It's truth time. Now that the first games using DirectX 10 have appeared, Nvidia and ATI have to face the real world and answer the question - which card offers the most performance under Vista? We look at Geforce 8x00 vs. Radeon 2x00 cards.
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/1 [...] index.html

**pours 40-ounce over ATI Tombstone **

Wow im both happy and sad after seeing that.
Happy that my "puny" 320 shows real good performance compared to "much better" cards.
And here i heard all week that my 320 is so much worse then the new Pro.
 
Sad cause i don't own a GTX or better...

In case anyone is wondering, the 320MB 8800gts is still haunted by that memory bug in dx10 (163.69 fixed it for dx9). That is why the CoH and WiC scores are so low. The 2400PRO HM beats it in CoH for God's sake. Under dx9 it performs MUCH better. Hopefully Nvidia is still planning to fix this.

Glad I did not wait to buy my card... I am enjoying it today instead of waiting for tomorrow...

Well, I am ordering my 8800GTS tomorrow. the 2900 cards are okay.... but they just don't seem worth it. Shoot, you can't even find a 2900Pro at the current time.

Brilliant review much better than the budget DX10 one,AMD are up against it big time their new GPU better cream the Nvidea one or its bad news all round.
 
Going on the review i cant make a case for buying anthing other than a GTX and upwards (or sideways depending on how the new cards fair).
I hope they run the new cards through this set of benchmarks when they come out,and quickly to(im wondering if toms are still getting sent ref cards to test)seems to me that just latley you have to go to a different site to find a review of any newer cards or is it just me?
Would be nice to see them under DX9/XP as well as a lot of peoplwe still run it.
 Mactronix

I wish the 2900pro would have been included in this review.

Am I the only one here that is shocked to see how much all of these cards blow with DX10? Do you remember all of the claims that not only was DX10 prettier but faster as well? Well we do we see these DX10 cards run faster than DX9 mode???? Give me a break...

Am I the only one here that is shocked to see how much all of these cards blow with DX10? Do you remember all of the claims that not only was DX10 prettier but faster as well? Well we do we see these DX10 cards run faster than DX9 mode???? Give me a break...

700$ + for a card that cant run all games at highest resolution and max settings... wow

Just wait for the  D8E

Using the 2900XT as a benchmark for an OC'd 2900Pro seems reasonable.  A stock 2900Pro would under-perform a 2900XT in every way.

Overall the results are pretty shocking.  

This is getting serious guys if Nvidea dont get some competition soon we will be paying way to much for a decent GPU its borderline at the minuite but if things dont improve soon as far as performance for the money is concerned i will be seriously concidering getting a dedicated gaming console and just use the pc for web surfing and office/HTPC applications. Yes i know its heracy but what you gonna do?
 Mactronix

in company of heroes... 8600GTS performs better than 8800GTS... strange

even the non gts performed better

All of those games tested are Nvidia optimised, so it's unfair to write ATI off.

 
I wish the HD 2900 XT with 1 gig of GDDR4 memory would have been included. The reviewer could find, buy, and test eleven Nvidia cards, but only five ATI cards? And then there's the fact that some of the Nvidia cards were overclocked models, while none of the ATI cards were overclocked. I mean, come on. I own a 8800 GTS 640 myself, but I'd like to see more balance in the testing. If the deck is stacked against ATI, then the outcome is assured and while the information itself may be good, it is incomplete and leaves me not knowing if the card I have is the best for the money or not.

I think I will stay with DX9 because of the 50-100% more performance, in Company Of Heroes theres very little graphics difference between DX9 & DX10 except for a crap load of performance drop under DX10. Buying a 24" monitor now seems like a bad idea after seeing the fps under Vista/DX10, DX9 is another story. Think I'll hold on to my 19" LCD for now.

I still reckon the 2900 pro is better value than 8800 320 if u dont mind OCing

I have a GTX and I'm glad I didn't wait to purchase the much heralded (by ATI fans anyway) 2900XT.
 
I don't see why the GTX won't run Crysis in all its DX10 glory.  There appears to be ample overhead for next gen games.
 
I do agree that the 2900XT with 1 gig of GDDR4 memory should have been included, but it wouldn't have changed my opinion about the current line of ATI cards.
 
Nvidia rules the roost right now.  And FPS/$ is a nice way of showing it.