Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Performance Value For DX10

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 17, 2007 2:25:21 PM

This Foxconn 8800GTS is overclocked and features a performance per dollar figure that will make even Scrooge think twice.

More about : performance dx10

May 17, 2007 2:26:34 PM

As usual, link reports an error for UK users...
May 17, 2007 3:00:43 PM

I think that when my current video card needs an upgrade (may be years away) I will make the move to this card.

I have yet to meet a game that my card cannot enjoy at 1600x1200 (with the exception of ageia bs). So by the time i need to upgrade, this card might even be half the price it is now. What a deal!
Related resources
May 17, 2007 3:15:31 PM

I very much enjoyed the "Dollar FPS" chart. It gave a nice comparison between cost/benefit of each of the cards tested. Overall good article.
May 17, 2007 3:48:16 PM

I agree, I believe it is vital to have price/performance articles. It is too often the case that only the mightiest of components get the limelight.
May 17, 2007 3:59:29 PM

A waste in my opinion. Why was the 2900XT left out? It is OUT now (I like how the article starts of saying that Nvidia is the only one with a current DX10 card out).

Don't get me wrong, I am a Nvidia fan, I have a BFG 8800GTX. I just think the article isn't even close to accurate if it does not have ATI's latest to compete with. That and the 2900XT kills the 8800GTS in almost every benchmark at the 399$ price point.
May 17, 2007 4:16:41 PM

Decent article... out of date, but decent. Good to see the x1950Pro is still the best bang for buck. I just hate having to turn things down in FEAR and Oblivion... lol
May 17, 2007 4:20:43 PM

So even though their own chart shows that the X1950Pro 256MB is the actual winner in terms of FPS/dollar at both high and low quality, they show on the conclusion page that the Foxconn 8800GTS is the leader?

I know the two cards don't compare in performance but if you're gonna show a chart with one outcome and then state differently in your conclusion, at least mention it.
May 17, 2007 4:22:11 PM

Link now fixed for UK - ta :) 
May 17, 2007 4:47:58 PM

The whole point of upgrading to a DX10 card is to play DX10 games which are just around the corner. We have all seen the video of Crysis on Tom's site, meaning they or someone has a playable demo of some sort - but no details on what hardware is running it. And no one is talking about what the ideal card is for DX10. So the real question is how are the different cards going to run Crysis or UTIII in all their glory?
May 17, 2007 4:53:57 PM

Quote:
This Foxconn 8800GTS is overclocked and features a performance per dollar figure that will make even Scrooge think twice.


This article is pretty out date? However, the conclusion is probably more true now than whatever earlier time this article was conceived.
May 17, 2007 6:10:12 PM

I would love to see the benchmarks on how two of these Foxconn 8800 GTS OC cards running in SLI would stack up against a single 8800GTX. Anyone have any experience with this? Just a few dollars more (at current prices) and it seems like it might outperform the GTX by a wide margin. Any thoughts?
May 17, 2007 7:02:07 PM

Quote:
I would love to see the benchmarks on how two of these Foxconn 8800 GTS OC cards running in SLI would stack up against a single 8800GTX. Anyone have any experience with this? Just a few dollars more (at current prices) and it seems like it might outperform the GTX by a wide margin. Any thoughts?


It will still get spanked by the GTX, especially as resolutions increase.
May 17, 2007 7:13:46 PM

really? I figured they would be about even. Of course, the extra RAM on the GTX will spank the 320 GTS at higher res.
May 17, 2007 7:42:43 PM

Good article. THG is getting better. I'm glad the turnaround went well.
May 17, 2007 8:41:48 PM

Ok article, the performance / $ was a nice touch. Really though, 2 points that bug me here:

1) You state that the 8800gts is the best bang for the buck, but in your chart it is obvious that the 1950pro is far and away a better value. What gives?

2) This should have included the ATI 2900XT HD (or whatever its called). It is the real competition for the 8800gts now and without it this article adds nothing that hasn't been in numerous tom's articles already.

I liked the article, but it was pretty useless.
May 17, 2007 9:37:35 PM

Quote:
Ok article, the performance / $ was a nice touch. Really though, 2 points that bug me here:

1) You state that the 8800gts is the best bang for the buck, but in your chart it is obvious that the 1950pro is far and away a better value. What gives?


They said " best DX 10" bang for the buck card, anyway indeed 1950Pro is now with the price drop a relly nice deal.

Quote:
2) This should have included the ATI 2900XT HD (or whatever its called). It is the real competition for the 8800gts now and without it this article adds nothing that hasn't been in numerous tom's articles already.

I liked the article, but it was pretty useless.


Someone posted a OC HD 2900 XT review catching up 8800 GTX - G80 also overclocks well btw.
HD 2900 XT delivers good performance as new driver appers, BUT here in France i can get a 8800 320 for 265 euro, 640 MB is at 360 euro, the cheapest HD 2900 XT is a noname and it's priced at 390 euro.

Probably some Ati fans will claim that 8800 GTS is crap now since it's outperformed BUT G80 is 7 moths old, 320 MB version i still best FPS/dollar dx 10 vid card and HD 2900 XT is hot, noisy and quite expensive.
I know 320 8800 get crappy above 1600x1200 but on my 17" LCD i can't reach that so everything is smooth and eyecandy with 1280x1024

Now the choice i up to you
May 17, 2007 10:30:38 PM

Is this a joke?

You review DX10 cards based on how they run under Windows XP?

The whole point of DX10 is that ALL games will run better, not just DX10 games. Only one requirement for that; YOU HAVE TO BE RUNNING VISTA!

How about doing these tests again under Vista this time so we can see some useful information?
May 17, 2007 11:16:57 PM

Exactly! When THG gets a Crysis demo and puts it through its paces, I'll be eyeing that article!

It's all on the shoulders of Crysis Island!
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2007 11:29:59 PM

I think alot of people miss two very vital points.

A) This article was conceived and began testing a while ago, not just today, so don't think in today context, think in the idea of some greater permanency.

B) Second, HD2900XT performance is still in flux, it's not reasonable to be doing a value per frame assesment article at this stage of the game, especially when the article sticks around for weeks afterwards when the situation might change (as it has with every previous card after their launch). They didn't include the GF8800Ultra either, so don't get your panties in a bunch ther're likely to come in the next version.

Just something to consider, this article is likely something Darren will update over time, to eventually include Vista and DX10.... where there is any to speak of. It's likely an ongoing thing, like Cleeve does for his article.

And for those of you who don't get the GF8800 statement, he clearly says best of DX10 cards in that statement. The X1950P may be the best overall current value, but the GTS-320 is the best current DX10 value.

It's a good starting point IMO, and like everything, could use some tweaks, but a very nice first effort, and a good starting point with which to add new cards.
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2007 11:33:42 PM

Quote:
Is this a joke?

You review DX10 cards based on how they run under Windows XP?


Yeah, because since they aren't DX10 games, and it's just a look at the hardware, then you want the one in which they perform the best, an right now both ATi/AMD and nV's cards in that review perform best under XP.

When there's a reason for gamers to switch to vista, then there'll be a reason for the reviewers to switch, sofar there's not all that much but a single demo (that can be run under DX9 too).

I suspect future updates will make the leap to Vista when the majority of gamers start to, and there's a reason to make that the default.
May 17, 2007 11:53:38 PM

This very much reads like an infomercial for Foxconn... Where are the other oc'd gts's? evga, corsair, et al? And how about the oc'd gtx's for comparison? And why was the 2900 not included? Tom's obviously had one...
May 18, 2007 12:04:12 AM

I see what you are saying Ape, but this doesn't seem to me like it is a major article that will be updated, it seems like a review on a single card by a single manufacturer. And while I'm not in the hardware review business, I can't see how would take that long to write a review on ONE card and compare it to others. Also, I don't expect the price / performance index for the 2900 to stay that stable, but I would at least like to see it included in there with a disclaimer.
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2007 2:33:50 AM

So, how much is Foxconn paying THG to promote this card? I noticed you didn't bother to test any other 8800GTS cards for anything like a fair comparison.
May 18, 2007 3:54:45 AM

What I'd like to see is the comparison of this card with memory clocked at 1800 and the EVGA superclocked card which has the shaders overclocked but the memory at 1700. Other than that the article was good at this point in time.
May 18, 2007 2:31:12 PM

Good point about Vista and XP re: DX10. I missed that. In that case, what a load of horse SHYTE!
May 18, 2007 6:28:41 PM

Suprised you didn't include the X1950XT 256m. Fast as the XTX and much cheaper. About the biggest bang for the buck. Even with the newer 8800GTS cards out.
May 18, 2007 7:53:28 PM

Last card was an ATi x1950Pro, and it was great. It had the best image quality by far (no texture shimmer at all). And for the price I paid (£100), it was a steal.

Now I got a BFG 8800 GTS 320 OC2 (580/1800), and am blown away by the performance leap.

Loving Lost Planet DX10 on Vista Ultimate 32.

The driver wars have been paying exceptional dividends over the last few days too.

Not suprised by the outcome of the artice. And I am very glad I never decided to drop the extra £200 for a GTX. At 1440*900 I wouldn't probably see the difference.
May 20, 2007 9:34:45 PM

The article states that the card can be had for $260. My question is where? I can't find any store that stocks the card and I can't find a price below $280 for any other manufacturer with a simlar card.

Tom
May 24, 2007 5:09:33 PM

How in the hell can $300 bucks be considered a bargain?
June 5, 2007 10:41:47 AM

Quote:
The article states that the card can be had for $260. My question is where? I can't find any store that stocks the card and I can't find a price below $280 for any other manufacturer with a simlar card.

Tom


I'm having the same problem. eVGA has a similar card but it seems to be around $320-350.
June 22, 2007 3:46:40 PM

I've been following your articles for some time now, and I always look forward to the ones that you post. Maybe Tom's can let you spread your wings beyond graphics cards?

Things I liked:

-The 'Dollar per What?' slide was great to see, and very valuable information. Would like to see this kind of thinking in all of Tom's articles from now on.

-The Vista results were excluded...Everyone knows that the main effect of Vista on games is to make them slower. I think having XP and Vista results woould have muddied the waters. Thanks for not making me wade through 2x the benchmarks just to show that Vista is bad for games.

-That BUMJCRULZE is still alive and kicking!
June 22, 2007 5:54:19 PM

They don't even TEST the X2900 cards, AND they dare call it a DX10 performance value, testing only the DX9 cards from ATi?!

Humbug!
June 22, 2007 8:09:57 PM

Seriously, the graphic card comparisons are getting to be useless here now, the 2900XT has been avaliable for a while now and you can run out to any store and buy one and still it's not in any reviews and the performance is still in flux reason just doesn't hold water when you guys have no problems testing and compair other cards pre-release with beta drivers who's performance is really in flux.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2007 11:23:16 PM

Quote:
Seriously, the graphic card comparisons are getting to be useless here now, the 2900XT has been avaliable for a while now and you can run out to any store and buy one and still it's not in any reviews and the performance is still in flux reason just doesn't hold water when you guys have no problems testing and compair other cards pre-release with beta drivers who's performance is really in flux.


DUMBA$$ n00b, you joined the forum just to comment on this review with your first post?



The review was written OVER A MONTH AGO !!

I don't know why THG put this on the front page again, but maybe they thought people could read dates before commenting. :roll:

You want the realease and Pre-release reviews, then read the one written by Darren;
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/14/r600_finally_dx1...

That one used 'pre-release drivers' and did everything else every other site did and more IMO.
June 23, 2007 1:02:48 AM

Fine... It was an old article, but the price/performance review that came a little later didn't include any 2900xt's even though they've been cheaper that 8800gts 640mb since day one.

Where the review says the opposite, on release, the 2900xt was 100$ cheaper than the 8800gts 640mb in sweden.

And third, they haven't even bothered to include ATi's new card in the VGA charts... The Nvidia cards were in that list days after they were released.

It really does look bad from my point of view.
a b U Graphics card
June 23, 2007 6:01:35 AM

Quote:
Fine... It was an old article, but the price/performance review that came a little later didn't include any 2900xt's


Yeah because it wasn't a good value for the author (he doesn't include alot of cards (like the Parhelia) they aren't added to the body of recommendation, but he specifically mentions it first to ensure most people arent' confused;

"May Review And June Updates:

The big graphics card story in May was the introduction of the new Radeon HD 2900 XT. ATI's new flagship card, the HD 2900 XT trades blows with the 8800 GTS 640mb. The only problem is that the HD 2900 XT costs $410, while the 8800 GTS 640mb can be found for as little as $350. It's hard to justify the extra $60 for similar performance, so until the HD 2900 XT price becomes competitive with the 8800 GTS 640, we can't recommend it."


So you complaint is pretty pointless because it's pretty much the first card addressed in his article.

Quote:
even though they've been cheaper that 8800gts 640mb since day one.

Where the review says the opposite, on release, the 2900xt was 100$ cheaper than the 8800gts 640mb in sweden.


Yeah, but not in N.America which is where Cleeve the author is, where the HD2900 has never been cheaper than the cheapest GTS-640 online. And once again you didn't other READING FIRST instead of skipping to the recommendations;

The list is based on some of the best U.S. prices available from online retailers. In other countries or if buying retail, your mileage will most certainly vary.


Quote:
And third, they haven't even bothered to include ATi's new card in the VGA charts... The Nvidia cards were in that list days after they were released.


You want to point out the link to that VGA chart's launch, because they didn't add them until much later. I think you're confusing charts.

Perhaps if you actually read the reviews and don't just expect your monitor's radiation to send the electrons directly into you brain, you might have a little less trouble, eh!?! :roll:

Quote:
It really does look bad from my point of view.


I understand, because from the sound of things your view is obstructed.
a b U Graphics card
June 23, 2007 11:34:23 AM

I see the article as reality. Some think we are actually IN the DX10 days. NOPE. We have DX10 cards, and we have DX9 cards, and we have two OS's, one for each. Since one plays DX10 and is slow/new it would be great IF there were any DX10 games to play. Logical choice? Other OS, playing? You guessed it...DX9! Oh, and wasntr there 2 GTS' in the article? And since were in transition, also a good price/performance DX9 card. Oh wait, that DX9 card comes in at a lot less than any of the other top DX10 cards, and even the mid cards, yet performs in, DX9, yup just as well. I think the article was appropriate, and people would understand thast we are all in DX9 yet, with most using XP, and ALL playing DX9 games, tho, the DX10 cards can do both. This was nothing more than a tribute to the 8800GTS, and the 1950pro, both cards showing lotas of bang for the buck. If anyone has a DX10 game to use for a article, please send it to Toms, as Im sure theyd appreciate one to use for their articles... One question? Did my sarcasm come thru? heheh
July 10, 2007 8:46:48 PM

Are there any benchmarks out there yet for the HD 2900 XT from Diamond (the $499 version w/ 1GB of DDR4)??? Anyone know when to expect to see some? Diamond says this is "The World's Fastest Graphics Card" and I was told by Maingear that the 1GB version of this card is much faster than even the Nvidia 8800 Ultra, at a fraction of the cost.
October 18, 2007 8:55:42 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Quote:
Seriously, the graphic card comparisons are getting to be useless here now, the 2900XT has been avaliable for a while now and you can run out to any store and buy one and still it's not in any reviews and the performance is still in flux reason just doesn't hold water when you guys have no problems testing and compair other cards pre-release with beta drivers who's performance is really in flux.


DUMBA$$ n00b, you joined the forum just to comment on this review with your first post?

]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7035/okfuktardas8.gif

The review was written OVER A MONTH AGO !!

I don't know why THG put this on the front page again, but maybe they thought people could read dates before commenting. :roll:

You want the realease and Pre-release reviews, then read the one written by Darren;
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/14/r600_finally_dx1...

That one used 'pre-release drivers' and did everything else every other site did and more IMO.


You called him a F*cktard, hehehe!!! That's the funniest thing that I've seen in a long time... Ohh man, that was good.
!