Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2900XT or 8800GTS more futureproof?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 9, 2007 10:26:57 PM

I am currently trying to build a "future proof" pc with a somewhat limited budget and find that I have about $400 to spend on a video card. However, I'll be heading off to college and probably will have to go another 4 four or five years without an upgrade. I'd really like to hold off until some better dx10 hardware comes out, but I have to go ahead and buy now...

I have seen all the performance reviews and the 8800GTS and 2900XT look to be neck and neck at this point in time. However, some people seem to think that the 320 "universal shaders" on the 2900XT will make it a much better card to run dx10 games with in the future. So....

Which of the two cards is better designed to handle dx10? Is this question even answerable at this point in time?
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2007 11:07:36 PM

Both will excel in different games. Each has strangth and weaknesses. We can guess, but like the early 'DX10 games' have shown us, not all implementations are the same.

Buy whichever of the two you find for the Best price.

By the time one struggles, so will the other.

OH yeah, PS, no such thing as 'futureproof' only 'forward looking' IMO.
July 9, 2007 11:21:52 PM

I think cleeve said it somewhere that you dont buy cards for the future, you buy it for the present.

for all we know, the current line up of cards may not even be good enough to last 3-4 months. on the other hand it may be good enough for years.

so, as ape said. get whatever suits your needs now and is the cheapest.
Related resources
July 10, 2007 5:48:59 AM

Quote:
OH yeah, PS, no such thing as 'futureproof' only 'forward looking' IMO.
Or wishful thinking when dealing with computers. :kaola: 
July 10, 2007 6:25:02 AM

I have to say that the 8800 GTS is much more futureproof.
That is because of it's far more complex shading architecture. And with DX10 and the growing complexity of shaders that it allows, the G80 is the far better choice.
July 10, 2007 11:13:50 AM

The 2900XT - is weighted to shader heavy games, aka what we expect to see in the future, and also supports directx 10.1 that the G80's do not.
July 10, 2007 11:18:25 AM

jamesgoddard said:
The 2900XT - is weighted to shader heavy games, aka what we expect to see in the future, and also supports directx 10.1 that the G80's do not.


Not true. The 2900XT sucks at shading. And dont believe the hype about DX10.1.
July 10, 2007 12:11:44 PM

Don't listen to Track, he seems to be living in his own little world as of late.
As showed by many reviewers and benchmarks, there is not that much difference between the two cards you mentioned.

If you trust in the promise of ATI, being able to further improve AA/AF performance through driver-updates, then go for the 2900.
If you trust in the promise of nvidia, being able to make their drivers nonretarded for vista and directx 10, then go with nvidia.

I would personally pick ATI, because I like what I have seen so far when it comes to tesselation, but most would not base their decision on a notyet supported feature like that.
July 10, 2007 1:14:47 PM

Don't listen to Jakc, he doesn't know anything about shading architectures.
July 10, 2007 1:31:21 PM

Track said:
Don't listen to Jakc, he doesn't know anything about shading architectures.



:pt1cable: 
July 10, 2007 1:43:18 PM

Track said:
Don't listen to Jakc, he doesn't know anything about shading architectures.


And you do of course, as shown by your professional and clearifying comments like "The 2900XT sucks at shading".

I've never seen any explanations you give go further than superfacial rambling about scalar vs superscalar.
Are you going to explain your fanboyistic attitude with actual content at some point, or are you ok coming across as a clueless fanboy in his period?

July 10, 2007 2:25:08 PM

dont listen to tose boys arguing. the 2900 will be more futureproof (DX10). in tests with weaker HD 2400 ,2600 radeons and 8600 geforces, the radeons were twice as fast in DX10 than geforces
July 10, 2007 3:14:33 PM

rayzor said:

OH yeah, PS, no such thing as 'futureproof' only 'forward looking' IMO.


Couldn´t have said it better.

I´d like to add though, that, as seen with the 9800 and 19xx series ATI/AMD has made some products that were pretty good even as technology advanced and time passed. In addition the 2900XT has some features that will be mandatory for DX10.1 if i remember correctly.
July 10, 2007 4:02:14 PM

Until the games come out, anyone who says they know either way is talking BS.

As far as "futureproof", neither. Crytek are saying the 8800GTX won't be able to play Crysis @ HiRes with all settings on Max, so niether the GTS or 2900 stand a chance.
They have also said that Crysis @1024x768 with all settings on minimum will be playable on a 3 year old PC.

If you have a particular game in mind that you really want to play, wait for that game to come out, wait for benchmarks to appear, then decide how much you have to spend / are willing to compromise. If on the other hand you want to be able to play all games to date, the GTS is a fine choice and cheaper than a 2900.
July 10, 2007 4:05:36 PM

andybird123 said:

As far as "futureproof", neither. Crytek are saying the 8800GTX won't be able to play Crysis @ HiRes with all settings on Max, so niether the GTS or 2900 stand a chance.


Are u high? Crysis is fully playable at max settings on a 7800 GTX.
And thats BEFORE optimisation have been made. In the end, ud be able to run Crysis on high with an 8600 GT.
July 10, 2007 4:33:57 PM

I don't want to upset any religious people with this comment but I can't find a better way to put it:

Jesus Christ Track, you are so full of shlt.
July 10, 2007 4:46:34 PM

Well, crabdog, careful now. Let's remember that Track is the self-proclaimed smartest person, as far as computers go, on these boards. I am not so sure you want to criticize a diety...

PS. Whatever Ape and Slobogob said.
July 10, 2007 5:22:42 PM

Slobogob said:
Couldn´t have said it better.

I´d like to add though, that, as seen with the 9800 and 19xx series ATI/AMD has made some products that were pretty good even as technology advanced and time passed. In addition the 2900XT has some features that will be mandatory for DX10.1 if i remember correctly.

I think the name your looking for is "Tessellation". ATI has it, Nv does not. (so far)
Shoot me if I'm wrong.
July 10, 2007 5:32:29 PM

Hi guys. Just saw this video linked from incrysis.com, and at the end is what right now the game is running on ;)  If this is true I hope they do a lot of optimising for us commoners as there's another link (at the bottom) that says they ran the game at 1024x768 and that probably did not use the same machine (not sure though) Anyways, here's the vid : http://www.youtube.com/user/XtremeQuest

And here's the article: http://pc.ign.com/articles/802/802131p1.html


Make sure you watch the video that goes with the article! If that is 1024 then it's going to look great @ higher res.
Can't make out wether it's DX9 or 10 but seeing as it´s not mentioned I guess it´s 9 but it looks like it´s running pretty smooth...

2 cents on vidcards... I´m inclined to give the 2900 the `futureproof` logo (like Vista ready it means nothing :lol:  ) but like others have said.. by the time these features are incorporated into games both cards will be obsolete so buy now, play now.
July 10, 2007 5:38:04 PM

enewmen said:
I think the name your looking for is "Tessellation". ATI has it, Nv does not. (so far)
Shoot me if I'm wrong.


Indeed! Tesselation it was! How could i forget. It is one of the technical details i really liked about the 2900XT and a smart move to implement.
a b U Graphics card
July 10, 2007 7:04:48 PM

Track said:
Are u high? Crysis is fully playable at max settings on a 7800 GTX.
And thats BEFORE optimisation have been made. In the end, ud be able to run Crysis on high with an 8600 GT.


Dude, calling him high and then following up with BS like the GF7800GTX being able to run at max settings simply makes you look ridiculous and obviously just parroting other people's words and not understanding even your own.

First the GF7800GTX and Crysis, It's impossible for the GF7800 to play at max settings since the biggest max setting, DX10 path, will not be available to it nor any other DX9 only cards.

Second, the developers themselves said that even the current highest setups out there will not max out crysis, and will likely have to play with many settings lowered. So the idea that you'll be able to play 'on high' with the GF8600GT is something your going to have to back up with proof first before posting that stuff again, and not simplistic junk about scalar vs superscalar but some actual evidence of the GF8600 playing anywhere near high settings.

You may play Crysis WHILE YOU'RE HIGH and then that would make the GF8600's slow framerate look Fluid, but that would be because your brain has slowed down, not because the game is in anyway playable to someone with all their faculties about them. Interesting way to improve your performance though, slow down your brain and then 5 fps looks fluid. :pt1cable: 
July 10, 2007 7:40:32 PM

flame wars aside 8800GTS for Now be an better buy as you do not need an overkill PSU to power the 2900XT cards

Both cards are power full but the 2900xt makes more heat and uses more power then my 8800GTX to match the performance of an 8800GTS

for 5 years ahead any card you get now maybe an little limited on settings that are high
any game you play now will play Very well even on newer games later on that come out just lower the setting thay still look good

if your planning on playing next gen DX10 games that use More of the inproved parts of DX10 on high settings ,my 8800GTX probly not handle it very well but will handle it but on the 2900XT side you go you got the tessliation that should be good thing but unless Nvidia implement it as well game devs will probley never use it on that side
-----------------------
as some one has noted you can get an 8800GTX for $480 only $80 off what you posted
July 10, 2007 7:51:31 PM

morerevs said:
Can't make out wether it's DX9 or 10 but seeing as it´s not mentioned I guess it´s 9 but it looks like it´s running pretty smooth...


well if that system is to be believed, then its running on DX9...why you ask......cause it says windows xp :kaola:  :D 
dx10 is vista only :na: 
July 10, 2007 8:05:16 PM

blade85 said:
well if that system is to be believed, then its running on DX9...why you ask......cause it says windows xp :kaola:  :D 
dx10 is vista only :na: 

Haha yeah I was a bit unclear there I guess. What you are referring to is the youtube video right? What I meant was the Island walkthrough level video that was mentioned in the IGN article which is also the one running @ 1024x768. You can download a high-res version here:

http://www.crysis-france.com/index.php?option=com_remos...

Look for "telecharger" which means download and.... well you know how the rest works :kaola: 
July 10, 2007 8:10:38 PM

id stick with XP if your wanted less problems or Dual boot so you can play DX10 games

vista looks good but you have less Fuss getting stuff working unless your playing new games that have been made in the last month or so
July 10, 2007 8:16:09 PM

Jakc said:
And you do of course, as shown by your professional and clearifying comments like "The 2900XT sucks at shading".

I've never seen any explanations you give go further than superfacial rambling about scalar vs superscalar.
Are you going to explain your fanboyistic attitude with actual content at some point, or are you ok coming across as a clueless fanboy in his period?


BURNED! lol
nice one jakc :sol: 
July 10, 2007 8:40:01 PM

More and More I'm finding the 2900XT appealing. From what it sounds like there has been some improvements in performance with updated drivers. But I think everyone is right. You buy the best thing you can afford and dont look back, until its time for another upgrade. We know that these cards perform very well in DX9 but its hard to say how well these will perform in DX10. I built a new system exactly one year ago knowing that the 8800s were coming out. But my previous computer took a big dump so I had no choice but to build. Also unless your thinking about going Vista (and as a vista user I dont recommend it) that takes DX10 out of the picture anyway.

I think the smartest advice I got for building my computer was not to go cheap on a PSU. Maybe thats the best thing you can do to "Future Proof" you system. Hopefully next gen cards wont require more than 700W. But I guess we'll see.
July 10, 2007 10:06:03 PM

Track said:
Are u high? Crysis is fully playable at max settings on a 7800 GTX.
And thats BEFORE optimisation have been made. In the end, ud be able to run Crysis on high with an 8600 GT.

Sure, you can play Crysis at MAX settings on a Nv 6200 as high as DX9 goes. Maybe even play a 2560x1600 as well.
At slide-show speeds, you'll have more time to react. Maybe have a few beers between each frame. No optimisatons needed if your high.
July 10, 2007 10:41:22 PM

stranger: on the subject of Track, I don't know, you raise a good point, I wondered the same thing. But I'm leaning towards the misinformed answer based on some things he said. Btw he appears to be banned on gpureview. Go figure.

On the subject of HD2900 vs. 8800 series... Just re-read the Anandtech article. It seems like AMD made a series of interesting architectural choices. Whether or not they are well-founded - only practice will tell. It's funny that we're at a point where implementation determines the success of the particular architecture - I guess that's always been the case, though, but the purpose of DX 10, the way I understood, at least partially was to unify the code path, regardless of the vendor. To me, the biggest thing that stands out is ATI's power consumption, so it's a no-brainer choice in that regard.

And yes, they both will be obsolete by the holidays, we don't know how native DX10 games will perform on either platform, so buy for today. With that in mind - buy the cheapest you can now and then buy what you need later when the game(s) come(s) out.
July 11, 2007 5:31:14 AM

Quote:
...unique intellect...


rofl

right on the button methinks.

!