What's up with HD 2900XT prices?

[Extelleron]

It's been over a month since the HD 2900XT launched, and we all expected that by now prices would have dropped below $400, which was forcasted as the "high point" of the prices that we should see.

The MSRP of the 2900XT is $399, yet the only place that charges that or less is Zipzoomfly with $389 AR, Bestbuy with $379 but OOS, and CompUSA, which charges $399 but that's OOS as well.

A little over a week ago BB had the sale where it was $320; that disappeared within a day. I don't understand why HD 2900XT prices have not fallen one bit since release. Sure, it's a great card, but the performance is still a mixed bag. Are sales really that great that retailers are happy leaving prices where they are? I was really hoping I'd be able to pick up a 2900 for around $350~ by now, because I want to "upgrade" from my GTS but I don't want to pay a lot of money. It just seems odd that prices have stayed so consistant, especially ABOVE AMD's MSRP.

 

[Matt2]

Low quantities? Yield problems?

I'm also waiting for a sweet deal on one of these.

 

[TheUnk]

For that card $300 is reasonable, but $400 no way.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: TheUnk
For that card $300 is reasonable, but $400 no way.

Well, $400 isn't too unreasonable, considering the card is slightly faster (in general) than the GTS, it deserves to be slightly more expensive.

I'm wondering if retailers are just pricing them high or AMD is pricing them high. If it's AMD, they really need to lower prices. HD 2900XT at around $350 would sell alot of cards, I think. At $400+, people are going to either pay less and go to the GTS, or pay $100 more and go for a GTX.

As for low yields, it's possible but AMD was very conservative with clocking of the XT - the majority of units seem to be able to hit 850MHz yet the stock clock is 745MHz. Obviously with a 700M transistor part, yields might not be the best, but G80 seems to be doing well and its 690M~ transistors, and a bigger die.

 

[Wreckage]

Chiefvalue(newegg) has a 8800GTS 320 for under $250.

Bestbuy has a BFG Tech Geforce 8800 GTS OC2 640MB for $316.

Just as a comparison.

 

[djnsmith7]

The 2900 was $320 on Best Buy's website a little over a week ago...

 

[n7]

I suspect sales are decent enough thus far that retailers don't have any great reason to drop pricing.
I also suspect there is less markup on the 2900s than the 8800s.

Also, contrary to what many people seem to like propagating here, the HD 2900 XT is more of a competitor to the 8800 GTX.

There are most definitely titles in which it's a joke (drivers or possibly just plain deficient hardware), but based on how well it does @ 2560x1600 (where things are extremely GPU bound), you can get a pretty idea of how well it will do in the insanely GPU intensive titles of the future.

Yes, this is somewhat speculation, but i've always found looking at the high possible resolutions + settings to give a very good indicator of how well a card will perform in future games in general.

Basically what i'm saying is, considering the 8800 GTX doesn't seem to have come down in price, why should the HD 2900 XT?

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: n7
I suspect sales are decent enough thus far that retailers don't have any great reason to drop pricing.
I also suspect there is less markup on the 2900s than the 8800s.

Also, contrary to what many people seem to like propagating here, the HD 2900 XT is more of a competitor to the 8800 GTX.

There are most definitely titles in which it's a joke (drivers or possibly just plain deficient hardware), but based on how well it does @ 2560x1600 (where things are extremely GPU bound), you can get a pretty idea of how well it will do in the insanely GPU intensive titles of the future.

Yes, this is somewhat speculation, but i've always found looking at the high possible resolutions + settings to give a very good indicator of how well a card will perform in future games in general.

Basically what i'm saying is, considering the 8800 GTX doesn't seem to have come down in price, why should the HD 2900 XT?

totally correct - cost is high from AMD yet - and 8800 GTX / 2900XT is just like you said. ATI guys want the best their company has, just like the Nvidia guys want the 8800 GTX...

the middle road people, they get whats left over after the main release happens...

plus for whatever reasons, the 1GB 2900 will/is much closer and even may take the crown here and there...

As more Nvidia fan, what concerns me a bit, ATI has more GPU overall power, wonder how that will play out with DX10 games in about 60 to 120 days from now.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: n7

Also, contrary to what many people seem to like propagating here, the HD 2900 XT is more of a competitor to the 8800 GTX.

Do I need to link the benchmarks where a $250 GTS320 beats it. :roll:

It is at best equal to a GTS640 (FPS only) and should be priced the same. Once you factor in all the other problems the HD2900 has it should be priced less.

The BFG @ $316 is by far a better product than a HD2900 @ $400.

Your statement is very misleading.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: n7

Also, contrary to what many people seem to like propagating here, the HD 2900 XT is more of a competitor to the 8800 GTX.

Do I need to link the benchmarks where a $250 GTS320 beats it. :roll:

It is at best equal to a GTS640 (FPS only) and should be priced the same. Once you factor in all the other problems the HD2900 has it should be priced less.

The BFG @ $316 is by far a better product than a HD2900 @ $400.

Your statement is very misleading.

Actually, the only one misleading people around here would be you, with your love for biased reviews, etc.

You need not link me to HardOCP's garbage reviews, the results of which largely contradict to other legitimate reviews results (partially because they're using low resolutions like 1600x1200).

Also, if you'd like problems, how about i link you to the Forceware page at the nVidia forums...that will give you a pretty good idea of what problems you like recommending.

If you really need me to, i'll pull up a bunch of reviews of the cards @ 2560x1600, where the GPU is truely the limiting factors.

You already know very well which card is more powerful overall when resolution/settings are cranked, so please don't try spreading FUD.

I'm not ignoring the fact that the HD 2900 XT is louder at full fanspeed, or sucks way too much power.

But unlike you, i'm also not trying to spread lies about how it's inferior to the 8800 GTX 640 MB or lol, 320 MB :laugh:

 

[Matt2]

well, I agree that HD2900XT is better than the 640mb GTS, but is it worth $100 more? Doubt it.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: n7

Also, contrary to what many people seem to like propagating here, the HD 2900 XT is more of a competitor to the 8800 GTX.

Do I need to link the benchmarks where a $250 GTS320 beats it. :roll:

It is at best equal to a GTS640 (FPS only) and should be priced the same. Once you factor in all the other problems the HD2900 has it should be priced less.

The BFG @ $316 is by far a better product than a HD2900 @ $400.

Your statement is very misleading.

Actually, the only one misleading people around here would be you, with your love for biased reviews, etc.

You need not link me to HardOCP's garbage reviews, the results of which largely contradict to other legitimate reviews results (partially because they're using low resolutions like 1600x1200).

Also, if you'd like problems, how about i link you to the Forceware page at the nVidia forums...that will give you a pretty good idea of what problems you like recommending.

If you really need me to, i'll pull up a bunch of reviews of the cards @ 2560x1600, where the GPU is truely the limiting factors.

You already know very well which card is more powerful overall when resolution/settings are cranked, so please don't try spreading FUD.

I'm not ignoring the fact that the HD 2900 XT is louder at full fanspeed, or sucks way too much power.

But unlike you, i'm also not trying to spread lies about how it's inferior to the 8800 GTX 640 MB or lol, 320 MB :laugh:

missing the point really - from etail or system builder - clients are not saying, gee wonder the GTS or XT - they are saying the GTX or XT - add to that, the world is not all about bench marks... or specs (where ATI has a chance) hell some people even care less about the power, loud etc... of any card... some buy totally cause the love ATI/AMD/Nvidia or hate them...

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Matt2
well, I agree that HD2900XT is better than the 640mb GTS, but is it worth $100 more? Doubt it.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

But i just didn't appreciate being flamed for my opinion as to why they haven't lowered the prices, hence why i got a little worked up.

The real issue w/ the HD 2900s performance is inconsistency IMO.

It does so well in some games, others horribly.

I strongly suspect that for true DX10 titles like Crysis & UT3, we will see the gap between the GTS & 2900 XT widen, but it remains to be seen.

I've used the highest resolutions + settings as a future peformance indication for a long time now, & it usually turns out to be accurate.

Either way, the 2900 was a huge disappointment.

But for those willing to sacrifice performance in those games where it presently does poorly now, i think they will be rewarded down the road.

Also, TBH, i am so sick of nV's drivers.

I don't mean performance...i mean actual bugs & issues...

When you get randomly locked out of your system during games, performance starts to become a pretty secondary issue

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Matt2
well, I agree that HD2900XT is better than the 640mb GTS, but is it worth $100 more? Doubt it.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

But i just didn't appreciate being flamed for my opinion as to why they haven't lowered the prices, hence why i got a little worked up.

The real issue w/ the HD 2900s performance is inconsistency IMO.

It does so well in some games, others horribly.

I strongly suspect that for true DX10 titles like Crysis & UT3, we will see the gap between the GTS & 2900 XT widen, but it remains to be seen.

I've used the highest resolutions + settings as a future peformance indication for a long time now, & it usually turns out to be accurate.

Either way, the 2900 was a huge disappointment.

But for those willing to sacrifice performance in those games where it presently does poorly now, i think they will be rewarded down the road.

Also, TBH, i am so sick of nV's drivers.

I don't mean performance...i mean actual bugs & issues...

When you get randomly locked out of your system during games, performance starts to become a pretty secondary issue

I agree with you for the most part on everything. I was disappointed with the HD2900XT, I think they priced it right, but I have a hard time rewarding ATI/AMD for their engineering blunder by giving them my money. Especially MSRP or more type money.

At this point, I'm waiting on a super sweet deal on a HD2900XT or am just going to wait until we see some refreshes to make a purchase.

I've pretty much ruled out a 640mb GTS simply because I dont think it's got enough horsepower to drive my 24" LCD with any kind of lasting power.

 

[n7]

Nah, it really doesn't sadly.

At the time i bought my 8800 GTX, they had a 640 MB 8800 GTS for $365 CND AR here, which is $225 less than what i had to swallow for my 8800 GTX :Q

But you are right, for DX10 titles, there's no way an 8800 GTS or likely HD 2900 XT is gonna cut it @ high settings @ 1920x1200.

Nevermind my 2560x1600 lol...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: n7
Actually, the only one misleading people around here would be you, with your love for biased reviews, etc.

That's right all the sites are out to get you. Biased, because they don't fit your view.

You need not link me to HardOCP's garbage reviews, the results of which largely contradict to other legitimate reviews results (partially because they're using low resolutions like 1600x1200).

LOL, low resolutions. most people run 16x12 or less. Not too mention that the only tests that favor the HD2900 don't run AA or AF. I guess if you spend $400 on a card you can do without those.

Also, if you'd like problems, how about i link you to the Forceware page at the nVidia forums...that will give you a pretty good idea of what problems you like recommending.

That's fine and I will link you to the AMD page with all the Catalyst problems, including crossfire in vista.

If you really need me to, i'll pull up a bunch of reviews of the cards @ 2560x1600, where the GPU is truely the limiting factors.

Make sure they are using full AA & AF.

You already know very well which card is more powerful overall when resolution/settings are cranked, so please don't try spreading FUD.

According to reviews. The 640GTS with better IQ.

I'm not ignoring the fact that the HD 2900 XT is louder at full fanspeed, or sucks way too much power.

Don't forget hot.

But unlike you, i'm also not trying to spread lies about how it's inferior to the 8800 GTX 640 MB or lol, 320 MB :laugh:

Lies now? So review sites are lying? Were they also running the tests in grassy knoll above area 51?

Lets look at a typically ATI favoring site.
http://www.driverheaven.net/re...reviewz/conclusion.php

First off the 2900XT is hugely late to market and as a result has trouble competing with an already well established part. In fact overall the XT is slower than the GTS when it matters.

 

[n7]

Wreckage.

X-bit just did a really good review.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...8800ultra-extreme.html

It is certainly true that there are some major driver issues with too many games w/ the 2900.

You can see the 2900 beat the GTS in basically everything @ 1920x1200 for the first part of the review.
Then you see it losing to the X1950XTX for most of the last half.

Now i know you feel that's "just how it performs", but some of us would like to think that it losing to the X1950XTX might just be a driver issue

I know, crazy logic

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: n7
Wreckage.

X-bit just did a really good review.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...8800ultra-extreme.html

It is certainly true that there are some major driver issues with too many games w/ the 2900.

You can see the 2900 beat the GTS in basically everything @ 1920x1200 for the first part of the review.
Then you see it losing to the X1950XTX for most of the last half.

Now i know you feel that's "just how it performs", but some of us would like to think that it losing to the X1950XTX might just be a driver issue

I know, crazy logic

So the GTS wins at least half the benchmarks, has better IQ, less heat, less noise, less power draw and costs a lot less. Uh, what was your point again?

 

[soybeast]

I wish there was a "digg down" like option here. Some people here are so biased one way or another that the "information" they spout out really is misleading. You know who you are.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
That's right all the sites are out to get you. Biased, because they don't fit your view.

Nah, i don't have a particular view.
HardOCP's results don't match other sites though, & you know it.
Just read the X-bit results i linked to.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
LOL, low resolutions. most people run 16x12 or less. Not too mention that the only tests that favor the HD2900 don't run AA or AF. I guess if you spend $400 on a card you can do without those.

Wrong. Please see the aforementioned link which includes 1920x1200 w/ AA & AF.
Also, 1600x1200 is not a very GPU intensive resolution these days. It's not an ideal resolution for taking CPU out of the equation.
Everyone & their mom, gaming has a 20/22" display running 1680x1050, or higher, if you want to count AT gamers, as many have 1920x1200+

Originally posted by: Wreckage
That's fine and I will link you to the AMD page with all the Catalyst problems, including crossfire in vista.

Hahaha, self pwnage! :laugh:
At least ATi has CF in Vista.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Make sure they are using full AA & AF.

Covered already, though X-bit does did 1920x1200, since they're using Vista & newer drivers. Not as good as 2560x1600, but they've stated that review is coming.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Don't forget hot.

Don't get me started on hot.
My 8800 GTX idles around 80C if i don't use manual fan speed settings, since nV seems to believe in letting their cards cook while idling...

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Lets look at a typically ATI favoring site.
http://www.driverheaven.net/re...reviewz/conclusion.php

Sure, except if you actually look at the results, & match which games are driver bugged, this is what we have:

HD 2900 XT vs. 8800 GTS 640 MB
Prey - tie (win Vista; loss XP)
NFS: Carbon - win
FEAR - loss (higher ave, but much lower min)
Flight sim X - loss
Oblivion - win (beat GTX)
Sup Com - loss (bugged)
STALKER - loss (bugged)
Rainbow Six Vegas - win
Dark Messiah - loss

So we have 3 wins (one where it beats the GTX), 3 losses, a tie, & 2 losses partially due to obviously gimped drivers.

Really, it's apparent ATi needs to fix there driver issues, because i don't think anyone believe the HD 2900 XT is slower than the X1950XTX.
Very disappointing, but since ATi generally does actually work on drivers regularly, there's some hope.

For those people who play the games in which drivers are effed, then an 8800 GTS is certainly in order (assuming you don't mind the set of issues you'll get w/ nV's card )

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

So the GTS wins at least half the benchmarks, has better IQ, less heat, less noise, less power draw and costs a lot less. Uh, what was your point again?

LOL, are you trying to make yourself look silly?

I am well aware that there are issues w/ a number of games w/ the HD 2900.

But are you really telling me you believe that it's not something they'll work on?

The games in which the HD 2900 XT loses, it's on par w/ the X1950XTX :laugh:

Does that not sorta have you wondering just a little?


Ah nevermind...arguring with someone overly biased w/o a sense of logic is pointless anyway

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: n7
Wreckage.

X-bit just did a really good review.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...8800ultra-extreme.html

It is certainly true that there are some major driver issues with too many games w/ the 2900.

You can see the 2900 beat the GTS in basically everything @ 1920x1200 for the first part of the review.
Then you see it losing to the X1950XTX for most of the last half.

Now i know you feel that's "just how it performs", but some of us would like to think that it losing to the X1950XTX might just be a driver issue

I know, crazy logic

So the GTS wins at least half the benchmarks, has better IQ, less heat, less noise, less power draw and costs a lot less. Uh, what was your point again?

The HD 2900XT wins most of the time, and when it comes to image quality, I have not seen such a resounding "G80 has better IQ." When it comes to an enthusiast card, power draw really doesn't matter. If you can afford to spend $300-400 on a GPU, you can afford a decent, 500W PSU such as the HX520 ($79 right now). As for the noise, it's not as bad as the X1900XT/X, and plenty of people such as myself were happy with that card.

All these reviews you cite are using older drivers. Here is another example of a site using newer drivers, and they aren't even the Cat 7.5's - they're the driver right before it.
http://www.tweaktown.com/revie...hmarks_prey/index.html

There are still some bugs when it comes to the HD 2900XT, but alot of them are clearly driver problems. It's going to be really interesting to see what things will be like with the next driver release which should come within the next week or so. There are already several games where the 2900XT beats the 8800GTX, and a few (such as Call of Juarez) where the 2900XT is equal to the 8800 Ultra.

 

[CrystalBay]

Wreckage, why don't you take a breather, to put it nicely. Your loyalty is noble, but It also makes you suspect....

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: n7
Wreckage.

X-bit just did a really good review.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...8800ultra-extreme.html

It is certainly true that there are some major driver issues with too many games w/ the 2900.

You can see the 2900 beat the GTS in basically everything @ 1920x1200 for the first part of the review.
Then you see it losing to the X1950XTX for most of the last half.

Now i know you feel that's "just how it performs", but some of us would like to think that it losing to the X1950XTX might just be a driver issue

I know, crazy logic

So the GTS wins at least half the benchmarks, has better IQ, less heat, less noise, less power draw and costs a lot less. Uh, what was your point again?

The HD 2900XT wins most of the time, and when it comes to image quality, I have not seen such a resounding "G80 has better IQ." When it comes to an enthusiast card, power draw really doesn't matter. If you can afford to spend $300-400 on a GPU, you can afford a decent, 500W PSU such as the HX520 ($79 right now). As for the noise, it's not as bad as the X1900XT/X, and plenty of people such as myself were happy with that card.

Yep its funny, according to everyone that owns the card, its quieter than the X1900XT, yet everyone complains... But back when the X1900XT was the undisputed best card in the market (except to fanboys ) , everyone wanted to have one... Go figure

The games in which the HD 2900 XT loses, it's on par w/ the X1950XTX

Im glad its dawning on most people that the games in which it under performs are clearly bugged... Like you said, lets hope with Ati pumping out monthly drivers they can fix things real quick, and the HD2900XT will suddenly become a gem of a card for its price (which it will, if it starts performing like it does on the Xbit labs review on most non-bugged games, besting the GTX quite a few times)

However to me, upgrading right now is a waste of time/money... Those who already have a GTS or GTX need not upgrade, and those who have a last gen card or worse, know something better is coming from both camps, along with driver maturing over the next months, so its one of those times where it really pays to wait

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Yep its funny, according to everyone that owns the card, its quieter than the X1900XT, yet everyone complains... But back when the X1900XT was the undisputed best card in the market (except to fanboys ) , everyone wanted to have one... Go figure

Being quieter than the X1900XT doesnt mean much when the X1900XT sounds like a Formula 1 race car. I would know, I own one.

I think most people didnt make a big deal about it because it was clearly, hands down, no question the superior card. The situation now is not so clear cut so something like noise a power draw plays a much more important role. People begin to question the whether or not such things are immaterial when the competitor has a product that competes while performing better in these areas.