If ATI Won a Round, Would Anyone Notice?

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-28-2007, 03:24 PM
californian7856

2 Attachment(s)

If ATI Won a Round, Would Anyone Notice?

EDIT:
as many peopel said that single GTX + Core 2 w/e scores 13000 on 3dmark06 .... this article looks bias enough or SLI was not even enable in the 1st place

1st saw this on dailytech
http://www.dailytech.com/If+ATI+Won+...rticle7864.htm

original one's here:
http://www.falcon-nw.com/keltstake/ati_2900xtx.asp

Attachment 61083

btw original review by PC Mag (where that pic came from)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2147064,00.asp

Attachment 61089

edit:
i thought i post another review to balance things out
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
06-28-2007, 03:28 PM
Clairvoyant129

Impossible, I get near 13k with a single 8800GTX on 3DMark06. It's obvious they used some bad drivers.
06-28-2007, 03:33 PM
SaII

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

Impossible, I get near 13k with a single 8800GTX on 3DMark06. It's obvious they used some bad drivers.

maybe they didn't use 9x multi?

after all they are factory OC'd
06-28-2007, 03:33 PM
Dainas

Winning a round implies some actual across the board benchmark closure and not endless debating! And yes I bet people would notice well since that has not happened in ATI's favor since the R3xx days.
06-28-2007, 03:37 PM
yaddam205

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

Impossible, I get near 13k with a single 8800GTX on 3DMark06. It's obvious they used some bad drivers.

Same, this article is just a waste of time.
06-28-2007, 03:38 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Well, R600 CF is very strong although some deny it.
06-28-2007, 03:40 PM
nullface

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Well, R600 CF is very strong although some deny it.

QFT!
06-28-2007, 03:46 PM
Clairvoyant129

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Well, R600 CF is very strong although some deny it.

It's pretty good but doesn't have the performance crown and here at XS, that's all that matters.
06-28-2007, 03:51 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

It's pretty good but doesn't have the performance crown and here at XS, that's all that matters.

Well, I am so glad you are not XS :yepp:
Because what you post is more of instigating an argument more so then anything else. The article is not about what you posted.
06-28-2007, 03:55 PM
DilTech

Guys, those SLi numbers look like single card to me, all the way down the line...

As in, the driver used on the Falcon system with twin GTX's is running a driver that didn't enable SLi properly.
06-28-2007, 04:11 PM
Eastcoasthandle

The article brings a very interesting point about testing only single card performance, no SLI vs CF and most of them under XP. That I find very interesting. It's been a long time since I've seen new video cards benchmarked and find nothing of CF and SLI. Even if it's later on. Can someone link me to a HD 2900 XT CF vs 8800 GTS SLI benchmark review?
06-28-2007, 04:32 PM
DilTech

Guys, giving the warning now, keep it civil. Any blatant flaming WILL be handled immediately.
06-28-2007, 04:34 PM
Zytek_Fan

Well,the Sapphire Radeon HD2900XT is $374.99 and the cheapest 8800GTS is $379.99 so it's quite close.

Noise and power consumption, the 2900XT loses, but I could care less.

All I care about is performance per $...and how much X38 is going to be :up:
06-28-2007, 04:52 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Well,the Sapphire Radeon HD2900XT is $374.99 and the cheapest 8800GTS is $379.99 so it's quite close.

Noise and power consumption, the 2900XT loses, but I could care less.

All I care about is performance per $...and how much X38 is going to be :up:

i dont know where u shop as i just spent like 10sec typing 8800gts on newegg, hit click and got the result:up:

cheapest GTS 640 is $339.99... while the most expansive 640 GTS (without waterblock) is $409 on egg (339 to 409):up:

cheapest 2900XT is $349.99 a whole $35 more how ever the 2nd cheapest one is $399.99, and the most expansive 2900XT is $449 ... (374 to 449):up:

hell my 2nd GTS 640 was $339.99 on February:up:
06-28-2007, 05:02 PM
Zytek_Fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by californian7856

i dont know where u shop as i just spent like 10sec typing 8800gts on newegg, hit click and got the result:up:

cheapest GTS 640 is $339.99... while the most expansive 640 GTS (without waterblock) is $409 on egg (339 to 409):up:

cheapest 2900XT is $379.99 a whole $40 more how ever the 2nd cheapest one is $399.99, and the most expansive 2900XT is $449 ... (379 to 449):up:

hell my 2nd GTS 640 was $339.99 on February:up:

I wasn't counting MIRs
06-28-2007, 05:08 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

I wasn't counting MIRs

There's still the leadtek model for $369 before MIR.

Fact is though, this topic has nothing to do with prices of the 512mb hd2900xt and the 640mb gts. The 1gb HD2900xt is aligned against the 768 mb GTX.

Lets keep this on topic guys, shall we? :up:
06-28-2007, 05:11 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

There's still the leadtek model for $369 before MIR.

Fact is though, this topic has nothing to do with prices of the 512mb hd2900xt and the 640mb gts. The 1gb HD2900xt is aligned against the 768 mb GTX.

Lets keep this on topic guys, shall we? :up:

that is correct, u can spin this whole "2900XT was never meant to compete with GTX, it was to compete with GTS 640" anyway u want ...

the fact is GTS 640 is cheaper than 2900XT here in US

also if u werent counting MIR .. that sapphire 2900XT is $394.99 last time i checked and the cheapest is MSI $369.99, still 25 bux cheaper
06-28-2007, 05:19 PM
GripS

Can't be right. I score 11,150 with my GTS overclocked and my CPU running @ 3.2ghz. I highly doubt 2xGTX only scored 13,000.
06-28-2007, 05:21 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by GripS

Can't be right. I score 11,150 with my GTS overclocked and my CPU running @ 3.2ghz. I highly doubt 2xGTX only scored 13,000.

Exactly, and that doesn't include the fact that you're running a dual-core, and they're running a quad-core at 3.73 ghz...

A single card should hit ~13k with ease on that system.
06-28-2007, 05:50 PM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

Exactly, and that doesn't include the fact that you're running a dual-core, and they're running a quad-core at 3.73 ghz...

A single card should hit ~13k with ease on that system.

In windows Vista?
Remember is Win Vista maybe 64bits, not Win XP that they are talking ;)

The pourpose of that is show who has the best drivers. Everything is explained on the article. Just read.....

They even say that there is not in question the performance of 8800, but yes the lack of that performance in windows vista in SLI.
Remeber that Falcon Crest is advising buyers to pick HD 2900 XT system simply because it offers more performance with the Operating System that came with it.
06-28-2007, 06:19 PM
ahmad

Actually this makes sense. These tests were done in Vista and everyone knows ATi has much better drivers in Vista. Heck I don't even think SLI works in Vista yet...

Thats just saying if you want good dual card performance in Vista, 2900XT is the choice.
06-28-2007, 07:18 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahmad

Actually this makes sense. These tests were done in Vista and everyone knows ATi has much better drivers in Vista. Heck I don't even think SLI works in Vista yet...

Thats just saying if you want good dual card performance in Vista, 2900XT is the choice.

SLi works in vista, just not with older drivers.

The fact that SLi didn't work in their review tells us they used older G80 drivers. The real question is, why would Falcon Northwest send out a computer with SLi using a driver that doesn't support SLi...
06-28-2007, 07:27 PM
californian7856

yeah i dont think SLI was enable at all lol ....
06-29-2007, 02:46 AM
Iconyu

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

SLi works in vista, just not with older drivers.

The fact that SLi didn't work in their review tells us they used older G80 drivers. The real question is, why would Falcon Northwest send out a computer with SLi using a driver that doesn't support SLi...

OEM try to ship with WHQL drivers only.
06-29-2007, 04:41 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

The article brings a very interesting point about testing only single card performance, no SLI vs CF and most of them under XP. That I find very interesting. It's been a long time since I've seen new video cards benchmarked and find nothing of CF and SLI. Even if it's later on. Can someone link me to a HD 2900 XT CF vs 8800 GTS SLI benchmark review?

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...hnitt_3dmark06

dunno if these results are common, but computerbase usually is a pretty credibale source.

*edit* ah well, just noticed the testsystem was running windows xp. maybe not that compareable to the results posted in this thread, as they were achieved on vista.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 PM.

XtremeSystems