Vikingod

Source: DailyTech
__________
AMD's flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX fails to usurp the GeForce 8800 GTX's performance crown

AMD is close to unveiling its long-awaited R600-based ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. DailyTech previously posted benchmarks comparing the Radeon HD 2900 XT and GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB.

Up until at least March of 2007, the spearhead of the ATI Radeon HD 2900-family is the upcoming ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX. This model is the big daddy of AMD’s DirectX 10 lineup, poised to take on NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800 GTX and upcoming 8800 Ultra.

BWX

Not looking good for ATI/AMD

__________________

bug77

Not looking good for buyers either...

CDsDontBurn

the one used was the retail 12in. long card. could the oem 9.5in. long card have any significant changes to its design to not be such a poor performing card compared to the 8800GTX and the upcoming 8800Ultra?

__________________

JohnDoe47

Surely they will have some programming to do with their drivers before the card shows its true colours?

BWX

yeah

__________________

Vikingod

I hope so, but its hard to imagine the drivers could be so bad as to provide for such differences from the NV cards. I do hope this isn't true, that would be big trouble for AMD.

zerodamage

I would not take such an ammeteurish review seriously at all. Not only that but the slower card performs faster in some cases than the faster card with more memory and with the same number of stream processors? What? Is a retard doing the benchmarks?

dipstick

I hope this isn't true but it would be wise to wait for official reviews before making up your minds on them. Though this is not very cool if true. We'll see soon enough

@zerodamage; that can happen tbh. DDR4 mem is slower clock for clock than DDR3 due to latencies. Best to ignore these for now

ChaosMinionX

That setup is complete bs, the GTX is an overclocked card as they stated, which could easily give that much on the XTX.

Also Nvidia has a little more time on their drivers with those cards so until its actually released and we start seeing some user reviews and comparisons, Im going to take everything with a grain of salt.

__________________

Judas

First off, the 13inch cards are MADE for OEM, not the other way around. the 9.5 inch variations will be Retail.

As for the performance results, i'm not serprised, and i'm not depressed about it either.

First off, Even in the case that the drivers may be already fairly tuned up for the tasks, running @ 1280x1024 is completely POINTLESS, there could be so much overhead, specially within the XP enviroment, that perhaps it could preform much worse.

I want to see a windows Vista machine, running no less then 1920x1200, seriously, it's a DX10 card, my gaud, set it up for what it was built for.

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

Thats should be in huge bold letters...575/900mhz is stock

note nForce 680i was used meaning a ~Boost to NV cards and =
or negative performance on ATI cards.

Also that the drivers are not mature, VS the NV drivers are already matured,
so ATI would have a lot of head way for improvements with the drivers...

not to mention they didn't go into detail about their testing, as did they
force off the NV optimizations? They turn the performance slider all the way
to right/left/stdard? etc....

they showed http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Radeon+...rticle7043.htm the other day saying
"ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT puts up some impressive numbers in benchmarks"
and showed charts of the card smokeing the 8800GTS.

I'd take with a grain of salt

__________________

dipstick

Personally I don't think its that bad to compare the fastest 8800GTX that you can buy in a store to the fastest ATi card you can buy in a store. Again, I'm not saying the benches are correct in any way but I fail to see the above point. When I read reviews I want the fastest against the fastest, I could care less if they are OC'd, they are sold like that and have warranties. Just my opinion

RoyBatty

That is X1950XTX

I wouldn't call that article a review, the 2900XTX cards are far from being released - who knows what did they test...

calidan

This might all change when its officially released. What might be the deciding factor for people buying this card may not be because of its performance but its stable drivers.

__________________
Steam Community :: ID :: calidan



"Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie.... Study computers instead." - Jackie Chan

ChaosMinionX

Dont forget the fact some cards weve all seen it before perform really bad at lower resolutions because they werent meant to run them like for instance a X1900XTX sees no FPS improvement from 1280x1024 to 800x600 it might even run sluggish at these low res.

Im not at all worried about the X2900s performance, its not even released for god sakes. And it was compared to an OCd card and running a crappy resolution.

Like I said wait for a users performance rating and review of the cards with comparisons and indepth things. I trust little I see on hardware sites.

__________________

Vikingod

1280*1024, 1600*1200, and 1920*1200 are crappy resolutions? Did you even read the article? I'd also like to see an OC that give you 30-40 frames per second advantage.

I'm not saying the article should be taken as gospel, but DailyTech isn't the INQ. I'm sure some driver improvements would help, but any way you look at it, the article paints a pretty gloomy picture.

As always though, I'll wait for our review to make a decision.

Judas

1280x1024 is "low" resolution for todays standards, with 1080p becoming the solid standard due to TVs and people using them more and more for there computer monitors, and 1680x1050 being fairly standard for most 19" and larger displays being "low" and 1920x1200 becoming more and more then norm.

Lets NOT forget that the xtx is designed and made for the true enthusiast, and i don't think most enthusiasts are sitting around @ 1280x1024 anymore, they are most likely pushing no higher then 1920x1200.... only the extreme users, which are most likely to get the card in the first place, the moment they come out, are running 2560x1600. That's just about 4 TIMES more definition and pixels to push then 1280x1024.. (1280x800 is more like it but meh )

__________________

Erroneus

Maybe it has problems with the DX9 emulation, but kicks ass in DX10 and maybe it's fixable in the drivers, though it doesn't look good if it's true.

__________________

Da_Jewish_Fonzy

Exactly. I'm an ATI fan but its not like the 8800 GTX just barely beat it by a couple of frames it freakin clobbered the 2900XTX at all tested resolutions.

BlueMak

So what we have here is one company that makes dx10 hardware that don't work very well due to crappy drivers, and one company that is delaying over and over again to release dx10 hardware but even when it does it will perform worse than the (now) 6 month old hardware of the first company.
Well done to both nvidia and amd, they are lucky they have no one to compete with than themselves. (Matrox and 3DFx I miss you)

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

Judas

Don't forget PowerVR

__________________

ChaosMinionX

I did read it, and yes I think 1280x1024 is a small resolution in this day of 20+ inch monitors and highend videocards.

I did read the article, and yes overclocking could potentially give that big a difference with the right drivers and performance settings. Not saying verbatim you will get those results everytime but it could happen. I see at least a 15-20fps difference in certain games with the OC I use now from stock, so I would certainly not place 30-40fps in the realm of impossible.

__________________

Zeph

I consider the benchmark null simply because of the resolution. All high end cards will preform very similarly until they get up to at least 1920x1200.

__________________

dipstick

30-40fps? No way man, 10-15fps at the absolute max. Check out this review of the ACS3 which runs at 630/1460/2000; it can barely manage 10fps over a stock GTX. A 40fps increase is more like next gen numbers

Vikingod

Um, ok... (i won't even mention the fact that many people have LCD monitors with a max res of 1280*1024) you seem to have forgotten the other two resolutions that I myself mentioned and were tested in the article. Most people don't have monitors that can push 26544546548*6468438464 resolution man.

Vampyromaniac

I think the point of this article is that the XTX is currently no faster than the XT, and therefore is not ready to come out any time soon. The XT would then be the top ATI card in the coming launch.

__________________

Vikingod

Exactly. The thing I'm curious about is the price point. If the XT card is competing with the 8800GTS, will it be priced that way. If so, the result look much more promising.

Arklon

DailyTech's benchmarks aren't even internally consistent. Compare the FPS the HD2900XT churned out in their XT benchmark and in this XTX benchmark. And, why the hell would you compare it using an overclocked 8800GTX?!

JohnDoe47

You geeks with your LCD's, stick to your conventional Flat Panel CRT's with anti-glare and anti-static. The colour quality is soo much better.

8800GTX - was overclocked
X2900XT - was not overclocked

8800GTX - optimized drivers
X2900XT - BETA Drivers (Blantantly ATI will make a 15% performance improvement on the graphic card with every new release of its drivers like they always do every month.