Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why is everyone bashing the r600 x1800 anyone?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 16, 2007 9:50:27 AM

anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt

More about : bashing r600 x1800

May 16, 2007 10:39:06 AM

I doubt it, 6 months delay and they can't touch the 8800GTX. Not good. I doubt nVidia has been sitting on their thumbs in the past 6 months.
May 16, 2007 10:39:15 AM

I think that's the main reason why people are bashing the 2900xt ;)  Bacause it's somewhat of a placeholder card, until AMD can get something that's really competetive on the high-end market - be it a 65nm shrink of R600 or something new.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 16, 2007 10:42:03 AM

Quote:
anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt


The majority of people are too stupid and too far absorbed in instant gratification to see that far ahead.

Their loss.
May 16, 2007 10:50:29 AM

Yes the x3000xtx will save AMD's A$$, and put them back on top. You will be FASN8ted.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 10:55:27 AM

Quote:
anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt


The majority of people are too stupid and too far absorbed in instant gratification to see that far ahead.

Their loss. AbZZZ ZORBZZZ No way AMD is DEAD and... Ya think? (this is a direct response to your truthful assumption about people) Hope my sarcasm came off
May 16, 2007 11:01:30 AM

I kinda agree with gHostdRagon... that after a long delay, there was alot of time for AMD/ATI to get their nVidia killer out there. BUT, on the other hand, I feel alot of ATI's problem right now is their driver hasn't been matured enough. I know, some people would say that they had alot of time to get their driver ready, but based on the specs and thoroughput of their card, I believe once they get drivers out there to fully utilize the card, you will see considerable gains. We may not have an nVidia killer here, but I think it will be much closer to the 8800GTX, if not beating it in several cases, here in the near future with an proper driver update.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 11:07:59 AM

OK, time for a lil edjmacated spekalasion. TSMC. 80nm. Leakage. No 65 on top tier part. GDDR4 doesnt oc well. nuff said
May 16, 2007 11:15:03 AM

Actually, the X1800XT stacked up very well against the original 7800GTX.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

Look at the CPU charts, it wins basically all of the benchmarks.

It does fall short to the 512mb 7800GTX, which is a juiced up 7800GTX. But the 256mb original 7800GTX gets beat by the X1800XT.
May 16, 2007 1:18:55 PM

Just keep throwing excuses at it, that will make it better. ATI/AMD dropped the ball, they got lazy being #1 and are paying for it now.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 1:34:34 PM

Those werent excuses, those are facts to the best of my knowledge
May 16, 2007 1:50:25 PM

Another thread from an ATI Fanboy! :roll:
To the OP, Prozac is right.The X1800XT ate the orginal 256MB 7800GTX soooooooooo easy...!
It seems that these days the ATI FanBoys are so busy! :wink:
May 16, 2007 1:51:20 PM

Fact=Excuses anymore with AMD, they got caught with their pants down.
I was dissapointed with R600, many people are. They really needed to give us something that after 6 months could at least match the 8800GTX, do you really think nVidia is going to wait for AMD to beat them before "G90" arrives? If R600 matched the 8800GTX, there would be 1: a price war, 2: big push to one up the other, and 3: a DX10 software explosion. AMD let us down, all we get are factual excuses and a midrange GPU.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 1:57:30 PM

If you stub your toe it hurts BECAUSE you stubbed it. Thats a fact. Midrange? You tell me how it does what it does then. If these are excuses, tell me, just being extremely late? Thats one thing thats disappointing, but has nothing to do with the actual working of the card. Tell me then, without excuses, what makes the 2900xt not as good as the GTX, and use no excuses. Ive already heard late. Is that all?
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 2:02:13 PM

If you stub your toe it hurts BECAUSE you stubbed it. Thats a fact. Midrange? You tell me how it does what it does then. If these are excuses, tell me, just being extremely late? Thats one thing thats disappointing, but has nothing to do with the actual working of the card. Tell me then, without excuses, what makes the 2900xt not as good as the GTX, and use no excuses. Ive already heard late. Is that all?
May 16, 2007 2:03:18 PM

Quote:
Fact=Excuses anymore with AMD, they got caught with their pants down.
I was dissapointed with R600, many people are. They really needed to give us something that after 6 months could at least match the 8800GTX, do you really think nVidia is going to wait for AMD to beat them before "G90" arrives? If R600 matched the 8800GTX, there would be 1: a price war, 2: big push to one up the other, and 3: a DX10 software explosion. AMD let us down, all we get are factual excuses and a midrange GPU.


you mean ATI, R600 is ATI's baby, R700 will be AMD's baby :p 

talk about spoiled kids ;) 
May 16, 2007 2:05:18 PM

WOW!
Relax man! 8)
May 16, 2007 2:09:05 PM

Yeah, the X1800XT actually outperformed the 7800GTX when it came out by a decent margin; when Nvidia released the "7800GTX 512MB" they technically took back the performance crown, even though the card was $750+ everywhere and was often hard to find.(Kind of like the 8800Ultra)
May 16, 2007 2:11:51 PM

It is getting Spanked by a gpu that in this industry is almost obsolete. That is a piss poor showing from AMD. Defend it with all the facts you can dream up, in the end you can't deny that AMD did not deliver.
Intel really must have shook them up with C2D, and nVidia has spun them for a loop. Just keep telling yourself it is all "fact" when K10 has the same showing as R600. "We made it to be in second place" is BS and you know it.
May 16, 2007 2:25:19 PM

Well this is a different situation, the X1800XT was on par with the 7800gtx, not losing to it and mathcing the 7800gt. Even then the 2900XT wont be so bad once the price drops some. The rumors of a 2950XTX might be good news, but if its just a die shrink they might just up the clock speeds, and from OCing results I've seen that won't be enough. Honestly if people think that ATI and Nvidia are going to do the same thing with every series of cards (like the rumors of 8900s and now people speculating a fast update for ATI like X1800>X1900) then you need to think about it more. It obviously isn't going to be exactly the same as the previous series, ATI may not ever come out with someone to beat the 8800gtx this series.

Quote:

The majority of people are too stupid and too far absorbed in instant gratification to see that far ahead.

Their loss.


I guess you could have been saying that 6 months ago when people were buying 8800gtx's and everyone was saying they should wait. It certainly didn't turn out to be their loss, they got a better card and were able to enjoy it for far longer. I waited for the R600's, and I'm definitely not gonna buy one, and now the 8800's have been out for so long I might as well wait for the next thing from nvidia.
May 16, 2007 2:57:53 PM

Quote:
anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt


The majority of people are too stupid and too far absorbed in instant gratification to see that far ahead.

Their loss.
Value doesn't have a time horizon... it's instantaneous. When I want to buy something I don't ask myself "What will be the better value in the future?" I ask myself "What is the best value NOW?" After all... purchases are made in the present. The people buying 8800 GTXs today are doing so because they want the best performance possible and Nvidia is providing that.

Based on your hindsight you say that people should have passed on the 7800 GTX and waited for the X1900 series. Fair enough... but that's hindsight. I'll never question your hindsight nor anyone else's. It's your ability to tell the future that I question.
May 16, 2007 3:11:46 PM

Quote:
anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt


I had the same thought until I realized that many sites are not benching AA on the 2900 because it's broken and kills the card's performance. These are the sites showing it meet or beat the GTS.

I don't care if its just a driver issue (which it may not be), I feel tricked. Thats dirty pool after all that waiting.
May 16, 2007 3:29:46 PM

Press releases and stock reports like this, 245 million profit in ¼ of a year is good income for the process of the next Chip.http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_39784.html Tell’s me that more people bought the 8800gtx, 80 series and in my opinion this trend will continue to grow.
May 16, 2007 5:12:24 PM

Quote:
anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt


Yes, I remember that the X1800 had a few problems. That's why I bought a 7800 GTX. I remember that the X1900 fixed those problems, and so I upgraded to one of those.

The problem with the 2900 XT is different. First, it got delayed, delayed again, and then had another delay. Henry, etc offered a variety of excuses for the delays, so much so that many people no longer believed anything he said. One of the reasons given for the delays was that the drivers were being perfected so that there would be no excuses, just good performance. Now the card is out, the performance isn't good, and there are daily excuses being given. That leaves us with the great question, why has it taken so long to unleash this card that leaves us so disappointed?

Now you suggest that we wait for the next card. A 3000 generation perhaps? But AMD doesn't have the cash to develope it. They have debts up to their eyeballs and no cash flow to pay the debts. How many people will be willing to listen to Henry describe what a great card the next one will be, while they contemplate what he said about the 2900 and how it failed to perform? I'm no prophet, but I don't want to wait another 6 months or longer while AMD hopefully gets its act together.
May 16, 2007 5:13:21 PM

sorry, double post
May 16, 2007 6:12:59 PM

its a business nvidia produced the better card 6+ months ago, i went for it and ive gotten 6+ months of visual heaven. nothing left to do but enjoy some more and dream of the 9800 GTX with 1GB plus ram. if nvidia were a woman this be my proposal. :wink: even if ATI were to get the lead nvidia would just birng the 8900 and the 8950 not to mention the g90 which is prolly done!! nuff said
May 16, 2007 6:23:24 PM

you have to be retarded to upgrade any g80 card for a r600 card and i seriously doubt that the r600 will ever beat the g80 beacause they have the 8900 and the 8950 in the bench and even if they get beaten which is very unlikely the g90 looms over the horizon, can you imagine that monolithic force of power she packs. in money terms the r600 is doomed being 6+ months late and still not having a very good card i have doubts the r700 will ever show but if it does it be a year late or more lol.
May 16, 2007 6:24:13 PM

you have to be retarded to upgrade any g80 card for a r600 card and i seriously doubt that the r600 will ever beat the g80 beacause they have the 8900 and the 8950 in the bench and even if they get beaten which is very unlikely the g90 looms over the horizon, can you imagine that monolithic force of power she packs. in money terms the r600 is doomed being 6+ months late and still not having a very good card i have doubts the r700 will ever show but if it does it be a year late or more lol.

sorry for the double post!! somethign slow on thiis site it was unintentional
May 16, 2007 7:41:19 PM

A lot of people are bashing it because it does meet their standards which are mostly set by AMD's rival company Nvidia.

Its really not that hard to figure out. I personally see the effort as too little too late.

AMD would have been better off releasing the card with G80 to get a better market share.

I can guarantee that most of the people who bought G80s are NOT going to buy the R600, and those who were waiting paitently will atleast think twice.
May 16, 2007 7:44:33 PM

Quote:
you have to be retarded to upgrade any g80 card for a r600 card and i seriously doubt that the r600 will ever beat the g80 beacause they have the 8900 and the 8950 in the bench and even if they get beaten which is very unlikely the g90 looms over the horizon, can you imagine that monolithic force of power she packs. in money terms the r600 is doomed being 6+ months late and still not having a very good card i have doubts the r700 will ever show but if it does it be a year late or more lol.

sorry for the double post!! somethign slow on thiis site it was unintentional

You just centered an argument on completely made up, baseless speculation. Well done.
May 16, 2007 7:45:36 PM

Quote:
you have to be retarded to upgrade any g80 card for a r600 card and i seriously doubt that the r600 will ever beat the g80 beacause they have the 8900 and the 8950 in the bench and even if they get beaten which is very unlikely the g90 looms over the horizon, can you imagine that monolithic force of power she packs. in money terms the r600 is doomed being 6+ months late and still not having a very good card i have doubts the r700 will ever show but if it does it be a year late or more lol.

sorry for the double post!! somethign slow on thiis site it was unintentional

You just centered an argument on completely made up, baseless speculation. Well done.
a c 191 U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 8:05:17 PM

To answer the OP, they are bashing it because:

1. In any group of highly opinionated people like us, there will be a few fan-boys who will bash just for the sake of bashing.

2. No matter how good the cards were, people had [unrealistically] high expectations due to all the hype. This may not be so much a hardware or driver "failure" as a marketing disaster. See point #1; there were reasons/excuses to bash, so it is happening.

I suspect the business lessons for AMD/ATI here are far more valuable than any technical lessons, and hopefully not learned too late. Competition is a Good Thing.

Edit: spelling
May 16, 2007 8:06:55 PM

Stuff like this doesn't help either....

From custompc.co.uk....

AMD explains Radeon HD 2900XT's poor AA performance 1:16PM, Monday 14th May 2007

""....


While many reviews of the HD 2900XT have made unflattering comparisons between it and Nvidia's GeForce 8800-series, Huddy was upbeat about AMD's new chip. 'Even at high resolutions, geometry aliasing is a growing problem that can only really be addressed by shader-based anti-aliasing. You'll see that there is a trend of reducing importance for the standard linear AA resolve operation, and growing importance for custom resolves and shader-based AA. For all these reasons we've focused our hardware efforts on shader horsepower rather than the older fixed-function operations. That's why we have so much more pure floating point horsepower in the HD 2900XT GPU than NVIDIA has in its 8800 cards... There's more value in a future-proof design such as ours because it focuses on problems of increasing importance, rather than on problems of diminishing importance."
-Alex Watson

""

So what does this mean to us now and what are they trying to say?



Maybe this crystal ball really sees the future.... :roll:
May 16, 2007 8:23:09 PM

Basically what I got out of it is

"Buy our card now, it is not top notch, but when the rest of the features are available something else will be around to out perform this card"

Why would I buy a card to WAIT to have its features unveiled, thats just stupid.

If I buy a video card I want something that is going to last me, not be slower and more expensive then their competitors.

AMD crapped the bed, really no other way to slice it.
May 16, 2007 8:25:07 PM

Quote:
anyone remember the x1800 not being able to beat the 7800gtx? I sure do then a few months later the x1900 came out and put ati back on top, the same may happen with the 2900xt


Very good line of reasoning...why can't it happen?? I've seen a lot of reasons for why the 2900XT was late. But no one has yet to answer as to why ATI couldn't in the future come out with a great new card.

Quote:
Now you suggest that we wait for the next card. A 3000 generation perhaps? But AMD doesn't have the cash to develope it.


Do you have proof that they don't have the "capital" or resources to not develop a new card? Following your logic AMD/ATI should just close their doors and go out of business then huh. I wonder how AMD got a B rating since they are so bad off financially. :roll: :roll:
May 16, 2007 8:29:12 PM

The way I interpreted it was, in very simplistic terms:

"We based are hardware on new tech that will increasingly included in graphics in games and multimedia, nV based their hardware on old tech that will increasingly be phased out".

That's what he seems to me to be saying.
May 16, 2007 8:50:16 PM

its not futureproofing if the features you get are great in the future but your card would be out of date when the next set of ATI/Nvidia series comes around.
May 16, 2007 9:06:51 PM

Quote:
The way I interpreted it was, in very simplistic terms:

"We based are hardware on new tech that will increasingly included in graphics in games and multimedia, nV based their hardware on old tech that will increasingly be phased out".

That's what he seems to me to be saying.


Yeah ATI has hedged their bets on this technology. Only time will tell if it was a good approach or not.
May 16, 2007 9:18:27 PM

Quote:
I doubt it, 6 months delay and they can't touch the 8800GTX. Not good. I doubt nVidia has been sitting on their thumbs in the past 6 months.



The expression is HANDS... thanks for the nasty visual :x :lol:  [/b]
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 9:19:19 PM

ATI is not giving anyone a reason to buy a 2900XT. The reports from Tom's Hardware are very disappointing. Most reports indicate the card runs very hot (too hot) and is very loud.

Why would you buy the 2900XT for $429 when you could get an Nivida 8800GTS 640MB card for $359 which runs much cooler, is much quieter, has 128 more MB of ram and offers comparable performance? Yes the 2900XT is slightly faster but will you really notice a difference? I doubt it. Why pay $70 more for a card that is less efficent?

6 months after the intro of the 8800GTX and ATI still does not have an answer. And if the 2900XT runs really hot, how hot is a XTX verison going to run? And how loud will it be?

ATI has lost this battle. I hope they come back strong with a more advanced technology in the near future.
May 16, 2007 9:42:52 PM

LOL lets look back.

ATI and microsoft worked like a marriage " from what i read on cnn microsoft chose ati to work with on vista, they also buy from them check xbox 360" together before vista was released.

and you wana sit there and tell me ATI doesnt know where the software is being driven. Snap Microsoft DEPICTS the market in that aspect.


LMFAO this reminds me of when Apple chose INTEL over AMD, PPL were wondering why INTEL, they HAD POS chips at the time.

ATI/Micro$oft knows a hell of alot more then 99.9% of the ppl on these forums, so i cant wait for the band wagon jumpers to come out again.
May 16, 2007 9:48:28 PM

Quote:
I doubt it, 6 months delay and they can't touch the 8800GTX. Not good. I doubt nVidia has been sitting on their thumbs in the past 6 months.



The expression is HANDS... thanks for the nasty visual :x :lol:  [/b]

That is what AMD has been doing with both CPUs and GPUs. 8O
Tootsie Roll anyone? You'll be FASN8ted. :twisted:
May 16, 2007 9:50:23 PM

Quote:

Now you suggest that we wait for the next card. A 3000 generation perhaps? But AMD doesn't have the cash to develope it.


Do you have proof that they don't have the "capital" or resources to not develop a new card? Following your logic AMD/ATI should just close their doors and go out of business then huh. I wonder how AMD got a B rating since they are so bad off financially. :roll: :roll:

My basis for this statement is their net income of a -166 million dollars in Q4/06, -611 million in Q1/07, and continued negative income predictions in Q2/07 and Q3/07. Their cash on hand will dry up as the creditors are paid and their operating capital will diminish towards $0. Hopefully, they will sell enough of the new video cards, along with fixing whatever is wrong with them, and that will give them some cash coming in, rather than just cash going out. Only when they get into positive cash flow numbers will they be able to give the R&D departments money for developing a 3000 card.

I'm not meaning to say that AMD should close its doors and go out of business, but rather that they can't afford any more mistakes. If they can't compete for the fastest title, I think they should at concentrate on making middle ground products that work.
May 16, 2007 9:54:14 PM

double post
May 16, 2007 9:58:03 PM

LOL lets look back.

ATI and microsoft worked like a marriage " from what i read on cnn microsoft chose ati to work with on vista, they also buy from them check xbox 360" together before vista was released.

and you wana sit there and tell me ATI doesnt know where the software is being driven. Snap Microsoft DEPICTS the market in that aspect.


LMFAO this reminds me of when Apple chose INTEL over AMD, PPL were wondering why INTEL, they HAD POS chips at the time.

ATI/Micro$oft knows a hell of alot more then 99.9% of the ppl on these forums, so i cant wait for the band wagon jumpers to come out again.



sad to see ppl comparing a 550$ card to a 400$ card LMFAO . nvidia sucks compaired to ATI hell my x700pro kills there crappy 6200.


compare apple to apples and see what you get.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 10:05:49 PM

Quote:
its not futureproofing if the features you get are great in the future but your card would be out of date when the next set of ATI/Nvidia series comes around.


Despite the st00pid term 'future proofing' (surprised a rep would say that, prefer future-looking) sure it is still -future-proofing' if the card is capable (but obviously slower) in current games, but retains more of it's playability/features over time than a competing product. That it gets replaced replaced doesn't change it's relationship to future games compared to it's direct competitor, only compared to it's potential or eventual replacement.

You're talking about two different things, which seem to be future retained value compared to a replacement product not future performance/abilities compared to it's current competitor or the 'norm' (which is what they are comparing).
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 10:20:12 PM

macer1
Quote:

sad to see ppl comparing a 550$ card to a 400$ card LMFAO . nvidia sucks compaired to ATI hell my x700pro kills there crappy 6200.
compare apple to apples and see what you get.



If you would actually read the post rather than reading what you want your eyes to read I am not comparing a $550 card to a $400 card.

I am comparing a 640 MB 8800GTS by EVGA which costs $359 on newegg.com as of today compared to the 2900XTs on newegg which by inlarge were priced $429 as of yesterday.

That is a fair comparison comparing apple to apple. Not apples to oranges which would be a unfair comparison between a $550 768MB 8800GTX to a $429 2900XT. The 2900XTX will contend with the 8800GTX when ever ATI chooses to release it.

Answer my question. Why would you pay $70 more for a 2900XT when you could get a 8800GTS for $70 less which runs cooler, quieter, has 128 more MB of ram and offers comparible performance?

Stop bragging about your x700pro crushing Nividia's 6200. That message board thread ended about 3 years ago.
May 16, 2007 10:30:11 PM

Quote:
my x700pro kills there crappy 6200.


Those 2 are not supposed to be compared. Not even close. But a flagship chip compared to a flagship chip can be compared IMO. Who cares if the 2900xt can only compete with the 8800 GTS, the R600 is not a cut down version of the main chip like the G80 is on the GTS. So if people say that the GTX kills the 2900xt (remember the XTX will only be an OC version of XT) then let them. It seems like apples to apples to me.

So ATI amits that the R600 gets beat and can only compete against the GTS, doesn't mean that when the R600 was originally made, it was made to be a top chip.

When the R650 comes out don't expect too much there either. Now I'm just looking at their naming scheme's.

It's not going to go like x1800 to x1900 (big difference) because they debuted with the 2900 series name. So I'm thinking that there isn't the same headway as the x1800 archetecture for changes. Maybe they will be able to take out a few bugs and definatly use the process shrink to their advantage but nothing more than that. (2900 - 2950) can't be too much otherwise they would have used (2800 - 2900).
May 16, 2007 10:31:23 PM

X700pros were well over $300 brand new.

6200s were under a hundred bucks from the get go.

Mainstream vs. value....thats fair

try 6200 vs x300 maybe
May 16, 2007 10:48:54 PM

the x700 vs the 6200 was a poke of fun, take ti or leave it. the bottom feeders seem to only attack the sarcastic part of my threat and not he meat.


re-read it and repost , thanks.
!