techPowerUP! goofs and posts HD2900XT review early?

[zizo]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Sigh, this may be the last weekend of rumor fighting.

Impossible! 65nm/R680 is just around the corner.

 

[yacoub]

lol

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: zizo

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Sigh, this may be the last weekend of rumor fighting.

Impossible! 65nm/R680 is just around the corner.

R650 actually... Oh wait, I am speculating already :shocked:

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: Matt2
To this very day, Nvidia's CEO swears that even though NV30 was unsuccessful, it pushed GPU design in the right direction.

What's the nVidia CEO supposed to say?

Hey, we took millions of dollars from consumers to produce a flop, and then when we found that out, we hired a marketing firm and tried to pawn it off as the best stuff evar!

What else, advertise their product as "worse than the competitors." Yeah, I sure see the company staying together with that kind of ad campaign... :disgust:

ok guys, dont shoot the messenger, I'm just regurgitating what I read.

My point was that although Nvidia thought they had a winner with NV30, things just dont play out the way they're supposed to sometimes. R300 probably made Nvidia poo their pantalones just like G80 probably made ATI poo theirs.

Just because a GPU didnt live up to it's expectations doesn't mean that all these R600 benches we are seeing are fake. I know I'm bordering on herecy here on this board by saying this, but why can't some people just accept the fact that ATI *might* have pulled an Nvidia and developed a bad GPU?

It's too premature to say that R600 is going to be a flop, but the possibility is there. I have a hard time believing that 5 leaked reviews are painting the same picture, but some just can't bring themselves to think that ATI can be beat by Nvidia. I haven't seen one leaked bench that disagrees with DT's initial assesment.

except DT showed the XT much faster than 8800gts 640 but slower than gtx. so it is not in line with review claiminhg xt is as fast as a x1950xtx.

 

[Ackmed]

Apparently a UK magazine has already published some numbers?

Driver: 8.37-4, CPU: E6700, from europes biggest PC-Magazine ct

Oblivion, HDR on

1280 X 1024 noAA/noAF

2900 XT 49 fps
88 GTS 48 fps
88 GTX 48 fps

1280 X 1024 AA 4X / noAF

2900 XT 39 fps
88 GTS 46 fps
88 GTX 48 fps

1280 x1024 AA 8X / noAF

HD 2900 XT 17 fps
88 GTS 28 fps
88 GTX 39 fps


PREY

1600 x 1200 AA 8X / AF 16X

HD 2900 XT 43 fps
88 GTS 37 fps
88 GTX 50 fps


Windows Vista Direct X10 SDK

PIPEGS

2900XT 159 fps
88GTS 34 fps
88GTX 63 fps


CubemapGS, Car, Instancing

2900XT 23 fps
88GTS 9 fps
88GTX 11 fps

Cubemap, Car, Instancing

2900XT 18 fps
88GTS 10 fps
88GTX 11 fps

An update to the it "review"; http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1325&Itemid=91

Still not sold on the authenticity of it however. The M2N32-SLI is a AM2 mobo, yet they show they are using a C2D 6700? They show Oblivion much faster with 8xAA at 2560x1200 than with 4xAA. To the tune of 32fps compared to 51fps. Not to mention many more inconsistencies... as Ive been saying all along, Ill wait for a trusted review.

They do say this about IQ, but again, Ill wait for real reviews...

There's one other "trick" here, and that's image quality, also "to be covered" in a separate article. In all honesty, 8 and 16xAA modes look a bit better on HD2900XT then on 8800 series. This is one of those things that make HD2900XT what it is - very interesting product. Stay tuned for CrossFire vs SLI article tomorrow, done on 975 chipset for CrossFire and 680i chipset for 8800's.

I guess there is a class action lawsuit against NV for their drivers? Not sure if true or not.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/03/0110248

 

[Nightmare225]

I hate it when there's no clearcut winner, makes selling decisions that much more difficult...

 

[Ackmed]

Googlegear has two HD 2900XT's in stock and ready to ship it seems;

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005096
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005202

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Windows Vista Direct X10 SDK

PIPEGS

2900XT 159 fps
88GTS 34 fps
88GTX 63 fps


CubemapGS, Car, Instancing

2900XT 23 fps
88GTS 9 fps
88GTX 11 fps

Cubemap, Car, Instancing

2900XT 18 fps
88GTS 10 fps
88GTX 11 fps

[/quote]

I have no idea what this is, but this is the kind of thing I am expecting with DX10 games

Hope I am right

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Googlegear has two HD 2900XT's in stock and ready to ship it seems;

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005096
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005202

$400?? So much for beating em on price. Better off getting a GTS640.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
I hate it when there's no clearcut winner, makes selling decisions that much more difficult...

but it makes for the *best flame-wars* here

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Googlegear has two HD 2900XT's in stock and ready to ship it seems;

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005096
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005202

$400?? So much for beating em on price. Better off getting a GTS640.

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Ackmed


An update to the it "review"; http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1325&Itemid=91

I believe the numbers are accurate or very close to that in both reviews.

Once again, the annoying thing is how inconsistent the HD 2900 XT's performance is.
In some games, it's better than the 8800 GTS; in others, it gets thrashed.

No question the HD 2900 XT fares far better w/ 8x AA & 16x AA (especially @ high resolutions), so for those who love antialiasing, & lots of it, it's likely a better card for them than even the 8800 GTX (at least at high resolutions).

But if you play @ the normal 4x/16x i find to be "standard", then i'm not sure the HD 2900 XT is even worth it over the 8800 GTS.

One thing i've seen nothing about thus far though is Vista performance, which is what i care about primarily, since i'm not running XP anymore, & i'm not planning to go backwards for it either.

 

[swtethan]

i will sell my card on CL if the price is right.

 

[n7]

K, so i decided to do a breakdown of what i consider to be the most important resolutions/settings from the latest IT review.
I don't consider 1280x1024 worth worrying about, & while the HD 2900 XT did do even better @ 16x AA, it results in pretty much unplayable fps unless running CF, which does seem to be a good way to run high resolutions + gobs of AA.




1920x1200 4x AA 16x AF
vs. 8800 GTS
2 ties
5 losses

vs. 8800 GTX
7 losses


2560x1600 4x AA 16x AF
vs. 8800 GTS
2 wins
2 ties
3 losses

vs. 8800 GTX
7 losses


1920x1200 8x AA 16x AF
vs. 8800 GTS
2 wins
1 tie
4 losses

vs. 8800 GTX
7 losses


2560x1600 8x AA 16x AF
vs. 8800 GTS
4 wins
2 ties
1 loss

vs. 8800 GTX
2 wins
1 tie
4 losses

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Well most of the "pre-release" benchmarks show the 2900XT at or below a GTS, so that is why the price should be below if they want to sell any.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Well most of the "pre-release" benchmarks show the 2900XT at or below a GTS, so that is why the price should be below if they want to sell any.

it *depends* ....


on "confirmed" benches

on Vista driver support

on *features*

and on IQ

PLUS ... don't forget "marketing"

THEN you can factor your MSRP ... after THAT ... the 'market' takes over

i don't expect to be an early adopter

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Well most of the "pre-release" benchmarks show the 2900XT at or below a GTS, so that is why the price should be below if they want to sell any.

Every (with the exception of some 3D Mark scores) "pre-release" benchmark so far has obviously been nothing but BS.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Well most of the "pre-release" benchmarks show the 2900XT at or below a GTS, so that is why the price should be below if they want to sell any.

Every (with the exception of some 3D Mark scores) "pre-release" benchmark so far has obviously been nothing but BS.

Because you have the card and can prove those benches were BS right?

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Well most of the "pre-release" benchmarks show the 2900XT at or below a GTS, so that is why the price should be below if they want to sell any.

Every (with the exception of some 3D Mark scores) "pre-release" benchmark so far has obviously been nothing but BS.

Because you have the card and can prove those benches were BS right?

so why are the 3dmark socres NOT bs??????? Cause theyre so good? I guess you like to see the really kick ass benches and discard the ones that 2900xt loses in, correct?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Well most of the "pre-release" benchmarks show the 2900XT at or below a GTS, so that is why the price should be below if they want to sell any.

Every (with the exception of some 3D Mark scores) "pre-release" benchmark so far has obviously been nothing but BS.

Because you have the card and can prove those benches were BS right?

so why are the 3dmark socres NOT bs??????? Cause theyre so good? I guess you like to see the really kick ass benches and discard the ones that 2900xt loses in, correct?

There have been PLENTY of 3D Mark benches by those that have the cards and they are consistant. These game "benchmarks" have been both highly suspicious and often are posted by sites no one has heard of before. These most recent reviews we've seen are so fake it's hard to imagine people give them a second glance; you see the 2900XT performing higher at 2560x1600 than at 1920x1200, and in some benchmarks the XT is far, far ahead of the other cards and in others it is so behind it must be performing worse than an X1900 series card. These reviews don't make any sense because they're made up BS. The only real benchmarks we've seen are by individual users who have the cards and have shown some benchmarks, usually 3DMark05 or 06.

 

[n7]

LOL i wish i could agree with you.

We'll see tomorrow i guess?

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: n7
LOL i wish i could agree with you.

We'll see tomorrow i guess?

After tomorrow.

 

[n7]

Oops, i was thinking today was Sunday

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: n7
LOL i wish i could agree with you.

We'll see tomorrow i guess?

But Extelleron is right... Everyone that says the reviews are BS is considered a fanATIc... WHY? How can you ignore the inconsistencies? Do you seriously believe the same card can kick the GTX in a game and be stomped in another? Its ridiculous!

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Googlegear has two HD 2900XT's in stock and ready to ship it seems;

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005096
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005202

$400?? So much for beating em on price. Better off getting a GTS640.

Why does ATI have to price the HD 2900XT LOWER or even equal to the GTS 640MB when it is closer in performance to the GTX, which retails for $520~ plus? The fact that we see $400 BEFORE LAUNCH means we will see sub $400 prices real soon, and that's quite amazing for the kind of performance ATI has.

Not to mention you get TF2 and EP2 free when they come out with the black box deal. Worth $40. And as you said, MSRP is one thing, street price is another. A month or so, and hopefully for us both ATi and NVs cards will be lower. At least NV hopefully wont keep the price high on the GTX anymore.