Radeon HD 2900 XT vs. 320MB 8800 GTS

Printable View

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

06-17-2007, 05:59 PM
Clairvoyant129

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

Exactly... It's now going to be a lot harder to trust forum numbers after seeing the fraps screenshots v_rr posted.... He still hasn't answered on who he got those from.

AMD paid pumpers. :shrug:

Anyway, the best thing to do is compare this review with other reviews.
06-17-2007, 07:54 PM
DeathReborn

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

7.5 released on 31th of may. They started review like 2 weeks before posting it ans did all benchmarks before 31th, after they spent two weeks to write their review :rofl:

They could have started the benchmarking before it came out & once you start a review with 1 driver you don't change to a new one for the last parts of a review. Xbit sometimes takes over a month to get a review out so to some people it takes time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColonelCain

When does the X2900XL come out?

According to Hector it came out with the 2900XT, 2400's & 2600's ie, all on the same day. So realistically we're probably talking July/August unless they cancel it (and lose my business in the process).
06-18-2007, 05:34 PM
STEvil

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBONE

It serves no practical purpose to show every number possible. For purposes of the review, numbers below playability don't matter at all. The frame rate considered playable is clearly defined for each game.

If you dont want comparable numbers, that is fine.

The rest of us find it rather hard to say that a 3dfx Voodoo 1 running at 120x120 is faster than an 8800GTX running 2048x1536.

Sure, maybe its just as playable.. but which one would you rather use? :shakes:
06-18-2007, 05:56 PM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

They could have started the benchmarking before it came out & once you start a review with 1 driver you don't change to a new one for the last parts of a review. Xbit sometimes takes over a month to get a review out so to some people it takes time.

Xbit has a 21 page review with dozens of test games with lot of reserch in a previews article.
The [H] review is a 5 page review full of Fud and 3 or 4 game tests.

You are comparing the size of David to Golias in quality of the reviews.
06-18-2007, 06:12 PM
safan80

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubermann

Do you see any FPS in those screens ?
If you want to show whats settings that is running at equal speed then for the love of god use fraps or whatever to show it.

Anything related to [H] should be considered a crime!
CPU's GPU's or whatever..

I agree with what your saying, but you don't need fraps in oblivion you can just enter tdt in the game console.
06-18-2007, 07:16 PM
STEvil

so enter tdt.
06-18-2007, 08:29 PM
DeathReborn

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Xbit has a 21 page review with dozens of test games with lot of reserch in a previews article.
The [H] review is a 5 page review full of Fud and 3 or 4 game tests.

You are comparing the size of David to Golias in quality of the reviews.

I'm comparing 1 website to another, nothing more. Not everyone operates at the same speed & not everyone is as "reliable" as you think you are. Xbit does generally good reviews but i'd like them more if they did a similar "maximum playable settings" for each card as it really shows where the performance liabilities are.

As for the topic title, HD 2900XT is a much better card than the 8800GTS 320MB but not a much better card than the 8800GTS 640MB (unless you play 3DMurk).
06-18-2007, 10:13 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Xbit has a 21 page review with dozens of test games with lot of reserch in a previews article.
The [H] review is a 5 page review full of Fud and 3 or 4 game tests.

You are comparing the size of David to Golias in quality of the reviews.

Didn´t xbit recently get caught in taking money to improve reviews? :up:

And some big review aint nessesary a guaranrtee for a better one.

Wha I also dont like about xbit is they change their testlist each time. smaller, bigger and no consistency.
06-19-2007, 12:33 AM
Omastar

Woo, another aimless debate about which review sites suck and why.

The bottom line is pretty much all review sites suck, especially the larger and more bloated they become. Why? More popularity usually means 'selling out' or skewing reviews to one brand or another (ever-so-subtly, I might add :rolleyes: ) to keep their mindless fanboys satiated. Else, they'd lose hits. I'm quickly losing my patience with Anand, just because they include so much superfluous information in reviews (see their Supermicro Twin review recently). I just really don't care for [H], for many reasons. Xbit, DailyTech, and friends, I'm pretty much indifferent toward.

I tend to stick to XS for my reviews, as I know at least here there's less chance of financially-driven bias.
06-19-2007, 12:46 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

As for the topic title, HD 2900XT is a much better card than the 8800GTS 320MB but not a much better card than the 8800GTS 640MB (unless you play 3DMurk).

Weird statement, i always see GTS 320 and GTS 640 nearly perform the same :shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Didn´t xbit recently get caught in taking money to improve reviews? :up:

Link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Wha I also dont like about xbit is they change their testlist each time. smaller, bigger and no consistency.

HD 2900XT
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...900-games.html
8800GTX
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...800-games.html
X1950XTX
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-x1950xtx.html
Same gamelist sine more than a year minus outdated game and plus new game. Another wrong assertion?
06-19-2007, 12:51 AM
Omastar

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Weird statement, i always see GTS 320 and GTS 640 nearly perform the same :shrug:

Sure they do, at lower resolutions like 1280x1024, 1440x900, 1680x1050. Although 1680x1050 seems to be where the 640MB variant pulls ahead in framerates, across the board. I've seen many reviews to this effect. No 320MB card will match a 640MB version in Quake 4 at 1920x1200. The same is true at higher resolutions when AA/AF are increased.

It does piss me off that the GTX performs so much better in Quake 4 in particular than the GTS 640.
06-19-2007, 01:10 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omastar

It does piss me off that the GTX performs so much better in Quake 4 in particular than the GTS 640.

And 2900XT performs better than GTX but for DeathReborn GTS 640 still a much better card.
http://66.249.91.104/translate_c?hl=...d-2900-xt.html
06-19-2007, 05:57 AM
XeRo

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...ion/index.html

Only 3 games were tested, but shows a comparison for 7.5 vs old drivers.
06-19-2007, 06:03 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeRo

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...ion/index.html

Only 3 games were tested, but shows a comparison for 7.5 vs old drivers.

So no change basicly.
06-19-2007, 06:04 AM
XeRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

So no change basicly.

Yes, with the games they tested. It would be nice if they had more games to test.
06-19-2007, 06:09 AM
mascaras

Quote:

Call of Juarez DX_10 with last oficial drivers from Nvidia & ATI :

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=179328,00.gif
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=179329,00.gif
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=179330,00.gif

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2147111,00.asp

:up:
06-19-2007, 06:18 AM
AbelJemka

Mascaras u have both card. Why not make a little thread with comparison between 8800 GTS an 2900XT on Oblivion and Stalker (polemic games).
06-19-2007, 06:22 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeRo

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...ion/index.html

Only 3 games were tested, but shows a comparison for 7.5 vs old drivers.

Pity they compare games which already work very well:(
06-19-2007, 06:24 AM
XeRo

This site did use the latest 7.5 for ATi.

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/ind...=420&Itemid=27

A valid arguement would be the latest nV drivers weren't used.
06-19-2007, 12:29 PM
Krizby87

X-bits lab just published this 8800 Ultra Xtreme review and it included HD X2900XT benched with Cat 7.5 and Nvidia card with 158.24; This should clear up about the 100% performance improvement for HD X2900 in Stalker.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...talker_hdr.gif

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...tesout_hdr.gif
06-19-2007, 12:31 PM
Spawne32

http://smiliesftw.com/x/hs2ugh.gif
06-19-2007, 02:27 PM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krizby87

X-bits lab just published this 8800 Ultra Xtreme review and it included HD X2900XT benched with Cat 7.5 and Nvidia card with 158.24; This should clear up about the 100% performance improvement for HD X2900 in Stalker.

In reality weird things about this game go on.
Elite Bastards, today review too, got totally différent numbers with almost same config except no AF.
http://www.elitebastards.com/hanners...alker-1600.png
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/ind...1&limitstart=5
Hardware.fr had totally different numbers too with exactly same config than Xbitslabs
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0019998.gif
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/671-...d-2900-xt.html
Firingsquad same picture
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_...ages/s1600.gif

Even Anandtech review had far better numbers
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=23
I don't really play that game (don't like it much) but i run it at start now.
http://images0.hiboox.com/vignettes/2507/ex8drsry.jpg
http://images0.hiboox.com/vignettes/2507/us16e9d8.jpg
http://www.mezimages.com/up/06/min-239113-001.PNG
http://www.mezimages.com/up/06/min-239117-002.PNG
Maybe game beginning doesn't represent performance of it :shrug:
This game benchmarks are really weird with 2900XT
06-19-2007, 02:38 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

In reality weird things about this game go on.
Elite Bastards, today review too, got totally différent numbers with almost same config except no AF.

Maybe game beginning doesn't represent performance of it :shrug:
This game benchmarks are really weird with 2900XT

Likely different time-demos? There are parts of the game that can be out-right brutal to a graphics sub-system, and with the fact that it's the dynamic lighting that hurts the HD2900xt, if a section uses more of it than others, perhaps it hurts the HD2900xt more then the 8800.
06-19-2007, 02:55 PM
AbelJemka

Problem spotted:shocked:
I doubt they redone the bench. Exactly same numbers between new and old test...:shakes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...talker_hdr.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s_8.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...talker_hdr.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...tesout_hdr.gif

:owned:
06-19-2007, 03:05 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Problem spotted:shocked:
I doubt they redone the bench. Exactly same numbers between new and old test...:shakes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...talker_hdr.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s_8.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...talker_hdr.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...tesout_hdr.gif

:owned:

Wouldn't say owned just yet... it's possible there literally is no difference between the 7.4 and 7.5 under that operating system for s.t.a.l.k.e.r... You have the right to a suspicion there(I'm right along with you on that), but for ownage, can a few people here running windows vista ultimate 32bit run stalker with the exact same drivers they and see if there's a difference in performance? :up:

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