techPowerUP! goofs and posts HD2900XT review early?

[Gstanfor]

apoppin, if an ordinary consumer is able to purchase R600, what makes you think nvidia hasn't already purchased several?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
vr-zone has broken the NDA.

R600 review

Why does it load so slow? :brokenheart:

I don't know, I'm not the webmaster of the site.

 

[apoppin]

r-e-a-l-l-y slow

someone quick copy it if you get it

i get the 'prob loading page' message

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: apoppin
r-e-a-l-l-y slow

someone quick copy it if you get it

i get the 'prob loading page' message

Just give it an hour, it should subside.

 

[Ap0c89]

I managed to get the company of heroes & quake 4 benchies:

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600

Quake 4
1600*1200

Hl2 Lost Coast

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600
1600*1200 AA

Apparently there is an AA bug in the driver with certain games hence the low scores.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Ap0c89
I managed to get the company of heroes benchies:

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600

Get me some more! Looks like a nice competitor with the GTS.
I'll stick with my GTX, though, if the rest of the benchmarks turn out like this.

EDIT: Isn't it the HD 2900XT, not the X2900XT?

 

[apoppin]

i got page 11 and am working on the loading the 'conclusion'



just in case

and thanks, Gstanfor ... that is a *real service*
:thumbsup:

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Ap0c89
I managed to get the company of heroes & quake 4 benchies:

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600

Quake 4
1600*1200

Hl2 Lost Coast

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600
1600*1200 AA

Apparently there is an AA bug in the driver with certain games hence the low scores.

Tell me, I'm dying to know, are these (COH) results with the Dx10 patch that certain people were sure would show us the "Dx10 advantage" of R600?

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Tell me, I'm dying to know, are these results with the Dx10 patch that certain people were sure would show us the "Dx10 advantage" of R600?

What game do you speak of?

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Ap0c89


2560*1600


Apparently there is an AA bug in the driver with certain games hence the low scores.

Why does the GTS 320 perform faster than the 640 at such a high resolution?

 

[apoppin]

It is slightly off tradition that the GPU company's flagship product sails off not to meet the flagship of it's competitor, but one target lower. Then again, the lower we go down the price pyramid, the bigger the audience, more people with the budget to spend. I'd say that there is no clear winner between the 8800 GTS and X2900XT, the GTS displayed more consistent performance behavior while the X2900XT fluctuates around due to the in-matured driver. I would say that despite the heat thrown out by the GPU, the X2900XT overclocks better than the 8800GTS by 8-10%, but that's putting out a lot more heat and drawing more power than it already consumes. So this is something potential XT buyers should take note of, the heat produced by the card is no small amount, nor is the power consumed by it - more than 60w over the GTS. What you would be investing in is a higher potential of upcoming performance boosts (including the latest pre-Alpha 8.37.4.2_47323 Catalyst just released 3 days before this review) and full HDCP support with integrated audio controller. And of course the new programmable Tessellation technology which we will probably not see support in games until much later.

Not the fastest video card in the market for sure, but definitely holds it's own at it's current price-point. We only hope that supply will be adequate and not lead to an indirect increase in prices due to short supply. We hope to see some interesting implementations from various card partners as well, be it overclocked specifications, or improved coolers.

did *someone* mention CoH ?

Taking a setting at 1600x1200 with 16xAF, I saw a major increase in performance, particularly Company Of Heroes and Quake 4. Performance went up by 11% on COH and 42% on Quake 4! This shows that the drivers is still very raw on this card, with just a minor driver revision boosting up performance that much, it gives us quite a lot of hope for a fair bit of improvement to come. Let's hope for that!


In many non Anti-Aliasing, High Definition game settings, you have seen the X2900XT push ahead of the performance of it's closest competitor, the GeForce 8800GTS 640MB, sometimes by quite a large margin, sometimes falling behind or ahead by a small percentage. In a select few games, the GTS is slightly faster, and vice versa. When Anti-Aliasing is turned on, the X2900XT showed that it carries it off with great efficiency in games that the drivers are optimized for, performing significantly better than the GTS; while the AA efficiency is piss-poor in some games due to the raw driver which has not fully blossomed to take advantage of ATi's new GPU technology. Just take a look at how performance has boosted from Drivers 8.36 to 8.37, that shows the potential in performance growth... a whole lot of it to reap.

 

[Ap0c89]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: Ap0c89
I managed to get the company of heroes & quake 4 benchies:

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600

Quake 4
1600*1200

Hl2 Lost Coast

1280*1024
1600*1200
2560*1600
1600*1200 AA

Apparently there is an AA bug in the driver with certain games hence the low scores.

Tell me, I'm dying to know, are these (COH) results with the Dx10 patch that certain people were sure would show us the "Dx10 advantage" of R600?

Sorry i didnt check and cant get back to that page

Here is the conclusion:

As said before, I had results from both the Catalyst 8.36 and Catalyst 8.37 Drivers. How did performance improve between this small driver jump of 0.01 version?

Taking a setting at 1600x1200 with 16xAF, I saw a major increase in performance, particularly Company Of Heroes and Quake 4. Performance went up by 11% on COH and 42% on Quake 4! This shows that the drivers is still very raw on this card, with just a minor driver revision boosting up performance that much, it gives us quite a lot of hope for a fair bit of improvement to come. Let's hope for that!


In many non Anti-Aliasing, High Definition game settings, you have seen the X2900XT push ahead of the performance of it's closest competitor, the GeForce 8800GTS 640MB, sometimes by quite a large margin, sometimes falling behind or ahead by a small percentage. In a select few games, the GTS is slightly faster, and vice versa. When Anti-Aliasing is turned on, the X2900XT showed that it carries it off with great efficiency in games that the drivers are optimized for, performing significantly better than the GTS; while the AA efficiency is piss-poor in some games due to the raw driver which has not fully blossomed to take advantage of ATi's new GPU technology. Just take a look at how performance has boosted from Drivers 8.36 to 8.37, that shows the potential in performance growth... a whole lot of it to reap.

It is slightly off tradition that the GPU company's flagship product sails off not to meet the flagship of it's competitor, but one target lower. Then again, the lower we go down the price pyramid, the bigger the audience, more people with the budget to spend. I'd say that there is no clear winner between the 8800 GTS and X2900XT, the GTS displayed more consistent performance behavior while the X2900XT fluctuates around due to the in-matured driver. I would say that despite the heat thrown out by the GPU, the X2900XT overclocks better than the 8800GTS by 8-10%, but that's putting out a lot more heat and drawing more power than it already consumes. So this is something potential XT buyers should take note of, the heat produced by the card is no small amount, nor is the power consumed by it - more than 60w over the GTS. What you would be investing in is a higher potential of upcoming performance boosts (including the latest pre-Alpha 8.37.4.2_47323 Catalyst just released 3 days before this review) and full HDCP support with integrated audio controller. And of course the new programmable Tessellation technology which we will probably not see support in games until much later.

Not the fastest video card in the market for sure, but definitely holds it's own at it's current price-point. We only hope that supply will be adequate and not lead to an indirect increase in prices due to short supply. We hope to see some interesting implementations from various card partners as well, be it overclocked specifications, or improved coolers.

 

[apoppin]

this needs a REPEAT

*their CONCLUSION*

It is slightly off tradition that the GPU company's flagship product sails off not to meet the flagship of it's competitor, but one target lower. Then again, the lower we go down the price pyramid, the bigger the audience, more people with the budget to spend. I'd say that there is no clear winner between the 8800 GTS and X2900XT, the GTS displayed more consistent performance behavior while the X2900XT fluctuates around due to the in-matured driver. I would say that despite the heat thrown out by the GPU, the X2900XT overclocks better than the 8800GTS by 8-10%, but that's putting out a lot more heat and drawing more power than it already consumes. So this is something potential XT buyers should take note of, the heat produced by the card is no small amount, nor is the power consumed by it - more than 60w over the GTS. What you would be investing in is a higher potential of upcoming performance boosts (including the latest pre-Alpha 8.37.4.2_47323 Catalyst just released 3 days before this review) and full HDCP support with integrated audio controller. And of course the new programmable Tessellation technology which we will probably not see support in games until much later.

Not the fastest video card in the market for sure, but definitely holds it's own at it's current price-point. We only hope that supply will be adequate and not lead to an indirect increase in prices due to short supply. We hope to see some interesting implementations from various card partners as well, be it overclocked specifications, or improved coolers.

did *someone* mention CoH ?

Taking a setting at 1600x1200 with 16xAF, I saw a major increase in performance, particularly Company Of Heroes and Quake 4. Performance went up by 11% on COH and 42% on Quake 4! This shows that the drivers is still very raw on this card, with just a minor driver revision boosting up performance that much, it gives us quite a lot of hope for a fair bit of improvement to come. Let's hope for that!


In many non Anti-Aliasing, High Definition game settings, you have seen the X2900XT push ahead of the performance of it's closest competitor, the GeForce 8800GTS 640MB, sometimes by quite a large margin, sometimes falling behind or ahead by a small percentage. In a select few games, the GTS is slightly faster, and vice versa. When Anti-Aliasing is turned on, the X2900XT showed that it carries it off with great efficiency in games that the drivers are optimized for, performing significantly better than the GTS; while the AA efficiency is piss-poor in some games due to the raw driver which has not fully blossomed to take advantage of ATi's new GPU technology. Just take a look at how performance has boosted from Drivers 8.36 to 8.37, that shows the potential in performance growth... a whole lot of it to reap.

 

[Extelleron]

Where are all the "HD 2900XT sucks" nVidia fanboys now? If Quake 4 performance can improve by 42% and CoH performance can improve by 11%, that's some pretty substantial improvements and likely the XT will be able to beat the GTX in alot of games come new driver releases.

 

[Gstanfor]

I sincerely doubt you will see across the board driver improvement for every game, especially 42% improvement. There are still IQ questions/concerns.

For those who want ATi and are satisified with around g80 GTS performance along with generous helpings of heat and noise, this is your card, for sure.

 

[Extelleron]

The one thing that looks like it needs help is AA performance through new drivers. Some of the AA results, such as in Oblivion, are very weird, obviously new drivers are needed.

nVidia has seen some large boosts in performance since initial release, ATI will likely see similar increases and more because it seems right now the drivers are still not so good.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I sincerely doubt you will see across the board driver improvement for every game, especially 42% improvement. There are still IQ questions/concerns.

For those who want ATi and are satisified with around g80 GTS performance along with generous helpings of heat and noise, this is your card, for sure.

SHOT DOWN

--in flames



good to see AMD 'deliver'

f-ing finally
:roll:

with *no apologies* to DT - either

 

[Nightmare225]

What I don't get is why people are complaining about NVIDIA's drivers when it's completely obvious that with the 6 month delay, ATI STILL has a load of kinks to work out.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
What I don't get is why people are complaining about NVIDIA's drivers when it's completely obvious that with the 6 month delay, ATI STILL has a load of kinks to work out.

ATI needs to improve PERFORMANCE, whether or not their drivers are actually stable and features actually work is a different story. nVidia just needs to get some drivers that WORK. Just today, for whatever reason, nVidia control panel errors whenever I try to access the Profile settings for Medieval II. Just closes up, every time, even after a reboot.

 

[Gstanfor]

SHOT DOWN

--in flames

Huh? Haven't we been saying for weeks now that R600 will perform around GTS levels? (not totally convinced about the GTS 640 scores I've seen so far either in this review, compared to the GTS 320). Thats still one or two (depending on if you count the g80 Ultra or not) levels below top performance. At this stage I'm still right on track to pick up two 675/2300 Ultra's when they arrive in stock.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

SHOT DOWN

--in flames

Huh? Haven't we been saying for weeks now that R600 will perform around GTS levels? (not totally convinced about the GTS 640 scores I've seen so far either in this review, compared to the GTS 320). Thats still one or two (depending on if you count the g80 Ultra or not) levels below top performance. At this stage I'm still right on track to pick up two 675/2300 Ultra's when they arrive in stock.

That wouldn't be so wise, considering how big and hot TWO Ultras would run. If anything, I would wait for the refresh...

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
What I don't get is why people are complaining about NVIDIA's drivers when it's completely obvious that with the 6 month delay, ATI STILL has a load of kinks to work out.

Yes, ATi PR has a little explaining to do in that department I think....

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

SHOT DOWN

--in flames

Huh? Haven't we been saying for weeks now that R600 will perform around GTS levels? (not totally convinced about the GTS 640 scores I've seen so far either in this review, compared to the GTS 320). Thats still one or two (depending on if you count the g80 Ultra or not) levels below top performance. At this stage I'm still right on track to pick up two 675/2300 Ultra's when they arrive in stock.

The HD 2900XT is already outperforming the GTS in the vast majority of tests and clearly there are big improvements to come in terms of drivers. With the exception of those games that suffer from the "AA bug," the XT really encroaches on GTX territory when you turn the settings up. With new drivers that improve performance and fix the AA problems that some games suffer, you will be seeing GTX performance (or even higher in some cases) for GTS price.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

SHOT DOWN

--in flames

Huh? Haven't we been saying for weeks now that R600 will perform around GTS levels? (not totally convinced about the GTS 640 scores I've seen so far either in this review, compared to the GTS 320). Thats still one or two (depending on if you count the g80 Ultra or not) levels below top performance. At this stage I'm still right on track to pick up two 675/2300 Ultra's when they arrive in stock.

That wouldn't be so wise, considering how big and hot TWO Ultras would run. If anything, I would wait for the refresh...

I use coolermaster stacker cases, big doesn't worry me, nor does appropriate airflow.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

SHOT DOWN

--in flames

Huh? Haven't we been saying for weeks now that R600 will perform around GTS levels? (not totally convinced about the GTS 640 scores I've seen so far either in this review, compared to the GTS 320). Thats still one or two (depending on if you count the g80 Ultra or not) levels below top performance. At this stage I'm still right on track to pick up two 675/2300 Ultra's when they arrive in stock.

The HD 2900XT is already outperforming the GTS in the vast majority of tests and clearly there are big improvements to come in terms of drivers. With the exception of those games that suffer from the "AA bug," the XT really encroaches on GTX territory when you turn the settings up. With new drivers that improve performance and fix the AA problems that some games suffer, you will be seeing GTX performance (or even higher in some cases) for GTS price.

All of you ATI fanboys are acting as if NVIDIA's cards have reached the end of their performance improvements, when it is mentioned several times in the review that the 8800s continue to get performance boosts.

Now we see a slightly bigger margin emerging, GTX beats the X2900XT by 10fps while the GTSes beat the X2900XT by 6fps. It does seem the new Forceware 158.22 drivers have boosted the performance of the 8800s quite a bit in Quake 4. Still the X2900XT beats it's predecessor by 36%.

Don't pretend that the G80 performance will remain static while the R600 starts to outspeed it in the next few driver releases, that's just not going to happen... :disgust: