/ Sign-up
Your question

The Debate - 8800GTS vs 2900XT

  • Graphics Cards
  • Nvidia
  • ATI
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
August 29, 2007 9:18:03 PM

Nvidia 8800GTS 640MB vs ATI HD 2900XT 512MB

Lets hear which is better and why?

Considerations: Price/Performance/Graphics-Quality/Overclockability.

We all know Nvidia's cards have been out for a long time, but ATI has just released theirs and they are -competing- with Nvidia only now.

Also, I cant avoid the fact that Graphic Quality of the Nvidia cards is consistantly better than the ATI cards, regardless of frame rates.

More about : debate 8800gts 2900xt

August 29, 2007 9:23:19 PM

uhhh... have you read the dozen or so other similar posts on this forum
August 29, 2007 9:26:30 PM

blade85 said:
uhhh... have you read the dozen or so other similar posts on this forum

No, could not find anything recent. Also concerning new drivers, not something from a month ago.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 29, 2007 9:41:16 PM

I've saw some benchmarks on GameSpot on BioShock, if u just log on to, on the front page, it says BioShock PC benchmark or whatever like that...on high quality, the 2900xt in DX9 mode of the game running in Windows XP beats the 8800gtx.
It beats it marginally, and we're talking about an 8800gtx here...a better card than 8800gts 320 & 640.
August 29, 2007 9:43:17 PM

Ati has stepped up to the plate with some nice drivers. I think the 2900 XT looks pretty good.
August 29, 2007 9:53:45 PM

it is on par with 8800gts 640 mb, and it challenges 8800gtx.
August 29, 2007 9:54:46 PM

The 2900XT is on par in performance with the 8800GTS, however in HardOCP it consistently shows that 8800GTS performs a hair better than the 2900XT (~1-2fps).
August 29, 2007 10:20:15 PM

Evilonigiri, is it in DX10 that 8800gts performs better? And how long ago was this comparison? According to gamespot, in Windows XP, 2900xt is a little bit better than even the 8800gtx when running BioShock in WinXP...and this comparison is extremely recent...
August 29, 2007 10:46:22 PM

I vote for neither!
They are still DX9/XP cards with DX10 capability.
Anyway, early next year, the 2nd gen DX10 cards and Vista will be more mature and you can actually play native DX10 game on Vista 64.
Imagine that!
From what little I know, the 2900XT should run better in a pure DX10/Vista64 environment that actually requires complex shaders,Tessellation ,etc. Such a game doesn't exist yet. (not even Crysis)
August 29, 2007 11:21:12 PM

Hard OCP recently did a DX9 vs DX10 comparison on Call of Juarez. They compared the 8800 series and the 2900XT... The 2900 really held it's own. Check it out:

You will see that the 2900 performs above the 640 in DX9 mode. In DX10 mode the cards are neck-to-neck, but the 640 does get 1-2 fps better most of the time. When they crank up the AA, the 2900 doesn't back down. It does really well against the 640.

Another thing to note on this game: the 320 sh*ts a brick when you switch on DX10 mode. Seriously, it drops to 5 fps and they didn't even include the card in the AA tests (would have been pathetic). So if you have a 320, you're going to have to go with medium quality to run in DX10 mode. That sucks!

BTW, you guys have to check out the comparison screenshots between DX9 and DX10. HUGE difference. DX10 mode looks amazing, although it looks like they could have done a better job with the texturing in DX9 mode.
August 30, 2007 12:27:54 AM

Where can we see benchmarks updated to reflect the HD 2900XT's new drivers? FEAR, CoH, all the classical benchmark stuff.