on" and the one about r600 selling 100,000,000 cards by the end of 2007.... 8O

Now I wonder where I heard that before??