Oh nooes!!! 8800GTX vs 2900XT in DX10

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: jim1976
Another view from Firingsquad.. Looks better for X2900XT

FS didn't even test the 2900XT under DX10, WTF?!? :thumbsdown: It did quite well with DX9, consistantly outperforming the GTS 640, and evidently didn't suffer the graphical issues observed by LR in DX10, which begs the question: why did FS avoid the DX10 on the 2900?

because there is no retail game that uses DX10 now...they aren't going tp use buggy alpha or beta code as a measure of DX10. They will wait for a retail release of a DX10 game.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: Regs
Nvida was out for 6-8 months. The developers were not going to wait on AMD.

Life sucks when you show up late to the game. I think AMD should just bend over and take it because it's what they deserve. "the 2900 is not delayed and ready to go"

I agree. AMD also stated their product would be better from the start because unlike NVIDIA, this is ATI's second generation DX10 GPU. ATI/AMD gets everything it deserves.

This is ATI's first attempt at DX10 hardware...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Here's what we've been waiting for

Not really, this game will obviously run bad on ATI hardware right now.

A) the 2900xt's drivers are immature
B) the game is sponsored by nvidia so the devs might have done some "cheating" to make sure ATI hardware runs slower

I would be much more interested in seeing a DX10 crysis or UT3 or any other game without a Nvidia or ATI sticker on the box.

Take into consideration this nugget:

One of my friends is working as a programmer on DX10 game... everyone he knows who is working on and testing out DX10 stuff has been using 8800's. Just recently did folks in my friend's group get 2900 test cards to start using... but my friend says that, at least for his project, it is too little too late. They are not rewriting sh1t that already works great on 8800's to make it play better on AMD's stuff when AMD came way late to the party.

From what I have heard I think that, by default (because their have been few available ATI DX10 parts), the first batch of Dx10 games are being programmed and tuned to run fast and, more importantly, 'look just right' on nVIDIA stuff because it is all they had to work on for the last several months.

Now I don't care what name is on my graphics card, or my CPU, etc. I just want the best bang for the buck.

For the near future (6-12 months or so), it looks like nVIDIA is going to deliver that for DX10. When AMD takes the crown back (and they will at some point), then'll I'll buy AMD.

Sounds logical. I'm gonna play it safe and wait for a final release 100% DX10 game and then see how it performs with the latest drivers from whatever top tier card from each mfgr is available. Then I will buy the best one.

 

[AmdInside]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: Regs
Nvida was out for 6-8 months. The developers were not going to wait on AMD.

Life sucks when you show up late to the game. I think AMD should just bend over and take it because it's what they deserve. "the 2900 is not delayed and ready to go"

I agree. AMD also stated their product would be better from the start because unlike NVIDIA, this is ATI's second generation DX10 GPU. ATI/AMD gets everything it deserves.

This is ATI's first attempt at DX10 hardware...

ATI was referring to the Xbox 360 GPU.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: Regs
Nvida was out for 6-8 months. The developers were not going to wait on AMD.

Life sucks when you show up late to the game. I think AMD should just bend over and take it because it's what they deserve. "the 2900 is not delayed and ready to go"

I agree. AMD also stated their product would be better from the start because unlike NVIDIA, this is ATI's second generation DX10 GPU. ATI/AMD gets everything it deserves.

This is ATI's first attempt at DX10 hardware...

ATI was referring to the Xbox 360 GPU.

Which was unified. That =/= DX10

 

[apoppin]

xbox360 GPU is DX9

no way around it

it doesn't "do" dx10

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: jim1976
Another view from Firingsquad.. Looks better for X2900XT

FS didn't even test the 2900XT under DX10, WTF?!? :thumbsdown: It did quite well with DX9, consistantly outperforming the GTS 640, and evidently didn't suffer the graphical issues observed by LR in DX10, which begs the question: why did FS avoid the DX10 on the 2900?

because there is no retail game that uses DX10 now...they aren't going tp use buggy alpha or beta code as a measure of DX10. They will wait for a retail release of a DX10 game.

That doesnt make any sense. They tested it with the 8800's in DX10.

Ive read that the reason is a bug in ATi's drivers. I think they would have if they could.

 

[MadBoris]

Drivers, just need real drivers, must wait for drivers...
I am going to buy the 2900xt now, because the performance sucks now, but in a month ATI will release good drivers (because I know ATI, err AMD) and then the performance will be l33t. NOT!

Reality check:
If ATI is so great with their drivers and Vista drivers are so easy to write for with the new driver model including DX10 for their new product, why do "these" ATI drivers suck so bad??? Duh

I guess they must have made these drivers over a weekend, just wait till they have a month or more to really get drivers working right for it and supporting games, afterall, these drivers are just for a product launch they don't really matter, ATI will really go to work on them later.

I love that mentality! More of that please! I'm falling out of my chair ROFL. :laugh:

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


Sounds logical. I'm gonna play it safe and wait for a final release 100% DX10 game and then see how it performs with the latest drivers from whatever top tier card from each mfgr is available. Then I will buy the best one.

That's exactly what I'm going to do.

When Crysis and other DX10 games are out I'm going to evaluate the scene buy the best card for the money.

Right now, I am happy with my 8800 GTS 640... I got it for $250 so I should be.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: Regs
Nvida was out for 6-8 months. The developers were not going to wait on AMD.

Life sucks when you show up late to the game. I think AMD should just bend over and take it because it's what they deserve. "the 2900 is not delayed and ready to go"

I agree. AMD also stated their product would be better from the start because unlike NVIDIA, this is ATI's second generation DX10 GPU. ATI/AMD gets everything it deserves.

This is ATI's first attempt at DX10 hardware...

ATI was referring to the Xbox 360 GPU.

Not DX10...go read about it. I thought it was myself...until I did some research.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


Sounds logical. I'm gonna play it safe and wait for a final release 100% DX10 game and then see how it performs with the latest drivers from whatever top tier card from each mfgr is available. Then I will buy the best one.

That's exactly what I'm going to do.

When Crysis and other DX10 games are out I'm going to evaluate the scene buy the best card for the money.

Right now, I am happy with my 8800 GTS 640... I got it for $250 so I should be.

Hell of a deal, but I'm still using an x1900xt (overclocked to xtx speeds). It works fine for things like FEAR, Oblivion etc. I know it's not the fastest card, but for my monitor's res of 1280x1024 it's not a problem. I am jujst looking forward to increasing the AA and AF with less of a penalty and getting higher FPS overall. I just don't know what card I want for actual DX10 games. I'm guessing that by the time UT3 and Crysis ship, Nvidia will have a 2nd part out with much better drivers and ATI will have much better drivers. Then I'll see what I want to have. More likely than not I will be buying Nvidia's next card rather than anything available today (unless there is no next card by that time).

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: AmdInside

Originally posted by: Regs
Nvida was out for 6-8 months. The developers were not going to wait on AMD.

Life sucks when you show up late to the game. I think AMD should just bend over and take it because it's what they deserve. "the 2900 is not delayed and ready to go"

I agree. AMD also stated their product would be better from the start because unlike NVIDIA, this is ATI's second generation DX10 GPU. ATI/AMD gets everything it deserves.

you snooze you lose.... big business does not wait for you, especially when yor competitor already got their act together and are willing to give you what you require

 

[MarcVenice]

Obviously according to the firingsqaud benchmarks theres nothing wrong with the performance of the 2900xt, exept for the fact it ain't faster then the 8800gtx/ultra But yeah, it's beating a 8800gts 640, theres no reason to assume that when the ATI drivers have been optimized they can't keep up the same pace compared to the 8800's in dx10.

They should have been optimized allready though, but thats tough luck. As long as they perform better then 8800gts 640mb from nvidia when Lost Planet actually sells, theres no problem, is there ?