New AMD/ATI card kicks butt

[Apokalipse]

The whole point behind you saying that was.. that you can get similar performance for 70 dollars less, was it not? Then right there, you made a judgement on the HD 2900 XT.

Actually, "similar performance" is not a judgement on which one is better. He was only stating that one costs less.

"similar performance" includes the possibility of it being not quite as good. It does not explicitly state that, but it is still a possibility nontheless.

 

[BennyV04988]

The new ATI card only beats the 8800's at 25x16 and the likes... And in that case, it's like 35 fps vs 20 fps. So it only wins when both cards perform HORRIBLY. It's "fast"... but it's not "quick", per say. Definitely a waste of money and a dissapointing card.

 

[Dante_Caligari]

If this card is contending with the 8800GTS and GTX on stock initial-release drivers, I applaud this card. For goodness sakes, nVidia...get better drivers! ATI has pretty much dominated as far as drivers go, so once better drivers are written for this card, I can see it rising above even the GTX. ...and @ 400$, do I hear AMD/ATI FTW?

No. Not yet. Give it time. I am having heat issues with my GTS, but it is quiet, one thing I personally can't live without. I had enough fun with my last PC being loud. I am liking the looks of things with this card, but as with any new videocard (computer product in general), give them time to work the bugs out.

 

[gurusan]

So far the general consensus among another forum I frequent is that these cards are not quiet a failure...but certainly offer nowhere near the performance they were promised to give....and no one really knows why. On paper the specs look quite good but from the benches they are terrible.

The 8800GTS is in the same price range and outperforms it in most cases....also the X2900XT draws a massive amount of power yet doesn't perform that great...talk about inefficiency.

People are saying "oh it's a new card, wait til there are better drivers"....but AMD have been working on drivers for awhile now..and even the crappy initial 8800 drivers only performed a few hundred points less in 3dmark06 than the current ones.

I haven't ruled the x2900xt out yet...but I was waiting to see how it performed and am pretty disappointed to be honest. In a month or so I'll probably be purchasing a 8800GTS

...just got ot say it again..I'm disappointed...everyone was talking so much about how great the RD600 chipset would be and waited months for it....it came out and was nothing special at all...in fact doesn't perform well at all in comparison with cheaper things like the 965P....

Now the same thign is happening with the r600. What's going on?

 

[zmatt]

dude the card just came out. do you know how much time and resources it takes to tweak drivers to fully work with the card? the past decade it seems the engineers have been quite a few steps ahead of the software developers in making great products. don't blame the hardware for a software problem. Most games can't recognize the card yet and the drivers are still alpha. On a related note just to prove a point there is an 8bit open source OS out there called contiki, it has full IP stack, multi threading, web browsing, and a GUI in 8k of ram. It has little to do with video cards but it proves my point that alot more can be done with software than is being done. why do you think game consoles can play games that are competitive as far as graphics go with desktops even tho they are running much more inferior hardware?

Anyways, let the games get patches to take advantage of the card, and let the drivers come out. I think alot of you are missing the big point here for $400 you are getting close-to-8800gtx power and the GTXs go for much more than that. that point right there should be enough to buy one of them over an 8 series any day.

 

[TheEnd187]

no one plays at 1900x1200? what are you talking about this is everyones basic res for playing wiescreen hd games if you look at most peoples computers on these forums you'll see that we can mostly all run these benchmarks at these insane resolutions

 

[BennyV04988]

wrong... 1680 x 1050 is the typical widescreen resolution. 19x12 is just huge. That only 24" and above... 0_o

 

[Apokalipse]

So far the general consensus among another forum I frequent is that these cards are not quiet a failure...but certainly offer nowhere near the performance they were promised to give....and no one really knows why.

Drivers.
Yes, AMD has had some time to work on them. But not as long as they need, and nowhere near as long as Nvidia. They are far from perfect.

wrong... 1680 x 1050 is the typical widescreen resolution. 19x12 is just huge. That only 24" and above... 0_o

Correct.
My 22" LCD has a maximum resolution of 1680 x 1050, and that's what I play most games at.

widescreen LCD's below 22" usually use 1440 x 900, also.

 

[baron5]

yeah my 22' inch is 1680*1050. and the gts 640 is better than the 2900xtx

 

[Apokalipse]

and the gts 640 is better than the 2900xtx

With current drivers, yes. I won't make any assumptions about which card will be better with improved drivers, but the fact is the X2900 still does need better drivers.