Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD 2900XT, rate how bad this card sucks! or not?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 9, 2007 12:18:17 AM

Ok, HD 2900XT is a disaster its too hot and too late we all know that!

As a hardcore x-ati fan, i waited faithfully for my version. I even built a system in anticipation, around 2 x2900xtx then sold it in complete disappointment.

The good news: as a water cooled home theater system this card has great potential as an hdmi component - but that is a slim market.

Is it a gaming disaster or not? The bad news: Why should I have to spend $500 on water cooling system just because amd can not compete with nvidia?

The 8800 wins hands down at $250 lvl to $650 lvl. I was never an nvidia fan, a die hard P4 and ati guy!

Now i am a 650i.680i builder - who cares about p35 and hd2900xt

nvidia is the true winner here - what do you think?









5TB HTPC sever under construction above








well you can see i use both!
June 9, 2007 1:08:56 AM

the 2900XT is only a flop to anyone who expected to perform on par with the GTX.

AMD clearly said it wouldn't compete with the GTX and it was meant for the GTS. Hence it was priced right for that segment of the market. At this price point it is what you'd expect and then some with all the extra features. Now if you're concerned with heat and power usage then, yes its not the card for you.

Disappointment: only to the few who can't comprehend the simplest of sentences, and were hoping for a miracle.



All that matters right now to ATi is the OEM business which they now have 60% of with there 2400/2600 series cards, and that alone will give them capital to bring out a true high end chip.

Doom and Gloom threads are old, pointless, and accomplish nothing. Just provide a review of your cards, experience, and conclusion.

Rd. 1 of DX10 goes to nVidia
Rd. 2 should swing into ATi's favor*
and by Rd. 2 i don't mean this generations revisions like the 2950 series or the 8850** series, i mean R700 and G90

*game developer dependent and on nVidia's G90 design
**unconfirmed
June 9, 2007 1:12:47 AM

Quote:


AMD clearly said it wouldn't compete with the GTX and it was meant for the GTS.


They started to said that at the launch and they realize there because they are so dumb. If i remember couple month ago they said it was very powerful and going to be the competition.
Related resources
June 9, 2007 1:17:37 AM

Quote:


AMD clearly said it wouldn't compete with the GTX and it was meant for the GTS.


They started to said that at the launch and they realize there because they are so dumb. If i remember couple month ago they said it was very powerful and going to be the competition.

the months leading up to its launch the power they kept talking about was its Tflop performance for GPGPU applications, or simply put its stream processing power, and in which case its extremely powerful at doing, theres no lie there. They never said it would be the high end competitor. We all expected to be, and all the media outlets reported it as such, but it was never claimed to be by AMD directly
June 9, 2007 1:20:06 AM

The HD 2900XT is not a flop, it's priced perfectly in line with its overall performance.
June 9, 2007 1:20:39 AM

Flop or not a flop, I like mine. It performs much better than my old X1800XT.
June 9, 2007 1:23:50 AM

It was natural to expect ATI's new generation of video cards, released six months after NVidia's, to at least challenge the G80. But the HD 2900XT, when you consider what performance it gives for the money, barely matches the 8800GTS. It may do slightly better overall, I'm not sure, but it also costs significantly more. Here in Canada the cheapest R600 is 446$, while the cheapest 8800 GTS is 350$. You'd almost be nuts to go with the ATI solution.

NVidia have impressed us all with an extremely solid product. They've won this round, definitely.

I started to really like ATI when they got the X1900 and X1950 series out, which made the GeForce 7 pale in comparison. But I must say I've no enthusiasm for their new series at all. I'm waiting the next generation.
June 9, 2007 2:00:15 AM

AMD never clearly SAYS anything... They might imply it, or outright lie about it... UVD comes to mind as well as the lvl505 fiasco. Then there were the many stories they put out about the reason for the delays in the launch...
June 9, 2007 2:04:02 AM

I think to delay something 6 months and not really be ALOT better or at least par is just disgusting. I don't think the 2900XT is totally bad but it doesn't do much better than the 8800GTS and since it uses much more power, has so many more stream processors but doesn't outperform the GTX is just sad. I've said it before, I'm no fan of any brand but right now ATI is kind of lack luster. I will say the same for the 8600 and 8500 cards but who really knows how the 2600's will be. 3Dmark doesn't mean that much anymore.
June 9, 2007 2:12:53 AM

These are reasons why I wouldn't buy it:
A) It's not the best performance/watt card
B) It's not the best performance/price card
C) It's not the best overall performing card
D) It's not the best mainstream card
E) It's overpriced based on its performance.
F) Does horribly with AA and AF on (why wouldn't it be on for high end card?)
G)Performs horribly for applications heavily utilizing TMUs and ROPs
June 9, 2007 2:15:27 AM

I wouldn't call the card a flop, that is a bit excessive. The HD2900XT performs better than the 8800GTS in most games, loses in a few, and matches the GTX in a game or two. *

If I had $550AUD to spend on a vid-card right now, I'd choose the HD2900XT over the 8800GTS 640MB. GTS costs about 570-600 here, so I'd save 20-50 bucks and buy some damn beer.





EDIT: Added source. See asterisk.
June 9, 2007 2:20:57 AM

Same thing happened to ATi with the x1800 series. It was to come out and compete with the 7800's and more the most part it was on par but clearly lost in the end. Then nVidia pushed the 7900 series, and ATi brought out the x1900 series. I do believe history will repeat itself.

The x1800 series brought about a new design and approach to GPU design and it brough some performance but not enough to dominate. x1900 series was a revision and modification of the original x1800 series, and its performance was superb.

The 2900 series is a radical approach and it has a lot of different stuff going on inside that hardware.
June 9, 2007 2:24:06 AM

I just think its disappointing how so many people (including the ones on this forum) hyped up the R600 so much.

I would rather spend the money on an 8800GTS then a 2900. It appears to be disappointing because ATI waited 6 months later to release a card that is only at about par with the second fastest (not fastest) model of the competitor.

My theory is because the card draws so much power and runs so damn hot, they probably couldn't have jazzed it up more, and had to start production on it so they could cash in on R&D.
June 9, 2007 2:32:20 AM

Quote:
I just think its disappointing how so many people (including the ones on this forum) hyped up the R600 so much.

I would rather spend the money on an 8800GTS then a 2900. It appears to be disappointing because ATI waited 6 months later to release a card that is only at about par with the second fastest (not fastest) model of the competitor.

My theory is because the card draws so much power and runs so damn hot, they probably couldn't have jazzed it up more, and had to start production on it so they could cash in on R&D.



Your not too far off base there. Its design is too complex for 80nm, they have problems with leakage, heat, and power draw. If people stayed patient and let them delay the card into 65nm, I believe it would have been a different story.
June 9, 2007 2:32:23 AM

In my opinion(don't grill me) the 8800GTS 320 is one of the best things since sliced bread. It's the 7600GT of yesteryear but better. :o  Does anyone game drunk?????
June 9, 2007 2:53:22 AM

Quote:
Flop or not a flop, I like mine. It performs much better than my old X1800XT.



no heat isses? what your set up?

thx!


Quote:
In my opinion(don't grill me) the 8800GTS 320 is one of the best things since sliced bread. It's the 7600GT of yesteryear but better. :o  Does anyone game drunk?????


yes this is the total truth

if your building a $750 gamer
or a $1500 gamer the 8800GTS 320 is the "best thing since sliced bread" as you said!


I still use the 8800 GTS as my starter card for $1699 system:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&ss...
June 9, 2007 2:57:48 AM

Quote:
It was natural to expect ATI's new generation of video cards, released six months after NVidia's, to at least challenge the G80. But the HD 2900XT, when you consider what performance it gives for the money, barely matches the 8800GTS. It may do slightly better overall, I'm not sure, but it also costs significantly more. Here in Canada the cheapest R600 is 446$, while the cheapest 8800 GTS is 350$. You'd almost be nuts to go with the ATI solution.

NVidia have impressed us all with an extremely solid product. They've won this round, definitely.

I started to really like ATI when they got the X1900 and X1950 series out, which made the GeForce 7 pale in comparison. But I must say I've no enthusiasm for their new series at all. I'm waiting the next generation.



yes -I totally agree - i owned x1900xt x1900xtx x1800xtx and crossfire versions - i have a x1950 pro on my sons system. I am, a ati fan, i am typing on system i build 2003 with x9600xt.

Did amd ruin ati? or was the r600 always going to be a loosers - the hd audio is cool!

i wonder? with the big delay - think about this!

With the big delay, and the emergence of HMDI as the standard in home theater systems - did ati add the HD audio as a after thought since the chip was a flop?

think about it?
June 9, 2007 3:01:19 AM

Quote:


Your not too far off base there. Its design is too complex for 80nm, they have problems with leakage, heat, and power draw. If people stayed patient and let them delay the card into 65nm, I believe it would have been a different story.


Well there won't be a 65nm version. You'll have to look at the more expensive 1 GB DDR4 version 80nm version to stack it up against the 8800s now.
June 9, 2007 3:03:21 AM

yes, they sheleved it!

I just wonder if they added the HD audio as an after thought - since this is the same technolgy on the x1250 chipsets

more good points:

Quote:
These are reasons why I wouldn't buy it:
A) It's not the best performance/watt card
B) It's not the best performance/price card
C) It's not the best overall performing card
D) It's not the best mainstream card
E) It's overpriced based on its performance.
F) Does horribly with AA and AF on (why wouldn't it be on for high end card?)
G)Performs horribly for applications heavily utilizing TMUs and ROPs


the aa and af may be fixable - be honest i was not aware of it - the heat issues has kept it of my own machines
June 9, 2007 3:13:27 AM

Quote:
Flop or not a flop, I like mine. It performs much better than my old X1800XT.



no heat isses? what your set up?

thx!




Well whats your definition of heat issues, it runs at around 60 which is not that bad for me because my x1800 ran at around 55-58. As for my setup I have a
Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4 GHZ
Evga 650i Ultra
Patriot 2GB DDR2 800
HD 2900 XT
Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
Thermaltake Toughpower 750W
June 9, 2007 3:26:42 AM

My 2c...
Never used a 2900...
Just sold my 1950XT for a GTS320.

Sooo happy.

The XT ran HOT and LOUD.
The 8800 spanks it and is quiet AS.

Id agree. NV have won this round over ATI
a b U Graphics card
June 9, 2007 3:49:34 AM

Another post by DragonSprayer saying the same as usual...

Intel fanboy noob kid.
June 9, 2007 4:14:28 AM

As far as I can see the 2900XT: (1) doesn't give you a performance reason to buy it over the 8800, (2) doesn't give you a price reason to buy it over the 8800, and (3) doesn't give you a cooling reason to buy over the 8800. Just try to ignore 8800 owners having a good laugh at those who patiently waited for this thing. Seriously, why would someone new to the market choose a 2900XT today? Is there any technical reason or is it just the brand name?
June 9, 2007 4:18:54 AM

That's not entirely true. The card is overall faster than the 8800GTS, and its price is just over $400. That's a bit more than an 8800GTS 640MB, and significantly less than the 8800GTX.
June 9, 2007 4:34:30 AM

Well the benchmarks I have reviewed said that the 8800GTS beat out the 2900xt in a lot of games. The features on the R600 really don't mean anything to mean as I am a competitive gamer, and I really just care about my system running smooth, and keeping cool.

The 8800gts excels at both of those aspects quite well. Even if the R600 is better, it still runs VERY hot and costs more. I'll save my money and get a superclocked 320 GTS, ATi really has seem to shit the bed this time, as it is kind of a disappointment overall
June 9, 2007 5:30:06 AM

i like the toilet paper on the 1st pic
June 9, 2007 5:49:37 AM

Quote:
i like the toilet paper on the 1st pic


:lol: 
June 9, 2007 6:26:08 AM

Quote:
i like the toilet paper on the 1st pic


That tells you where he got the water for his watercooling kit.
June 9, 2007 7:09:00 AM

Quote:
Another post by DragonSprayer saying the same as usual...

Intel fanboy noob kid.


i am looking for feedback on the x2900xt

by the way my son drives! dude!
June 9, 2007 12:22:17 PM

Maybe the R600 is overall faster, but its performance is less consistent than the G80. You know what you can expect out of a 8800 GTS 640MB: the HD 2900XT may perform a little better or significantly worse depending on the game and what graphical options you throw at it. The G80 still inspires me more confidence.

Also, for resolutions 1600x1200 and less, the 8800GTS 320MB offers just the same performance for 100$ less.

Ok enough ranting against poor ATI. Back to enjoying my X800XL :D 
June 9, 2007 1:08:29 PM

Seems we are all missing the point,ATI intended the HD 2900XT to compete with the GTS,which leaves us wandering when the said XTX version of the series comes out coz I figure its going to kill the GTX,at least until the 8850 or 8900 comes out!
Personally I've put my graphics card upgrade on hold until this ATI vs Nvidia DX10 dust settles so that I can get something thats really worth my money and time.
June 9, 2007 1:18:50 PM

I don't think the point is being missed. Regardless whether ATI/AMD said they were only going to compete with the GTS, its still disappointing that their technology that was released, not only is more expensive, and runs significantly hotter, it does not consistently outperform the GTS.

The fact that they lower their standards should be disappointing to ATI/AMD fans, they should expect better from a company that spent an extra 6 months developing their product.

I do think the R600 as of right now is a flop. This is speculation of course, but I feel that due do their design, ATi could not have made a faster card otherwise the damn thing would melt. So they tweaked their design to get what they would define as an acceptable level of performance out of it.

Because it runs so hot, I'm sure it would be difficult to run the card at a higher clock rate due to issues with Warranties.

AMD did lower their standards, but even when they did that, it turns out to be mostly a failure.
June 9, 2007 1:23:46 PM

It is starting to look like there may be no xtx this generation. The new 1gig ddr4 higher clocked 2900 that is initially being sold through system builders is basically the same spec as the xtx was rumoured to be.

link
June 9, 2007 6:04:20 PM

Quote:
As far as I can see the 2900XT: (1) doesn't give you a performance reason to buy it over the 8800, (2) doesn't give you a price reason to buy it over the 8800, and (3) doesn't give you a cooling reason to buy over the 8800. Just try to ignore 8800 owners having a good laugh at those who patiently waited for this thing. Seriously, why would someone new to the market choose a 2900XT today? Is there any technical reason or is it just the brand name?


i'm with this guy.
June 9, 2007 7:09:45 PM

Quote:
I was never an nvidia fan, a die hard P4 and ati guy!


So basically you admit that you're a fanboy!!! And by the way ... R600 is not a disaster you're post is a disaster ...
June 9, 2007 11:14:08 PM

And that was needed???
June 9, 2007 11:46:44 PM

Quote:
I was never an nvidia fan, a die hard P4 and ati guy!


So basically you admit that you're a fanboy!!! And by the way ... R600 is not a disaster you're post is a disaster ...

lol! i posted a few pictures of few systems with ati and nivida parts - lol

i would spec your on a single core athlon running what? probably 9550 onboard graphics?

maybe recent upgrade to 9800 pro?
June 10, 2007 1:28:20 AM

The 2900 is utterly useless for these simple reasons:

1. Image quality, doesn't compare to any 8800.

2. Frame rate, barely breaks even with a gts.

3. Price, more expensive than a gts for less quality and same speeds? Fail!

and thats not even considering how horribly its rendered in directx 10 thus far.

Ati has completely screwed up here and frankly it doesn't make much sense. This shouldn't have happened.
June 10, 2007 2:38:00 AM

Are you kidding, did AMD cause this to happen? Yeah, sure, because AMD is that quick in designing cards, that from start to etail they did this in 1 year. Are you kidding? AMD could have done very little to effect the final outcome of R600, it was near completition when AMD bought them, you can't just go back in and start making whatever change you see fit, and even if they could, they wouldn't pick the slower of two options, they would only make it better. The 2900XT isn't a flop, it competes with the other cards in the price range, the XTX is what got messed up. And I imagine, it will probably best the GTX in most cases and run neck and neck with the 8900 when it comes out. I could be wrong, but if the XT can best the GTX, the XTX will be even better if they can get the kinks worked out.

wes
June 14, 2007 10:15:54 AM

I don't understand how the 2900xt is not a better card. ATI needs to get their act together. The 2900 has 320 stream processors and better memory bandwidth. The 8800gtx has 128 and the 8800gts has 96 and less memory bandwidth yet nvidia still is better?
ATI needs to get some people that can code for their products because the 2900 is not living anywhere near what its potential could and should be.
June 14, 2007 12:15:19 PM

Apparently the stream processors on the 2900 are clocked at 742mhz while the ones on the 8800gts are 1.2ghz, although the 29000 has more than 3 times the amount.

If I had an sli mobo, i'd get the 8800gts 640mb tommorow, so i could sli it when it performance starts to dip in new games. But I was waiting on ATI to deliver an alternative. Now I'm worried that my PSU is'nt going to be able to hanlde two 2900's. Hopefully a revision of the chip (like with the x1950s) will make ATI a good buy.
June 14, 2007 1:20:20 PM

Personally, the only reason I care that the 2900 is not the 8800 killer some people were hoping for is for one reason: price. And I'm not talking about the price of the 2900 itself. I'm talking about the price of the 8800s. I really wanted AMDs new card to be competitive with the 8800gtx in order to drive the price down on the top nvidia cards. But since the 2900 cannot compete directly with nvidia's flagship card then there is no reason for nvidia to cut their price point in the high-end. Hence the 8800s are still in the $525-$600 range with no sign of dropping to an affordable (for me) price in the near future.

Honestly, this should be one of the main concerns for almost everyone responding to this thread. Who cares which company is currently manufacturing the fastest card on the market if 95% of us cannot afford to own one? Had the 2900 been a more capable card then many more of us would be able actually own a powerful DX10 capable card as opposed to getting caught up in pointless, rampant fanboyism.
June 14, 2007 3:10:00 PM

Quote:
Personally, the only reason I care that the 2900 is not the 8800 killer some people were hoping for is for one reason: price.


Exactly.

I've used the 2900 XT in testing, and it works fine. It's real problem is that it's not $10 cheaper than an 8800 GTS 640mb.

At $410 though, it's too expensive to recommend.
June 19, 2007 12:16:33 AM

Well i love my 2900XT it runs all mine games at 16x12 maxed details in OB Stalker Supreme Commander HL2.

Fan noise ? WHOT THE HELL i've heard my fan about 5 times over the last too weeks even had to check if it's working. As for heat yeah there hot just as hot as the GTX's and some times cooler.


Default temps are around 63c in our house which this time of year is 88f+ at this time it's 94f and i'm getting temps of 69c 89 under full load well as far as i can with my fast aging 3800 x2.

There is surly a AA bug thats for sure but still get around 60+ fps.

I know one thing for sure i don't trust reviews as getting one of these cards has proved most wrong on whot they say.

Am i a ATI fan Umm sure why not my last card was a EVGA 7900GT OCSC and it cannot touch the 2900XT so i am happy lol.

Fan noise some people must have some real bad heat problem to drive the fan at such high speeds which i've never heard.

Maybe you can buy one from here 330 euro's.
http://www.drivecity.de/product_info.php?products_id=15...
June 19, 2007 2:11:21 AM

Just popped a 2900XT in and I must say it is not that bad.I was so upset when they where realeased that I went to a local store that just happened to have the EVGA 8800gts 320 for a good price and then yesterday compusa had the ATi Brand (LONG STORY) 2900xt for 399.99 plus an employee discount.So far in FEAR the 2900XT beats the 8800 by a little both with and without 4xaa.The fan spining up at random is aggervating but I just feel at home more with ATi.That green PCB just stands out like a redheaded stepchild.Also the ATi brand is now visiontek and I mean the same box and they even left the VisionTek name.I checked Comp### online and it says ATi Brand ,ect,ect and so does the egg.Still I worried because I thought sapphire made the reference cards but it looks like visiontek might have built the last few ATi cards maybe , but the only way I could prove its an " ATi" is the 102 Seral # so quite a few things are changing.I was gonna do some benches and maybe an article with some real details.One thing I will say about the fear test was that the 8800 was running with the CPU at (E6300) 2.8 but I could not get the thing to boot(PSU maybe) but I'll try that befor I confirm the numbers.I have the chance to test and then deside with is better, I did start to love the 8800 and Nv like I did with my older builds its just the PCB , make me want to stepup to a GTX lol.
June 19, 2007 2:44:45 AM

The only dissappointment from my side is the fact that the 2900 does not display things right! What good is a card that can't display what it is supposed to display? Can't remember the site, where they did a comparison of a DX10 application, and although both NVIDIA and ATI's solutions where slow, at least on NVIDIA everything was there! on the 2900 there was no snow and no fence where it was supposed to be! That is utterly ridiculous! Actually the ATI solution should have fared better since it didn't even display half of the stuff on screen! LOL!

ATI, make it work properly first, THEN make it faster!!!

ATI X1950XTX is still the best card...
June 19, 2007 3:14:09 AM

Quote:
The only dissappointment from my side is the fact that the 2900 does not display things right! What good is a card that can't display what it is supposed to display? Can't remember the site, where they did a comparison of a DX10 application, and although both NVIDIA and ATI's solutions where slow, at least on NVIDIA everything was there! on the 2900 there was no snow and no fence where it was supposed to be! That is utterly ridiculous! Actually the ATI solution should have fared better since it didn't even display half of the stuff on screen! LOL!

ATI, make it work properly first, THEN make it faster!!!

ATI X1950XTX is still the best card...

that may be true but this is not good " Predicting whose cards will be the "DX10 champs" is almost impossible at this point. These tests also tell us that most of the midrange DX10 graphics cards just aren't going to give a satisfactory play experience on games that actually make good use of DX10. The $400-and-up cards are barely delivering playable frame rates on these early DX10 tests. Even with dramatic driver improvements, there's not much chance for the $200 cards to make DX10 games run very well without dropping detail levels or resolution." not good at all. dx10 sucks.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 19, 2007 3:56:39 AM

Quote:
The only dissappointment from my side is the fact that the 2900 does not display things right! What good is a card that can't display what it is supposed to display?


And this didn't occur early on with every generation of cards sofar in some app or another? :?:
If you even look at the release notes of the latest nV driver there's some display/render issues even now. Like see through trees in Oblivion or AA making the crosshair disappear in STALKER. So really, is either perfect yet? Or have they ever been?

Quote:
Can't remember the site, where they did a comparison of a DX10 application, and although both NVIDIA and ATI's solutions where slow, at least on NVIDIA everything was there! on the 2900 there was no snow


In the Lost Planet benchmark? C'mon that's far from a balanced test. It's a TWIMTBP benchmark that needed nVidia beta drivers to run properly after it had been optimized for nV hardware already. C'mon.

Quote:
and no fence where it was supposed to be!


Yes that's an issue, and a strange one, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the edge detection setting, but it is an interesting artifact that appears in other cards as well.

Regarding the same benchmark (HL2 episode 1) I notice you don't mention the FOG issue, would that be because the GF8800 suffered the same fog problem at it's launch not rendering the scenecorrectly using MSAA only when using SSAA (see the original G80 review if you want to compare the MSAA to SSAA screenies)? Xbit mentions that both the GF8800 and HD2900 suffered from FOG at launch in their review;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r600-arc...

Quote:
That is utterly ridiculous! Actually the ATI solution should have fared better since it didn't even display half of the stuff on screen! LOL!


'Half the stuff', far from it, it didn't display a very small portion of all that is on the screen. Seriously, if you need hyperbole to sell your argument, you don't have much of a case.

Quote:
ATI, make it work properly first, THEN make it faster!!!

ATI X1950XTX is still the best card...


Did you notice that the X1950XTX only renders part of that fence too?
They didn't compare under SSAA because the results are similar to the G80, but MSAA the X1950XTX also suffers the same issue, but with a few links being rendered instead of none.

Right now I think that they're working on both, performance and quality. But like nV shows with their current buglist in their drivers, it's a long process that won't happen overnight and will be an ongoing thing, the question is what issues garner the most attention and thus get the most focus from the Catalyst crew.
June 19, 2007 4:24:43 AM

:trophy:

Good post ape....
!