maybe next week NVidia will make a load of new-in-box 8800GTXs "fall off a truck" accidentally and get sold for $400 each. 
Actually I hope this 2900XT beats the 8800GTS 640MB in most tests so I can pick up a GTS nice and cheap in a couple weeks.
Actually I hope this 2900XT beats the 8800GTS 640MB in most tests so I can pick up a GTS nice and cheap in a couple weeks.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Oh a fellow 2407WFP User
I don't think ATI has scaling built into the drivers at all IIRC, so that wouldn't fix your problem... For me it's just more that I've had this GTX since Nov, and I'm just kind of interested to see how the HD 2900XT does.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Oh a fellow 2407WFP User
I don't think ATI has scaling built into the drivers at all IIRC, so that wouldn't fix your problem... For me it's just more that I've had this GTX since Nov, and I'm just kind of interested to see how the HD 2900XT does.
Just wait two more days, then you'll know if to sell it. I'm in the same exact position as you. I wouldn't complain if I had to keep this card, though. it's performance so far has been quite satisfying.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Oh a fellow 2407WFP User
I don't think ATI has scaling built into the drivers at all IIRC, so that wouldn't fix your problem... For me it's just more that I've had this GTX since Nov, and I'm just kind of interested to see how the HD 2900XT does.
That would be fine actually. i dont need scaling. i let my monitor do it for me.
to quote you in the other thread :"I'm pretty much done with the speculation and rumors... "
so whos speculating here? LOL
hehe, everyone is going to have a fit with the drivers. people can complain all they want about nvidias drivers, but if i were to compare todays Nvidia 8800 drivers to ATI's current(upcoming) 2900 drivers, well the decision would not go to ATI. ATI will need quite a while to mature drivers, that is not something to forget. but it will be something that becomes clear real soon.
I'd be very impressed if rev 0 of the ATI drivers are much better than what NV has now.
Yes, they've had lots and lots and lots of time to work on them, but QA is not the same thing as the real world. Once the product hits the angry fruit salad of people's hardware and a broad spectrum of games & applications -- only then will you really be able to truly improve your software.
Yes, they've had lots and lots and lots of time to work on them, but QA is not the same thing as the real world. Once the product hits the angry fruit salad of people's hardware and a broad spectrum of games & applications -- only then will you really be able to truly improve your software.
Just wait till Monday, then compare the ATI drivers with todays Nvidia drivers. See for yourself, then call me crazy. nvidia had SLI problems, just watch the crossfire problems and watch the game problems.
Wreckage go back to your Nvidia hole and stay their. 1st provide link with your cliams ! 8800GTS for $350 and $480 for GTX. Also 2900XT would kill 8800GTS in benchmarking and also the pre DX10 benchmark for crysis show ATI beating up the 8800GTX making ATI again looking better for the future games. Also XT come with professional driver which means that it beats up a Nvidia $2500 Quadro FX 5500.
Let's forget the argument that the XT will be nearly as fast as the GTX.
The XT is at least 20% faster than the GTS, even your beloved DT benchmarks agree with that. Since when is spending 14% more ($400 vs $350) for 20% better performance a bad deal?
I'm not hunting down the link again, but according to the Crysis devs, the R600XT is slightly (by a matter of a few FPS) ahead of the 8800GTX in the current build of Crysis.
Also, there's at least one honest HD 2900XT (stock) game benchmark. It was run under Windows Vista 32-Bit and with 8.361 drivers (I believe those are the older ones, on the driver CD with retail cards)
Doom 3, Ultra Quality 1280x1024 8xAA (16x Samples), 16xHQAF
C2D E6300 @ 3.2GHz, HD 2900XT: 85 FPS
Doom 3, Ultra Quality 1280x1024 noAA/AF
C2D E6300 @ 3.2GHz, Hd 2900XT: 117 FPS
Here's the test and a comparison of different AA modes w/ CCC screenshots (he didn't show 24xAA though)
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33890816&page=2
IDK how that compares to the 8800 cards but it doesn't sound *horrible*. From other people that have the cards newer drivers have improved performance quite a bit.
CrystalBay
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2002
- 2,175
- 1
- 0
The problem is, 3D Mark performance means nothing. The HD 2900XT has shown it is excellent at 3D Mark 05 and 06 but gaming performance may be a different story. The only "real" game test is the Doom 3 test I posted but that's not such a great test because of the low resolution, older drivers, and the fact that nobody really plays Doom 3 anymore.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter