Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Big Price Drop on the Sapphire HD2900XT

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 1:53:02 AM

I think yesterday Sapphire's HD2900XT was selling for $429 on newegg. Tonight I checked the newegg and it is selling for $374.99! Yes, it is the retail verison and not a refurb. That about a $55 price drop! A few other manufactures dropped the prices on their HD2900XT cards too.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102095

That price makes this card way more competitive.

The last few reviews on the site are good too.
Quote:
Other Thoughts: i dunno what all the other people who say it runs hot or the drivers suck are talking about, just set your fan control to actually spin more than 10% under load, i've never gone over 60c with a slight overclock on it

and
Quote:
Pros: Extremely fast. Overclocks very well. Stock cooler does a very good job.
Cons: Not as fast as an 8800 GTX, but the 2900 is quite a bit cheaper.

Maybe this card does not run as hot as some people think. It May be worth getting.
June 27, 2007 2:28:09 AM

The card doesn't run as hot as most people think, and although the power consumption is high, a good 450W power supply with 30Amps on the 12V can run it with ease (assuming a minimal system with core2-duo, 1-HD, 1-DVDRW, etc).

In terms of raw speed, it is almost as good as the GTX.

Once you crank up IQ settings (AA & AF), it is around GTS level (sometimes better, sometimes worse). Possibly due to the lack of ROP and TU compared to the G80 series, or maybe the drivers still suck in that department. I'm assuming it is the former, while ATI fanboys will try and convince you it is the latter.

The new price drop should make it a lot more competitive. I'm tempted to buy one myself, but I can hear the 8800GTS 320MB calling my name. :twisted:
June 27, 2007 2:52:00 AM

That's a pretty good drop; if they can match the price of the 8800GTS, the card will be set to compete.
Related resources
June 27, 2007 4:02:50 AM

sweet! now the only thing holding me back is the loud fan. is it still loud?
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 4:15:29 AM

It's still $25 more than it should have been when it was released. That along with the excessive power it consumed compared to it's counterpart, imo, really hurt the sales from the beginning. These two reason made me buy the 640 nvidia card instead.

576/1700......... $319.00 good deal.
June 27, 2007 5:02:11 AM

Yea it would be good at 350, but if a new cooler came out for it for around $20 - $25 and the card dropped to $300, I would have one in a heart beat. Maybe AMD will listen to me if they see this post...hint hint! lol

Best,

3Ball
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 5:03:29 AM

Already there is nice performance gains in the 2900 with newer drivers. Will they fix all the probs? Probably not. As it gets better, it nudges the GTX without eyecandy, something the GTS doesnt do, tells me that theres still room for improvement, whichll land it between the GTS and the GTX. hese are just numbers from benches, as I wont apologise for it, but will tell what Ive seen and know. Alot of hype, disappointment and fanboyism on both sides make this card hard to see what it really is, coming from non-owners of the card. Ask the owners and then see what they say, as for the rest of us nonowners, take some salt
June 27, 2007 5:50:12 AM

I'm happy with my card, I personally hav't seen it go over 62oC, that after pretty intense gaming on CoH. There is still room for imporvment but I'm happy with the buy as it came with 5 games, 4 of which I was planning on buying. So really that makes it cheaper then the GTS, for me anyways. I don't find my card loud at all, but then I havn't seen it really hot so I probably havn't heard the fan run at 100%.

All in all I'm happy with my purchase.

James
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 5:54:34 AM

Quote:
I don't see energy requirements being an issue

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/514/7/

most of the time your system isn't at max load.


There are several posts on the net evaluating the 640 card vs the 2900 as far as energy consumption and heat. The one you posted is for the gtx. If I remember correctly, the 640 eats a lot less energy. Less energy = less heat. And when you have to pay for it.............. $.......... it means a lot. Not to mention the price/performance issue at the time of purchase.
June 27, 2007 6:37:10 AM

Last time I checked (2 mins ago) the cheapest prices in Australia were pretty much even for the GTS640 and HD2900XT; AU$500+.

The cheapest 8800GTX Ultra was just over AU$950 :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 7:21:24 AM

Quote:

There are several posts on the net evaluating the 640 card vs the 2900 as far as energy consumption and heat. The one you posted is for the gtx. If I remember correctly, the 640 eats a lot less energy. Less energy = less heat. And when you have to pay for it.............. $.......... it means a lot. Not to mention the price/performance issue at the time of purchase.


While more power does mean more heat, what concern is that of people other than if you're in a small room with little ventilation?

As for paying for the power difference, the 15% difference would be less than the savings of switching a single light bulb from regular incadecent to compact fluorescent.

For this range of cards, overall performance and price/performance should be the main purchasing considerations, everything else you pretty much expect from this market.
June 27, 2007 8:40:08 AM

@r0x0r: lol, yeah, i know, but you don't look at average price, you look at the average price for the cheapest 40, the HD2900xt is $550 approx and the 8800gts640 is somewhere around $600, and since there is variance in shipping this also means that you should use the average price, technically the hd2900xt is cheaper by a bit here, i can't remember where i got mine, but it was a 2x HD2900XTs for $999 so i was like, heck yeah!
June 27, 2007 9:10:35 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe word to the ape. most of these ppl were amd humping 1 year ago over the x2. heat shouldn't be a problem , same with watts . Yet thats fine, i love watching y'all switch sides it's like watching a monkey ride a bike. AMD had a price point product now, watch out gts.


TheGreatGrapeApe come down to cowboy's tomorrow, just mention frenchy to the back door and see me on the upper level at the bar.
June 27, 2007 12:31:49 PM

So begins the Price Wars.
June 27, 2007 12:56:29 PM

A step in the right direction for ATI, keep the current 2900XT somewhat competetive as they improve the drivers and prepare the 65nm version.

a price war is always good 8)
June 27, 2007 1:33:04 PM

Wouldn't it be great if this is the beginning of a price war in this category? Maybe the lowering of the 2900XT will trigger the lowering of the GTS cards. I was planning on buying the 320mb version in about 3 weeks if there were no new cards announced by then so this might save me some $ if I'm lucky.

<3 Competition
June 27, 2007 2:06:59 PM

with he latest drivers (7.6), the fan isnt as loud as a x1950pro. in fact you cant hear the fan even running at 100%, you hear the massive air flow. on idle, its almost inaudible.
June 27, 2007 2:35:23 PM

Go ATI!!! Bring on the price war! And some newer GPUs from both nVidia and ATI too while you're at it.
June 27, 2007 3:41:57 PM

At that price point, combined with the improved performance from the newer drivers, I can say that it is a competitive card at this point. I would expect to see it in Cleeve's graphics card article next month.

It's about time. :D 
June 27, 2007 5:30:30 PM

Thinking price wars, with any luck this may inspire a price drop in the GTX cards, try and make the more attractive to folks, ah, who am I kidding, that isn't going to happen any time soon.... :( 
June 27, 2007 5:49:21 PM

Quote:
As it gets better, it nudges the GTX without eyecandy, something the GTS doesnt do

Why would you buy a card like this and not run eye candy?
Regardless, this price drop is good for competition and makes the 2900XT a more viable alternative to the 8800's, especially with the performance increase of the driver updates.
June 27, 2007 6:19:48 PM

Quote:
As it gets better, it nudges the GTX without eyecandy, something the GTS doesnt do

Why would you buy a card like this and not run eye candy?
Regardless, this price drop is good for competition and makes the 2900XT a more viable alternative to the 8800's, especially with the performance increase of the driver updates.

details at max is one thing
AF and AA is another o_O

so id say the "eyecandy" is a bit ambiguous..
June 27, 2007 10:26:05 PM

What fun is it if you are not pushing the envelop?
June 27, 2007 10:36:54 PM

yeah seriously... if i didnt want AA and AF, then I would just keep my 7800.
June 27, 2007 10:42:32 PM

Quote:
...keep the current 2900XT somewhat competetive as they improve the drivers and prepare the 65nm version...


The only 65nm derivative that will be coming out before R700 will be the RV670. AMD confirmed that there will be no die shrink of the R600 and it will continue to be manufactured on a 80nm process.
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 11:25:20 PM

Actully AMD said there will be no die-shrink of the R600, which is different than a refresh on 65nm.

The rumoured R650 'R600 on 65nm' is the speculation they killed, not the rumoured R670/680, which would be a refresh adding features (likely TUs and a rework of the ROPs).

That's never been refuted yet, only the 65nm R650 has been quashed.

The R670/680 is expected as a fall/winter produt, and likely will have the misfortune of dealing with a G92, which would be a tough competitor.
a b U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 3:46:17 AM

Hey Guys.

Guess what?

ATI just released Catalyst Driver Verison 7.6 on June 25th.

It looks like the HD 2900XT got a little bit faster just 2 days ago.
June 28, 2007 4:25:52 AM

Quote:
Hey Guys.

Guess what?

ATI just released Catalyst Driver Verison 7.6 on June 25th.

It looks like the HD 2900XT got a little bit faster just 2 days ago.


Quote:
Tweaktown"]with huge gains of up to 42% seen in Half-Life 2: Episode One with HDR+AA enabled.
[/url]

That's a big improvement. Now all we need to see is a full review testing games that were previously tested in previous reviews.
June 28, 2007 5:37:23 AM

If you guys want I can test it on my card on my set up tomorrow, with everything maxed out.
Though my rig isn`t a quad it`s still decent and my baby :p 

What games do you all want me to test if you do want me to:
I currently have
Rainbox Six: Vegas
Commpany of heros
Them being my most recent games, have yet to go out and buy a few. I could also test some of these DX10 demos out if you like.

1GB of ram (I really have 3GB but I`m about to RMA my 2GB kit, so if I do it tomorrow I will be running with 2GB)
E6600 @ stock
X-fi xtremegamer

James
a b U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 5:37:51 AM

Quote:
As it gets better, it nudges the GTX without eyecandy, something the GTS doesnt do

Why would you buy a card like this and not run eye candy?
Regardless, this price drop is good for competition and makes the 2900XT a more viable alternative to the 8800's, especially with the performance increase of the driver updates. If you only pull certain words out of my statements, then twist it, youll get FUD. My point was, that the GTS with no eyecandy cant do what the 2900 can, and thats close to what the GTX does. Seeing this, I noted that there is room for improvement.
a b U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 10:08:13 AM

Quote:
Hey Guys.

Guess what?

ATI just released Catalyst Driver Verison 7.6 on June 25th.

It looks like the HD 2900XT got a little bit faster just 2 days ago.


Quote:
Tweaktown"]with huge gains of up to 42% seen in Half-Life 2: Episode One with HDR+AA enabled.
[/url]

That's a big improvement. Now all we need to see is a full review testing games that were previously tested in previous reviews.


That 42% gain in performance as a result of that driver which I assume is catalyst version 7.5. I want to see the frames per second that occurred after that 42% improvement vs. the frames per second of the 8800GTX. I wonder if the 2900XT would beat the GTX in that benchmark or even matched it.

Even if it just matches it, that is a huge victory for ATI because they created a card that was not even meant to compete with the GTX but actually does and is about $150 to $200 cheaper. (Assuming you buy the Sapphire 2900XT for $374 at New Egg.)

Does anyone have the link to that article on tweaktown? I have not seen it yet.
June 28, 2007 12:11:29 PM

Interesting, it is really starting to look comparative to the GTX, but it is still off a bit in a few areas. I wonder if this will spark even a slit price drop in the 8800GTX cards? Honestly, I would go for this card if I wasn't so concerned about the long term support for the ATI brand. My biggest concern in the new ownership and the change in support for Intel based computers. If I recall it seems like ATI has been going back and forth on the support in this area and it does worry me given that they are now owned by AMD. Anyway, from a performance perspective this is really coming around.....
June 28, 2007 1:43:43 PM

Quote:
As it gets better, it nudges the GTX without eyecandy, something the GTS doesnt do

Why would you buy a card like this and not run eye candy?
Regardless, this price drop is good for competition and makes the 2900XT a more viable alternative to the 8800's, especially with the performance increase of the driver updates. If you only pull certain words out of my statements, then twist it, youll get FUD. My point was, that the GTS with no eyecandy cant do what the 2900 can, and thats close to what the GTX does. Seeing this, I noted that there is room for improvement.
My point was who buys these cards and doesn't run eye candy? Who cares what the card can do with no eye candy on.
a b U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 2:25:15 PM

And my point is, with it gaining on the GTX, youll be able to use more eye candy and still lose nothing
June 28, 2007 2:39:55 PM

I still agree with you, but even I have to admit it is doing better than most folks would have expected over the long run...
June 28, 2007 3:01:25 PM

Quote:
And my point is, with it gaining on the GTX, youll be able to use more eye candy and still lose nothing

A cards ability to crank out high fps with no AA or AF really has no bearing on it's ability to crank out high frame rates with AF and AA maxed with details on high. I don't really understand how saying that the 2900XT does really good with no eye candy has anything to do with how good it is compared to the 8800gtx with details, AA, and AF maxed.

I agree that the 2900XT becomes better with every driver update and that it is a good card, I just don't understand the approach you are making with comparing it to the 8800GTX saying it performs really well with no eye candy.
a b U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 3:07:50 PM

What Im saying is, its not so important running without eyecandy, but it continues to improve. As does the AA and AF. With one usually goes the others, tho not always, but more than likely. Time will tell, if they can crank out the performance without eyecandy, then we will see better performance with it is all Im saying. And that holds hope and promise both.
June 28, 2007 3:15:25 PM

Quote:

because they created a card that was not even meant to compete with the GTX


Who actually said that? I keep reading it here and there and all over the forums. Whoever said it, obviously never compared AMDs to Nvidias High end products.
While most of the time cards are compared using price per performance, there are other ways of comparing too. The 2900 is AMDs fastest card on the market - thus, it´s AMDs flagship. It´s only natural to compare it to, you guessed it, Nvidias flagship. They are at different price points (and i appreciate that a lot!) but that is beside the point.

I´m quite glad the card starts to finally gain momentum. It angers me even more now than before how AMD messed up the launch of this technological fine piece of hardware.
June 28, 2007 3:19:11 PM

Well, in reality, they haven't launched the flagship 2900 yet. The 2900XTX still isn't out.
June 28, 2007 3:24:33 PM

You know what is really funny with this price drop? The prices here just went UP by 10%. WTF.
June 28, 2007 3:29:28 PM

I do agree, compared to the GTX is wouldn't consider it but to the GTS it is starting to look good.
June 28, 2007 3:31:59 PM

Quote:
Well, in reality, they haven't launched the flagship 2900 yet. The 2900XTX still isn't out.

In reality? What kind of alternate dimension are we talking? 8O

If i can´t touch it, it´s only a figment of Mr. Ruiz insane imagination. 8)
June 28, 2007 3:32:40 PM

Well then their flagship has sunken to the bottom at the docks
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2007 11:17:14 PM

Quote:
I do agree, compared to the GTX is wouldn't consider it but to the GTS it is starting to look good.


I think it would be very attractive compared to a 8800GTX because it is almost as fast but it is nearly $200 less. Is an extra $200 really worth it?
July 1, 2007 5:32:37 PM

Quote:
I do agree, compared to the GTX is wouldn't consider it but to the GTS it is starting to look good.


I think it would be very attractive compared to a 8800GTX because it is almost as fast but it is nearly $200 less. Is an extra $200 really worth it?

Okay, assuming we are talking about the same cards, as linked below, yes the extra 132.00 is worth it! It’s worth it not just from the extra performance perspective (as the GTX is the faster card), or extra memory perspective(as the GTX has more memory), or from the AA & AF perspective, (which the GTX has hands down), okay, maybe it would be for all of those reasons, but also from the perspective of ATI versus NVIDIA, and this is a driver as I usually buy two cards at the same time, (I build two systems at one time, one for me one for the wife) and I have had better experience with SLi then the Crossover technology. Down the line I will buy a new card in a year or so, take the second card, install it into the other system, and run one under SLi and the other with a newer card, so it saves me a few dollars down the road as well.

Okay, so I don’t sound to hard on the card I will say this, the card is doing well, and compared to the GTS it is a nice card, but compared to the GTX, not a chance for me!


2900XT
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

8800GTX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
July 1, 2007 5:34:03 PM

One thing I also failed to mention, I really wasn't too happy with the reviews the card received overall as well, at least not on newegg, that doesn't help the issue either!
July 2, 2007 4:31:42 AM

Quote:
@r0x0r: lol, yeah, i know, but you don't look at average price, you look at the average price for the cheapest 40, the HD2900xt is $550 approx and the 8800gts640 is somewhere around $600, and since there is variance in shipping this also means that you should use the average price, technically the hd2900xt is cheaper by a bit here, i can't remember where i got mine, but it was a 2x HD2900XTs for $999 so i was like, heck yeah!


Yeah I know. Since there's usually 40-odd pages for the popular cards I just look at the first page when I visit staticice; surely at least one of those shops would have the card in stock!

The sub $1k Ultra was an anomoly; average price was around $1200-$1300 with one shop wanting $1675! There were only 5 pages to look at though, since the Ultra isn't easily available.

2xHD2900XT for $1k? Yes please!
July 2, 2007 5:29:15 AM

Quote:
You know what is really funny with this price drop? The prices here just went UP by 10%. WTF.
Someone's got to pay for those price drops. :wink:
July 2, 2007 11:48:50 AM

Quote:
You know what is really funny with this price drop? The prices here just went UP by 10%. WTF.
Someone's got to pay for those price drops. :wink:

As I am not in the market for 2900XT I will have to pass on picking up the bill :D 
!