1. #1
    ...and reviews have it comparable to the 8800GTS. Still well below the 8800GTX.

    Here's one of many reviews: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==


    TB
    Share this post

  2. #2
    ...and reviews have it comparable to the 8800GTS. Still well below the 8800GTX.

    Here's one of many reviews: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==


    TB
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Share this post

  4. #4
    It's about time

    Although I miss the old days where each new card would actually be better than the competition's as opposed to comparable to it.

    But at least with a little competition we may start to see some realistic pricing again
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Airmail109's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,382
    Thats bollocks

    heres another, from gibbo who runs overclockers.co.uk it was posted on their forums ...hes had one under NDA for ages

    System Specification
    To begin with we started testing on an Intel based system to see how well the card managed with Intel fastest processor today, the QX6800. The system specification was the following:-
    Intel QX6700 @ 3.00GHz (1333FSB)
    DFI ATI RD600 Motherboard
    Corsair PC2-8888 (1150MHz) CAS4 DDR2 Memory
    WD Raptor 150GB 10,000rpm HDD
    Creative SB Fatal1ty Sound Card
    Antec P900 Case
    Enermax 1000W PSU
    Windows XP Pro
    Windows Vista Premium
    BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC 768MB GDDR3 (600MHz Core / 1800MHz Memory)
    ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (750MHz Core / 1600MHz Memory)


    Drivers
    Installation with the NVIDIA card was easy under both operating systems. In testing all applications ran but Farcry had minor corruptions under both Windows XP and Vista which must be an issue with NVIDIA's drivers. Also the Farcry benchmark programme would not run with the NVIDIA card under windows Vista. Apart from that the BFG card gave good results under Windows XP but it was noticeably slower under Windows Vista which clearly says NVIDIA still have a lot of room to make improvements on their Vista drivers.

    Moving on the ATI HD 2900XT was also an easy installation under both Windows XP and Vista. All I will say is make sure that on release the cards also have the dotnet software as part of the installation too as to prevent any installation issues. Under Vista the ATI installation was very polished and superior to NVIDIA's attempt.
    Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did.


    Benchmark / Game results

    NVIDIA BFG 8800 GTX OC (Overclocked) vs ATI R600 (HD 2900) at stock speeds (Overdrive ATI Speeds = 850MHz / 1800MHz)

    Windows Vista

    NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 57fps
    ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 68fps (71fps OC)

    NVIDIA Farcry (1920x1200) = Crashes on benchmark programme
    ATI Farcry (1920x1200) = Looks similar speed with better image quality and does not crash (54fps)

    NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 154.28fps
    ATI AquaMark Default Test = 155.36fps (159.54fps OC)

    NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 33/64/140
    ATI Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 22/54/108 (Possible driver issue here?)

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 16,097
    ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,025 (17,457 OC)

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,504
    ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,500 (12,504 OC)


    Windows XP

    NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 71fps
    ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 70fps

    NVIDIA Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 51fps
    ATI Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 55fps (ATI better IQ)

    NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 163.43fps
    ATI AquaMark Default Test = 158.37fps

    NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 34/67/158
    ATI Fear 1920x1200, Settings max = 23/57/142

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,250
    ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,110 (17,554 OC)

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,950
    ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,788 (12,617 OC)


    As you can see from the results in brackets I overclocked the ATI card using the overdrive utility to compare against the BFG overclocked card. I ran the ATI overdrive utility which maxed out both sliders. The new clock speed were 850MHz Core and 1800MHz memory, even at these clock speeds the card still remained both cool and quiet. Now onto the results well I was very impressed as now the ATI card was pulling ahead of the NVIDIA card under Windows XP and under Windows Vista the R600 was considerably ahead of NVIDIA's offering.
    So in 3D Mark 2005, 3D Mark 2006, AquaMark, DOOM3, FarCry the ATI card won on both performance and image quality. It was only Fear where NVIDIA had quite a good lead which is no doubt due to the fact it's a "best played on NVIDIA" game possibly or drivers?


    Summary
    Overall from my early testing the new ATI HD 2900XT 512MB looks like a serious contender to the GTX and GTS 640MB for gamers and benchmarkers. The only disappointing results were in the game called Fear but everything else was faster on the ATI product. The ATI card was also quieter and cooler running with fantastic overclocking potential. The product is a little more expensive than a GTS 640MB but cost considerably less than a GTX. So considering the card already has fantastic Vista drivers and far superior features to NVIDIA's offerings such as HDMI along with better video editing and DVD abilities does indeed make the HD 2900 XT worth while considering.

    If your thinking of buying a new high-end card then I would suggest you don't make your decision based just on my review because my game testing is limited and as such I would recommend you check reviews done by professionals on a wider range of games before making your decision. If I was buying a graphics card and £300 was my limit then yes the HD 2900 XT would be my choice not only because its about the best performer in this price region but due to the fact it has great features, has little to no performance hit under Vista and is very overclockable. It appears most HD 2900 XT cards hit 850MHz-900MHz core and upto 2000MHz memory and beyond. However if you want the best then it does seem that the GTX does offer a performance edge on most games under Windows XP, but under Windows Vista the R600 based card is keeping pace with the 8800 GTX and for a lot less money in the programmes I tested.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    As with the first versions of the 8xxx the driver do not yet support all the features completely. There are newer drivers on the way, though.

    The ATI HD2900XT is aimed as a competitor for the 8800GTS with 640MB and it seems to compete with that quite good, though AA & AF seem to have a real bad effect with the current drivers.

    During the summer the production is shifted to 65nm chips, allowing a less power-consuming architecture. The R650 called chips will also be used in the HD2900XTX, which is planned to compete with the 8800Ultra.


    The current tests are not much more than a preview and there are no tests on image quality, yet, which is a real pitty, cause that was always the strength of ATI, while nVidia ran for pure frames per second.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Airmail109's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,382
    The 2900Xt is as fast as the GTX and faster thanthe GTS, it also overclocks better than both according to Gibbo

    The 2900Xt is better under Vista than the Nvideas in both OpenGL And DirectX
    Share this post

  8. #8
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Interesting!

    Sounds like ATI further concentrated on image and rendering quality.

    It's also noteworthy, that the fan-control is not working with current drivers. The fans are automatically controlled, depending on the temperature of the GPU - apparently, the fan is either 0 or 100% turning.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Airmail109's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,382
    The comparable to the Gts thing was a rumour started about a week ago by the inquirer or some site like it, I bet those guys haven't even got their hands on the real card....
    Share this post

  10. #10
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
    Thats bollocks

    heres another, from gibbo who runs overclockers.co.uk it was posted on their forums ...hes had one under NDA for ages

    System Specification
    To begin with we started testing on an Intel based system to see how well the card managed with Intel fastest processor today, the QX6800. The system specification was the following:-
    Intel QX6700 @ 3.00GHz (1333FSB)
    DFI ATI RD600 Motherboard
    Corsair PC2-8888 (1150MHz) CAS4 DDR2 Memory
    WD Raptor 150GB 10,000rpm HDD
    Creative SB Fatal1ty Sound Card
    Antec P900 Case
    Enermax 1000W PSU
    Windows XP Pro
    Windows Vista Premium
    BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC 768MB GDDR3 (600MHz Core / 1800MHz Memory)
    ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (750MHz Core / 1600MHz Memory)


    Drivers
    Installation with the NVIDIA card was easy under both operating systems. In testing all applications ran but Farcry had minor corruptions under both Windows XP and Vista which must be an issue with NVIDIA's drivers. Also the Farcry benchmark programme would not run with the NVIDIA card under windows Vista. Apart from that the BFG card gave good results under Windows XP but it was noticeably slower under Windows Vista which clearly says NVIDIA still have a lot of room to make improvements on their Vista drivers.

    Moving on the ATI HD 2900XT was also an easy installation under both Windows XP and Vista. All I will say is make sure that on release the cards also have the dotnet software as part of the installation too as to prevent any installation issues. Under Vista the ATI installation was very polished and superior to NVIDIA's attempt.
    Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did.


    Benchmark / Game results

    NVIDIA BFG 8800 GTX OC (Overclocked) vs ATI R600 (HD 2900) at stock speeds (Overdrive ATI Speeds = 850MHz / 1800MHz)

    Windows Vista

    NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 57fps
    ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 68fps (71fps OC)

    NVIDIA Farcry (1920x1200) = Crashes on benchmark programme
    ATI Farcry (1920x1200) = Looks similar speed with better image quality and does not crash (54fps)

    NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 154.28fps
    ATI AquaMark Default Test = 155.36fps (159.54fps OC)

    NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 33/64/140
    ATI Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 22/54/108 (Possible driver issue here?)

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 16,097
    ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,025 (17,457 OC)

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,504
    ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,500 (12,504 OC)


    Windows XP

    NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 71fps
    ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 70fps

    NVIDIA Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 51fps
    ATI Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 55fps (ATI better IQ)

    NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 163.43fps
    ATI AquaMark Default Test = 158.37fps

    NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 34/67/158
    ATI Fear 1920x1200, Settings max = 23/57/142

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,250
    ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,110 (17,554 OC)

    NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,950
    ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,788 (12,617 OC)


    As you can see from the results in brackets I overclocked the ATI card using the overdrive utility to compare against the BFG overclocked card. I ran the ATI overdrive utility which maxed out both sliders. The new clock speed were 850MHz Core and 1800MHz memory, even at these clock speeds the card still remained both cool and quiet. Now onto the results well I was very impressed as now the ATI card was pulling ahead of the NVIDIA card under Windows XP and under Windows Vista the R600 was considerably ahead of NVIDIA's offering.
    So in 3D Mark 2005, 3D Mark 2006, AquaMark, DOOM3, FarCry the ATI card won on both performance and image quality. It was only Fear where NVIDIA had quite a good lead which is no doubt due to the fact it's a "best played on NVIDIA" game possibly or drivers?


    Summary
    Overall from my early testing the new ATI HD 2900XT 512MB looks like a serious contender to the GTX and GTS 640MB for gamers and benchmarkers. The only disappointing results were in the game called Fear but everything else was faster on the ATI product. The ATI card was also quieter and cooler running with fantastic overclocking potential. The product is a little more expensive than a GTS 640MB but cost considerably less than a GTX. So considering the card already has fantastic Vista drivers and far superior features to NVIDIA's offerings such as HDMI along with better video editing and DVD abilities does indeed make the HD 2900 XT worth while considering.

    If your thinking of buying a new high-end card then I would suggest you don't make your decision based just on my review because my game testing is limited and as such I would recommend you check reviews done by professionals on a wider range of games before making your decision. If I was buying a graphics card and £300 was my limit then yes the HD 2900 XT would be my choice not only because its about the best performer in this price region but due to the fact it has great features, has little to no performance hit under Vista and is very overclockable. It appears most HD 2900 XT cards hit 850MHz-900MHz core and upto 2000MHz memory and beyond. However if you want the best then it does seem that the GTX does offer a performance edge on most games under Windows XP, but under Windows Vista the R600 based card is keeping pace with the 8800 GTX and for a lot less money in the programmes I tested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    HA I would not trust anything said by anyone who works for that bunch of incompetent sharks
    Share this post