lopri
Elite Member
Here are my random thoughts on HD 2900 so far. (2900 Pro OC'ed to 800/1000)
- - Superior desktop 2D/3D quality compared to 8800 when calibrated via control panel. Avivo color correction gives much better results than NV's Digital Vibrance and whatnot, tested on Dell 2405WFP and HP 3065.
- Terrible driver installation package - if your system conatains somewhat non-mainstream components, your OS can literally be f***'ed. Full data backup and clean OS installation strongly recommended, which is really sad.
- Once configured properly, I've experienced no more/less problem than latest ForceWare drivers, on a system level. But again, AMD driver installation package definitely needs to be fixed. If anything this will be the first reason to RMA a card for less patient folks. And I wouldn't blame them - I have not experienced such installation problems with NV drivers. Ever.
- Better memory management than 8800: Although FPS is slower, sometimes the gaming experience is superior due to significantly less stutters. Map switching (say coming in and out of buildings) is also faster and smoother.
- Inferior image quality in 3D applications - especially texture filtering. Even with x16AF, moire effects are evident on distant textures.
- AA will kill the performance of 2900 up to 50%. Combined with performance hit caused by AF, 8800 GTX performance is almost double that of 2900 XT @1920x1200/4AA/16AF.
Then again, there is the issue of 8800's stuttering. I didn't know about this until I tried a 2900. Say, at 20FPS your character will move forward smooth (but slow) with a 2900. But with a 8800, you will experience stutters every 0.5 sec if FPS is at 20. This has little to do with the frame buffer size from my experience. (same issue on GTX and GTS 320)
- Depending on titles, tweaking .INI file to better utilize frame buffer can help this 1GB version 2900 card quite a bit. I did some basic tweaking found @tweakguides.com for Oblivion, and my 2900 Pro 1GB does 1920x1200/4AA/16AF just as well as 8800 GTX. But GTX still has better image quality.
- Also noticed 2900 has better memory management, at least with the titles I tested. (512-bit ring bus comes into play, maybe?) Under Vista, playing Company of Heroes @2560x1600 or even @1920x1200, on a 8 player map will eventually take the system memory usage upwards of 3GB. 8800 never fails to crash. I haven't experienced a crash with the 2900, yet.
- When 4AA/16AF are applied, 2560x1600 on 8800 GTX is approx. equivalent to 1920x1200 on 2900 XT. Accordingly, noAA/noAF @2560x1600 on 2900 gives similar performance to 4AA/16AF @2560x1600 on 8800.
- AMD (and ATI in the past) folks (engineers/programmers) are lazier and less competent than those of NV's. The more I experience this card, the more I feel this R600 is just a beef'ed up R500, albeit hugely.
- However, thanks to its inheritance from R500, R600 has one distinctive advantage in current/future games: namely XBox 360 ports. This applies both to compatibility as well as to performance. I experienced this myself and AT's preview on UnReal 3 shows this influence dramatically. Not necessarily something that AMD can be proud of, but then again there are many TWIMTBP titles on PC side.
- HD playback is a toss-up but not because they're the same. For whatever reason, H.264 encoded QuickTime HD playback is better with 8800. But Blu-Ray playback (from Pioneer BDC-2202) is better with 2900. I'm still looking into this issue.
- 2900 only clocks up to its 3D clock when applications are in full-screen mode. Which makes it kinda pointless to play games in window-ed mode. 8800 doesn't have this problem.