Printable View
last week I got 2 ATi HD2900XT 9.5" 1GB GDDR4.
those cards are specially make for S.I. high end gameing computer
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd2900xt/hd2900xt_07.jpg
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd2900xt/hd2900xt_06.jpg
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd2900xt/hd2900xt_05.jpg
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd2900xt/hd2900xt_04.jpg
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd2900xt/hd2900xt_02.jpg
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd2900xt/hd2900xt_03.jpg
testing on 3.6G 1st
@default clock speed
3Dmark01.......................63713
3Dmark03.......................38777
3Dmark05.......................21480
3Dmark06.......................12769
@overclock to 858/1153
3Dmark01.......................65491
3Dmark03.......................42680
3Dmark05.......................22607
3Dmark06.......................14255
This is 1 graphics card results right? And if so :D
Still I think I'll wait for R650... no rush :) (unless of course Crysis comes out)
No crossfire yet? Sorry if I'm asking a bit much already.
That looks awsome.......what were the system specs??.........nmQuote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
compared to the 512mb model is it worth the jump to 1gb?
those scores are single card. CF score since i only can make it run @ 16+4, those scores are not that good. but i will post it later next week
512 vs 1024, i hope it would help. not really big gain tho. if you have any score please share with us
Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
i have scores but Im on Opteron 165......it really wouldnt fit in here.....Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
test on quad core @ 4G, Asus P5K-D, GSKILL 2GBHZ @ 1000 CL4, TT 1200W PSU, TR 120-X
@default
3Dmark01.......................68753
3Dmark03.......................39360
3Dmark05.......................22842
3Dmark06.......................12944
@overclocking to 858/1153
3Dmark01.......................69669
3Dmark03.......................43351
3Dmark05.......................23978
3Dmark06.......................14439
3d05 and 06 is very good;)
i should turn off the ATi CCC minimap on 06 to get better score, but i forgotQuote:
Originally Posted by gandalfone
Stock 13k in 06 is awesome.
no surprise that its faster then 8800 Ultra in 3d mark 05, but other
3D marks its still little behind..nice work denny....
Cat 7.5's used in these tests ?
Hey D! Have you retired from benching? I haven't see you post numbers in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty
Cats 7.5
E6600@3.89Ghz - HD2900XT@890/1075
3DMark06 = 13,479
http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/3...ark0hn1.th.png
If I were to have a quadcore I could be hitting 15K, I just used the 3DMark06 Calculator and replaced my cpu score with Denny's and it came to 15008...LOL I will push it some more and will run CAS3 on the ram later on.
finally a product that will bring AMD to the market again
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicepun
nice results nicepun......
definitely not, just been very busy with work.....:)
Possibly...depends upon it's gaming performance, and not it's 3dmark performance though.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFrOuT
I'm curious on how much the extra ram will help with games actually, as I don't think any game currently can use that much ram.
sigh, hasn't anyone learned with the 512mb release that 3DMark scores don't mean a single thing? Who really cares how many multiple thousands of points you can gain from using this card while gaming has the card choke under high settings. There was 1GB tests done before the 512mb card came out and it showed next to no gain at all in performance in games. No game will take advantage of 1GB so I feel it is all going to be wasted memory that won't be utilized. R650 is where we have to wait and hope for changes because 16 ROP/TMU's just isn't cutting it when compared to the 8800.
if its the same core, it will still suffer the same horrible drop in fps at high AA. more bandwidth is better but 1GB memory probably wont do much good till Crysis or Bioshock.
Both of those game engines(cryengine2 & UE3.0) support texture streaming, meaning they will use less texture memory, not more. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by trajik78
very nice scores :)
i forget to change to 7.5... i will try it maybe tomorrow or next weekQuote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty
here is some 16x+4x weak CF testing, 1st card @ stock clocking and 2nd card @ 500/500 clocking (much lower than stock clock speed)
3Dmark03.......................60120
3Dmark05.......................26586
3Dmark06.......................19390
just like Kinc said, CF uses less CPU overhead :D
also 01 doesn;t really benefit when CF enable
according to coolaler
3D06 701/1163 SLi.............19819
3D03 685/1150 SLi.............69224
very nice job :up:
I'm loving the increase in 06 512 to 1gb :)
Congrats.
Perkam
512Mb for 2900XT was not enough - so it has bad results in heavy videomodes
1Gb of memory will give a great boost
Right 2 cards and less CPU usage with CF.Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
But let we talk freely, when will this card hit retail ?
1-2 mounts when g80 will be 1 year old architecture and will be cheaper for sure. Now we have ~500$ for GTX and due to less heat overclocked can beat 2900XT 1gb GDDR4 even in 3dmarks comparing your scores. All ATI drivers right now are on open beta state, so in games there is no need to compare them even:p:
I think last year ATI made lots of disappointments and this card, would be the continuation of the saga:down:
nice scoores
Very nice scores...I really need an HD2900XT...my board is begging for some real VGA power! :D
Hi Denny why did you clock that second Card only to 500/500 ?
Some further question your a girl or a guy denny ? :D
It's what i think too, specially cause the ring controller (512/1024bit in 2 ways) is designed for 1024Mo GDDR4.. this should be enough for stop the big lost of FPS with AA @ High res.. ( but i think the problem come too of a better optimisation for the AA, 7.5 have begin solve this prob on some games..)Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Nice bench Denny, and i like the perfect quality of the pics you have put on the thread..
afaik its a core (r600) problem. no amount of memory bandwidth or size will help that. the current big losses aren't due to memory bandwidth as the current 2900XT has enough memory bandwidth so deal with any AA the GPU can delve out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lane-k
as far as ATI's own engineers have said the GPU is built around CSAA which should be used more in future games.
will this give the 8800gtx a run for it's money?
unless the retail version is clocked higher i doubt it (at 4/8xAA).Quote:
Originally Posted by WRC
Nice scores Denny :) Keep them coming.
any info on price-range for these puppies??
Probably a 100 bucks plus for this card.
so probably still cheaper than a 8800Gtx?So still not a 8800GTX killer than,lol....
i use p975 4.4G yesterday which is 8x+8x, the only score increase is CPU score XD
and then i back to P965 4.4Gtodat which is 16x+4x... same score...
makes me believe CF doesn't make a lot of different on 16x + 4x or 8x + 8x
You got two bridges, thats not suprising. But it is good news for the rest of us.
I see a big diference especially in SM3.0 in 06. In 05 there aint much difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinc
my 05 score actually drop using P975 :(
with no overclock @4.4G 3Dmark06 P965 and P975 both give me ~20400
and atomworks can't detect 3D clock.... sad :(
good article on the effects of different slot combinations:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/...ling_analysis/
seems the biggest loss is when using 4x. the article also shows that it really does pay to have a board with 2 16x slots, but only REALLY matters when running this latest generation of cards.
How about Company Of Heroes DX10 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
@P35 Asus P5K-D motherboard, Intel Quadcord 4.5G, GSKILL 2GBHZ 1023 CL4
16x+4x, PCIE 120
3Dmark05 close to 29k
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd290...00xt1gb_23.PNG
3Dmark06............... SM2 8218 and SM3 9053
================================================== ===========================
@P975 Asus P5WDH motherboard, Intel Quadcord, GSKILL 2GBHZ 1015 CL4
8x+8x PCIE 138
4G
3Dmark06............... 20056
it is my 1st time see GPU no mod overclock and stock cooler with 20k+ on 06
4.4G
3Dmark06
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd290...2900975_02.PNG
but even with ~4.5G
3Dmark05............... 28230
game1 and game 2 much lower than P35
but game 3 is up to 193 FPS, 5 extra FPS increase shows GPU power is much higher than P35 GPU power
I'm fed up with 3dmark scores. 2900XT 1GB can only fight 8800 Ultra with 3dmark not games.Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098
not important to me cuz i don't play game :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bakalu
Denny, are you sure that the P5K-D uses 16x and 8x? Isnt it 16x and 4x?
With better cooling and overclock of both cards, K|ngp|n's record of 24.4k seems to be within reach...
Cost 2 times less than 8800 Ultra.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bakalu
nice
2900 XT 1GB GDDR4 649$Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
http://www.extreme-pc.ca/showproduct...oductid=371414
8800 Ultra 669$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814133201
LOL is ATI trying to lose fan base?Quote:
Originally Posted by bakalu
I have not see 1G... Meanwhile only one shop with the card so i don't think we can compare price now.Quote:
Originally Posted by bakalu
$650 is CDN...which means 1GB will be $550-$600 USD.
Oh and pls don't argue with me on this...I live in Canada and know how screwed we get on prices.
Perkam
i would like to see some 4x and 8x AA testing between this GDDR4 card and the GTX. im sure it looses.
Make 8AA and 16AF would will be surprised. Moreover it will win some with 4AA and 8AA.
yes, 1920x1200 (or up) with 8x/16x fsaa game compare's pls :D
(not to denny in particular, just anyone, someone! :p: )
would be the only situation where the 1gb vs 768mb could make a difference i think..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakalu
thats not US dolares , its CANADIAN dolares (HD2900XT 1GB GDDR4 =580$ - 600$ US dolares)
:up:
denny the default cloks are 825mhz on core and 2100mhz memory , right ???
regards
typo, it is 16x + 4x, nice caught heheQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
He said that because the 8800 Ultra that was posted is in US dollars.Quote:
thats not US dolares , its CANADIAN dolares
In Canada the 8800 Ultra is alot more expensive
$895.00 http://www.directcanada.com/products...anufacture=XFX
$911.07 http://www.directcanada.com/products...nufacture=EVGA
I couldn't find a PNY version of the Ultra
core speed is same 745, but mem is 1000Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
but maybe they overclock it by themself
Great results...maybe
Try those cards under dice and cpu under LN² and try to beat k|ngp|n =)
Denny,
The reason you can't OC those cards too high, is quite simple; the bios has a lock mechanism that prevents it from pushing it too high. 858.3 to be exact.
This is some of the reasons folks will notice that when they try to push the cards too high, their software will only read the threshold from the bios.
The cards HD 2900 XT will be offered at a stocked speed of 825/1100. Only few vendors in North America will have these awesome creatures.
Mad Maverick
The 2900 XT gddr4 I have here clocks @ default > 743/1000,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Maverick
where do you get 825/1100 from ?....:confused:
i know, there is OC version card. i can use atomwork to change hardware limitation over 858, but there is no point for me to do it cuz under air i can't go over 860.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Maverick
also, using AMDGPUclocktool you can over write the hardware limitation.
CF not overclockable is basicly not supported for now.
825/2200 is the oc version i already know it :D
Hi Dynasty,
The clocks you have are the reference clocks. And so are the ones that Denny has. The numbers you see now, are the ones that marketing and engineering approved. You will see more SI's like Maingear Smooth Creations,
Vigor Gaming and Velocity Micro promoting the same clocks.
MM
btw where is my biosQuote:
Originally Posted by Mad Maverick
I will have it ready shortly. And yes, they are working on the drivers for CF.
MM
and i want 2 of 825/2200 too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mad Maverick
X( Who is this mystery guy !!
But I won't drive him away so I won't ask...good to have you :)
Perkam
ah, oc'd version i should of known....thanks for info m8.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Maverick
and welcome to XS.....:yepp:
Yeah, thanks for the info and welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Maverick
welcome maverick good to have you onboard, keep the legitimate info coming...its much appreciated...
so to clarify there really isnt much of a differance in performance between the 1gb and 512mb version (i already see that there isnt but just to clarify)....
Thanks Purecain.
Nothing is more annoying then getting bunk information and getting peoples hopes up high. On the flip side, there is a certain level of descretion i must excersie and maintain in order to keep folks like Nvidia and their AIC's at bay and on their toes. Personally, I beleive the 1GB cards will be pretty well performing products. It will will just depend on what type of applications you use them
for. Unfortunately, as impressive benchmarks could be, sometimes they yield very little value that display, incoherent information to end users that rely on these products to be productivity performers. Some power users can use these cards for CATIA, solidworks, Renderman, autocad, video and audio post-production, or photoshop. The reason Denny was given these cards, was to generate an honest assessment from different testing platforms and benchmarks. Denny is an independent thinker whom is objective, and unbiased. I trust his feedback. I guarantee you Nvidia would not dare give cards to end users to test and post on forums. They would prefer to hand them out to users that are biased. and can post slanted information. Constant and open dialogue, like these forums will help us
assess the consumers needs and help deliver a better experience. You wont see me flaming or entertaining mudslinging with rival competitors. Instead, you can expect healthy constructive forum discussions.
Will the 1GB cards be better than Nvidia's? That will largely depend on your applications and the type of display you use. Nvidia is feeling the threat of these cards. If they didn't, they wouldn't have dropped the price of the Ultras overnnight by shaving 90 USD on newegg, the moment Extreme PC listed their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantankerous
FYI you guys are in the 3D Team section of the forums, chill out ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bakalu
some game benchmarks would be nice, after all, thats the main reason people buy good graphics cards.
Not in this part of the forums ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution21
QFT :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinc
Do you have any idea of how much they'll cost?
Well a few SI partners already have them listed.
Extreme PC, NCIX, Memory Express, Canada Computers, MainGear, Velocity Micro, Falcon North West, Smooth Creations, ABS, Polywell, Xi Computers,
Vigor Gaming, and a few other Premier Partners. The pricing will be around the
cost of the $559 -599 USD.The existing challenge is that the cost of DDR4 memory is NOT cheap. The 1GB of DDR4 memory cost more than the price of some graphics cards.
MM
so the card is only available via si partners?
can't overclock CF still, just increase CPU and see what is different in score, just some idea CF power and scores on 05 and 06
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd290...2900975_04.PNG
http://www.iamxtreme.net/video/hd290...2900975_05.PNG
i wonder P35 and 965 can do 150MHZ with SATA or PATA HDD?
what CF still not oc'able with 2900XT ???
It is. AMD told Kinc how to do it, but he is under NDA :/Quote:
Originally Posted by eva2000
The bios has to be flashed with the new clocks.
Hopefully we will have some working tools soon :)
Nice 06 score with stock clocks. I have the feeling Vince wont be able to hold the 06 record for much longer :)
since guess's CPU is at a blistering 4.7gHz (what cooling?) i think the results dont really show what the cards may be actually doing, as well as show what the average OC'er should expect since most of use aren't running that high of a CPU. i'd like to see a chart on CPU scaling. like stock cpu and OC'd. then with 0x, 4x and 8x AA. i know its a lot of work, but i think it would show a better picture of what to expect from these cards.
i did a similar test with my 2900xt here:
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.co...d.php?t=260832
Actually AMD is being a little sneaky. They are passing modded bioses (with higher clocks) to the benchers. No way of actually OCing the cards in CF yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
My guess is they have no way of actually sending clock information to each card since now they support it natively. Meaning, ATI will have to do it nvidia style, and clock both cards at the same time.
I have seen pre-order 2900XT 1GB cards here in Canada for $550-$650CAD... PREORDER... Once these cards hit market, price will drop, not very much expensive compared to 512MB version... Maybe $100 CAD more?
Still about 1/2 price for 8800Ultra.
trajik78
check the pics again
Danny runs his cpu under DI (dry ice, co2, -72.9 iirc)
performance is still going to be crap with this card isn't it? The core and architecture is identical include the flaws found on the 512mb variant. The extra ram isn't going to do squat to bring this to GTX/Ultra levels.
I also did a similar comparison in this thread http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...ad.php?t=48712Quote:
Originally Posted by trajik78
showing the cpu increase and decrese also comparisons going from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050 in 06
Maybe this is something Mad Maverick can answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by cantankerous
Crap compare to what? Price or expectations/speculations?Quote:
Originally Posted by cantankerous
crap compared to the GTX and even the GTS some of the time when AA/AF are enabled? Price is fine, performance is meh.
Have you seen benches of them?And i'm not talking about 3DMarks...I don't give a s**t about 3DMarks.I know there are people who have a better pc than i do,hence there are people who have a worse pc than i do...I really don't need 3DMarks to prove me that...As long as there are NO gamebenches shown,NOBODY can tell if this card is better/worse than GTX/Ultra:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by cantankerous
well as far as the card is concerned it is IDENTICAL to the 512mb variant except with more memory. A stock 512mb card has more bandwidth than a GTX and it didn't help the card a single bit. I think it was Denny himself who said the 1GB card didn't perform much better than the 512mb and it was all about wow factor and 3DMark which like yourself I couldn't care less about.
isn't there a driver for the HD2900 that improves performance on the cards? or is it already out? and sucks not being able to oc them =.=
i think this card will have a better performance after new driver release, modded bios... we already see nvidia got to make a move, to cut down the 8xxx series card, if this move it's not the prove that HD2900XT have a potencial then why would they cut the price???
to convert fanbois ;) :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by kojiro91
Hi Craptacular One.... long time no see since you left Guru3d forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
Very Nice.
I want to see more results Denny.
Actually, there are some plans to have these cards available for ecommerce.
NCIX and Extreme PC will accomdate this DIY consumers.
New Driver releases will be available more frequently.
Europe will be able to have these cards available in the next 5-10 days as well. Availability is not a problem. These cards will be available with SI's that also have a ecommerce site and presence. Latin America will also have these fine toys.
The cards are highly over-clockable. The limitation is not the hardware, but some firmware protection features. Regarding the core and archirecture flaws, I am not sure I quite understand what flaws you may be referring to.
Comparisons are hard to exact, because everyone has different platforms and benching mediums and criteria. However, whether comparisons are made to price or performance or as speculation will come down to what I previously posted.
"Nothing is more annoying then getting bunk information and getting peoples hopes up high. On the flip side, there is a certain level of descretion i must excersie and maintain in order to keep folks like Nvidia and their AIC's at bay and on their toes. Personally, I beleive the 1GB cards will be pretty well performing products. It will will just depend on what type of applications you use them
for. Unfortunately, as impressive benchmarks could be, sometimes they yield very little value that display, incoherent information to end users that rely on these products to be productivity performers. Some power users can use these cards for CATIA, solidworks, Renderman, autocad, video and audio post-production, or photoshop. The reason Denny was given these cards, was to generate an honest assessment from different testing platforms and benchmarks. Denny is an independent thinker whom is objective, and unbiased. I trust his feedback. Denny's cards are pilot run samples;I know, I
gave them to him.
Will the 1GB cards be better than Nvidia's? That will largely depend on your applications and the type of display you use. Nvidia is feeling the threat of these cards. If they didn't, they wouldn't have dropped the price of the Ultras overnnight by shaving 90 USD on newegg, the moment Extreme PC listed their products."
Denny...............Please contact me..............MM