Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 158

Thread: Radeon HD 2900 XT vs. 320MB 8800 GTS

  1. #126
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by DilTech View Post
    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.

    Anyway, the best thing to do is compare this review with other reviews.

  2. #127
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by AbelJemka View Post
    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
    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 View Post
    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).

  3. #128
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    Quote Originally Posted by CBONE View Post
    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?

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  4. #129
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathReborn View Post
    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.

  5. #130
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    4,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubermann View Post
    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.


    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

  6. #131
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    so enter tdt.

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  7. #132
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by v_rr View Post
    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).

  8. #133
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by v_rr View Post
    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?

    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.
    Last edited by Shintai; 06-18-2007 at 10:18 PM.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  9. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,877
    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.

  10. #135
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathReborn View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    Didn´t xbit recently get caught in taking money to improve reviews?
    Link?
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    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?
    AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
    MSI 890GXM-G65
    Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
    Sapphire HD 6950 2GB

  11. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,877
    Quote Originally Posted by AbelJemka View Post
    Weird statement, i always see GTS 320 and GTS 640 nearly perform the same
    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.

  12. #137
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Omastar View Post
    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

  13. #138
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    304
    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]

  14. #139
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by XeRo View Post
    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.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  15. #140
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    So no change basicly.
    Yes, with the games they tested. It would be nice if they had more games to test.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  16. #141
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3,410
    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!! «

  17. #142
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    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

  18. #143
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by XeRo View Post
    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
    AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
    MSI 890GXM-G65
    Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
    Sapphire HD 6950 2GB

  19. #144
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    304
    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]

  20. #145
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    126
    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

  21. #146
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Philly/NJ
    Posts
    3,933

  22. #147
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Krizby87 View Post
    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/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

  23. #148
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,691
    Quote Originally Posted by AbelJemka View Post
    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
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon2ky
    "dammit kyle what's with the 30 second sex lately?" "Sorry sweetie, I overclocked my nuts and they haven't been stable since"
    Quote Originally Posted by trinibwoy View Post
    I don't think his backside has internet access.
    Quote Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337 View Post
    Hey I just met you
    And this is crazy
    But I'm on bath salts
    And your face looks tasty

  24. #149
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    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

  25. #150
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,691
    Quote Originally Posted by AbelJemka View Post
    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




    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon2ky
    "dammit kyle what's with the 30 second sex lately?" "Sorry sweetie, I overclocked my nuts and they haven't been stable since"
    Quote Originally Posted by trinibwoy View Post
    I don't think his backside has internet access.
    Quote Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337 View Post
    Hey I just met you
    And this is crazy
    But I'm on bath salts
    And your face looks tasty

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •