Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2900 vs 8800 GTS?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 5, 2007 12:07:28 AM

does anyone have a link to a review or performance test with the new drivers? im curious to see how much it improved; i hear it even rivals the GTX in some areas

More about : 2900 8800 gts

July 5, 2007 12:16:44 AM

the 512 mb version that is
Related resources
July 5, 2007 1:10:26 AM

with the new drivers HD2900XT shows results close to 8800gtx so with price drop it will be a great buy, i hope that ATi will release the 2900XTX to show some competition.
July 5, 2007 1:25:53 AM

LOL... funny u should aks dis...

Was looking @ my supplier wholesale prices this morning and the 320 is STILL $100AUD cheaper than the cheapest 2900.

Now from what i remember while the 2900 DID beat the 320 in some benches, it lost out too much on too many.

The 'LOL' comes from the fact that i though of this...

Sure u can get the 2900 and HOPE new drivers pull it ahead of the gts... or get the gts and a blowjob from the same price.

A BJ will ALWAYS get u more smiles than fps

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
July 5, 2007 2:02:40 AM

Lol, good thing i get my blowjobs free

still curious though; people will say the complete opposite; one says its pushing the GTX; another says its complete and utter shite

anyone have hard evidence either way?
a b U Graphics card
July 5, 2007 2:18:13 AM

At higher rez it takes over, as you dont need as much AA. AA is its achilles heal for right now. If the drivers solve this issue, the 2900 will rule the GTS. Without AA, it rivals the GTX. But unless your rez is at least 16x10 youll want that AA. ATI is working on it. The potential for this card (2900) is shown by the CF benches where it challenges a ULTRA SLI rig, but of course with CF you have all the support you need for eye candy, and also a bit reduntant, as most CF rigs using top cards game at high rez. Time will tell.
July 5, 2007 2:22:02 AM

The difference in opinion is because the 2900 are not 100% right now, and will prob never be.

In some games yes, it will beat a gtx (if i remember correctly) sry, dont have link 2 benches ne more. Yet in other games the 320 is spanking it.

Its just all over the place really. At least with the gts u KNOW its gonna get reliable fps in every game.

As for drivers... who knows really. ATI may get it right making the 2900 a total beast. They may never quite crack it.

For $100 more it just doesnt show enough consistent increase over the gts.
IMHO, if i were buying now and they were the same price, id still be hard pressed to choose the 2900, but thats just me.

Oh... as a side note, the Inno3D 320GTS is now $10 more than it has been since it came out. :?
July 5, 2007 2:57:59 AM

on a side note is your supplier scorpiontec? lol
July 5, 2007 3:13:39 AM

Quote:
At higher rez it takes over, as you dont need as much AA. AA is its achilles heal for right now. If the drivers solve this issue, the 2900 will rule the GTS. Without AA, it rivals the GTX. But unless your rez is at least 16x10 youll want that AA. ATI is working on it. The potential for this card (2900) is shown by the CF benches where it challenges a ULTRA SLI rig, but of course with CF you have all the support you need for eye candy, and also a bit reduntant, as most CF rigs using top cards game at high rez. Time will tell.
I play at 1680x1050 and I can't think of any time where I wouldn't want to run with antialiasing.
a b U Graphics card
July 5, 2007 3:44:15 AM

Some do some dont. Some must some meh.. I agree, I want all the yey candy I can get up to the point of reduntantcy. You can turn down the AA at higher rez tho, as eventually it becomes reduntant. To max it out in 16x10, you think it improves over a smaller, say 4x, amount?
July 5, 2007 4:04:45 AM

from what i have heard, the new drivers have increased the 2900s performance a lot. To the point where it is consistent and better with the gts 640. IT is definitely not all over the place like it was at launch.
July 5, 2007 4:20:59 AM

from personal experience at a res of 2560x1600 aa makes no visible difference.
July 5, 2007 6:37:12 AM

Quote:
Some do some dont. Some must some meh.. I agree, I want all the yey candy I can get up to the point of reduntantcy. You can turn down the AA at higher rez tho, as eventually it becomes reduntant. To max it out in 16x10, you think it improves over a smaller, say 4x, amount?


Something we can agree on :) 

At 1600 x 1200, 8x is normally fine, at 1920 x 1200 then I can get away with x4. There is still a difference though between x4 and none even at that resolution for me, but you notice it when playing (if I can put it this way) more urban games, where sharp edges are more common unlike with 'foliage' games like Oblivion with more soft edges.
July 5, 2007 8:06:07 AM

I game at 1680 x 1050, by the way

been wracking my brain over the video card choice for awhile; and right now i'm between the GTS 320. 640, and the 2900 xt

and i still cant find any hard evidence of single card 2900 xt vs single card G80 cards with the new ATI drivers
July 5, 2007 10:50:19 AM

Quote:
I game at 1680 x 1050, by the way

been wracking my brain over the video card choice for awhile; and right now i'm between the GTS 320. 640, and the 2900 xt

and i still cant find any hard evidence of single card 2900 xt vs single card G80 cards with the new ATI drivers


I'm on the same boat and confused as hell.

If I lived in the US it would be easier for me, take a look:

PORTUGAL
Cheapest 2900XT: Gecube for €355
Cheapest GTS 640: EVGA for €405
Cheapest GTS 320: XFX for €285

Monitor: 1680x1050 Samsung 205BW

I left the 320mb version behind and I'm between the 2900xt and the GTS 640Mb.

2900xt:
Pros: Less €50; Driver updates (hoping that someday will smack the GTS)
Cons: Drivers as well (not consistent enough to beat the GTS in all games); heat output; power draw; noise at full load.

GTS 640:
Pros: Consistent drivers (at least in xp); Less noise; Less power draw; Less heat.
Cons: More €50; GTX kills it;


GTX: No way I'll give €600 for a card...

So, I'm still waiting. It never took so much time for me to pick a gfx card...
July 5, 2007 12:06:44 PM

For me, I run at 1920 x 1200 and still us AA, in the end the GTX card was the way to go, right now ATI is doing good with the card but it still doesn't compare to the GTX, now the price makes it very attractive for select budgets but right now I had a few extra dollars so bought the next step up. Over the last few years NVIDIA has done well with their cards so I can't complain, including their drivers, and I am not willing to risk performance with something that has been all over the place like the ATI cards with there drivers, it is just to fickle and not worth a few dollars.
July 5, 2007 12:16:17 PM

Quote:
I game at 1680 x 1050, by the way

been wracking my brain over the video card choice for awhile; and right now i'm between the GTS 320. 640, and the 2900 xt

and i still cant find any hard evidence of single card 2900 xt vs single card G80 cards with the new ATI drivers


I'm on the same boat and confused as hell.

If I lived in the US it would be easier for me, take a look:

PORTUGAL
Cheapest 2900XT: Gecube for €355
Cheapest GTS 640: EVGA for €405
Cheapest GTS 320: XFX for €285

Monitor: 1680x1050 Samsung 205BW

I left the 320mb version behind and I'm between the 2900xt and the GTS 640Mb.

2900xt:
Pros: Less €50; Driver updates (hoping that someday will smack the GTS)
Cons: Drivers as well (not consistent enough to beat the GTS in all games); heat output; power draw; noise at full load.

GTS 640:
Pros: Consistent drivers (at least in xp); Less noise; Less power draw; Less heat.
Cons: More €50; GTX kills it;


GTX: No way I'll give €600 for a card...

So, I'm still waiting. It never took so much time for me to pick a gfx card...

Go for the 2900Xt, its cheaper and has the ability to improve, the 640 doesn't, DX 10.1 support and better tech specs so with perfect drivers with will do better.
July 5, 2007 2:52:27 PM

with the latest driver update the fans became quieter and faster to kick in/out, i can't speak for a single card config because i bought both at the same time but i would say if you have a case with alot of fans already and it is in a desk or down near your feet, you won't notice it.

I would get the gecube one, they all have the same speeds, cooling specs ect, the only difference is the warranty and bundled items, and that said, the only one with anything different bundled is the asus one which comes with stalker, but you can buy that separate so who cares.
July 5, 2007 4:04:01 PM

Quote:
the only one with anything different bundled is the asus one which comes with stalker, but you can buy that separate so who cares.


My utorrent works just fine :wink:

Yes, i believe the gecube will fit my needs even with only 2 years warranty. By that time, for sure, I'll have another card.

I believe I'll wait one more month for new sets of drivers and grab one. It looks promising unlike the gts, and that 512bit might come on handy in the future with driver improvement.

Thanks for the input.
July 6, 2007 2:06:26 AM

if you ask me, the 2900 is now consistently ahead of the gts 8800 640.
July 6, 2007 2:55:12 AM

Quote:
if you ask me, the 2900 is now consistently ahead of the gts 8800 640.
That's probably why I wouldn't ask you. :wink: Honestly, either card would provide a good gaming experience.
July 6, 2007 12:03:57 PM

Sometimes I am a little slow but I still don't get it, yes compared to the 320MB GTS it is a better card, I understand that, and compared to the 640MB GTS it is a very competitive card, price is the factor at this level and resolution at which you operate at, okay so I understand this so far as well. But in the end something’s that still confuse me is how people look at the two cards and say that the 8800 can not improve any more, why did they stop making drivers are is just more fanboy talk? Another thing I don't get is how all of a sudden a nicely performing card, that was not burdened by all the driver issues and such the 2900 had, is now such a bad card, or less of a card than it was before the latest revision of the 2900 drivers. To me, when you release something it should come out right the first time, we know that doesn't happen but hey, at least try to get close to the mark. From the improvements the 2900 has made with its drivers I would say that tells me one thing, when it was release it was a piece of $hit and they should have held off, I can't speak for anyone else but I hate driver issues, and given the problems around the 2900 from the start, I still couldn't recommend it over the 640MB version of the 8800GTS, that is unless it was significantly cheaper and you were on a tight budget. Not that the issues changes my purchase at this point as I bought the 8800GTX before all this came to past but still. Anyway these are just some thoughts that I am trying to de-conflict these days.
July 6, 2007 11:16:34 PM

im just saying that once the 2900 was said to have failed at the start, people stopped looking into the 2900 and forever see it as a failure. So when someone asks they say its a piece of shart, when in reality, it is a very good card that competes with the best of them.
July 12, 2007 1:25:18 PM

the problem with your argument kronos is that it was plagued with driver issues... they have all been resolved, but the ones with the 2900 haven't, once they resolve the ones with the 2900, it will be a better card, simply put.
!