Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R600 RC3 8.38! XP & Vista DRIVERS!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 23, 2007 4:40:39 PM

For everyone with a HD2900XT here are the RC3 8.38 Drivers for both Vista and XP, there not that bad and run most of the games a lot better (from what i heard...i dont own 1 :\)

http://www.atimania.com/product/R600_838_RC3_Vista.zip

http://www.atimania.com/product/R600_838_RC3_XP.zip

Enjoy, check out ATI MANIA for 8.38 benchies (http://www.atimania.com/bbs/view.php?id=hardware&no=40

Credit goes to killer_uk for finding these and SuperBORG of Rage3d.

More about : r600 rc3 vista drivers

May 23, 2007 8:16:49 PM

Ummm who has a 2900XT?

Maybe you should of posted the New 158.22 Nvidia drivers for XP :lol:  :roll:
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2007 8:43:43 PM

Why post that old 158 dirver, dontcha know it crashes LostPlanet ?
Man, you're so out of touch, it's all about the 160s now. :tongue:
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2007 8:46:03 PM

Nice performance improvements, we kinda got a hint of these with the HKePC review that was one of the first to extensively use the 8.38s in games.

Looks better than before, but still needs a bit more resolutions/settings to provide enough detail. Also don't care about the GF8600 series, pretty useless compared to the X1950XT and GTS-640 and GTX.
May 23, 2007 9:16:16 PM

158's are newer then 160's arent they. :p 
May 23, 2007 9:23:02 PM

Quote:
158's are newer then 160's arent they. :p 


no.
a b U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
May 23, 2007 10:12:35 PM

Those benches are horrible! Am I missing something? My 2900 XT scores 9700+ with the old drivers on 3DMark06 1280x1024 (default). They only get 9100 with the new drivers. Hopefully the real 8.38s will be out soon.
May 23, 2007 10:46:38 PM

Quote:
Those benches are horrible! Am I missing something? My 2900 XT scores 9700+ with the old drivers on 3DMark06 1280x1024 (default). They only get 9100 with the new drivers. Hopefully the real 8.38s will be out soon.



yes! maybe that the CPU is a FX-60, and only 1GB RAM in WINDOWS VISTA.

;) 

is alot different that the reviews with X6800 / 2GB DDR2-800 / TOP Intel mobo

hehe :]

with the first drive the 2900XT just look as ugly as the 8800GTS 320, now it looks so much better. so is kicks the 640MB version too, is the same clocks, just would lose at higher resolutions :) 

also 8800GTS don't overclocks well , and 2900XT overclocks ALOT xD
a c 175 U Graphics card
May 23, 2007 10:47:07 PM

Why do you care about those bungholio marks? When the 2900 came out, I saw benchies that showed it beat the 8800GTS, and came close to the GTX, if you ONLY look at the bungholio marks. Frankly, I wouldn't mind losing 600 bungholio marks if it ment my games were 15% faster. (I don't know about you, but I play videogames way more often then bungholio06.)
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2007 11:02:23 PM

I agree with 4745454b. If your score goes up 10% in the marks it doesnt mean a 10% improvement in games. Alot of the scoring does matter with which cpu and ram youre running. These drivers are an improvement
May 23, 2007 11:45:30 PM

Quote:
Why do you care about those bungholio marks? When the 2900 came out, I saw benchies that showed it beat the 8800GTS, and came close to the GTX, if you ONLY look at the bungholio marks. Frankly, I wouldn't mind losing 600 bungholio marks if it ment my games were 15% faster. (I don't know about you, but I play videogames way more often then bungholio06.)


I thought bungholio marks were the best use of the 2900? After all why would DAAMIT put out a press release like this otherwise?

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070523/20070522006575.html?.v=1

Because scoring the MAXIMUM number of bungholio marks with the help of some liquid nitrogen is the point of these things, no?
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2007 11:55:31 PM

Maybe its because it is a fuzzy benchmark done by a card that is supposedly 5th in line from the top and priced as such? And the other 4 "higher" cards havnt done it
May 24, 2007 5:30:12 AM

Um yes... :p 
May 24, 2007 10:16:28 AM

Quote:
with the first drive the 2900XT just look as ugly as the 8800GTS 320, now it looks so much better. so is kicks the 640MB version too, is the same clocks, just would lose at higher resolutions Smile

also 8800GTS don't overclocks well , and 2900XT overclocks ALOT xD

Hehe... :roll:
Another fully-customized-stupid ATI FanBoy!
May 24, 2007 10:28:26 AM

Quote:
This leaves the previous top 3DMark 05 single card record of 29,686 in the dust.


Wow a 1.36% increase, getting anything else then the best isnt good enough!

Wonder how much you need to spend to reach that, have people forgot about stock performance already?

Edit: Again the reply button seem to randomly just select someone, sorry!
Anonymous
May 24, 2007 11:26:57 AM

Farhang i totally agree with you on your comments. why people are covering for 2900xt i don't get it.
May 24, 2007 12:08:51 PM

Quote:
For everyone with a HD2900XT here are the RC3 8.38 Drivers for both Vista and XP, there not that bad and run most of the games a lot better (from what i heard...i dont own 1 :\)

http://www.atimania.com/product/R600_838_RC3_Vista.zip

http://www.atimania.com/product/R600_838_RC3_XP.zip

Enjoy, check out ATI MANIA for 8.38 benchies (http://www.atimania.com/bbs/view.php?id=hardware&no=40

Credit goes to killer_uk for finding these and SuperBORG of Rage3d.

Firstly im not sure if we are seeing a driver advantage or if the 2900XT is less CPU dependent. The FX60 is lowest powered CPU benchmark ive seen from the 2900XT and may question a possible 3dnow advantage the GPU may take from AMD CPU's. No matter which it is this does put the 2900XT in a better light.
May 24, 2007 12:25:14 PM

Quote:
Farhang i totally agree with you on your comments. why people are covering for 2900xt i don't get it.

I`m not saying that HD2900XT is not an awesome monster, but why people write staff like "HD2900XT kick the 8800GTS's ass" or "8800GTS 320MB Sucks!" or "8800GTS cannot overclock well!".
WTF?
8800GTS can easily reach 600MHz core on stock cooling with no temp problem at all! this is amazing 20% overclock! :twisted:
Just read what Taikamya wrote! :roll:
HD2900XT IS AWESOME BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT KICK THE ASS OF 8800GTS! OK? :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
May 24, 2007 12:28:54 PM

From what I have seen the 8800GTS and 2900XT trade blows, with maybe a SLIGHT advantage to the XT. Hopefully the XT will have some signifigant driver improvments that will put it above the GTS (but it probably still won't dominate the GTS). Only time will tell.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2007 12:29:38 PM

This is true, the 2900 is a little better than the gts but no kick@$$. Maybe they were just kidding
May 24, 2007 12:51:18 PM

I'm surprised the 512-bit interface vs. 320-bit interface isn't helping the 2900 XT as much as I would think on paper.
May 24, 2007 12:53:08 PM

Quote:
Why post that old 158 dirver, dontcha know it crashes LostPlanet ?
Man, you're so out of touch, it's all about the 160s now. :tongue:
Actually, I had problems with 158.22 so I had to go back to 97.92. :( 
May 24, 2007 1:00:38 PM

Quote:
This is true, the 2900 is a little better than the gts but no kick@$$. Maybe they were just kidding


Now im gonna sound really defensive since i own a GTS 320MB. =)

Yeah i would agree the 2900 appears better in some of the benches on that link but i wouldn't say its better then the GTS.
I even compared those 3dmark scores with my own and other 2900s on futuremarks site.
Not that any truths should come from 3dmarks when comparing scores between different system.

But then i look at the game benches on that link.
Even at resolutions considered to be to much for the 320 it still beats the 2900 sometimes, so again why is the 2900 better?

People get upset that the HD2900XT shouldn't be compared to the 8800GTX but then its completely fine to compare it to the 8800GTS 320MB in resolutions that the 320 is supposed to have a hard time in!?

I mean do a fair test or none at all maybe put the GTX in there to...
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2007 1:01:12 PM

Tho its super scaling, its only 64 tmus, the back end doesnt help and its still not matured. Wait another month or the next driver release, that will tell the tale. Anything after that will be gravy.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2007 1:12:24 PM

If you look at some of the newer benches youll see the 2900 pulling ahead of the 320 even at lower rez. Not by much, and losing in a few, but then again youll see the 2900 beating the GTX which the GTS doesnt do. I want to see more benches using the latest drivers for a fair comparison. Im not downing anything here, it is my opinion ATM, and I believe time will prove me out. Is the 320 a killer card? Hell yes! Price/performance, is it a great buy? Again yes. You have a great card, people who make their decsions now or soon or have gone with the 2900 want to know how it stacks up, only natural. Reread my post, I didnt say it kicked, I said its a little better, and not just in higher rez. It all depends on which games at this point, and so far taking everything into consideration, including all games the 2900 is a little better at this point.
May 24, 2007 4:21:11 PM

Quote:

Hehe... :roll:
Another fully-customized-stupid ATI FanBoy!



sure i am! that's why i have 8600GT SLi setup.

why people call you fanboy only because you try to see some good point of something ?

are you ignorant ? so, HD2900XT is a bad card ? is surely better than mine, by the way, its not as good as expected, but its getting better with newer drivers.

or are you blind ? õ.o
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2007 6:25:16 PM

Quote:
Actually, I had problems with 158.22 so I had to go back to 97.92. :( 


Have you had a chance to try the 160s yet?
I heard some good feedback sofar on a few of the forums, but of course the main focus was Lost Planet, which based on your previous posts I guess you're done with.

Hopefully successively better drivers from both near term. I'm expecting new drivers from AMD soon, but I doubt it'll help my old architecture much. Still waiting on the new mobile chips.
May 25, 2007 6:50:46 AM

Yeah, sorry, just based what i wrote cause i thought you commented on the links from the OP, didn't see any other links or anything.

I haven't seen any "fresh" benches, just the one the OP used.
And there i wouldn't say the 320 was inferior.
Would have liked any links supporting your statement, sorry for the misunderstanding.
May 25, 2007 7:26:55 AM

These RC3 drivers didn't do anything for me really. I don't see any performance gain. These drivers aren't stable, either.
a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2007 11:48:41 AM

Quote:
Yeah, sorry, just based what i wrote cause i thought you commented on the links from the OP, didn't see any other links or anything.

I haven't seen any "fresh" benches, just the one the OP used.
And there i wouldn't say the 320 was inferior.
Would have liked any links supporting your statement, sorry for the misunderstanding.
here are some, looks hopeful http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?tid=790821&tp=AMD-R60... Im just now reading this one so who knows how it looka, but a good site http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h... Hope these help
a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2007 8:42:45 PM

Xbit still uses the 8.374 drivers, not the 8.38.

Actually what surprised me about the Xbit results were the SpecViewPerf results, which aren't anywhere near as strong as those portrayed by the DailyTech 'reviews'.
a b U Graphics card
May 26, 2007 12:22:45 PM

Honestly, this surprises the hell out of me. The 2900 solution is still better than the 8800 solution, tho I came to understang as well as all those that were presented, UVD would be there. But then again, 520 gigaflops vs 400+ claims, but I dont like this from AMD? Or was it ATI?
!