2900pro benchmarked

[thilanliyan]

It's in Polish but you can read the graphs at least. The card's not too shabby...depending on the price of course.
http://pclab.pl/art28806-3.html

Large increase from overclocking:
http://pclab.pl/art28806-4.html

 

[Bateluer]

Looks decent, but they'll have to price it right.

 

[JPB]

Looks like when overclocked, it can outrun the XT model by a little. Which imo is a plus especially if this card really is $249

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: JPB
Looks like when overclocked, it can outrun the XT model by a little. Which imo is a plus especially if this card really is $249

right, but you can also overclock 8800GTS cards as well. My 320mb card gets 12278 3dMark06.

Also those benches do not really show any performance disadvantage the 8800GTS would have in higher resolutions, except STALKER. When 1 card gets 78 vs. 70 fps at 1280x1024, I can't really say that 1 is a winner but there are situations where no matter how much you overclock 8800GTS 320mb, it'll never make up for lack of memory. Those are the benchmarks we really want to see.

Having said that, HD's lack of ROPs and texture units might make it perform poorly in some future games, like ET: QW - LINK

 

[dreddfunk]

RS - I tend to agree.

Take three cards--the 8800gts 320MB, the 2900Pro, and the 8800GTS 640MB--and let's crank the resolution & AA up and see when and how memory becomes a limiting factor in performance. Not only would I like to see the advantage of having 512MB memory over 320MB, I'd like to see if there is any advantage in having 640MB over 512MB at large resolutions.

Personally, I think the 2900's mistake is just what you referenced: AMD may have gotten too enamored of the success they achieved with a high shader-to-ROP/Texture ratio (x1900/1950) and misjudged what would be required when the 2900s came out.

 

[spittledip]

You guys are probably right about performance issues in future games, but price point seems to be the real focus of the 2900Pro and GT. I will take the performance hit if my wallet will take less of a hit as well... people like me are what these cards are about. That huge gap between the 2900xt and 2600xt and 8800GTS and 8600 is what these cards are all about.

 

[conlan]

Originally posted by: spittledip
You guys are probably right about performance issues in future games, but price point seems to be the real focus of the 2900Pro and GT. I will take the performance hit if my wallet will take less of a hit as well... people like me are what these cards are about. That huge gap between the 2900xt and 2600xt and 8800GTS and 8600 is what these cards are all about.

QFT!

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
RS - I tend to agree.

Take three cards--the 8800gts 320MB, the 2900Pro, and the 8800GTS 640MB--and let's crank the resolution & AA up and see when and how memory becomes a limiting factor in performance. Not only would I like to see the advantage of having 512MB memory over 320MB, I'd like to see if there is any advantage in having 640MB over 512MB at large resolutions.

Personally, I think the 2900's mistake is just what you referenced: AMD may have gotten too enamored of the success they achieved with a high shader-to-ROP/Texture ratio (x1900/1950) and misjudged what would be required when the 2900s came out.

how funny...we've heard this same argument about 2900xt vs 8800gtx a lot lately. People say "the 2900xt will be better, just give it a year or two". That's crap! These cards are designed for use NOW. The only benefit they might have if they work better in the future is that you might be able to have decent fps for 2 yrs instead of 1.5. That's no benefit at all to ati for 2900xt or nvidia for 8800gts. If the 2900 pro "scores" better or has better fps than 8800gts in most people's applications RIGHT NOW it will be a hit, if it doesn't then nobody will notice or care about it. Hopefully it will work great and 8800gts 320 will drop to $225...

 

[bfdd]

Looks like a good buy OC'ing or not if it's gona be 250.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

how funny...we've heard this same argument about 2900xt vs 8800gtx a lot lately. People say "the 2900xt will be better, just give it a year or two". That's crap! These cards are designed for use NOW. The only benefit they might have if they work better in the future is that you might be able to have decent fps for 2 yrs instead of 1.5. That's no benefit at all to ati for 2900xt or nvidia for 8800gts. If the 2900 pro "scores" better or has better fps than 8800gts in most people's applications RIGHT NOW it will be a hit, if it doesn't then nobody will notice or care about it. Hopefully it will work great and 8800gts 320 will drop to $225...

I think the point is that you could have had nearly HD 2900Pro's performance with 8800GTS since February for barely more $ because 8800GTS 320 was roughly $280. Just because HD 2900Pro will provide good bang for the buck now, doesn't mean it'll be a good card worth buying. Recall 6800GS which was released near the end of life of 6800GT/Ultra. It was a great card for 6 months or so. My point is after nearly 12 months of current generation, you cant' really say anything is good bang for the buck due to lack of product offerings. When 8800GTX came out it offered 2x the performance of X1950XTX series. But you could buy X1950XT for $250 which is half the price it was 12 months before that. The situation today is anything but this because ATI flopped their product releases in terms of timing AND performance.

 

[Sylvanas]

2900pro benched at Tweaktown

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

how funny...we've heard this same argument about 2900xt vs 8800gtx a lot lately. People say "the 2900xt will be better, just give it a year or two". That's crap! These cards are designed for use NOW. The only benefit they might have if they work better in the future is that you might be able to have decent fps for 2 yrs instead of 1.5. That's no benefit at all to ati for 2900xt or nvidia for 8800gts. If the 2900 pro "scores" better or has better fps than 8800gts in most people's applications RIGHT NOW it will be a hit, if it doesn't then nobody will notice or care about it. Hopefully it will work great and 8800gts 320 will drop to $225...

I think the point is that you could have had nearly HD 2900Pro's performance with 8800GTS since February for barely more $ because 8800GTS 320 was roughly $280. Just because HD 2900Pro will provide good bang for the buck now, doesn't mean it'll be a good card worth buying. Recall 6800GS which was released near the end of life of 6800GT/Ultra. It was a great card for 6 months or so. My point is after nearly 12 months of current generation, you cant' really say anything is good bang for the buck due to lack of product offerings. When 8800GTX came out it offered 2x the performance of X1950XTX series. But you could buy X1950XT for $250 which is half the price it was 12 months before that. The situation today is anything but this because ATI flopped their product releases in terms of timing AND performance.

oh, don't get me wrong, I probably will wait to see if I can get 2900 pro for more like $200 before pulling the trigger. I do think, however, that it is a comparable card at the very least to 320 8800 gts, and probably a little bit better at the high resolutions that most people buy these cards for. 8800gts 320 will probably go down closer to 220 if ati has any kind of availability for 2900 pro.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
2900pro benched at Tweaktown

i think they liked it

Final Thoughts

WOW! What will NVIDIA do now? The HD 2900 PRO is a power house and is simply going to be the card to own in this price bracket. Hopefully the NVIDIA driver team is hard at work creating a new driver that will help boost the performance of the 8800GTS but you have to wonder just how much more performance there is in it.

This card is going to be extremely popular amongst users, the simple fact is that for the money there really is no better bang for buck and the current overclocking potential is beginning to look very positive. The card is actually that good that it forces the HD 2900 XT to lose some of its bang for buck due to just how close the PRO performs to the XT.
... It?s going to be interesting to see what happens when we see some of the cheaper brands hit the market and just how low the PRO can go.

I?m kind of baffled by the PRO as well as being somewhat speechless (or should that be typeless?) - While it looked like it could perform great at first glance, the fact that it actually does is kind of mind blowing. It?s been a while since we have seen an AMD card come out and hit us like this.

The only real problem is the AA performance but it?s not horrendous, it could simply be better. No doubt AMD are going to continue to be concentrating on the HD series of cards and performance will continue to improve as time goes on.

Simply put if you?re looking for a new card that doesn?t break the bank ? we?ve found it for you!

$200 and it's in my rig for X-fire ... it looks like the *perfect* card for my 2nd - 4X PCIe slot and if i OC it it will even equal my XT
--not bad if i can beat GTX Ultra performance for less then $550.
[$320+$200 :Q ... maybe even a few bucks left over for another new game ... besides Orange Boxes ]

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
2900pro benched at Tweaktown

Thanks for the link. The Pro is looking good!

 

[conlan]

I thought the 2900 Pro and GT were to launch today (9/25)

 

[spittledip]

I would like to see how the GT performs also myself.. any reviews on that yet ? I googled with no luck..

 

[ronnn]

No one seems to know what the gt is. I did read a suggestion by DW (I think), that the gt will be the r670 core and is coming very soon. Likely bs though as they are all bast**** there. In an elegant manner of course.

 

[bryanW1995]

I heard that gt will have 240 rops, 256 mb, and 256 bit. I read that on one of these 2900 pro posts, I think.

 

[ronnn]

Same stuff first heard about the 2900pro. Amd has been secretive this time.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
2900pro benched at Tweaktown

Thanks for the link. The Pro is looking good!

Pretty damn good. If its only $250 no question its a must have.

 

[apoppin]

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=1487

 

[dreddfunk]

how funny...we've heard this same argument about 2900xt vs 8800gtx a lot lately. People say "the 2900xt will be better, just give it a year or two". That's crap! These cards are designed for use NOW. The only benefit they might have if they work better in the future is that you might be able to have decent fps for 2 yrs instead of 1.5. That's no benefit at all to ati for 2900xt or nvidia for 8800gts. If the 2900 pro "scores" better or has better fps than 8800gts in most people's applications RIGHT NOW it will be a hit, if it doesn't then nobody will notice or care about it. Hopefully it will work great and 8800gts 320 will drop to $225...

Brian - I think you missed my point entirely. I never meant to imply anyone should buy a card for the possibility of future performance improvements from driver optimizations. I don't think--at all--that there is some hidden 2900xt performance to be unleashed, and I didn't see that implication in RS' post either. He seemed to merely say that we should bench these cards at higher resolutions to evaluate the cards better and that the 2900's lack of ROPs and texture units may hinder their performance in certain games.

I think the cards are a bit of a toss up in terms of performance right now, and it seems to me to afford us an opportunity to see the effect of memory size on performance at higher resolutions. I'm interested in seeing the impact of the three memory sizes (320, 512, and 640) on high-resolution performance in current games.

The last observation was a throw-away comment in the sense that I think Nvidia may have done a better job balancing their shader-to-ROP/texture ratios for games *right now*. I.e., that AMD, sometime in the past, made a bad guess as to the requirements of games *right now*, and ended up with cards that may have too few ROPs/texture units.

In neither case did I mean to refer in any way to the possibility of future improvements, nor did I mean to demean the 2900pro at all, in fact, quite the contrary. As I've recently purchased a 24" 1920x1200 panel, I'm leery of the GTS 320MB precisely because of the memory limits. The differences between the 320's & 640's performance has been documented. I just want to take that a step further and see if the step up from 320 to 512 makes an important difference.

Cheers.

 

[dreddfunk]

btw - thanks for the links apoppin, I am reading them now. I sincerely hope that midrange salvation is at hand!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wow, looks like a very nice card for the money. I'll probably be picking one up when they become available. I think it'll be a perfect upgrade for me to run games at my native res. Dx10 performance could be better, but seeing as I'm running XP and plan to for a while yet that's pretty much a moot point.

 

[dreddfunk]

After reading the reviews, I'm not yet sold personally. It does better than the 320 in a some games, but AA clearly remains a problem and I'm one of the folks that likes AA (even at 1920x1200)

If street prices reach $200 and it can be overclocked to nearly XT speeds, then it will be an outstanding deal. If it's priced the same or higher than the 320 and doesn't overclock well, then it will be a good deal, IMO, but not a barn-burner.

At least things are getting a bit more interesting in the GPU race. Boy, were things boring there for a while!