Printable View
As for the performance:this card has a lot of headroom trough the driver optimizations,it's fairly obvious thing with the latest set.Read Shamino's comment at the review about the game scores that went from 11% to 42% in different scenarios(games).
As for power bill, 65W is not that much for those who have the money for the card at the first place.And most of the time,card would be idling ,and the idle power is very good compared to other Nvidia cards.
Dunno if it has been posted yet but here is VR-Zone final review:
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4946
That OC work bench review is the worst.
Few weeks and I'm going to pick one up. Hopefully by then some of the driver issues that are holding his card back will be fixed.
Overall I like this card for price point versus performance. I figured it would fall between gts and gtx in performance and with the OC ability I am not disappointed. However I want to see how these cards scale in CF as compared to SLI. If they scale better by 15% or better they are gonna be even better to me. I think SLI is a rip off for the cost versus extra performance.
I didn't calculate the FLOP but used ATI (trough a review) & nVidia's (trough wikipedia) information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Here's the calculation nVidia used:
(MADD(2flops) + MUL(1flop)) * 1350MHz * 128 SPs ＝ 518.4 Gigaflops
Note that I am not comparing ATI vs nVidia based on Gigaflops (which would be stupid cos I would need to take slack, latencies etc into account).
I do not care about ATI vs nVidia, I care about the 8600-8800 relation and am using it to reflect on the possible 2600-2900 relation. 128-bit could work when they use faster memory. 512 = 3.2 * 1.25 (faster memory) * 128 (ring-bus). Card scaling would be 3.2 for mem vs 2.5 for shaders.
This would make the 2600XT-2900XTX more like a 8600GT - 8800GTS relation. That's good cos the 8600GTS:8600GT ratio is 1.25 for core, 1.25 for shader, but 1.43 for mem and the performance of the 8600 GTS is poor compared to the 8600GT (factor 1.1 mostly). But the 8600GT - 8800GTS is 2.85x, 3x for mem, shader. More shader power for the ATI compared to mem is nice, although this may be a bit out of proportion. It better be darn cheap to compete with the 2900 tough!
Note that it is really not wise to do such calculations and that results can vary greatly due to not taking a lot of things into account, but this is all I can do with the information & time I am given.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39578
Nvidia's anti ATi presentation
performance of the hd2900xt card bounces around all over....
(according to the vr-zone review),
in some games nvidia does the happy dance...
in some other games its ati...
in some others they on par....
so.....
what should i think of that card?.... well... we will see what future drivers will bring... but then i might aswell stick with my 8800 gts and wait for r650....
Yes, there was another point release to the 8.37s today to address 3DMark issues under Vista but no real changes for the drivers you can download tomorrow. The 8.38s are scheduled for 5/23, should see some very nice improvements in games and benchmarks, along with Vista compatibility improvements.Quote:
Originally Posted by deathman20
Looking at that makes you think the GTX is at least twice as fast in everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by fornowagain
It seems that it beats the 320gts in most tests, the 640gts in not as many but still more, and loses in most to the gtx.
Not bad for a card around the 640gts range...
Part of its problem against teh gtx is the amount of memory since it doesnt appear to scale too well at high res and aa/af
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
Yeah :) but it does have some sense to it....:confused:
Is anandtech going to redo the review next week with the new drivers?Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
I want this tit for tat resolved. Lets see which card performs best OC using stock coolers only. That will put the nail on the coffin, I bet muhahahahaahahahahah:cool:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/index.htm
Mirror of VR-Zone review.
Let's all camp out in front of the building where the Crysis development staff is and beg them to give us a room filled with hardware to test Crysis on instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
The price for a 2900XT looks set for around $735 NZD, with a 8800GTX less then 100 bucks more I'm sure you alllllll know what I'm going to buy :rolleyes:
PNG lossless versions.
8800GTX vs 2900XT
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/4821/gtx1wt7.th.pnghttp://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7563/xt1hd7.th.png
http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/...2m_5707e55.pnghttp://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/...2m_b16ef13.png
All four frames in a zip file here.
http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/168282/pics-zip.html
Pre-orders for the 2900XT are only 20 euro above that of the 8800 GTS 640 MB here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmay
:D :D :D :D :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fornowagain
The me the 2900 wins. The very slight blur in the lines on the balloon is acceptable, the overall jaggie-removal is better, but what really sets it apart from the nVidia is that the nVidia totally screws up on the front-end of the balloon where the spike is sticking out. AntiAliasing should never remove lines.
I think it looks pretty good, but I want to see performance tests in Rainbow6 Vegas (Unreal Engine 3). I'm also disappointed to hear that the shim is taller than the core, the main reason I was waiting for R600 is cause I don't like the G80's huge IHS and prefer the traditional approach. Not to mention I'd probably need a new PSU if I wanted to OC the R600.
what?? XT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmay
so who won ? XT?Quote:
Originally Posted by fornowagain
That's up to you. I think the difference now is tiny. Congrats to ATi.Quote:
Originally Posted by theteamaqua
The OC results show that the architecture itself has a lot of headroom when you can supply it with enough power and remove the heat. Think the 65nm die-shrink will show what the card can actually do?
Also, can somebody point me towards some info explaining what the fill-rate/pixel shader/vertex shader results mean in practical terms? (I mean performance in games, not the definition of each metric.) It seems odd to me that the results in each test swing so wildly, especially with unified shaders.