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.
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).
All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
Asus Z9PE-D8 WS with 64GB of registered ECC ram.|Dell 30" LCD 3008wfp:7970 video card
LSI series raid controller
SSDs: Crucial C300 256GB
Standard drives: Seagate ST32000641AS & WD 1TB black
OSes: Linux and Windows x64
so enter tdt.
All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
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).
Last edited by Shintai; 06-18-2007 at 10:18 PM.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
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) 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.
Weird statement, i always see GTS 320 and GTS 640 nearly perform the same![]()
Link?
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Same gamelist sine more than a year minus outdated game and plus new game.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?
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
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.
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
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...ion/index.html
Only 3 games were tested, but shows a comparison for 7.5 vs old drivers.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Call of Juarez DX_10 with last oficial drivers from Nvidia & ATI :
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2147111,00.asp
![]()
[Review] Core i7 920 & UD5 » Here!! « .....[Review] XFX GTX260 216SP Black Edition » Here!! «
[Review] ASUS HD4870X2 TOP » Here!! « .....[Review] EVGA 750i SLi FTW » Here!! «
[Review] BFG 9800GTX 512MB » Here!! « .....[Review] Geforce 9800GX2 1GB » Here!! «
[Review] EVGA GTX280 1GB GDDR3 » Here!! « .....[Review] Powercolor HD4870 512MB GDDR5 » Here!! «
Mascaras u have both card. Why not make a little thread with comparison between 8800 GTS an 2900XT on Oblivion and Stalker (polemic games).
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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.
![]()
Core i7 8700k @ 5.1Ghz * Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 * 4x8GB Corsair RGB @ 3600 16-18-18-36 * GTX 1080ti @ 2050/11400 * Plextor M8Pe 512GB * Creative Sound Blaster Z * Audioengine 5+ * Corsair Obsidian 750D * Corsair RM1000 watt
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/cms/ind...1&limitstart=5
Hardware.fr had totally different numbers too with exactly same config than Xbitslabs
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/671-...d-2900-xt.html
Firingsquad same picture
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.
![]()
Maybe game beginning doesn't represent performance of it![]()
This game benchmarks are really weird with 2900XT
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
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.
Problem spotted![]()
I doubt they redone the bench. Exactly same numbers between new and old test...![]()
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s_8.html#sect0
![]()
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
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?![]()
Bookmarks