Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 2900XT VS XFX8800GTS

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Nvidia
  • ATI
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 16, 2007 3:59:27 PM

Ive been looking into a new graphics card for my computer, but i dont know witch one to take between the ATI or Nvidia. The Nvidia seems to be better at the lower resolutions (1024x768) where the ATI is better at the higher ones like 2560x1600. The ATI also runs hotter, but that no problem. I will be using a 17" monitor, what card do you recomend and why?

More about : radeon 2900xt xfx8800gts

June 16, 2007 4:11:00 PM

well....what resolution do you play at?
June 16, 2007 4:13:18 PM

its probably gonna be, 1024x768, but it depends what it looks like on my screen i might go bigger or smaller, its hard to say at the moment
Related resources
June 16, 2007 4:29:18 PM

well from personal experiance, id day 1024x768 or 1240x1024 is a good res for a 17inch monitor. if you wanna go higher, i suggest you get a bigger monitor.

so in that case a 8800 would be good for you.
June 16, 2007 5:05:52 PM

Quote:
Ive been looking into a new graphics card for my computer, but i dont know witch one to take between the ATI or Nvidia. The Nvidia seems to be better at the lower resolutions (1024x768) where the ATI is better at the higher ones like 2560x1600. The ATI also runs hotter, but that no problem. I will be using a 17" monitor, what card do you recomend and why?
When enabling antialiasing and anisotropic filtering the 8800GTS is faster than the HD 2900XT at higher resolutions.
June 17, 2007 3:35:46 AM

the 8800GTS and the HD2900XT are neck and neck, but the 2900XT is alot more expensive, its a waste of money right now
June 17, 2007 5:36:58 AM

Quote:
the 8800GTS and the HD2900XT are neck and neck, but the 2900XT is alot more expensive, its a waste of money right now


Totally agreed, not to mention you need a pretty beefy PSU just to power it. Total waste of money IMO.

Go for the nearly-$100-cheaper 8800 GTS, which even has performance on par with the 2900 XT in most games.

You can even pay about $350 (or maybe a bit more) for a 640MB version of the 8800 GTS and still come out cheaper than the $400 2900 XT, and you're getting even more video memory compared to the XT's 512MB. (Not that this actually matters much in game performance, but this is a comparison of just how much of a waste the XT is right now.)

If the 2900 XT was priced in the $300-350 range, it'd be a pretty sweet deal because it's a good card. However, the steep power requirements and expensive price make it a total waste. I'll say it again: Go with the 8800 GTS.
June 17, 2007 8:56:13 AM

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6170621/p-3.html

pasting benchmarks can easily solve disputes. considering its aroudn the performance of a 8800gtx id say its worth it.

http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt...
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_radeon_hd_2900_...
heres more. remember that it can stil be optimised... a lot of it actually.

really if u hav the system to handle one of these cards 550W psu(if u dont hav fully loaded system wich is relaly a lot of stuf u can run it with 500W and it will be fine) get it
June 17, 2007 9:44:25 AM

GTS without question. Here are the most recent reviews with newest drivers from both camps.
Especially when AA and AF are turned up.

http://www.thetechlounge.com/article...8800GTS+768MB/

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

The preponderance of evidence clearly shows the 2900 XT is generally inferior even in Direct 10 testing.
from Extremetech:
Then there's ATI. No matter the reason (deliberate snub or developer relations snafu), their card runs the DX10 version of Lost Planet like a steaming pile of integrated graphics. It's not just the terrible performance; it's the rendering flaws that make it unplayable. Have we stumbled upon a worrying side-effect of ATI's new superscalar architecture? We know the 320 stream processors can deliver massive peak floating-point computational power, but we also know they're arranged in 64 blocks of 5 scalar processors. If you can't deliver 5 operations to each block, you're throwing away processing power. Is this another architecture, like the GeForce FX of old, that will need serious driver optimization to get good performance out of every new game that hits the market? That would be a complete reversal from the days of the Radeon 9000 cards, which famously ran most games very well even if they were not very well optimized
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._hd_2900_xt/22
The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that R600’s current anisotropic filtering quality isn’t up to the standards we’ve come to expect from ATI hardware. Hopefully the problems are just related to the current driver release, but even if that is fixed, it will not be up to the quality standards delivered by Nvidia’s G80 graphics chip. That makes Nvidia’s angle-independent anisotropic filtering hardware all the more impressive.
At the moment, the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB is the better buy and those that bought one shouldn’t be disappointed.
And just for fun I included
Here is the very latest test showing a single 8800 GTX Ultra out performing
2900 XT Crossfire at high resolutions and just destroying a single 2900 by more than 100% in OBLIVION!!!

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...ltra_650m_xt/5
June 17, 2007 10:06:03 AM

Quote:
Ive been looking into a new graphics card for my computer, but i dont know witch one to take between the ATI or Nvidia. The Nvidia seems to be better at the lower resolutions (1024x768) where the ATI is better at the higher ones like 2560x1600. The ATI also runs hotter, but that no problem. I will be using a 17" monitor, what card do you recomend and why?
When enabling antialiasing and anisotropic filtering the 8800GTS is faster than the HD 2900XT at higher resolutions.
Seconded.
June 17, 2007 11:16:30 AM

From what I've seen the 2900xt matches the 8800gts and nearly the 8800gtx quite well.

Theres also another thing to consider, ATI's drivers still arent brilliant. You could buy a 8800gts now but within a few months a free bit of software could make the 2900xt much better than your card in games.

Your choice, but personally id go for the 2900xt.

Not like either is a bad choic one just appears more future proof ;) 
June 17, 2007 11:48:11 AM

I agree with the general consensus that for your needs the GTS 320 is the perfect card. It's cheaper, cooler, less powerhungry, and handles AA/AF better than the 2900 XT. As has been stated many times before, the 2900 has a weakness no amount of driver tweaks will ever overcome, and that would be it's lack of filtering hardware. The only way these cards will make-up a little of the difference is if software is specifically written to take advantage of it's architecture ( which MIGHT happen for a few games) or if ATI updates it's driver everytime a new game comes out (which WILL happen it only takes time, and your cards performance is depending on driver support ).
And before somebody accuses me of being a fanboy, I DO have an 8800 GTX but it replaced an ATI x850xt card (along with a bunch of other old stuff) and before that a 9800 pro. I was hoping for ATI to come out on top but as release dates dragged on and my build date came closer (I suck at holding on to money :p  ) I eventually decided on this card. Sofar there are absolutely no regrets, allthough I did have to get used to green instead of red when I start my driver panel :D  .
Anyways... my 2 cents are on the GTS, be it the 320 or 640.

GL.

*edit* fixed typo
June 17, 2007 12:03:05 PM

Quote:
From what I've seen the 2900xt matches the 8800gts and nearly the 8800gtx quite well.

Theres also another thing to consider, ATI's drivers still arent brilliant. You could buy a 8800gts now but within a few months a free bit of software could make the 2900xt much better than your card in games.

Your choice, but personally id go for the 2900xt.

Not like either is a bad choic one just appears more future proof ;) 


same advice given to owners of the FX5800Ultra so they could sleep at night
June 17, 2007 1:30:04 PM

All the info is there on the sites. The facts speak for themselves. If people want to buy inferior products for their own reasons that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of evidence shows the 2900XT to have problems that probably will be addressed in the next generation. At this time the image quality and performance of the G80 are generally regarded as superior, and all the name calling in the world won't change that fact.
June 17, 2007 4:03:32 PM

fix ur links before trying to contest wat i posted retard, and no i bought a 8800gts 320 so calling me a fanboy woudlnt be rite

you guys say the 8800gts 640mb is supeior? look at all the benchmarks i put on. obviously ur either jus taking things from ppl lik tr2448 and not actually looking around at benchmarks or just refuse to believe that the 2900xt is any good. and well unlike him my links actually work

shellofinsanity, i guess u wana add in 6800ultra and 7800gtx to that comparison? oh wait there all nvidia cards
June 17, 2007 5:46:37 PM

Heh. GTS, 2900xt.. I cant see why they cause so many arguments.

They are both great cards, they both have simular price. (640mb version)

generally they perform the same, they both still need much mroe advanced drivers, I dont think we've seen all these cards can do in DX10 just yet.
June 17, 2007 6:56:12 PM

Quote:
fix ur links before trying to contest wat i posted retard, and no i bought a 8800gts 320 so calling me a fanboy woudlnt be rite

you guys say the 8800gts 640mb is supeior? look at all the benchmarks i put on. obviously ur either jus taking things from ppl lik tr2448 and not actually looking around at benchmarks or just refuse to believe that the 2900xt is any good. and well unlike him my links actually work

shellofinsanity, i guess u wana add in 6800ultra and 7800gtx to that comparison? oh wait there all nvidia cards


see now thats just a moron statement there, one the 8800GTS and 2900XT are neck and neck, 2% isnt noticable unless were talking 1-2FPS. The 2900XT recomomeneds a 600W PSU minimum, and requires the 8pin PCIe connector to gain full support. It costs 50-100 more than the 8800GTS640 while not being signifacntly faster. And to your statement about the 7800 and 6800, hmm let me think. 6800Ultra beat the x800xt to market by 2 monhts, and both cards are considered to be equal cards with both trading hits depending on game, rember Doom3, and the doom3 engine, the x800 cant touch it, also remember the 6800 supported HDR and SM3 while that x800 couldnt, so no your the only one that sees the 6800Ultra as a bad card. 7800GTX beat ATI by 3 months, and then the x1800XT wasnt readly availble till the 1900XTX had come to light anyway. The x1800XT wasnt signifcant faster than the 7800GTX and then the 7800GTX 512 wiped the floor with it. Remember the 1900XTX and 7900GTX are considered equals and trade hits all the time depending on game and the 7950GX2 is clearly faster than the 1950XTX, so your logic is flawed. The 2900XT stinks like the 8500 did, both have piss poor drivers (or so the community claims though AMD claims they waited this long so there drivers for it where good). Oh and tell me all you x850XT PE owners does R6:V play good for you, oh wait i forgot the x850XT PE cant play it, but the 6800Ultra can, guess who was more future proof for the long haul?
!