R600vsG80 Benchmark Comparisons From Any Game Welcome!

[Xion X2]

Look guys, I'm not going to argue with you any longer. I am f*cking sick of it. From now on out, I will only be posting benchmarks.

That may come off harsh, but I have been in argument after argument with guys about this card ever since it was released and have had enough. It's just not worth it. I'm sick of people trying to pick every single one of my words apart.

So I may pop in from time to time to post another benchmark, but aside from that, I'm done. I've had enough and won't be debating this card any longer.

Enjoy what you have; I know that I will. Later.

[mtl]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/xfx-gf8800ultra-extreme.html

Today another in depth review clearly codifying the G80's superiority from a site that has generally been very fairminded.
Look at 2900xt in Stalker, Neverwinter Nights, Supreme Commander, the low minimums in Company of Heroes, Hitman, Gothic 3. Generally around the GTS otherwise.

A quote;"Interesting to note, the Radeon HD 2900 XT cannot get close to the senior GeForce 8800 models in any of the three tests. Moreover, it is everywhere slower than the GeForce 8800 GTS notwithstanding its efficient memory controller with a 512-bit external memory bus. It is either the driver for the new series is still faulty (this is indicated by the test results in some games) or the AMD card suffers from a lack of texture and, especially, raster processors.

And more:"They have also demonstrated that their technical potential is sufficient to raise the frequency of such complicated chip as G80 without pushing its power consumption beyond acceptable limits – something former ATI Technologies failed to achieve with their R600. Anyway, Nvidia did attain their primary goal: to prove their technology leadership in the consumer 3D market.

And to summarize:
Highs:

Impressive performance in contemporary games;
Excellent anisotropic filtering quality;
Low level of noise;
Low power consumption (compared against AMD Radeon HD 2900 XT);

[Vasot02]

Look guys, I'm not going to argue with you any longer. I am f*cking sick of it. From now on out, I will only be posting benchmarks.


1) Then you do that man next time ;)
instead of prizing about your X2900 all the time :rolleyes:
-----------------------------------------

2) The 8800 runs great both old and new games

Your excuse that the 8800 series is only good for old games is really weak
-------------------------------------------------------

3) 90% of the review sites out there prove that the G80 is the winner in most cases with old or new famous games with AA enabled

R600 takes a ugly beat with AA enable even with the latest official Catalysts (do not even dare to say that Elite Bastards are liars with their review)

So it's only your word against their word

Between G80 and R600
Nvidia G80 is still the king especially with the Ultra model around


Xion just accept the R600 defeat like a man and get on with it instead of trying to make excuses

Maybe ATI will get their crown back with R650 or with R700 but until then G80 is still the king

bye

Are you blind? Look at my above benchmark w/ Test Drive. It's as fast as a GTX w/ AA ENABLED. Maybe even faster.

What games was Elite Bastards testing in their review, and what drivers were they using? I can't get onto their site.. every time I do I get a page error.

But if they were testing older games like F.E.A.R., Prey, etc then you can toss it out the window with all the others. Honestly. Let's look at how the card plays newer titles.. not game engines that came out 2-3 years ago.

[sammy sung]

Yep, just like I thought. No newer games except for Lost Planet & Stalker(which is running a much older engine since it's been in development for so long), and the LP demo was in DX10 which unfortunately has a bug w/ the current ATI drivers and cannot be tested accurately. The DX9 version of it runs great on the 2900XT.

Where is R6 Vegas? Test Drive Unlimited? DIRT? Why continue to bench games that are 2 or more years old with brand new hardware?

I guess they do this because the majority of the PC gaming population owns them, but it makes no sense for judging performance. None of those games were coded for a unified shader architecture, so why not throw in a few more that were for a more accurate assessment?

My screenies are 4xAA transparency ms 16xAF High quality in the cp

Yours are 4xAA 8xAF

Dunno how comparable that is tbh,your current overclocked fps seems to be on par with mine under those circumstances.I will test it with your settings or as close as i can get when the rma returns,also dont forget that they are testing with a UNCLOCKED card.I think we already determined here that the 2900 is much closer to the GTS in its unclocked form than what you are running now,hence approaching GTX performance.

And i do agree,i would hate this thread to disintegrate into yet another shouting match.People,there's other threads for that,we are for the most part posting screenies and so on here,comparing real world performance using the same cpu settings.There is already a 2900 rewiews thread,please post that stuff there because as it is you are spamming this thread and making it into something we didnt want it to be so please stop it ok ?.

Xion when i get my motherboard back lets choose a sp race in tdu and then use the exact same settings.Then just do the race and during the replay use the fraps Benchmarking utility ,that way we can see min max avg fps to get a better comparison between a overclocked 2900 and standard GTX.

[Henesly4You]

Look guys, I'm not going to argue with you any longer. I am f*cking sick of it. From now on out, I will only be posting benchmarks.




The only person doing any arguing is you? So no one can bring up valid points of their own without you pitching a temper tantrum just because it doesn't agree with your own biased views? Thats ridiculous, from the looks of things anyone who disagrees with you or speaks out against what you say is automatically wrong.

Give me a break:rolleyes2




From now on out, I will only be posting benchmarks.




Sure, out of your own handpicked 3-4 games that speak favorably of the R600 and nothing more. :rolleyes:

[Henesly4You]

Dx10 doesn't favor shaders or textures. It's up to the developers to decide which one they will use more for their games. API shader unification should have little to do with how a game is developed. It should be transparent to the developer. They will still be working with either Pixel, vertex, and now geometry shading data. That's mainly what a Unified Shaders architecture is, it automatically load balances between pixel, vertex, or geometry with little intervention or manual coding. Dx10 itself also reduces many API overheads that were on older dx API's.

AMD is the one betting on future games being far more shader hungry than texturing, but PC games(not console ports) have been increasing in texturing usage quite a bit. I don't see texturing usage lowering anytime soon. Unreal Tournament 3 has already been stated(Sweaney) on the PC to be mostly texture/fillrate bound than shader bound. Carmacks new Megatexture feature for it's upcoming engine will also push texturing as well.

FEAR and COD2 are both older games, but they are also games where last generation's Dx9 cards were pushed to the limit in terms of texturing and shading. They both were very shader and texturing bound. Tomb Raider legend is also a game that is heavily shader and texturing bound as well.

The issues with the x2900xt performing like it does in some games isn't quite that simple and it's going to be interesting what AMD does with the hardware in future revisions.



Well said.

[sammy sung]

The only person doing any arguing is you? So no one can bring up valid points of their own without you pitching a temper tantrum just because it doesn't agree with your own biased views? Thats ridiculous, from the looks of things anyone who disagrees with you or speaks out against what you say is automatically wrong.

Give me a break:rolleyes2






Sure, out of your own handpicked 3-4 games that speak favorably of the R600 and nothing more. :rolleyes:

Go away please,if you checked this thread from the beginning you can see that many games we tested here werent favourable to the 2900 xt so thats just bull****.Stop it please,post that stuff in the relevant thread and NOT here.Go rolleyes elsewhere .

[Henesly4You]

Go away please,if you checked this thread from the beginning you can see that many games we tested here werent favourable to the 2900 xt so thats just bull****.Stop it please,post that stuff in the relevant thread and NOT here.Go rolleyes elsewhere .

Shut up. I saw those benches and while there were a few there are still lots of games that were missing and left out.

Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that his arguments are completely biased towards his own opinions in the manner that he just writes off any benchmark that doesn't shine a favorable light in the direct of the 2900XT.


So go ahead and be his puppet:rolleyes2 defend him all you want but you know I am right.

[Vasot02]

Guys cool down

Do not turn this into a flame war

[fivefeet8]

1) Then you do that man next time ;)
instead of prizing about your X2900 all the time :rolleyes:
-----------------------------------------

2) The 8800 runs great both old and new games

Your excuse that the 8800 series is only good for old games is really weak
-------------------------------------------------------

3) 90% of the review sites out there prove that the G80 is the winner in most cases with old or new games with AA enabled

R600 takes a ugly beat with AA enable even with the latest official Catalysts (do not even dare to say that Elite Bastards are liars)


Between G80 and R600
Nvidia G80 is still the king especially with the Ultra model around

So it's only your word against their word

Just accept the R600 defeat like a mature guy and get on with it

Although I don't agree with Xion on some points, I think you're being a bit harsh. The x2900xt wasn't meant to compete against the GTX or Ultra upon it's release. Against the GTS, the wins go back and fourth.

[sammy sung]

Shut up. I saw those benches and while there were a few there are still lots of games that were missing and left out.

Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that his arguments are completely biased towards his own opinions in the manner that he just writes off any benchmark that doesn't shine a favorable light in the direct of the 2900XT.


So go ahead and be his puppet:rolleyes2 defend him all you want but you know I am right.

Lol where am i his puppet ? You come here acting high and mighty condemning people left and right with your amazing post count,if anyone should shut up here its you.Theres a lot of people posting screenies here,try contributing instead of being an ass.We never claimed to cover every damn game out there,we try the games we do have as none of us have the access to all the missing games you mention.

I have posted screenies and benches for Oblivion,TDU,FEAR,Halflife 2,Riddick,Quake4 ,Far cry,Tomb raider legend,Tomb raider anniversary,aquamark and so on.I know that the GTX is superior to a unclocked 2900xt in a majority of those games but his card is not unclocked and is a lot closer to the GTX under those circumstances.Xion owned a GTX SLI rig before this card and if you even bothered to read through the thread instead of ranting you would know he isnt a fanboy.And fivefeet and others have been as active posting stuff here and isnt as hostile as you seem to be,i asked you politely to stop and post in another thread but instead you call me a puppet,try backing your words up with some benches and screens of the games you mentioned that we havent tested instead of being a bitch about it.

[Henesly4You]

Against the GTS, the wins go back and fourth.


Utter and complete bullsh!t. If this same question was asked a few months ago all you would have heard is R600>8800GTX. PERIOD.

This is just a weak lame excuse given from ATI right at the release of the R600 simply because they knew that the card would not compete with nvidias top of the line yet they led you fanboys on for months thinking that it was going to be the all mighty G80 Killer in hopes that you would wait for their card yet knowing the entire time that they wouldn't compete.

You are only in self denial if you think otherwise.

[fivefeet8]

Utter and complete bullsh!t. If this same question was asked a few months ago all you would have heard is R600>8800GTX. PERIOD.


I didn't put much weight into rumors and speculation about unreleased products. ;) I still don't.

[Henesly4You]

I didn't put much weight into rumors and speculation about unreleased products. ;) I still don't.


Well neither do I but in this case many did. I mean it was pretty much the general consensus to believe that after 6months ATI would have a G80 killer on its hands.

[fivefeet8]

Well neither do I but in this case many did. I mean was pretty much the general consensus to believe that after 6months ATI would have a G80 killer on its hands.

How does this make my statement about the GTS vs X2900xt bull exactly? The r600 is what it is at this point in time. To say that it should've killed the G80 is a moot point because it doesn't. It's apparent to me that most who thought the r600 would kill the G80 has far more negativity towards the card than those who didn't.

[Henesly4You]

The r600 is what it is at this point in time.

Thats right it is what it is, a under performing, power hogging and over heating GPU. Flawed design is an understatement.



To say that it should've killed the G80 is a moot point because it doesn't. It's apparent to me that most who thought the r600 would kill the G80 has far more negativity towards the card than those who didn't.

Again you are denying the facts that are repeatedly slapping you in the face. 6 months after the G80 people expected nothing less from ATI and rightfully so as a half year is a long long time to wait. Especially with tons of hype surrounding it and touting it to be a G80 killer and to hold off for the R600.

Anyone pissed off that none of this was true has every right to feel that way, especially if they cheated themselves out of 6 months worth of prime time gaming only to have waited for this big disappointment known as the R600.


So whatever, keep ignoring the facts and I will keep on laughing at you. Im done here. Goodbye puppet.

[sammy sung]

Thats right it is what it is, a under performing, power hogging and over heating GPU. Flawed design is an understatement.




Again you are denying the facts that are repeatedly slapping you in the face. 6 months after the G80 people expected nothing less from ATI and rightfully so as a half year is a long long time to wait. Especially with tons of hype surrounding it and touting it to be a G80 killer and to hold off for the R600.

Anyone pissed off that none of this was true has every right to feel that way, especially if they cheated themselves out of 6 months worth of prime time gaming only to have waited for this big disappointment known as the R600.


So whatever, keep ignoring the facts and I will keep on laughing at you. Im done here. Goodbye puppet.

Buhbye ,don't let the door slap you in the ass on your way out (bs)

[fivefeet8]

Again you are denying the facts that are repeatedly slapping you in the face. 6 months after the G80 people expected nothing less from ATI and rightfully so as a half year is a long long time to wait. Especially with tons of hype surrounding it and touting it to be a G80 killer and to hold off for the R600.

Anyone pissed off that none of this was true has every right to feel that way, especially if they cheated themselves out of 6 months worth of prime time gaming only to have waited for this big disappointment known as the R600.

People who believed the hype, rumors, speculation, and marketing only has themselves to blame. They were naive enough to believe them wholeheartedly.

Anyone who's pissed off about a damn video card needs to get a life. There are far more important things in this world that people need to be pissed off about.


So whatever, keep ignoring the facts and I will keep on laughing at you. Im done here. Goodbye puppet.

:captnkill: :beer: :lol:

[sammy sung]

People who believed the hype, rumors, speculation, and marketing only has themselves to blame. They were naive enough to believe them wholeheartedly.

Anyone who's pissed off about a damn video card needs to get a life. There are far more important things in this world that people need to be pissed off about.



:captnkill: :beer: :lol:

:D

[Redeemed]

Thats right it is what it is, a under performing, power hogging and over heating GPU. Flawed design is an understatement.




Again you are denying the facts that are repeatedly slapping you in the face. 6 months after the G80 people expected nothing less from ATI and rightfully so as a half year is a long long time to wait. Especially with tons of hype surrounding it and touting it to be a G80 killer and to hold off for the R600.

Anyone pissed off that none of this was true has every right to feel that way, especially if they cheated themselves out of 6 months worth of prime time gaming only to have waited for this big disappointment known as the R600.


So whatever, keep ignoring the facts and I will keep on laughing at you. Im done here. Goodbye puppet.

Label me an ATi fanboy all you will, but check my sig- I'm far from it you whiney little asshat.

I've owned both these GTSs from launch. And comparing the launch of the G80 to the launch of the R600 ATi's done some things far better than nVidia. For starters, ATi has far better driver support of their card than nVidia. Up untill the R600's launch none of nVidia's drivers for the G80 offered a fix for anything nor did they improve performance. With ATi, each driver has brought significant fixes and performance gains. When it comes to driver support I'd say whole-heartedly that ATi is kicking nVidia's arrogant ass.

When it comes to over-all performance-past, present, and new- nVidia is dominating with the G80. When it comes to future titles only, it does appear as if ATi's R600 just might take the cake. Me, I bought both of these GTSs with Crysis in mind. But the more games we see supporting the USA the more the XT appears to be the more forward looking design.
Have you not noticed that the Radeon X1900 is bitch-slapping the 7900GTX in shader heavy games? Yet when it was first released people scoffed at it cause at that time the 7900GTX was superior. Fast forward to now and the tables have been turned. In most newer titles the X1900 is pissing all over the 7900GTX. I'm betting the same will happen with the 2900XT. Especially when the 1GB model comes out with GDDR4 ram.

And no, framebuffer is not going to be the XT's saving grace, that's not what I'm implying. But as it is with only 512MB it will suffer in DX10 titles such as Crysis. That extra 512MB will help out significantly, especially with AA+HDR.

The bottom line is that right now the 2900XT looks to be the more forward-looking design. And comparing it to a single GTS the performance lead does bounce back and forth. If you disagree then you obviously have not read this entire thread. Go back from the begining. BuffBiff21 and Xion compared their card extensively. At stock speeds the XT puts up very good numbers in comparison to the GTS. On a minor OC such as Xions, it nearly dominates the GTS across the board and comes closer to the GTX, matching and exceeding it in certain games.

And mind you, Xion's current OC is very achievable on air. What isn't achievable on air is 1GHz on the core. That's what he's shooting for but has to wait till the next ATi Tool is released.

And before you start crapping this thread about how Xion is a blind fanboy- please! This dude has owned nothing but nVidia for the past several years. He's owned a single GTX, SLi'd GTXs, 7900GTX, SLI'd 7900GTXs, etc. He's far from a fanboy and is merely trying to shed some light on a subject that always remains dark.

If you can't stand that he's validly proven the 2900XT is a good card for the price, then get the hell out of here. If you want to participate, then start benchmarking your own rig and put up some screenies. Otherwise, STFU.

And I will debate this with you, bring it. Prick.

[Henesly4You]

comparing the launch of the G80 to the launch of the R600 ATi's done some things far better than nVidia.

ROTFLMAO o really? like what? by offering an underperforming, power hungry, over heating GPU?

Oh and don't even get started on the driver issue, ATI at this very moment is having far more issues than Nvidia ever had at its release.

ATI drivers could not possibly be any more buggy for the R600 than they already are, some things such as AA are broken on some and then certain drivers do not render objects correctly and to top it off CRAPPY performance in most titles when AA is enabled.

Yeah what more could you ask for:rolleyes2


Sure its true that Nvidias launch drivers were not perfect either but they were certainly miles better than anything we are currently seeing from ATI in support to the R600.

When the G80 was launched it offered mind blowing performance across the board with every game it came in touch with, none of this broken features crap that we see from ATI.



For starters, ATi has far better driver support of their card than nVidia.


Again LMAO at you noob.



When it comes to driver support I'd say whole-heartedly that ATi is kicking nVidia's arrogant ass.


LOL yeah sure bud, keep telling yourself that. One thing is for sure and thats the fact that ATI really cant go any other direction other than improvement since their drivers are currently in the biggest stated of a mess that anyone has ever seen.



When it comes to future titles only, it does appear as if ATi's R600 just might take the cake.

Proof please? oh thats right, you dont have any.


Have you not noticed that the Radeon X1900 is bitch-slapping the 7900GTX in shader heavy games?

Welcome to last year's news:rolleyes:

Fast forward to this year and the tables have completely turned in case you have not noticed.


Yet when it was first released people scoffed at it cause at that time the 7900GTX was superior.

Actually I don't remember anyone scoffing at the X1900XTX. Even when it was first released it was pretty much even with the 7900GTX across the board in all games.


However this isnt last year and the story is completely different. This time we have ATI coming 6 months late to the table unable to offer a competitive product to Nvidia. There is only a small hand full of games that the R600 is competitive with but as a whole ATI is getting slapped around like no other from Nvidia.




Especially when the 1GB model comes out with GDDR4 ram.


Boy you really are a noob aren't you? LOL. That extra ram isnt going to do jack sh!t for gaming any more than its 512mb counter part unless you are gaming at resolutions that most cannot afford.



The bottom line is that right now the 2900XT looks to be the more forward-looking design.


Again where is your proof?



At stock speeds the XT puts up very good numbers in comparison to the GTS.

Against what? his carefully selected 3-4 titles. Please..........:rolleyes2





And mind you, Xion's current OC is very achievable on air. What isn't achievable on air is 1GHz on the core. That's what he's shooting for but has to wait till the next ATi Tool is released.

Yeah im so impressed that just maybe at 1ghz the R600 may be able to compete with a card running at just over half that speed. Simply amazing:rolleyes2


If you can't stand that he's validly proven the 2900XT is a good card for the price, then get the hell out of here.

ROTFLMAO like how? showing benchmarks of R6? Test drive? but leaving out and brushing off all reviewers that paint the whole picture with an actual variety of games.




And I will debate this with you, bring it. Prick.

And you will lose. PRICK.

[Redeemed]

ROTFLMAO o really? like what? by offering an underperforming, power hungry, over heating GPU?

Oh and don't even get started on the driver issue, ATI at this very moment is having far more issues than Nvidia ever had at its release.

ATI drivers could not possibly be any more buggy for the R600 than they already are, some things such as AA are broken on some and then certain drivers do not render objects correctly and to top it off CRAPPY performance in most titles when AA is enabled.

Yeah what more could you ask for:rolleyes2


Sure its true that Nvidias launch drivers were not perfect either but they were certainly miles better than anything we are currently seeing from ATI in support to the R600.

When the G80 was launched it offered mind blowing performance across the board with every game it came in touch with, none of this broken features crap that we see from ATI.

Really? Did you own an 8800 from launch? I have. I've owned two from launch. Have you forgotten about the bad resistor issue that plagued the early 8800GTXs? Have you forgotten about the piss poor driver support for Vista? Have you forgotten about the current lack of proper SLi scaling in Vista as well? So far, the 2900XT has had no hardware defects like the 8800GTX's resistor issue. Secondly, to boot CrossFire scales significantly better in Vista than in XP. And you say I'm living in the past yet you are clinging on to benchmarks of 2 year old+ games on a 6 year old operating system. :rolleyes:





Again LMAO at you noob.


Yup. I might as well give up as you've just proven with that statement that your IQ and computer knowledge is light years beyond mine. Again :rolleyes:


LOL yeah sure bud, keep telling yourself that. One thing is for sure and thats the fact that ATI really cant go any other direction other than improvement since their drivers are currently in the biggest stated of a mess that anyone has ever seen.

Um, no, nVidia was doing no better at launch of the G80. Let's take into account that on early drivers the GTX would come to a literal crawl at under 20fps in FEAR. This has been solved with the most recent drivers, but at launch the 7900GTX never dipped that low in FPS at the same settings. I'm sorry, but yes the launch drivers for the 8800 were worse than ATI's launch drivers. Furthermore, nVidia went 4 months without releasing a new driver. And then when they finally did release the new driver it brought only minor improvements. ATi has not done this. They have consistently brought forth new drivers almost every two weeks. And each driver has proven significantly better than the previous. This has been proven over and over in this very thread. As I stated over, read this thread from the beginning and you just might learn something.


Proof please? oh thats right, you dont have any.


The proof is in the very thread you're posting in dip-****! Learn to read the thread before blasting off at the mouth. In all the recent titles based off of new engines that utilise the USA- the 2900XT competes more directly with the GTX than the GTS, while costing $150 less. If you want proof, go back and read this frikken thread.


Welcome to last year's news:rolleyes:

Fast forward to this year and the tables have completely turned in case you have not noticed.


That comment was called an "analogy"- or is that word too big for you?

analogy
One entry found for analogy.


Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS


http://www.webster.com/dictionary/analogy

I believe we'll see the 2900XT being far more competitive with DX10 titles than it is with DX9 titles. Almost the exact same thing happened with the x1900. People rejected it cause it was "late" and could only "match the 7900GTX" at that time. Not anymore, instead it is owning the 7900GTX in newer titles. I'm betting the same happens with the 2900XT. It's behind now, but I'm betting with games like Crysis, Alan Wake, WiC it'll match or exceed the 8800GTX- again all for $150 less. Care to provide any proof against this? So far the benchmarks indicate that currently the 2900XT does very well in games using new engines that better take advantage of the USA. We're arguing architectural efficiency in new game engines, not the ability to play old crap better. I couldn't give two sh*ts if the 2900XT can't play HL2 at 250fps with everything maxed. My focus is Crysis and DX10 in general. And any game that has an engine that supports USA plays exceddingly well on the 2900XT. Again, for proof, go back and read this entire thread. You might actually learn something.


Actually I don't remember anyone scoffing at the X1900XTX. Even when it was first released it was pretty much even with the 7900GTX across the board in all games.


However this isnt last year and the story is completely different. This time we have ATI coming 6 months late to the table unable to offer a competitive product to Nvidia. There is only a small hand full of games that the R600 is competitive with but as a whole ATI is getting slapped around like no other from Nvidia.


Not only is your logic flawed but it appears you memory was as well. The X1900 was not widely accepted cause at the time of its release it was considered "late". It was what the X1800 should have been- agreeably so. At that time most considered that card late, and underperforming as it could only keep up with the 7900GTX. So yes, in a sense, it was scoffed. Now I'm betting the same scenerio will play out with the 2900XT. Again, for $150 less than the GTX.


Boy you really are a noob aren't you? LOL. That extra ram isnt going to do jack sh!t for gaming any more than its 512mb counter part unless you are gaming at resolutions that most cannot afford.


WTF? If you can't afford to run at such resolutions, you have no business owning a $300+ video card. Anybody that buys an 8800 or 2900XT to run at 1280x1024 or lower is a real idiot. That's like buying a Ferrari to drive across the street to work.

Furthermore, when it comes to AA framebuffer quantity is important. If you don't have sufficient framebuffer the data gets stored in system RAM. For most enthusiast rigs that isn't all that big a deal as their system RAM is typically running at or above a GHz- which is not much slower than the framebuffer. But once you fill up both the framebuffer and system RAM, the data goes to the hard drive. The more data that is stored outside the framebuffer, the more your performance will drop. That is why it is critical that you keep as much data in the framebuffer as possible. With games like Crysis and any semi-high resolution (like 1680x1050 for example) adding AA+HDR will consume an unprecedented amount of framebuffer. The more, the merrier. Now, you must have a sufficient GPU architect otherwise storing that data in the framebuffer will accomplish next to nothing. But again we're now arguing architectural efficiency of the GPU in a entirely DX10 and USA environment. Thus far the 2900XT has proven a very strong opponent to the 8800GTX. Again, the proof is in this thread- go back and do some reading. You might learn something.


Again where is your proof?


How about the past 44 pages of this thread? :retard:


Against what? his carefully selected 3-4 titles. Please..........:rolleyes2


Those titles are using the newest engine compared to any game out. Furthermore, look at the XT's performance in Oblivion. It smokes the GTS and competes nicely with the GTX. Again, with newer drivers. They've probably done more GTX+GTS vs. XT comparisons in Oblivion than any other game in this thread. The proof is beyond substantial. Then again, being that you obviously have not read through this thread, front to back, you wouldn't know any of this would you? I'd start reading friend. ;)



Yeah im so impressed that just maybe at 1ghz the R600 may be able to compete with a card running at just over half that speed. Simply amazing:rolleyes2


You're neglecting the fact that the XT costs $150 less, oc's far better, and scales far better with oc'ing as well. Again, for $150 less. Not bad at all.


ROTFLMAO like how? showing benchmarks of R6? Test drive? but leaving out and brushing off all reviewers that paint the whole picture with an actual variety of games.


The whole picture? According to ignorant snobs like your self the whole picture was painted when the 1900XTX was launched. Looking at the reviews of that card, it is obvious we did not see the whole picture at that cards launch. Fast forward a year from now and I'm certain the same will be said about the 2900XT.


And you will lose. PRICK.

Really? List your system specs. Run the exact same tests that Xion, BuffBiff21, Backlash, and SammySung ran- at the exact same settings they used. Put up, or shut up- ass hole.

Otherwise, please step out of this thread and continue your masturbation over that precious nVidia logo elsewhere. We really don't appreciate you spewing the garbage that you have been. Start reading from the beginning of this thread and you might actually be surprised at what you find. They've tested Oblivion, FEAR, and qutie a few other titles.

So, after reading through this entire thread, go on and post your own benchmarks. Then we will compare it to what Xion gets with his 2900XT. I'll be waiting. ;)

[Riptide]

(popcorn)

[sammy sung]

This **** is getting old reaaaally fast :thumbdwn:

[Henesly4You]

Really? Did you own an 8800 from launch?


Well as a matter of fact yes I did.




Have you forgotten about the bad resistor issue that plagued the early 8800GTXs?


My my getting desperate are we. LOL. At least it was something that Nvidia promptly did a recall on and fixed and most important of all it was at least a fixable problem.

Unlike the R600's crippled method of handling AA and AF:rolleyes2



Have you forgotten about the piss poor driver support for Vista?

Not true at all noob. Nvidias vista drivers at the moment are actually very stable and perform about on par and sometimes better than XP. Why dont you take your head out of your ass for 2 seconds and look around.




Have you forgotten about the current lack of proper SLi scaling in Vista as well?

And have you forgotten that SLI is not mainstream?:rolleyes2 meaning proper support for SLI comes second to mainstream (single gpu)




So far, the 2900XT has had no hardware defects like the 8800GTX's resistor issue.

Thats right, keep clinging to that one issue (that was quickly resolved) like a ***** on a ****.

To bad for you I can name a couple of things wrong with the 2900XT (Not just one) that CANNOT and WILL not be able to be resolved in its current state.

#1. AA and AF performance issue because of the ignorant way that ATI chose for the hardware to handle it.

#2. Power consumption.





Um, no, nVidia was doing no better at launch of the G80. Let's take into account that on early drivers the GTX would come to a literal crawl at under 20fps in FEAR.

ROTF maybe for you retard. From day 1 of owning my 8800GTX it tore through that game like a raped gorilla. 20fps.....Pffftttt Moron.

Have you seen how the R600 handles FEAR? yeah, I thought so:rolleyes2





Furthermore, nVidia went 4 months without releasing a new driver.

LOL so you were one of those cry babys. They went 4 months because at the time there was nothing else to fix. I had not one, not one single issue with any of my games on those drivers.

So what if ATI is releasing a driver like every other week? what good has it done them? LMAO they break more things than they fix as of lately.






In all the recent titles based off of new engines that utilise the USA- the 2900XT competes more directly with the GTX than the GTS, while costing $150 less. If you want proof, go back and read this frikken thread.

Actually dumbass no game to date utilizes the unified shader architecture because we have yet to see a built from the ground up DX10 game:rolleyes2

Like I told you before, Im not impressed at all with a 900mhz OC'd R600 keeping up with a stock 8800GTX in games such as R6, Test drive.......etc.

Good grief talking about an inefficient card. LOL.





I believe we'll see the 2900XT being far more competitive with DX10 titles than it is with DX9 titles.

And I believe you are going to be pretty disappointed.



Almost the exact same thing happened with the x1900. People rejected it cause it was "late" and could only "match the 7900GTX" at that time.

Idiot, the X1900XTX came out before the 7900GTX :rolleyes2




So far the benchmarks indicate that currently the 2900XT does very well in games using new engines that better take advantage of the USA.


LOL. No better than the competition that came out 7 months ago:rolleyes2

And once again we have yet to see a single game that takes advantage of the USA from either card. We will see that for the first time when we finally lay eyes on the first game built ground up for full DX10 support.





WTF? If you can't afford to run at such resolutions, you have no business owning a $300+ video card. Anybody that buys an 8800 or 2900XT to run at 1280x1024 or lower is a real idiot.

Show me where I once stated I was limited to 1280X1024. IDIOT.



Thus far the 2900XT has proven a very strong opponent to the 8800GTX.

In your fanboy dreams maybe. I mean we have what? a whole 4-5 games that the R600 is competitive in? LMAO.





look at the XT's performance in Oblivion. It smokes the GTS

ROTFLMAO smokes it?! hardly :rolleyes: They are generally within 4-5 or so FPS of each other. Thats not what I would call smoking but rather fairly competitive.




You're neglecting the fact that the XT costs $150 less

Hell im not neglecting anything. As far as pricing is concerned it should cost less than the GPU that smokes it. LOL.

If you want to get into pricing big boy the last time I checked you could get a 640mb GTS for less $ than the R600. After all thats its main competitor remember? :rolleyes:


oc's far better, and scales far better with oc'ing as well.

Again moron, let me make it clear for you. No one is impressed with a product that has to run hundreds of mhz higher than its comp just to keep up.:rolleyes: That is actually pretty darn pathetic and as for the scaling issue no it does not scale with its OC any better than the G80. In fact its actually worse because its shaders do not get overclocked the way that they do with the G80 when you up its core.




The whole picture?


Well thats simple. Your an idiot.