Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any hope for the 2900 xt?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 10, 2007 4:45:41 AM

I was browsing newegg for a GPU-needy friend and I saw the bottom dropped out of the price on some 2900xt's. $279 for a card that was almost $400 such a short while ago. And $330 for the 1GB model.

Is the hope that the 2900xt will keep on maturing with driver releases dried up? Or is it just one card maker clearing out their stock?

Will this kind of a drop hit the old GTS's (and maybe even GTX's) soon?

More about : hope 2900

a c 130 U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 4:54:05 AM

Well with the 8800gt coming out and being so good i would expect to see price drops on the GTS and maybe the GTX once the supply issues have been sorted out.
And would expect the same thing from ATI once the 3*** series hits the shelves.both cards are due higher spec models so it should be a case of as you say stock clearing once the newer cards are in th emarket place properly.

Mactronix
November 10, 2007 5:17:09 AM

As far as I'm concerned, it's a good thing the HD2900 series is clearing out. We need new cards from AMD. badly...

But $280 for an HD2900XT...hmmm...that's a good price point.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 6:29:52 AM

It's a good price. And with almost no 8800GT's around, not too bad. They must be doing what NV didn't do with the 640MB GTS and are clearing out inventory for the HD3870 release. If the HD3870 beats the HD2900XT and is available for less, then it(3870) would be the better deal.
November 10, 2007 7:13:23 AM

There's no way I'd buy any of the ATI 2900 cards. Too much power, too much noise and very underwhelming performance regardless of price.
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 7:40:29 AM

Unless you bench in 3dmark.
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 8:17:29 AM

crabdog said:
There's no way I'd buy any of the ATI 2900 cards. Too much power, too much noise and very underwhelming performance regardless of price.

Right on the money i recon, dont care what the price point is no way i would put one in my system,not when there are viable and taking into account power noise etc in most cases better cards available.
Mactronix
November 10, 2007 9:29:09 AM

If I was spending £250 on a GPU (and ignoring the 8800gt), I still would choose the 8800GTS 640 over the 2900XT for the simple reason that it consumes less power. I never thought I would use that reason when I first got interested in computers, but I just feel guilty if I leave the PC on for any length of time when not using it.
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 12:29:37 PM

oswold said:
If I was spending £250 on a GPU (and ignoring the 8800gt), I still would choose the 8800GTS 640 over the 2900XT for the simple reason that it consumes less power. I never thought I would use that reason when I first got interested in computers, but I just feel guilty if I leave the PC on for any length of time when not using it.

Your kidding right? You really think there is any significan't difference? The reason's to pick an 8800GTS should be 1- you want better FSAA performance or performance in the games you like, or 2- noise levels. If you feel guilty, don't fold, game on integrated graphics, and use no more than 2 sheets of toilet paper when on the throne. :) 

But feeling guilty over more power use? By that logic, we should have avoided the 8800GTS(X) altogether. Look at the link below at total system power useage at idle and you'll see you better not be buying the 8800GTS either and leaving the computer on. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/12956/10

Anyone who claims power consumption is so important should hold off buying an 8800GT, and other 8800, HD2900, etc. The upcoming HD3800's are your only option. And if you have a GF8800, you will probably want to destroy and recycle it(so nobody else consumes all that power) and buy the upcoming RV670. :pt1cable: 
November 10, 2007 12:57:43 PM

Ananan said:
I was browsing newegg for a GPU-needy friend and I saw the bottom dropped out of the price on some 2900xt's. $279 for a card that was almost $400 such a short while ago. And $330 for the 1GB model.

Is the hope that the 2900xt will keep on maturing with driver releases dried up? Or is it just one card maker clearing out their stock?

Will this kind of a drop hit the old GTS's (and maybe even GTX's) soon?


No not much hope for it or the NVIDIA 8800 cards either . Both companies with their NOW generation of cards are not worth investing $10.00 in ! You think the bottom fell out now wait until the next Gen cards come out this month ... :lol:  You better ignore all the current cards available now . :bounce: 
November 10, 2007 2:10:56 PM

Ananan said:
I was browsing newegg for a GPU-needy friend and I saw the bottom dropped out of the price on some 2900xt's. $279 for a card that was almost $400 such a short while ago. And $330 for the 1GB model.

Is the hope that the 2900xt will keep on maturing with driver releases dried up? Or is it just one card maker clearing out their stock?

Will this kind of a drop hit the old GTS's (and maybe even GTX's) soon?

2900xt was kind of a failure from the begginning. GTS might take a drop but not GTX
November 10, 2007 2:49:12 PM

Well just having a card with the performance of a 8800gts with the power consumption of more than the 8800ultra makes me think of how wasteful the 2900 is. I still would want the perfromance, but I would always buy the most power efficiant if the cards have similar performance. Which is what most other people would do....

If I hadnt just got given an 8800GTS 320 (should be posted on tuesday), I would be considering the 55nm RV670 chips for my upgrade this Xmas, as they should be around £120 and are looking to be very efficiant.
November 10, 2007 3:12:18 PM

It's not a failure, but it's downfall was the late release with drivers being initially terrible.
ATI has a disadvantage in Direct X 10 because Games developers are optimising their software to run best on Nvidia hardware 'the way it's meant to be played' . If Game developers optimised their games fairly then the true power of the 2900 would shine I'm sure. I don't believe it will get any better for ATI with their next GFX series because of this unfairness.
November 10, 2007 3:19:23 PM

Well ATi needs to get out there and start working with game developers nVIDIA is being promoted on tons of games nowadays, the only games the 2900 won at were source games which were easily handled with a 7600gt so if all you wanted to play were source games that card was pointless.....
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 3:32:36 PM

A lot of people have started calling the 38** cards names already and we havent seen any reliable benchmarks yet,it may well be that it will underperforms our expectations in fact i would be surprised if it dosent but personally i will wait to see it proven first.
Mactronix
November 10, 2007 4:15:10 PM

How come people are still praising the 8800GT when the new 8800 GTS??, with 112 pipes, clearly hammers it on all accounts (and incredibly so at 1600). I think we can all forget the old GTS..
Ryan Adds
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 7:33:25 PM

The new G80 112 SP GTS is $350+, and the 8800GT can be found in short supply for under $300.
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2007 7:52:50 PM

oswold said:
Well just having a card with the performance of a 8800gts with the power consumption of more than the 8800ultra makes me think of how wasteful the 2900 is.
If we look at that one review I posted, measured at the wall socket, the HD2900XT used less than the ultra and equal to the GTX under load, and under the 8800GTS at idle. What percentage of the time your PC is on do you have the gpu under load vs idle?

Speaking about power consumption....I just had to replace my APC backups because it was overloaded and would hum. 95% of the time it's fine, but would start to hum as soon as I entered a 3d game. It did it for a couple weeks and I replaced it with the 1300va LCD model. Sure enough, at idle, the load is 200-201 watts. When I enter a game, it would jump up. Just sitting in the Crysis menu, the UPS load is 289-291 watts. I'll have to check it during gameplay sometime. I have an 8800GTS 320MB. Protection and a fun toy: http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?...
November 10, 2007 8:35:37 PM

i wonder what price the 2900 pro's are going for now.... must be previous 8500 territory by now :lol: 
November 10, 2007 9:38:03 PM

spuddyt said:
i wonder what price the 2900 pro's are going for now.... must be previous 8500 territory by now :lol: 


About $250 at newegg for the 512 version.
November 12, 2007 9:39:38 AM

oswold said:
If I was spending £250 on a GPU (and ignoring the 8800gt), I still would choose the 8800GTS 640 over the 2900XT for the simple reason that it consumes less power. I never thought I would use that reason when I first got interested in computers, but I just feel guilty if I leave the PC on for any length of time when not using it.


If you leave your machine at idle, then your going to get low power draw from both the hd2900 and 640mbgts, probably within 5 watts of each other. :hello: 
November 12, 2007 9:42:50 AM

Ananan said:
I was browsing newegg for a GPU-needy friend and I saw the bottom dropped out of the price on some 2900xt's. $279 for a card that was almost $400 such a short while ago. And $330 for the 1GB model.

Is the hope that the 2900xt will keep on maturing with driver releases dried up? Or is it just one card maker clearing out their stock?

Will this kind of a drop hit the old GTS's (and maybe even GTX's) soon?


If youve kept up with the its driver improvements since launch, then theres not much ground to think improvements will dry up anytime soon.
November 12, 2007 10:33:41 AM

I believe that yes we'll see further maturity for this card.It's ATIs first DX10 card,and although there are others bothe faster and more power efficient coming out soon,there is still room for improvment.I see the 2900XT becoming a mid-range card in ATI's line up,as newer and faster and more power efficient cards are brought to market.It is a good choice for the budget.However,I need to point out that NVIDIA's 8800GT out performs the 2900,and costs less.I recomend the 8800GT over the 2900XT.Unless of course,your friend is stuck on ATI,in which case,the 2900XT is a good choice.Goodluck.

Dahak

M2N32-SLI DELUXE WE
X2 5600+ STOCK (2.8GHZ)
2X1GIG DDR2 800 IN DC MODE
TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
EVGA 7950 GX2 550/1400
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WS LCD 1680X1050
250GIG HD/320GIG HD
G5 GAMING MOUSE
LOGITECH Z-5500 5.1 SURROUND SYSTEM
500WATS CONTINUOUS,1000 PEAK
WIN XP MCE SP2
November 12, 2007 10:49:06 AM

Yeah if its a straight up which one should i get question, go with the 8800gt, but thats a bit bogus seeing as a major new launch is a few daysa away. If youve already got the 2900, hold onto it, its getting better with time, it'll probably go on getting appreciably better in dx10 for quite some time, and changing it for a 8800gt seems a bit premature. For an extra, what, 15% improvement in performance, your changing a competent card that still has more legs and a fair bit of useful life left in it. Holding onto it would give you a greater return for your investment in purchasing it in the first place. If you want to make the most of the money you already spent that is.
November 12, 2007 11:15:39 AM

In my CustomPC magazine the 2900XT uses about 40w more than the 8800Ultra, and about 90w more than the 8800GTS 640 at load. This is where i'm basing my opinions from. If the 2900 had lower power consumption and slightly less performance than the 8800GTS (which is how the rumours about the HD 3870 vs the 8800GT are suggesting) then I would get the 2900.

But I suppose if power consumption is the main factor for choosing components then I should be browsing the internet on my DS then.

Happy now that I have admitted that?
November 12, 2007 11:29:50 AM

lol Oswold... Don't buy the 2900xt, wait for 3870. Probably will be cooler, smaller, less power hungry, and cheaper for around the same performance (hopefully more).
November 12, 2007 11:36:34 AM

Is that CustomPC UK?? I get that from time to time, good mag but can be a little snooty at times, and the games used in graphics card reviews are maybe not the best. Why do they use Need For Speed all the bloody time?? who plays that old w'nk.
November 12, 2007 11:49:34 AM

Yeah I like it too, mostly good hardware reviews and such, but yes they are a bit upper class in some of their opinions (such as any card that cant play stalker at max settings (inc AA) with 25fps is a pile of poo as it cant play the game as the developer intended it to be played).

Their unconditional love of the Artic Freezer pro 7 is irritating, as they rarely review any other premium coolers to compare it too.
November 12, 2007 11:57:23 AM

LOL you speak the truth! I havent bought one for about 3 months as im out of the country but i can see nothings changed!

Annoys me to the artic freezer has a lifetime spot on the recommended list :) 
November 12, 2007 2:38:24 PM

spuddyt said:
i wonder what price the 2900 pro's are going for now.... must be previous 8500 territory by now :lol: 


LoL I had a flashback when you said 8500, now that was a nice card back in the day, I remember my friend tried arguing that his 9000 was better. I think he was stuck on the though "well 9000 is more than 8500 so it must be faster." But in benchmarks and tests the 8500 was supreme over the 9000. I think the 9000 has some eye candy option over the 8500, but the thing didnt have the power to play with them on so whats the difference.
November 12, 2007 3:28:47 PM

Well - party's over. The 2900xt is well over $300 again and back into "impossible to recommend" territory.

I was actually more intrigued by the 1GB model but that was more my own curiosity rather than what I'd have recommended to my friend.

!