Buy a 2900 for Unreal Tournament 3!

[JasonPC]

http://techtechtechy.blogspot.com/2007/07/flaw-in-testing-directx-10-cards-on.html

I think this is pretty funny because someone says that one game, Unreal Tournament 3 (or games based on it), would be the saving grace of the R600 and that we can expect many more games where the R600 outperforms the 8800s by far. We should all buy 2900s because one game is optimized for the Xenos/R600. And the final comparison to the ATI 9700 and GeForce FX 5700 just does it for me!

[Bman212121]

I really don't buy it... UT3 is probably the least likely of games that would run better on ATi hardware than NV hardware. It's been stated in another thread that all of the devs are using pcs with 8800GTX cards in them. Something tells me the card that is in their pc will get the most attention. ;)

EDIT: Here is that article: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=602522


PCGH: What is your experience with Nvidia's and Ati's next generation graphics hardware? Could you already make a statement which card will be better for UT 3, the 8800 GTX or the Radeon 2900 XTX?

Tim Sweeney: The relative performance scores between NVidia's and ATI's best cards vary from day to day as we implement new optimizations. But, for the past year, NVidia hardware has been ahead fairly consistently, and a few months ago we standardized on Dell XPS machines with GeForce 8800 GTX's for all of our development machines at Epic.


http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=92378&highlight=interview+tim+sweeney

[JasonPC]

Is Rainbow Six Vegas even based on the Unreal 3 engine?

[Bman212121]

Is Rainbow Six Vegas even based on the Unreal 3 engine?

Yes it is.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=279&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six:_Vegas

[[EOCF] Tim]

It's a very bad port to the PC, and seeing that the Xbox360 GPU shares quite a few things with the R600, it makes sense that it runs a bit better on R600.

UT3 is heavily optimized for all platforms. PC, PS3 and Xbox360, which is good, and it's the way it should be.

[SH64]

You can't judge performance on a bad port like Veags .. better wait for UT3 to come out first.

[Uberpwnage]

I don't see any mention of AA or AF in those benchmarks, isn't the R600 weak in that area?

[mynakedrat]

i think if you get a better monitor after buying the 320 8800, then you would defintely go with the 2900xt.
i had the 7800 for a while and i was happy with its performance on my dell 17 ' monitor.
1280 x 1024.
i was really wowed with the perf of the 8800 320 on that same monitor for quite some time.
it blew the doors off the 7800 completely.

so, I had the 8800 320mb for three months, i was wasy impressed by its performance.
Then i got a new monitor.
i was sad.
here i was with the ability to do 19x12 resolution, yet when i did, my games crawled.
i could never turn on and aa, and NEVER EVER ms, or especially the devils's best friend, SS.
so i sold it.
in comes the 2900 with , what? , more memory.
and it beats the pants off the other card, was cheaper than the other card, and i never again looked at nvidia.
now i didnt try the ultra(expensive) card. so sure, any card that costs as much as my car should do well. but i got the 2900 for 389.
-
8800 gts- $449 -came with a headache when i tried 1900x1200 res
2900xt-$389, and it comes with AA x 4 or eight (playable) on all the games i try, adaptive AA, custom filters, and history of more robust drivers.

if any of that is a sign as o which card you will want to have for crysis or bioshock or alan wake or UT#, i think my decision was made a long time ago.

so-
nvidia- good AA, low resolutions----high res, no aa at all
ati- different AA, high resolutions.
which one would you want?
there i said it.

[|MaguS|]

GRAW doesn't use the UT3 engine...

[911medic]

i think if you get a better monitor after buying the 320 8800, then you would defintely go with the 2900xt.
i had the 7800 for a while and i was happy with its performance on my dell 17 ' monitor.
1280 x 1024.
i was really wowed with the perf of the 8800 320 on that same monitor for quite some time.
it blew the doors off the 7800 completely.

so, I had the 8800 320mb for three months, i was wasy impressed by its performance.
Then i got a new monitor.
i was sad.
here i was with the ability to do 19x12 resolution, yet when i did, my games crawled.
i could never turn on and aa, and NEVER EVER ms, or especially the devils's best friend, SS.
so i sold it.
in comes the 2900 with , what? , more memory.
and it beats the pants off the other card, was cheaper than the other card, and i never again looked at nvidia.
now i didnt try the ultra(expensive) card. so sure, any card that costs as much as my car should do well. but i got the 2900 for 389.
-
8800 gts- $449 -came with a headache when i tried 1900x1200 res
2900xt-$389, and it comes with AA x 4 or eight (playable) on all the games i try, adaptive AA, custom filters, and history of more robust drivers.

if any of that is a sign as o which card you will want to have for crysis or bioshock or alan wake or UT#, i think my decision was made a long time ago.

so-
nvidia- good AA, low resolutions----high res, no aa at all
ati- different AA, high resolutions.
which one would you want?
there i said it.So you bought the 320MB version of the 8800GTS for $449, and your "cheaper" 2900XT performs better because it comes "with , what? , more memory." And since "more memory" allows you to play at higher resolutions/with AA, you like the AMD product better (I'll disregard the "history of more robust drivers").

Your numbers don't add up.

You should go find whoever sold you your 320MB 8800GTS, and get some money back. When the card was introduced, it retailed for $300-$325, and within a month or two it could be had for ~$275 at stock speeds, with the factory OC'd versions costing around $300 or so. Prices remain near the same today.

A standard 640MB 8800GTS (more memory than your 2900XT) retails for between $369-$439 on Newegg right now, depending on if you want a vanilla stock speed model or a super-duper OC'd model.

So, either you had the more expensive 640MB card--in which case your argument regarding the more memory of the 2900XT allowing better performance is invalid--or you had the cheaper card with less memory--in which case your argument that the 2900XT is the better value is invalid.

Or, you really paid $449 for a 320MB 8800GTS.

If you really like your 2900XT better than your 320MB 8800GTS, that's great. But your posted reasons (and the posted conclusions based on your reasons) don't make sense.

[mynakedrat]

sorry,the green card was 399 +tax and warranty. points still stand though :)

there wasnt a "retail" store in town that sold it for less than that.
it still loses miserably to the 2900 on higher resolutions. i couldnt play the 8800 at what i wanted with ANY AA, unless the low teens are your cup of tea.
all i am sayin greally is that the 320 doesnt beat the 2900 at all on any games i play, and i usually have the best ten out at any moment.

[911medic]

sorry,the green card was 399 +tax and warranty. points still stand though :)

there wasnt a "retail" store in town that sold it for less than that.
it still loses miserably to the 2900 on higher resolutions.Yes, your points still stand...if you overpay for a 320MB GTS and/or find it remarkable that said 320MB GTS doesn't perform as well as the 512MB/512-bit 2900XT at higher resolutions/with AA enabled (and if you don't mind the power requirements of the 2900XT...but that's probably offset by the history of more robust drivers ;)).

[mynakedrat]

lol. it doesnt use any different power supply than the 8800 did.
it will proly beat the pants out of your 640 also :)

[mynakedrat]

now thats just uncalled for!

and while you at it, buy a 2900 for all the other dx10 games as well!

[XMAN52373]

now thats just uncalled for!

and while you at it, buy a 2900 for all the other dx10 games as well!

Hate to tell you this, But the 2900, unless OC'd like hell, wont beat the pants off of 640, in some cases, the 320 too.

ANd you way over paid for your 320MB GTS. Go get some money back and/or report them to the company that mad the card for selling over their MSRP.

[mtl]

Sounds like a troll to me.

[Madpistol]

Naked. you seriously need to just shut your mouth and go about your business. Every initial review I've read on the 2900 XT shows that nvidia is ahead on both the 320mb and 640mb version of the 8800 GTS. The only exception to this is a few select games that show the Radeon 2900 XT ahead. HOWEVER, that's only initial reviews. reviews with the newer drivers show that AMD is much closer. With that being said, it's anyone's game.

You cannot expect a fairly powerful card with 320mb's of memory to outperform a card with 512mb of memory and equally powerful engine running it. However, you will find that the 640mb version of the card beats the 2900 XT quite fairly in most games out today. As for what you paid for your 320mb 8800 GTS, you should have bought it online. It wouldn't have cost nearly that much. You should blame no one but yourself for that one.

And this thread isn't about Shadow Run. It's about UT3. If you want to make a topic regarding Shadow Run, go make another thread.

[fivefeet8]

The developers of UT3 has already stated that the game will be more fillrate bound than shader bound. Which cards has more fillrate and higher performance texture filtering? ;)

Personally, I think it will be close between the x2900xt and 8800gts performance wise when you turn up the AA/AF. As RB6:V does not work properly with AA on either cards and UT3 will in it's Dx10 rendering mode. Also, RB6:V uses the same lower resolution textures of it's 360 counterpart. UT3 will be using 2kx2k resolution textures which will put far more load on fillrate than RB6:vegas.

Both games use the same engine, but they are different games and put more load on different GPU subsystems.

[911medic]

now thats just uncalled for!

and while you at it, buy a 2900 for all the other dx10 games as well!
Wow. You've really lost touch with reality. :headexplode: Now you seem to be responding to invisible posts, as this one doesn't correspond with anything in this thread.

Go back under your bridge, troll.

[911medic]

lol. it doesnt use any different power supply than the 8800 did.
it will proly beat the pants out of your 640 also :)
Yeah, in YOUR case it doesn't use a different PSU, but the REQUIREMENTS are substantially different:8800GTS 320MB: Minimum of a 400 Watt power supply.
(Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 26 Amps.)

HD 2900XT: Connection to 550 Watt (750 for CrossFire) or greater power supply with two 2x3-pin PCIe power connectors is required.So your "advice" on buying one has to take that into consideration.

But no, why would you consider that? You didn't consider anything outside your own little world, where 320MB 8800GTS's cost $449 dollars and people are surprised that they don't handle ultra-high resolutions/AA as well as a card with more memory on a faster bus (who would've ever thought that?), and where everyone already has a 550+ watt PSU. :rolleyes2 A world where, in addition to "beating the pants off" of the 320MB GTS, the 2900XT "will proly beat the pants out of your 640 also." :retard:

It really must be a magical place, this world you live in. But for those of us back in a land called REALITY, your conclusions are laughable.

Back to the original post, the info in Bman212121's and fivefeet8's replies pretty much lay that "techtechtechy" site's theory to rest.

[DMA]

Yikes. The few fanATIcs left are really starting to panic. :(

I dont blame em though. The Q2 report was horrible. :thumbdwn:

[mynakedrat]

lol, the only responders are nvidiots, o well

[walterman]

On the paper, the R600 has more computing power than the G80, but it's a VLIW machine, and it means that you need to write very specific & optimized code to take advantage of it. If UT3 engine has heavy optimizations for the R600 architecture, it should outperform the G80. The beauty of the G80 architecture is that is less dependant from the compiler.

[fivefeet8]

On the paper, the R600 has more computing power than the G80, but it's a VLIW machine, and it means that you need to write very specific & optimized code to take advantage of it. If UT3 engine has heavy optimizations for the R600 architecture, it should outperform the G80. The beauty of the G80 architecture is that is less dependant from the compiler.

Shader optimizations will help the R600, but UT3 is not as shader bound as it is to be fillrate bound.

[Madpistol]

lol, the only responders are nvidiots, o well

Go back into the hole that you crawled out of troll. :thumbdwn: