Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2900XT Game Benchies (not a sad joke)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 8:20:18 AM

Good link nice find
June 20, 2007 8:55:34 AM

Quote:
The new drivers have helped the card a lot - it really does go from a joke of a product to something that you could recommend. The biggest problem we see is that AMD may have already done the damage by not waiting another week or two for the new drivers to come out.


Well this is something that has been expected because of the architecture of r600, that need really good driver optimization to fly...
So there is a lot of potential in this card, how much we will see of it in real life. Only ATI driver department can tell... But this article says it clearly... we are moving in to the right direction!
Related resources
June 20, 2007 8:56:53 AM

The card had to be more than a flop, it just needed some decent drivers.
June 20, 2007 9:52:24 AM

Amazing what a difference a decent set of drivers can make.

It'll be interesting to see what the 1GB version will do with these drivers as the current card seems to be limited by memory at higher resolutions.
June 20, 2007 10:25:48 AM

Well at least it is on a part with the 8800GTS now performance wise, but the power draw is just way too much in my opinion.
June 20, 2007 10:32:59 AM

Very Cool !!!
June 20, 2007 11:44:42 AM

The 2900XT is catching the 8800GTX, the only problems the 2900XT shows atm are the Open GL titles and games at very high res... OK, Nvidia will always have the better Open GL product, but the issues with high res will be fixed when we get 1GB DDR4 cards.

With the additional features the 2900XT has (directx 10.1 tessellation and HDMI etc) – you would be a fool to get the Nvidia 8800 cards now, my opinion…

(edit - just a shame ATI was not able to release this 6 months ago)
June 20, 2007 12:21:56 PM

Why would you be a fool for getting the 8800s now? It's not like I need HDMI for my PC or DX10.1 right now.


The AA/AF still is a weakness of the 2900XT which is unforgivable for a high-end card.
June 20, 2007 12:27:54 PM

The amount of power and heat alone justify why not to get the HD 2900XT over a similiarly performing card for about the same price. That heat and power translates into noise.

The HD 2900XT is priced competitively for its performance but some people look to the nvidia counterpart to have cooler running graphics card.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 12:57:09 PM

With regard to dx10 gaming its in its infancy,and while the 2900 is slightly more advanced in its architecture and suport for 10.1 tessilation. My opinion is that when we finally get dx10 games as the norm over dx9 either card wont cut the mustard any way.
June 20, 2007 1:02:59 PM

ain't i just lapping it up... very nice cards, sure, run a bit warm, draw a bit more power, but nothing too much higher than an 8800gtx... top card load temp is 92oC, bottom card is 88oC, and if you look at the recorded power usage from the reviews, you'll see they don't take much more than the gtx.. how can you say they are hot, draw too much power and make too much noise, that is just hypocritical.
June 20, 2007 1:36:17 PM

no the 2900XT would be hard pressed to touch the 8800GTX, it kicks its ass in shader power. The 8800GTS and HD2900XT have the same shader power as each other,with the 8800GTS having 288 but running the shaders 150% faster than ATI, and the 2900XT doing 320 but running at core clock. nvidia counts there actual units though while ATI counts there operations instead of units. The HD2900XT has a 512bit bus is why i can marginally pull ahead of the 8800GTS in some tests, but it wont ever overtake the 8800GTX, it doesnt have the brute force.
June 20, 2007 1:37:31 PM

AMD has proven something to themselves and to the rest of the industry. It is much better to DELAY a product and release it with finished drivers that have good performance and enable ALL the features, than release it late with beta drivers that screw the performance up.

Their launch was a disaster but the card has proven itself with a new set of drivers to be a true 8800GTS competitor. Unfortunately there are still problems with the AVIVO and H.264 1080p decoding and a few other 3D game probs in some games. It would have been a lot more beneficial to release it a little later with the 7.5's IMO.

All we can do is hope that when Barcelona comes out in the Server and Desktop processors they dont do the same. I hope the silicon is 100% finished upon release as not to further degrade the image of the company. AMD has to be careful nowadays and I hope they learned their lesson with this R600 launch.
June 20, 2007 3:01:15 PM

I find it hilarious that all of the people who were saying that they were sick and tired of waiting for the 2900xt to release are now saying that they shouldn't have released it so soon....


EDIT: Wow.. performance w/eyecandy is a joke. New drivers, and it's still a flop when it comes to trying to do what a high end video card is meant to do - perform well with high settings. In all honesty, for the performance that this card "delivers," it should NOT be priced over $250.
June 20, 2007 3:24:21 PM

Quote:
Well at least it is on a part with the 8800GTS now performance wise, but the power draw is just way too much in my opinion.


Yes, the power use is high but it is over exaggerated by most people.

It uses more power than the GTX, however it is still only 378 Watts under load by the entire system. Thats 378 from the wall. No PSU is 100% efficient, so the power draw of the system is actually under 378W.

Most high end users have at least a 500W PSU, so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
June 20, 2007 4:02:05 PM

I'm saying watt/performance is unacceptable, especially with the time ATi had it should have been better. I can accept a higher watt card with higher performance, which is what the case was with the last generation with the X19x00XT/X. But when you start upping wattage at a lower performance then something should be said.
June 20, 2007 4:03:45 PM

I never said in my post that the HD 2900XT will touch a 8800GTX. I said for its price it provides good performance, and there is no 8800GTX in the $400 price range.

@Phrozt

Not sure why you replied to me because what you replied didn't really respond to anything i said? Maybe you just clicked the closest reply button :wink:
June 20, 2007 4:06:47 PM

Somehow i think you all deserve to be told i fucking told you so.

Any idea when the diamond 1024mb 2900 hits newegg? i cant get into the card section for some reason, it has to be pretty soon cause i have to get it in around 5 days or so. :( 
June 20, 2007 4:16:18 PM

Sorry for hitting nearest reply button. :D 

Anyway, whoever said one should not get 8800 now, I say this -- do not get 2900XT now because in Q4 you will have next-gen NVIDIA cards probably using PCI-E 2.0.
June 20, 2007 4:31:31 PM

Good idea, never buy anything now, cause lets face it if you wait forever your pc will be the best in the whole universe.
June 20, 2007 4:47:54 PM

Quote:
Somehow i think you all deserve to be told i ****** told you so.

Any idea when the diamond 1024mb 2900 hits newegg? i cant get into the card section for some reason, it has to be pretty soon cause i have to get it in around 5 days or so. :( 


Icy... was the nearest reply... sorry.

Rabid.. you've got to be an idiot if you think these benchies make the 2900xt look good at all... If you use eyecandy, which is exactly what a high end vid card is for, the card blows comparatively.


Like I said, for the performance, this card should not be priced over $250... and that's just because it just came on the market
June 20, 2007 5:07:13 PM

Quote:
Good idea, never buy anything now, cause lets face it if you wait forever your pc will be the best in the whole universe.


:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

i agree
June 20, 2007 5:31:56 PM

Quote:
Somehow i think you all deserve to be told i ****** told you so.

Any idea when the diamond 1024mb 2900 hits newegg? i cant get into the card section for some reason, it has to be pretty soon cause i have to get it in around 5 days or so. :( 


I'm not sure how the term "I told you so" fits in here, unless you have been telling us how much it sucked.

Performance sucks, insane power consumption and heat output, far overpriced for what it does, and far outperformed by a card that came out what 6months before? why would anyone recommend this again?
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 5:53:31 PM

Quote:

I'm not sure how the term "I told you so" fits in here, unless you have been telling us how much it sucked.


IF he said things would improve with driver, he doesn't have to start with the ignorant childish 'it sucks' first?

Quote:
Performance sucks,


Compared to what? Compared to it's price, especially outside the US it's pretty competative. Saying the performance was a dissapointment compared to expected would be understandable, saying it sucks is Fanboi prattle.

Quote:
insane power consumption


Comapred to what? The Ultra has similarly 'insane' power consumption;
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/radeon-hd-2900...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_radeon_hd_2...

Quote:
and heat output,


And the heat of the GTS and GTX, and Ultra can all be hotter;
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_radeon_hd_2...

Plus all of the XT's heat goes out of the case, so as long as it's stable, why does it matter, unless you have issues with keeping your room cool, in which case none of the above will help that.

Quote:
far overpriced for what it does,


Actually seems priced near what it does, especially when priced outside of the US.

Quote:
and far outperformed by a card that came out what 6months before?


Which is the card that also costs significantly more.

Quote:
why would anyone recommend this again?


Because it's not as bad as you and others make it out to be.
It's not a shinning star at the top of the list, but it's competant and it does shine in some games, just like the Gf7900 vs X1900.

the thing is while it may never outshine the GTX or Ultra overall, it may still be a diamond in the rough instead of the lump of coal you and so many others seem intent on making it out to be, which I think was the point of this review/thread in the first place.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 5:55:19 PM

Quote:
Woohoo...

Hope this hasnt been posted yet.


Yeah it had been posted before, but mainly as part of other threads so many/most people may have missed it.

Still not WooHoo worthy IMO, but a step in the right direction, which is nice.
June 20, 2007 6:39:16 PM

When a company releases something like 6 months after it's competitor, and it's still worse than the other company's offering, that's just sad. Also, we can leave the ultra out of this because it's not in the same league. When I looked at the benchmarks I thought meh it's alright, till I saw the power consumption which completely put me off. Okay I shouldn't say the ati card "sucks" but rather I don't see any place for it in the market. And heat output is an issue to me because it gets rather toasty where I live in the summer.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 7:09:13 PM

Quote:
When a company releases something like 6 months after it's competitor, and it's still worse than the other company's offering, that's just sad.


Only if you're not looking at price, which obviously you are based on your next statement. The GF7900 came out after the X1900 and failed to improve upon it's competition, but they priced it to compete. The GF8600 came out long after the other cards in it's price range and failed to compete at any level (especially since DX10 will be a checkbox for it and not a useable feature). So really, as a $400 part the XT does well against it's competition, which drove the price of the GTS-640 down to keep it attractive too. They are what they are, but your 'sucks' comment is as simplistic as if I said nV had 7+ months and still their G80 drivers suck. It's not what I think of them but it is just as hyperbolic and supportable with rhetoric as your statement.

Quote:
Also, we can leave the ultra out of this because it's not in the same league.


Why? You're just compared the XT to the GTX obviously, so why would I want to change the overall picture. You talk about INSANE pwoer and heat, while they are below the Ultra and close to the GTX, so obviously not so 'insane', just high, like the GF6800 was compared to the X800 or the X1900 versus the GF7900. So it's pretty relevant to what you were talking about.

Quote:
When I looked at the benchmarks I thought meh it's alright, till I saw the power consumption which completely put me off.


And? So the power consumption is above the GTS, and close to the GTX and below the Ultra. Still doesn't sound like 'insane' to me. The insane would've been if Kyle from [H]ard|OCP's hysterics about 300W GF8800 and HD2900 actually became a reality instead of a way WAY-Off guess.

Quote:
Okay I shouldn't say the ati card "sucks" but rather I don't see any place for it in the market.


It's seems to have it's place in the market, nestled close to the GTS-640 and far enough away from the GTX and Ultra, which pretty much matches it's performance. And the pricing overseas makes it quite competative compared to the GTS-640. In the US however there are some great deals to be had right now on the GTS-640, so the XT isn't as attractive to be sure.

Quote:
And heat output is an issue to me because it gets rather toasty where I live in the summer.


Well then you're not going to want any of those cards, because the GTX and even OC'ed GTS can get hotter. The question is the total amount of heat (not temperature) put out the back of the card and whether the environment you have it in is able to absorb/dissipate the heat effectively enough. But they aren't that different where one is going to give you a cool room versus the other, those options are the future 65nm chips. Until then you're basically comparing two space heater, with different properties, but both are still space heaters no doubt about that.
June 20, 2007 7:52:42 PM

The HD 2900XT only does well without antialiasing and anisotropic filtering. :?


June 20, 2007 8:18:28 PM

Quote:


why would anyone recommend this again?


Because it's not as bad as you and others make it out to be.

That is retarded logic. I say retarded because "retard" means "to step back."

In reply to "Why would anyone recommend this again?" You say, "Because it's not *AS BAD*..." How is that a reason to recommend something? To recommend something is to say, "this would be a good choice" whereas you are admitting that it's "not as bad of a choice" as people are making it sound. That's just pure, horrible logic.

For what it's priced, the 2900xt BLOWS. How did I come to this conclusion?
- The card is priced as a high end card
- The card performs VERY well at decent resolutions with NO eyecandy turned on
- The card performs MUCH lower than competitively priced high end cards when eyecandy is turned on.
- A highend card MUST perform well when eyecandy is turned on (that's part of being a high end card!!).

Therefore, for its price, the 2900XT blows. As I've said twice now, it should not be priced above $250 for the performance it gives. No one who isn't a completely blind fanboy, or a very misinformed consumer would buy a high end card for a high end price that acts as a hamstrung mid-range card.

It makes no sense whatsoever.
June 20, 2007 8:48:00 PM

Whatever man, keep hating, It is neck in neck with the 8800 gtx and these are still not great drivers. Also it is HALF the price, who cares if it is noisy, you buy it to play games, therefore you likely have headphones unless you are dumb enough to buy $6000 speakers that deliver worse sound then a $40 pair of Sennheizers. So you can slam it all you want but it is catching up on it's twice as expensive rival which has been around almost a year. Just you wait. Also this card is NOT SUPPOSED TO COMPETE WITH THE GTX's yet it is doing just that. Wait till the xtx rocks up. Oh YAY! the G1,000,000 will be here by then you say, whatever.
June 20, 2007 8:50:12 PM

Neck and neck?

Go back to 2nd grade.

35 is NOT the same as 64. It's nowhere close.
$430 is NOT half of $530. Again.. it's nowhere close.

Seriously... go watch some Sesame Street and learn what those funky looking things called numbers mean.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 8:52:23 PM

Quote:

In reply to "Why would anyone recommend this again?" You say, "Because it's not *AS BAD*..." How is that a reason to recommend something? To recommend something is to say, "this would be a good choice" whereas you are admitting that it's "not as bad of a choice" as people are making it sound. That's just pure, horrible logic.


No your logic is flawed because you look at the statement without context. In reply to someone using hyperbole to under-sell the featuresof a product, to say that I would recommend it because it's not as bad as they make it out to be means that it's better than they portray it. It's not exclusive to itself, and in the context of everything else I said including the sentence just after it mentioing that it is competant like the GF7900 vs X1900, you could probably also see where I said for the markets outside the US it offers good performance for the dollar. Perhaps you should read the entire thing instead of just that sentence as if that's exclusively the only reason I would recommend it.. :roll:

Quote:
For what it's priced, the 2900xt BLOWS.


Actually it's quite competative to the GTS outside the US, and the GTS is only competative because nV dropped their prices in the US to make the GTS more attractive.

Quote:
Therefore, for its price, the 2900XT blows. As I've said twice now,


Good thing you said it twice, that changes everything. :roll:

Quote:
it should not be priced above $250 for the performance it gives.


Based on what? It easily beats the GTS-320 even with eye candy turned on and it's above the $250 mark, the GTS-640 trades blows with it with and without eye-candy turned on, and it's $350, so really, what are you using as your guage?

Quote:
No one who isn't a completely blind fanboy, or a very misinformed consumer would buy a high end card for a high end price that acts as a hamstrung mid-range card.


Good thing no one bought the GTS-640 then, because that's exactly how it performed at it's launch before it was improved to make it singificantly pull away from the X1950XT which outperformed it under those same stressful conditions at first. Perhaps if you looked at actual performance across games you'd see that like I said there are some areas where the HD2900XT shines, I didn't say it's for everyone, but there are areas where it easy to recommend it. Like BF2142 where it easily beats the GTS with AA and AF turned on at higher resolution, or Call of Juarez (the game not the DX10 benchmark) where it runs with the Ultra;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/xfx-gf88...

FarCry with/without AA beating the GTS and often again giving the more expensive cards a run for their money;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/xfx-gf88...

Other titles are a mixed bag of performance with and without the eye candy where the HD2900 wins some, ties many, and loses some, with some major losses in Stalker and NWN and early in Supreme Commander (although Stalker is an obvious driers issue considering it gets thrashed by even the X1950).

So really what are you talking about? There's both sides of the story in that recent review, you just chose not to see it. Depending on the game the HD2900 can be a very compelling choice, like I said there are reasons for it, and the main thing is you think it's globally crap, and like I said, it's not as bad as you and JT001 make it out to be, it's far better and more balanced, and thus that's why I would recommend it. Perhaps if you read past the first batch of reviews and delved deeeper, just like reading past that one sentence I wrote and looking at the reasoniing then maybe you'd understand.

Quote:
It makes no sense whatsoever.


I could see that it wouldn't if you were simply going on launch day information, but like this thread was originally created to point out. Things aren't the same as then and you and JT001 seem to want to live in the past and not look at this with a level head and see the actual good and bad, just the bad. Try looking at the entire picture next time. :roll:
June 20, 2007 8:56:39 PM

I'm no treehugger but I believe both companies will have to start adressing power consumption while still increasing performance. Cards like the 2900xt are starting to push at the limits of what I consider reasonable.
June 20, 2007 9:00:04 PM

Cool shell out $800 for a gpu and i will pay 400 for mine, and then when yours is obsolete and mine is still up there with the greats then we can talk, you must be sleeping with someone at nVidia management cause i have never seen such dumb devotion.

ATI 18217 > 17078 nVidia
ATI 10825 > 10609 nVidia
ATI 3497.2 > 3341 nVidia
ATI 17.95 > 16.88 nVidia
ATI 183.6 > 178.23 nVidia

Wow look at all the proof of nvidia fucking ati up.
Either i suck with numbers or somehow i think the ATI running on one of the very first editions of drivers released is doing do very well. Fanboism. I know i am a fanboi but looks like a i'm right this time, isn't that right big bird?

The only games that the nvidia really does well in are all open gl, well that is not exactly new now is it? no, it is about what has been going on since the beginning of this battle. And as far as i know, this a a battle of DX10 cards, sooooo, guess what. nVidia might be winning in open gl, but i dont' see that mattering in this fight at all. And microsoft makes dx, and microsoft use ati in the xbox, so guess who will get more support?

I told you so....
June 20, 2007 9:05:37 PM

Grape, I used to have a lot of respect for your opinions, because they were based in fact. Unfortunately, lately your opinions are based on fanboyism. With numerous benchmarks that clearly show the 2900xt cannot perform competitively, you choose to point out one or two in which it's better, while ignoring the brutal beatings it gets in most all other categories. You also choose to reply on pricepoint from a side market as opposed to the market that most users on this forum browse; American based pricing. I understand that the UK has a large following on these boards and a great presence, but you'd be foolish to assume that most people on these boards would make use of the [non-American] pricing, because in fact, most users here are American.

I read your "one sentence" in context. You still recommend the 2900xt because it's "not as bad" as other people say. You never recommend the 2900xt because it's as good or better comparatively, which is why someone would recommend something in the first place as *I* said in context with my post (except for in the cases that I pointed out, where there are one or two benchies that the 2900xt actually does better, or where you corner the market away from the vast majority of viewers). So, in all actuality, you failed to reply in the context of my post!


It would be foolish to buy a card because it's better than others in one or two games under certain settings, while it fails to be competitive under *MOST* settings... unless you know that you are ONLY going to be playing those one or two games. Such an assumption would make the buyer either an incredible fan of certain games, or just a blind idiot... because we all know that games continue to get bigger, better, and more exciting.




You can keep trying to make a case for the 2900xt, but it's very obvious that you are relying on anomalies to make your case, which takes credibility away from your opinions.
June 20, 2007 9:08:32 PM

Quote:
Cool shell out $800 for a gpu and i will pay 400 for mine, and then when yours is obsolete and mine is still up there with the greats then we can talk, you must be sleeping with someone at nVidia management cause i have never seen such dumb devotion.

ATI 18217 > 17078 nVidia
ATI 10825 > 10609 nVidia
ATI 3497.2 > 3341 nVidia
ATI 17.95 > 16.88 nVidia
ATI 183.6 > 178.23 nVidia

Wow look at all the proof of nvidia ****** ati up.
Either i suck with numbers or somehow i think the ATI running on one of the very first editions of drivers released is doing do very well.


I'm going with the fact that you suck at numbers. Since when does an 8800GTX cost $800? Where are you getting your **** > **** numbers from?

Look, I can do that too!

ATI 20 < 19273871987298379817254.19823 nVidia
ATI 0 < 192738719.19823 nVidia
ATI 2 < 79817254.19823 nVidia
ATI 4 < 3871987298379817254.19823 nVidia
June 20, 2007 9:11:34 PM

So Nvidia really is the better buy!LOL
June 20, 2007 9:19:32 PM

Ever been to south africa? For lots of people here it is the truth, in fact the GTX is even more over here. Well if you have some neurons anywhere in you you would see that these numbers are from the very reason this thread is here. HO and the ultra is not even that much better than the gtx and it is $800 even $200 more is WAY too much for 1 frame a second with a more than six month driver advantage. Everything you do in your life is to do with the price you pay, so don't believe the defining factor of everything you do in your life, the one that shaped the earth and allowed life to exist (with more than a little help i would say) and develop into what it is, everything is 'financial' programming whether you use ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) or money. ATI wins this one, even if it is score divided by money. Which is actually what matters for the company to run and be a success. An unfortunate fact is that money makes the world go round. And if i could i would get an 8800 gtx(actually i likely still would not cause i just don't like the whole driver layout) for 400 i would but i can't so i won't and i will get the ATI.

Told you so.
June 20, 2007 9:20:47 PM

Boys and girls calm down! 8O

Ape says that GTX is better than XT... ok.
He says that in many other country than USA the XT is reasonable priced... ok.

What he basically has said that if you can get XT for little extra money compared to GTS, then it's reasonable shot.
If you somewhere (like in USA) can get GTX allmost at the same price than XT, there is no doupt that the GTX is much better alternative then... ok.

These are only gpu:s after all. Sometimes other is better than another, there is no need for a war about that mater... What we need is two or more good graphic card manufaturer to keep other in his toes and to keep prises at reasonable level.
June 20, 2007 9:23:56 PM

Quote:
Boys and girls call down!


NEVER! ;) 
June 20, 2007 9:34:42 PM

I could be wrong but I don't think AA or AF was enabled at all in any of those tests.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 10:23:04 PM

Quote:
Grape, I used to have a lot of respect for your opinions, because they were based in fact.


Nothing's changed but your perception. My statements are based in facts, you just fail to look at them all. I'd say my statements are far more balanced than anything you and many others have said. I comment on the good and the bad. I don't ignore anything about them. I even drew attention to the 3 glaring holes in the review above, but also with the caveat that the Stalker results look strange (while the others scale with the X1950). Show me what's not factual in what I wrote.

Quote:
With numerous benchmarks that clearly show the 2900xt cannot perform competitively, you choose to point out one or two in which it's better, while ignoring the brutal beatings it gets in most all other categories.


You show me a single other review that does half the job that Xbit does of benchmarking multiple scneraios of these cards including min fps that shows a completely oppposite picture and then maybe I'd give you some credence, right now you've only posted your statement that the card only performs at decent resolutions with no eye candy, while I showed it performs at both ends and it performs better and worse than it's competition across the spectrum.

Quote:
You also choose to reply on pricepoint from a side market as opposed to the market that most users on this forum browse; American based pricing.


No, I reply on prices for 2 perspective and include them both, US prices and then non-US prices. Perhaps if you took note of my location you'd understand why I make that distinction adn also why I mention both, while you pretend than only the US exists. :roll:

Even with US prices, the HD2900 is competative in some areas, just like I mentioned. Perhaps you should actually compare price/performance per game, and then you'd see that there are some situations it's worth recommending for.

Quote:
I read your "one sentence" in context. You still recommend the 2900xt because it's "not as bad" as other people say.


Yes but that's not the ONLY reason. Your simplifying it to that is like boiling down an auto reviewer's article down to the one statement where he said he like the interior, and you convert it to the only reason he liked it. You're narow-sighted in your assessment of my statement and of the HD2900/GF8800 in general.

Quote:
You never recommend the 2900xt because it's as good or better comparatively,


Yes I did see my previous replies to JT001 in that same post;

"Compared to what? Compared to it's price, especially outside the US it's pretty competative. Saying the performance was a dissapointment compared to expected would be understandable, saying it sucks is Fanboi prattle."

"Actually seems priced near what it does, especially when priced outside of the US."

Don't try to distort my statements as if there was nothing else to go along with them, and leading up to that single sentence you picked out of the ether. Once again you don't look at the big picture, you focus on just one item alone and ignore everything else.

Quote:
It would be foolish to buy a card because it's better than others in one or two games under certain settings, while it fails to be competitive under *MOST* settings...unless you know that you are ONLY going to be playing those one or two games.


Unless those are the games you play. It's not like the games the HD2900 does well in are titles unknown to gamers that only a handful of people play. My approach of actually looking at the games and titles and then deciding is better than your everything in one basket approach. Second I doubt you've even seen benchmarks that represent 5% of the current games on the shelf, so don't tell me you know what MOST games/settings will do when that Xbit test shows that even in that relatively small sample the performances jump wildly all over the map. :roll:

Quote:
Such an assumption would make the buyer either an incredible fan of certain games, or just a blind idiot... because we all know that games continue to get bigger, better, and more exciting.


So they're getting bigger and better and more exciting, and thus people should buy based on the performance of the last 3 years' games instead of the games they plan on playing? :roll:

Quote:
You can keep trying to make a case for the 2900xt, but it's very obvious that you are relying on anomalies to make your case, which takes credibility away from your opinions.


I'm not trying to make the case for the HD2900, but I am making the case against yours and JT001's blind criticism with nothing to back it up. The picture is far more complex than the two of you portray it as being.

The credibility of my statements is supported by relevant information and doesn't ignore the bad and the good, while your statements on onw side, and have little to support them other than outdated early benchies. Maybe if you looked at the whole picture your view would be more balanced, cause right now out of the two of us there's only you looking fanboish.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2007 10:29:33 PM

Thanks for the clarification, I think that was needed because people confuse me saying the HD2900 isn't 'that' bad with saying that it's wonderful. What I was trying to say and thought I sai, and obviously you picked up on, is more balanced and involves good and bad.
June 20, 2007 11:15:43 PM

[flame]

i think smurfs, if you do the price/perfomance comparison, are better than thundercats

[/flame]
June 21, 2007 2:20:27 AM

Quote:
I find it hilarious that all of the people who were saying that they were sick and tired of waiting for the 2900xt to release are now saying that they shouldn't have released it so soon....


EDIT: Wow.. performance w/eyecandy is a joke. New drivers, and it's still a flop when it comes to trying to do what a high end video card is meant to do - perform well with high settings. In all honesty, for the performance that this card "delivers," it should NOT be priced over $250.


Yes you would surly know every thing to know how the 2900XT performs all becouse you read websites and forums....

Well my replaced EVGA 7900GT OC SC gets totaly creamed by the 2900XT how i know is simply owning the 2900XT...

The release drivers for the card were worse than ANY body could of ever thought.


The 8.37/8 divers made massive improvmentsfor this card how ever there does seem like there is a AA bug and still creams my 7900.

Whot i am getting sick of is people say how noisy this card is when they don't even really know the facts. Mines been more silent than my 7900 has ever been in fact case noise went down with the 2900XT. Even when room temps were around 90f-95f the card only reached 89c.

I Play all my games maxed out at 16x12 res.

I do thing if you don't own it don't bitch it as REALLY you don't know.

There is power usage issue but is it all that much more than the GTX?..
Without speeds tweaks temps are around 60c to 64c idle. With a 2D tweek there as low as 49c about. In a room about 75f about.
Room temp now is 29c and cards runing 56c.


How ever to the 1st poster Those FPS are higher whot i am getting but i'm running on a AMD 3800 x2. In HL2 LC on max i get 84FPS by the default test. My case heated up about 2c in total due to this card but not been a problem whot so ever for me.
June 21, 2007 6:51:52 AM

@Everyone: Remember that the 2900xt is up against the GTS, not the GTX. The drivers also havent had the time out in the public for proper testing by the masses compared to nvidias drivers.
June 21, 2007 8:32:47 AM

Quote:
You also choose to reply on pricepoint from a side market as opposed to the market that most users on this forum browse; American based pricing. I understand that the UK has a large following on these boards and a great presence, but you'd be foolish to assume that most people on these boards would make use of the [non-American] pricing, because in fact, most users here are American.


Oh man, you're opening up a can of worms here.

Just a warning for you, don't expect everyone here to give a toss about how much something costs in $U.S. if they're living overseas, considering how irrelevant it is for them unless they are purchasing from the U.S. There's also the massive market the U.S. has which greatly influences prices. Let's not forget government regulations, freight, etc.

You wrote that in fact most users here are American, only to follow up with no proof at all. Think of what that does for your credibility.
June 21, 2007 8:54:08 AM

Quote:
I understand that the UK has a large following on these boards and a great presence, but you'd be foolish to assume that most people on these boards would make use of the [non-American] pricing, because in fact, most users here are American.

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
June 21, 2007 9:13:46 AM

Quote:
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!


Oy! Oy! Oy! ???

Not an Aussie, just got that from Joseph Hachem. LOL
!