Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Most important part of a Graphic Card!?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 3, 2007 4:43:05 PM

I’m trying to figure out which of these values are more important when it comes to a graphic card?

Radeon HD X2900 XT
Codename: R600
Process: 80nm
Universal Shaders: 320
Texture Units: 16
ROPs: 16
Memory Bus: 512-bit
Core Speed MHz: 740
Memory Speed MHz: 825 (1650 effective)

GeForce 8800 GTS (640MB version)
Codename: G80
Process: 90nm
Universal Shaders: 96
Texture Units: 54
ROPs: 20
Memory Bus: 320-bit
Core Speed MHz: 500
Memory Speed MHz: 800 (1600 effective)


I do like how the 2900 Processer is 80nm (even though it sounds like it runs hotter and louder and uses more power?)

Universal Shaders is better on the 2900, but Texture Units are better on the GTS?

What is ROPs? Is more better?
On paper the 2900 XT looks like a better value?
July 3, 2007 5:27:45 PM

The 2900xt when it was launched had a pretty dismal showing compared to the 8800gts. Now after driver updates, it performs consistently better than the 8800gts and almost reaching 8800gtx in certain game benchies.

I would say it's a matter of cost.

If you can buy the 8800gts for a cheaper price, it would be better, else go for the 2900xt.

If you are not going to be using extreme high resolutions, the 8800gts 320 mb might be a much better value for money.
Related resources
July 3, 2007 5:38:56 PM

My gut feel is that the ATI unit will win out in the end, with DX10... The reason for this...

Nvidia made a very very good DX9 card that then also met the spec for DX10 when MS released the details... Have you noticed that all the benchmarks slating the HD2900 cards are always run on XP....

But.. ATI worked with MS from the start on DX10 (Due to the Xbox360) and if anything, DX10 was made for the HD2xxx cards - (note that way around)...
July 3, 2007 6:15:41 PM

you may be on to something there.

there have been drastic improvements in the 2900xt performance with the last two driver upgrades to the extant that the 2900xt is now almost comparable to the gtx in some cases, and of course the 1024mb gddr4 2900xt is supposed to thump the gtx even.

but i believe we might have to wait for the next round graphics card updates before the hd series gets even with the 8xxx series.

i'm waiting for the refresh before i'm buying any new gpus. hopefully i'll have the cash by then. :) 
July 3, 2007 6:17:49 PM

and yes, the 2900xt is supposed to oc like crazy if you just snap on a water cooler.
i'm hoping asus or xfx would do just that. :) 
July 3, 2007 6:19:08 PM

btw, cool overclock!
July 3, 2007 11:18:53 PM

I don't tend to bother too much with the numbers attached to each graphics card mainly because they can be misleading, as bigger numbers doesn't necessarily mean a better card. If you're interested to see which card is better, take a look at a few different benchmarks, since thats what you're really interested in anyway (actual performance in a real life situation). Particularly look hard to find some that are similar to what you will use the card for.

I think the point about ATi's drivers is a good one, from a technical standpoint the HD series *seems* to have a superior architecture to the G80, so the initial benchmarks were certainly disappointing (considering the price). Since 90% of system crashes are a result of drivers anyway, I'll be interested to see how much more ATi can get out of the 2900 XT.

Another interesting point is how the X2900 XT appears to manage anti-aliasing much better than the 8800GTS. If it was me, I'd get the X2900 XT for resolutions of 1600x1200 or above, or for extreme resolutions like 2560x1600, wait and see what the soon-to-come X2900 XT-X can manage. :) 
July 3, 2007 11:34:34 PM

Dont judge a card purely on its specifications, base your decisions on benchmark tests.
!