Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why does 8800gtx beat 2900xt

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 10, 2007 2:55:53 PM

Alright so i was searching for a new video card, however i realized that 2900xt has better specs than the 8800gtx and yet it cant beat 8800gtx.
R600 80nm PCIe x16 1024mb of mem 743mhzcore 1000mhz memclock 128.0gb/s gddr4
g80 90nm PCIe x16 768mb 575core 1350 memclock 86.40gb/s gddr3

To me it just seems kinda odd. Also what would be better for long term 2900xt or 8800gtx cause i hear two different things, one says 8800gtx cause its beating the 2900xt and others say wait till the drivers mature for 2900xt.

More about : 8800gtx beat 2900xt

October 10, 2007 3:18:13 PM

read reviews, go GTX. (coming from an Ati fan!)
October 10, 2007 4:20:27 PM

Well, I'm pretty sure there's more to performance than memory bandwidth and stream processors.

A lower clocked C2D can beat an AMD X2... but you didn't question how that's possible. I'm sure part of Nvidia's advantage is their mature drivers... and perhaps it's just a more efficient GPU (just like a C2D can beat an X2 clock for clock)
Related resources
October 10, 2007 5:12:13 PM

I was going to say... remember the old P4s? I had the 3.2 ghz one and i build another Atholon 64 and that was only a 2.4 ghz system and beat my Intel p4.

Don't think of it as how much space I can cover if i go really fast, think of it like.... how much space can i cover if I get all my friends together and have them bring their families and we all walk arm linked together in a straight line......

wow... that confused me.

Its not how fast you clock is, but how much you can do per clock.
October 10, 2007 5:45:43 PM

Drivers as well though.
October 10, 2007 5:48:25 PM

the 8800gtx would be better for long term use. i uses less power and it doesnt get as hot. maybe some day the drivers for the 2900 will be good enough to make it worthy but that could be a long ways off, or may never happen. follow what the reviews tell you.
October 10, 2007 6:06:36 PM

but make sure you dont trust any single review, always read about 3 since they can easily be biased and you wouldn't know (and that includes articles on THG)
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 10, 2007 6:45:09 PM

Let me put it this way: the 8800 GTX has 128 apples and the HD 2900 XT has 320 oranges. Which one should be faster? You just can't compare, just based on numbers, because they are based on totally different designs.

October 10, 2007 7:19:59 PM

I like oranges but I have a bunch of apples :p 
October 10, 2007 8:27:18 PM

It's mostly a function of architecture. The 8800 is scalar and the 2900 is 5x superscalar.

Think of it this way...This is just a rough example of why it works this way...

The 8800 can do 1 instruction in 1 second.
The 2900 can theoretically do 5 instructions in 3 seconds.

It would seem that the 2900 is much faster, and theoretically it is.
However, in real situations the 2900 can only load up 2 or 3 instructions on average so often it does less work in the same time as the 8800.

Improving the drivers helps it load more instructions at a time. It was usually doing 2 instructions when it came out, as drivers have improved the average is closer to 3 so the performance has been moving from 8800gts to 8800gtx in benchmarks.

All of these numbers are made up this is simply an example of how the scalar and 5x superscalar works.
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2007 8:51:31 PM

Look out for the 2950XT coming out in Mid November. It should be a huge improvement over the current 2900XT far as the energy consumption to performance ratio. It should run a whole lot cooler too.
October 10, 2007 9:16:45 PM

that explains it a bit more thank you steven zwickel. So it cld be possible that the 2900xt with mature drivers can beat gtx? or wld that still be a long shot. I just kind of find it interesting . and i remember the p4 and amd thing, more operations per cycle and what not however seeing that 2900 can do 5 ops in 3 seconds equaling to about 1.667 ops a second compared to gtx 1 per 1 it would still seem to me that 2900 would still win. sorry if that didnt make any sense im just way too tired lol. Thanks for your replies tho.
October 10, 2007 9:19:05 PM

I think that its still a very long shot
October 10, 2007 9:54:56 PM

Whell, you should go with the GTX, you cant say witch card is more impressive with the specs in the paper. 320 stream procesors in the ATI card are not more than 128 on the GTX, its just a matter of precision and the way of measuring the raw performance, drivers may not be doing their work very well but the gap in performance its not only due to them. In my opionion the nVidia chip is a more balanced design and a much more efficient one, maybe it was better thought by nvidia engineers or maybe Ati ones just had bad luck in the design process, the results are that GTX performs in another league than the R600 right now, wait until new R600 revisions come out becouse if they poolys their design it can become a really great card!.
October 10, 2007 10:04:43 PM

Well the amount of heat that the 2900XT produces is a clear indicator that it is inefficient. For example, remember those blazing hot 100w incandescent light bulbs? Right now we mostly use the mercury based low heat light bulbs that take like only 20w to match the same level of brightness as one of those 100w. Why? Well it's because most of the 100w goes to producing heat, so it's basically a heater. The electricity saving bulbs uses most of it's energy in to producing visible light, and not so much in heat. I think this same idea can be applied to the vidcards. Of course it's probably not the entire reason.
October 10, 2007 10:22:27 PM

One reason the 8800GTX performs better is that it has more Texture Mapping Units and Raster Operations Pipeline, 32 and 24 respectively. While the HD 2900XT has only 16 and 16. Drivers are probably the other big issue on the performance difference, and we are still seeing performance improvements from the HD 2000 series cards with new driver releases.
October 10, 2007 11:20:39 PM

Personally for me, I've always been wary of the ATI cards locked shader clock to core freq, while nvidias are double the speed.
October 10, 2007 11:52:58 PM

Heat does equal waste in any application that is not expressly meant to produce heat (e.g. a furnace) In the case of the furnace, light would be the wasted energy.

High efficiency PSUs should run cooler because they're converting a higher % of the incoming AC to DC... the remainder being lost to heat.

Ok, I'm rambling... I guess I was agreeing with Evilonigiri.
!