AMD HD 2900XT 3dmark06 score is in!

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Raider1284

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1314&Itemid=1

a real review

something is def fishy about this review. One: why would it kick ass at COH but suck at everything else?

Two: look at the supreme commander scores at 8x/16x 1920 vs 2560. The card can pull more fps at a much much higher resolution?!?! that makes no sense at all

what do you guys think?

The HD-2900XT draws closer at higher resolutions and AA/AF levels, probably due to bandwidth.

In the conclusion, the reviewer throws out the CoH scores, citing possible driver bugs.

I would venture a guess that the review is probably "fishy" to you because it doesn't have a happy ending for AMD...otherwise, you would've read through to the end and figured the above two points out for yourself.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: nefariouscaine
I've loved my 7900GTO since I got it but drivers have been hit or miss - I'm at work right now but pretty sure I'm using 97.31 and when I tried to upgrade I got minor improvements in performance but an actual decrease in graphic quality - effects didn't look nearly the same or clear

Hmm...I have a 7900GTO. It was used for quite a few months in XP w/ the official 93.xx drivers and no issues except the $&#*@ desktop/video color settings bugs. In Vista, the drivers were awful up to the 100.65 set, and the 158.18 has been better than my old XP drivers. You might want to try the 158.19, which are the latest official XP WHQL drivers, IIRC.

 

[Raider1284]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: Raider1284

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1314&Itemid=1

a real review

something is def fishy about this review. One: why would it kick ass at COH but suck at everything else?

Two: look at the supreme commander scores at 8x/16x 1920 vs 2560. The card can pull more fps at a much much higher resolution?!?! that makes no sense at all

what do you guys think?

The HD-2900XT draws closer at higher resolutions and AA/AF levels, probably due to bandwidth.

In the conclusion, the reviewer throws out the CoH scores, citing possible driver bugs.

I would venture a guess that the review is probably "fishy" to you because it doesn't have a happy ending for AMD...otherwise, you would've read through to the end and figured the above two points out for yourself.

wow quick to assume, you are saying it's not "fishy" that at a much higher resolution that card performs better? that doesnt seem odd to you? I'm not a fan boy in any way shape or form, my previous card was an x800pro, my current is a 7900gto, and my card before the x800pro was a ti4600.

the 2900xt isn't drawing closer at higher resolutions, it is beating itself which shouldn't be possible. Please show me a review of any card that does better at higher resolutions.

the reviewer messed up or there is some kind of driver bug

 

[Noema]

If this is true, I think will be seeing red in my GPU future very soon (and in a good way )

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
so is this guy vaccarjm banned yet??? what a moron

hehe I hope so.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Raider1284

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: Raider1284

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1314&Itemid=1

a real review

something is def fishy about this review. One: why would it kick ass at COH but suck at everything else?

Two: look at the supreme commander scores at 8x/16x 1920 vs 2560. The card can pull more fps at a much much higher resolution?!?! that makes no sense at all

what do you guys think?

The HD-2900XT draws closer at higher resolutions and AA/AF levels, probably due to bandwidth.

In the conclusion, the reviewer throws out the CoH scores, citing possible driver bugs.

I would venture a guess that the review is probably "fishy" to you because it doesn't have a happy ending for AMD...otherwise, you would've read through to the end and figured the above two points out for yourself.

wow quick to assume, you are saying it's not "fishy" that at a much higher resolution that card performs better? that doesnt seem odd to you? I'm not a fan boy in any way shape or form, my previous card was an x800pro, my current is a 7900gto, and my card before the x800pro was a ti4600.

the 2900xt isn't drawing closer at higher resolutions, it is beating itself which shouldn't be possible. Please show me a review of any card that does better at higher resolutions.

the reviewer messed up or there is some kind of driver bug

Apparently, my guess was correct. I didn't call you a fanboy, just biased. There could be any number of other explanations, including simple frustration over the delays.

Case in point: the 2900XT isn't beating itself at higher resolutions. You're just missing the fact that the review does three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 4xAA following by another three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 8xAA. So the resolutions hit their peak on page 4, drop down dramatically on page 5, and then reach their peak again at page 7. Look at the article's index links.

 

[Matt2]

I hope the HD2900XT falls to ~$379 a week after launch.

 

[coldpower27]

These are interesting scores, and if they hold out to be true, they are a bit disappointing.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
These are interesting scores, and if they hold out to be true, they are a bit disappointing.

I think it all depends on pricing. Tho. my hopes aren't too high. Amd/ATI can't afford to undercut Nvidia by too much, or at all because they still have to recoup R&D cost.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: coldpower27
These are interesting scores, and if they hold out to be true, they are a bit disappointing.

I think it all depends on pricing. Tho. my hopes aren't too high. Amd/ATI can't afford to undercut Nvidia by too much, or at all because they still have to recoup R&D cost.

Yeah, if it's cheaper then the 8800 GTS 640 I might consider it, but if it consumes more power, then I can't since my power supply can only run the 8800 GTS as the highest card for the moment. I would need a PS upgrade too.

 

[rise]

jeesh, imagine if it didn't have its own soundchip...

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Stumps
I want to run Vista Ultimate on all my rigs and I want to run it now..Nvidia is making very hard for me to do so reliably, especially when I take in to consideration how reliable my non Nvidia setups run Vista...

really? i haven't had a single problem with my g80 since the 158 beta, and only a couple minor ones since 100.65. so much so i finally scrubbed XP completely from the system; vista is now my full-time OS on my main pc.

 

[superbooga]

The card doesn't have to beat/match another card in raw frames per second at a certain resolution and quality setting. It just needs to have an equivalent/better playing experience In other words, being able to get playable frame rates at the same or better resolution and quality settings (the HardOCP approach).

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Case in point: the 2900XT isn't beating itself at higher resolutions. You're just missing the fact that the review does three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 4xAA following by another three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 8xAA. So the resolutions hit their peak on page 4, drop down dramatically on page 5, and then reach their peak again at page 7. Look at the article's index links.

Im sorry but he is right... Another FUD review... GREAT :roll:

Have a look yourself

4xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 35
8800 GTX - 43

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 44
8800 GTX - 75

8xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 32 (went down 3 fps!)
8800 GTX - 18!!! (went down 25 fps!)

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 43 (down 1 fps)
8800 GTX - 39 (down 36 fps!!)

If this review isnt BS, I dont know what is

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Stumps
I want to run Vista Ultimate on all my rigs and I want to run it now..Nvidia is making very hard for me to do so reliably, especially when I take in to consideration how reliable my non Nvidia setups run Vista...

really? i haven't had a single problem with my g80 since the 158 beta, and only a couple minor ones since 100.65. so much so i finally scrubbed XP completely from the system; vista is now my full-time OS on my main pc.

Likewise, except I have a NF4 Ultra + 7900 GTO. My OS doesn't BSOD or crash. Sometimes I forget to reboot (for days) so Avast! can do its program self-update thing. Normally I just hit the sleep button on the keyboard when I'm not around.

I *did* have lots of BSOD/crash stability issues with either my Logitech MX518 (SetPoint?) or Samsung ML-2010--not sure which because I let system restore fix the problem and I haven't been so eager to figure out which device's drivers were faulty.

Stumps, you should make sure your other devices aren't interfering with the OS. Maybe your particular combination of nVidia hardware really can run Vista. Or there's some annoying bug in the drivers for your setup...

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Case in point: the 2900XT isn't beating itself at higher resolutions. You're just missing the fact that the review does three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 4xAA following by another three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 8xAA. So the resolutions hit their peak on page 4, drop down dramatically on page 5, and then reach their peak again at page 7. Look at the article's index links.

Im sorry but he is right... Another FUD review... GREAT :roll:

Have a look yourself

4xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 35
8800 GTX - 43

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 44
8800 GTX - 75

8xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 32 (went down 3 fps!)
8800 GTX - 18!!! (went down 25 fps!)

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 43 (down 1 fps)
8800 GTX - 39 (down 36 fps!!)

If this review isnt BS, I dont know what is

Maybe, but that isn't what he said.

The 2900XT does have 512-bit memory versus 384-bit on the GTX, and ATI has traditionally taken less of a penalty for AA, so who knows? Wasn't there some kind of rumor about new AA modes on the 2900XT?

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Case in point: the 2900XT isn't beating itself at higher resolutions. You're just missing the fact that the review does three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 4xAA following by another three pages of low-mid-high resolutions at 8xAA. So the resolutions hit their peak on page 4, drop down dramatically on page 5, and then reach their peak again at page 7. Look at the article's index links.

Im sorry but he is right... Another FUD review... GREAT :roll:

Have a look yourself

4xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 35
8800 GTX - 43

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 44
8800 GTX - 75

8xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 32 (went down 3 fps!)
8800 GTX - 18!!! (went down 25 fps!)

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 43 (down 1 fps)
8800 GTX - 39 (down 36 fps!!)

If this review isnt BS, I dont know what is

Maybe, but that isn't what he said.

The 2900XT does have 512-bit memory versus 384-bit on the GTX, and ATI has traditionally taken less of a penalty for AA, so who knows? Wasn't there some kind of rumor about new AA modes on the 2900XT?

There are new AA modes. I cant remember what they're called, CFSAA or something like that.

They're comparable to the CSAA modes on G80. Supposedly better IQ wise, but I dont know about performance. I doubt they'll give R600 free 8xAA compared to 4xAA though.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Stumps
I want to run Vista Ultimate on all my rigs and I want to run it now..Nvidia is making very hard for me to do so reliably, especially when I take in to consideration how reliable my non Nvidia setups run Vista...

really? i haven't had a single problem with my g80 since the 158 beta, and only a couple minor ones since 100.65. so much so i finally scrubbed XP completely from the system; vista is now my full-time OS on my main pc.

Vista is much, much slower in gaming that XP. Its like underclocking your card, makes no sense to me.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Stumps
I want to run Vista Ultimate on all my rigs and I want to run it now..Nvidia is making very hard for me to do so reliably, especially when I take in to consideration how reliable my non Nvidia setups run Vista...

really? i haven't had a single problem with my g80 since the 158 beta, and only a couple minor ones since 100.65. so much so i finally scrubbed XP completely from the system; vista is now my full-time OS on my main pc.

Vista is much, much slower in gaming that XP. Its like underclocking your card, makes no sense to me.

Vista is slightly slower than XP when it comes to gaming. The only major problem was with OpenGL games and that's probably been improved by newer drivers.

 

[Raider1284]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself


Im sorry but he is right... Another FUD review... GREAT :roll:

Have a look yourself

4xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 35
8800 GTX - 43

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 44
8800 GTX - 75

8xAA 2560x1600

FEAR

HD2900XT - 32 (went down 3 fps!)
8800 GTX - 18!!! (went down 25 fps!)

Far Cry

HD2900XT - 43 (down 1 fps)
8800 GTX - 39 (down 36 fps!!)

If this review isnt BS, I dont know what is

to add to my point

8xAA/16xAF, 1920x1200
Supreme Commander:
HD2900XT: 17.47
8800gts: 34.41
8800gtx: 48.59


8xAA/16xAF, 2560x1600
Supreme Commander:
HD2900XT: 20.28 (3 fps gain!?!)
8800gts: 17.815 (~17 fps drop)
8800gtx: 25.763 (23 fps drop)

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: vaccarjm
Dont dwell on it to much. I came and had some good times. Gnight all. Its funny how we get so riled up over video cards. I wouldnt doubt if Video Cards could cause a world war down the road lol. Signing off on my on board Intel graphics pc.

Taking amusement at other's reactions to your trolling comments?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1314&Itemid=1

a real review

Gah...not that great.

I mean, it's basically only doing around 8800 GTS performance in most of the games they tested.

Does seem to handle higher resolutions much better than the GTS (2560x1600), but ugh...

Not that good.

Better be priced well...

And i want to see some reviews in Vista, since i have this feeling the XP results won't be all that similar...

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Stumps
I want to run Vista Ultimate on all my rigs and I want to run it now..Nvidia is making very hard for me to do so reliably, especially when I take in to consideration how reliable my non Nvidia setups run Vista...

really? i haven't had a single problem with my g80 since the 158 beta, and only a couple minor ones since 100.65. so much so i finally scrubbed XP completely from the system; vista is now my full-time OS on my main pc.

Vista is much, much slower in gaming that XP. Its like underclocking your card, makes no sense to me.

Vista is slightly slower than XP when it comes to gaming. The only major problem was with OpenGL games and that's probably been improved by newer drivers.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Much more than "slightly". And much more than just in OpenGL games. NFS: Carbon is upwards or 30fps slower.

Sure it will be fixed in newer drivers. How long have you been waiting already for drivers to be fixed for Vista and NV? I just dont understand upgrading, just to downgrade performance. If anything, dual boot.

 

[yacoub]

Guys my X2900XT with the latest drivers ATi just sent me did 11,723 in 3DMark2006. You're welcome.

Then again, I welded my two 640MB 8800GTS's together so I could get 1280MB of RAM and it got 15,633 in 3DMark06 so....

 

[swtethan]

those are some precision welds!