Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1024mb 2900xt tested

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 27, 2007 5:46:04 PM

http://hardware.gotfrag.com/portal/story/38332/

I'm not too familiar with the site but I linked to it from Dailytech's Daily Hardware reviews list.

More about : 1024mb 2900xt tested

June 27, 2007 6:46:55 PM

Well, it's a nice improvement :) 

Now its waiting for the drivers to improve
June 27, 2007 6:46:58 PM

Looks like the all suck in DX10. For me, the only high end cards that make sense are the 8800GTS320 or the GTX if you need super high end. The 640 and 2900 cards just suck for the price IMO.

When you can get this for $280 that will compete with $400+ cards.... why would you even question which to get.
Related resources
June 27, 2007 6:53:45 PM

Antialiasing and anisotropic filtering were only used once and the 1GB 2900XT still lost to the 8800GTX in every test ran. The only place I've seen with the 1GB HD 2900XT is ebay, and at $550 it's directly competing with the 8800GTX. :?
June 27, 2007 7:12:20 PM

It's online price is now $650 at Extreme PC. I wouldn't trust a seller on E-bay. Could be a ES version or a fake.
June 27, 2007 7:24:46 PM

Quote:
Looks like the all suck in DX10. For me, the only high end cards that make sense are the 8800GTS320 or the GTX if you need super high end. The 640 and 2900 cards just suck for the price IMO.

When you can get this for $280 that will compete with $400+ cards.... why would you even question which to get.


because it beats the 320mb performance wise, it gets u playing high res and ur spending 100 less, if u play 1600x1200 and lower then the 320 is perfectly fine, anything above ths 640 is the better option, and gtx/ultra(no one should buy this) are for best performance in the extreme res areas
June 27, 2007 8:35:34 PM

1.How many people actually play above 1600x1200
2.According to Anandtech's and Tweaktown's benchmarks comparing the 640 to the 320, the 640 only makes a worthwhile gain in ONE game at 1920x1200 (Quake 4) which hardly justifies the ~$70 price difference.


Now, I am not saying the 640 is not a better card, it just isn't a better buy in any case really. Once you start adding 4xaa and 16xaf the 640 is better in a few games, but most are still relatively close. I am referring to AVG FPS, BTW.

IN no way is the 2900XT worth $100+ more then the 320.

Value for performance even at 1920x1200 goes like this:
320=Best Value
640=If you must
2900=Why recommend it?
June 27, 2007 9:28:19 PM

I would have had a 1024mb one if my friend had not bailed on getting it for me. pisses me off...

This site looks bogus. is the xtx out?
June 28, 2007 4:38:22 AM

They claim to also test the card against the 2900XTX 1GB which is very doubtful, especially when they have the 2900XT 512MB beating it. I'll wait for some real reviews. :x
June 28, 2007 11:05:06 AM

I think maybe you are talking about when they referenced Dailytech testing an early xtx es sample back before the xt's release.
Quote:
A little known fact about this card is that it had an older brother, the fabled Radeon HD 2900XTX, which was 12.4 inches long, sported a different cooling solution, and also had 1024MB of GDDR4 graphics memory. Aesthetically speaking, the card was (and is; expect to see that product reincarnated as a FireGL part in the near future) the most impressive thing we have seen from a consumer level graphics card – ever. That is not necessarily a good thing, and performance numbers (those posted on DailyTech) seemed to show that size isn’t everything.


The truth is it looks as though there will be no xtx this generation. This 1gig ddr4 xt is basically the same spec. that the xtx was supposed to be. The way I read this is that they didn't want to bring the xtx to market because it wouldn't take the performance crown. Calling it a an xt with more memory they can at least recoup some development cost and hopefully sell some higher margin parts.
June 28, 2007 3:18:39 PM

I think the reasons the 1024 does better than the 'xtx' is that the daily tech sample one was on the old scabby rubbish drivers. but we will see if they actually launch an xtx. It might only hit after the 8900.
June 28, 2007 3:25:12 PM

There won't be a XTX. You can count on Ruiz... I mean count on me
June 28, 2007 3:41:27 PM

I am pretty positive that this 1GB XT IS the XTX renamed
June 28, 2007 4:55:16 PM

We shall see, but i am leaning toward it being the 1024 already out.
June 29, 2007 1:00:46 PM

Showing 5-6 benchmarks for a SLI vs. XTX system doesn't really show much of a "review"
June 29, 2007 1:13:51 PM

No, but it really should be the focus of a full review. The problem is comparing crossfire and sli in a full review will yield results all over the map. It's hard to pick a winner when performance is so inconsistent with multi gpu drivers.
June 29, 2007 2:30:16 PM

Quote:
1.How many people actually play above 1600x1200
2.According to Anandtech's and Tweaktown's benchmarks comparing the 640 to the 320, the 640 only makes a worthwhile gain in ONE game at 1920x1200 (Quake 4) which hardly justifies the ~$70 price difference.


I hate to go off topic again, but the amount of memory can make a difference in some games. Some games won't even let you go to the highest detail level unless you have at least 512Mb of memory. GRAW is a game that comes to mind. This is just speculation at the moment, but games like Crysis and UT3 are probably going to run poorly on 320Mb of memory.
June 29, 2007 8:32:49 PM

Quote:
Some games won't even let you go to the highest detail level unless you have at least 512Mb of memory. GRAW is a game that comes to mind. This is just speculation at the moment, but games like Crysis and UT3 are probably going to run poorly on 320Mb of memory.


Didn't know that, thanks. I remember Quake 4 warned you, but you could still select it.
!