TechSpot's HD 2900 XT Review

[AmberClad]

I'm not sure who to believe. Article. Thoughts?

The AT review showed a performance on par or marginally better than the GTS cards. That review shows performance on par with the GTX.

 

[hardwareking]

it cud be true
cause with every driver release there were gains in performance

and xbits reviews shows the HD 2900 xt beating the GTX occasionally or matching it
while staying ahead of the 8800 GTS cards

 

[KeithTalent]

Does it say anywhere what drivers they were using? I did not see it, only the Forceware.

Good lord I want to get my cards up and running and test them out!!! Arggh, it's killing me!

KT

 

[Chadder007]

They don't state the driver used for the ATI card, but they do for the NVidia?

 

[ArchAngel777]

If it is one thing I have learned, it is this: Stay away from new cards. The 8800 GTX still has problems and it has been out for 6 months... Why on earth would anyone want lock-ups, broken features (pixel mapping, no SLI in Vista) just to have a few extra FPS? Sure, the speed is nice, but when you have to sacrafice stability, it just is not worth it.

Same goes for this new ATI Card... I hope the best for ATI, but it sounds like the driver is POS as well... They build these cards, release them FAR to early... Both the 8800 GTX and the 2900XT were released before they were ready. As far as I am concerned neither product is ready for the shelfs...

Just my opinion, but honestly, I think to many people are willing to get screwed for bragging rights... *shrug* I guess I won't be upgrading my video card in a while.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
If it is one thing I have learned, it is this: Stay away from new cards. The 8800 GTX still has problems and it has been out for 6 months... Why on earth would anyone want lock-ups, broken features (pixel mapping, no SLI in Vista) just to have a few extra FPS? Sure, the speed is nice, but when you have to sacrafice stability, it just is not worth it.

Same goes for this new ATI Card... I hope the best for ATI, but it sounds like the driver is POS as well... They build these cards, release them FAR to early... Both the 8800 GTX and the 2900XT were released before they were ready. As far as I am concerned neither product is ready for the shelfs...

Just my opinion, but honestly, I think to many people are willing to get screwed for bragging rights... *shrug* I guess I won't be upgrading my video card in a while.

I don't necessarily think it is always for bragging rights (though I'm sure that is part of it), but I think a lot of people actually like playing with the new technology and finding out what works/what does not work, etc.. For those people it is more the experience of it all and getting to try new things rather than just trying to get a few more FPS or brag to their friends.

KT

 

[AmberClad]

Ah well, no regrets I suppose. Even if those new benchmarks are accurate, I probably would have still chosen the 320MB 8800 GTS over it because my own need for something relatively cool and power efficient for my SFF. Also, I must be one of the few people left who still uses 1024x768 res :laugh: .

Still, those numbers do seem to make the 2900 XT quite a bit more competitive in some cases for those people who are on the fence about the GTX or the 2900 XT. They're somewhat all over the map though. Seemingly dominant in some of the benchmarks, mediocre in others.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I'm not sure who to believe. Article. Thoughts?

The AT review showed a performance on par or marginally better than the GTS cards. That review shows performance on par with the GTX.

I'm not sure where you are getting on "par" from.

I'd hardly call keeping up in 3 of 8 games and winning in 1 of 8 on "par".

I also dont like the fact that they didnt say which driver was used. AFAIK, there has only been one or two driver releases since launch day.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I'm not sure where you are getting on "par" from.

I was mainly comparing the games that both reviews benchmarked. Either way, I think someone needs to do a little bit of explaining here to account for the discrepancies.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: Matt2
I'm not sure where you are getting on "par" from.

I was mainly comparing the games that both reviews benchmarked. Either way, I think someone needs to do a little bit of explaining here to account for the discrepancies.

I agree and I think the burden of proof lies squarely on TechSpot. It's really shady of them to list the drivers for Nvidia, but not for AMD. For all we know, AMD sent them some extrfemely optimized drivers that will never see mainstream use.

Unlikely, but possible. Wait for Anand's follow up HD2900XT review. You know it will come.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I'm not sure who to believe. Article. Thoughts?

The AT review showed a performance on par or marginally better than the GTS cards. That review shows performance on par with the GTX.

I'm not sure where you are getting on "par" from.

I'd hardly call keeping up in 3 of 8 games and winning in 1 of 8 on "par".

I also dont like the fact that they didnt say which driver was used. AFAIK, there has only been one or two driver releases since launch day.

4/8 = half, so yes you can call it "on par", specially since it steadily outperforms the GTS in every game but Supreme Commander

But who cares, those who have been talking about drivers since the launch day were ignored, and now the benchs are fake right? Whats the next excuse? I stand by the very first thing I have said - "the card has alot more potential than people are making it to be, the question is whether you are willing to wait for better drivers or not"

And I agree with ArchAngel777... Its a shame they are in such a rush to release untweaked products.. sounds like EA releasing their bug ridden games

Wait for Anand's follow up HD2900XT review.

*sigh*

I agree, wait for newer reviews with better drivers, but what will you say next if this turns out true? "Oh, that review is bogus, wait for the review of X site that shows Nvidia on a better light"

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I'm not sure who to believe. Article. Thoughts?

The AT review showed a performance on par or marginally better than the GTS cards. That review shows performance on par with the GTX.

I'm not sure where you are getting on "par" from.

I'd hardly call keeping up in 3 of 8 games and winning in 1 of 8 on "par".

I also dont like the fact that they didnt say which driver was used. AFAIK, there has only been one or two driver releases since launch day.

4/8 = half, so yes you can call it "on par", specially since it steadily outperforms the GTS in every game but Supreme Commander

But who cares, those who have been talking about drivers since the launch day were ignored, and now the benchs are fake right? Whats the next excuse? I stand by the very first thing I have said - "the card has alot more potential than people are making it to be, the question is whether you are willing to wait for better drivers or not"

And I agree with ArchAngel777... Its a shame they are in such a rush to release untweaked products.. sounds like EA releasing their bug ridden games

Wait for Anand's follow up HD2900XT review.

*sigh*

I agree, wait for newer reviews with better drivers, but what will you say next if this turns out true? "Oh, that review is bogus, wait for the review of X site that shows Nvidia on a better light"

I don't know this doesn't show anything different to me that other reviews haven't shown me, it is a little better then the GTS 640 in most cases. And in 1 game ties the GTX, and a few slightly behind, this still places the HD 2900 XT somewhere between the GTS 640 and the GTX, which is pretty much where I expected it to be.

This is also a CPU limited relatively with the E6700.

 

[razor2025]

From the bits about FEAR on the article...

F.E.A.R places the Radeon HD 2900XT and the GeForce 8800 GTX pretty much neck and neck. The Radeon HD 2900XT was the fastest of the two, winning by just 2fps. The GeForce 8800 GTX on the other hand was 17fps faster than the Radeon HD 2900XT. When looking at the price vs. performance ratio in F.E.A.R, the Radeon HD 2900XT is nothing special.

WTF? Either they're crazy or the editor fell asleep editing the article. As far as the content, yeah it looks like ATI's hard at work wringing in the performance with driver tweaks. Since 8800's has been out for more than 6 months, the drivers for them should be close to mature by now, that means if 8800's performance stays the same from on-wards, 2900XT might have the opportunity to equal or beat GTX.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

This is also a CPU limited relatively with the E6700.

How do you figure? Maybe at the lower res, just maybe, but other than that I don't think so.

KT

 

[soybeast]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
If it is one thing I have learned, it is this: Stay away from new cards. The 8800 GTX still has problems and it has been out for 6 months... Why on earth would anyone want lock-ups, broken features (pixel mapping, no SLI in Vista) just to have a few extra FPS? Sure, the speed is nice, but when you have to sacrafice stability, it just is not worth it.

Same goes for this new ATI Card... I hope the best for ATI, but it sounds like the driver is POS as well... They build these cards, release them FAR to early... Both the 8800 GTX and the 2900XT were released before they were ready. As far as I am concerned neither product is ready for the shelfs...

Just my opinion, but honestly, I think to many people are willing to get screwed for bragging rights... *shrug* I guess I won't be upgrading my video card in a while.

If you're like me, have a 9600 pro and haven't upgraded in about 5 years. Having the top of the line is a small treat for making it through such a long time w/o upgrading. Even if a Radeon 2900XT or Geforce 8800GTX has some driver/performance issues, one of those w/ slower than normal performance is still exponentially better than a 5 year old card.

I suppose I'm a bit of a fringe case though.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
If it is one thing I have learned, it is this: Stay away from new cards. The 8800 GTX still has problems and it has been out for 6 months... Why on earth would anyone want lock-ups, broken features (pixel mapping, no SLI in Vista) just to have a few extra FPS? Sure, the speed is nice, but when you have to sacrafice stability, it just is not worth it.

Same goes for this new ATI Card... I hope the best for ATI, but it sounds like the driver is POS as well... They build these cards, release them FAR to early... Both the 8800 GTX and the 2900XT were released before they were ready. As far as I am concerned neither product is ready for the shelfs...

Just my opinion, but honestly, I think to many people are willing to get screwed for bragging rights... *shrug* I guess I won't be upgrading my video card in a while.

I don't necessarily think it is always for bragging rights (though I'm sure that is part of it), but I think a lot of people actually like playing with the new technology and finding out what works/what does not work, etc.. For those people it is more the experience of it all and getting to try new things rather than just trying to get a few more FPS or brag to their friends.

KT

You are right, and I did not mean to single out bragging rights as the only reason... Trust me, I know how good it feels, the rush of getting a new released product! But, I suppose as I get older, I see how pointless a lot of it is, especially as money becomes more difficult each year (family, kids, etc...)... So, I suppose I have turned more towards the practical side. I just can't spend $400 bucks anymore to beta test a product, I am done iwth that.

Also, another thing I don't miss is the fact that when you buy cutting edge you often run into problems and that in and of itself can be depressing. So, you get to open a new present, all happy, tinker with it for the weekend and then realize something isn't working with it and won't be for the next 6 moths! That is "depressing", I don't miss that!

Anyway, people are FREE to do what they want with THEIR money, but still, I think the more we purchase POS or Unfinished products the more they will be released in that condition...

 

[Matt2]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you on this ShadowOfMyself.

This review shows the HD2900XT squarely between the 8800GTS 640mb and the 8800GTX.

*edited to avoid flame war

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: coldpower27

This is also a CPU limited relatively with the E6700.

How do you figure? Maybe at the lower res, just maybe, but other than that I don't think so.

KT

This was in reference to FarCry.

 

[Wreckage]

Does this review even use AA or AF? They say nothing about drivers, settings, etc.

It looks like they ran the games without AA and AF

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I'm not going to get into an argument with you on this ShadowOfMyself.

This review shows the HD2900XT squarely between the 8800GTS 640mb and the 8800GTX.

*edited to avoid flame war

Sorry, I was a bit aggressive, and yes the HD2900XT is between them, just like it should be, though I think it will eventually match the GTX, but I am probably alone in that

Its just that I get fired up whenever I see everyone bashing it like it sucks donkey and is the second FX card

 

[imported_thefonz]

Legion hardware has a review up today that shows the 2900 matching or coming within 5% of the gtx in most games. Supreme commander seems to be the only real loss. the 2900 smokes the gtx in x3 and stalker. With driver improvements the 2900 will be a awesome card thats on par with the gtx for $100 cheaper. At my local shop its already $170 cheaper (can$) and the GTS 640 is only $30 cheaper that the 2900.

Bottom line, At the price the 2900 is at now, its 1 hell of a deal and it will only get betta.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: thefonz
Legion hardware has a review up today that shows the 2900 matching or coming within 5% of the gtx in most games. Supreme commander seems to be the only real loss. the 2900 smokes the gtx in x3 and stalker. With driver improvements the 2900 will be a awesome card thats on par with the gtx for $100 cheaper. At my local shop its already $170 cheaper (can$) and the GTS 640 is only $30 cheaper that the 2900.

Bottom line, At the price the 2900 is at now, its 1 hell of a deal and it will only get betta.

Could you post a link to the Legion Hardware review?

 

[KeithTalent]

Here is the link to the Legion review 'thefonz' mentioned: http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=650

Found this as well: fishy benchmarks from Legion Hardware?

Hmmmm....

KT

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Here is the link to the Legion review 'thefonz' mentioned: http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=650

Found this as well: fishy benchmarks from Legion Hardware?

Hmmmm....

KT

Thanks.... Some of those numbers are weird... STALKER, one of the big wins for x2900 loses 50% of it performance going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1200, GTS drops about 20% and GTX drops like 5%. It's also sort of hard to tell what all their settings are. The Graphs aren't labeled and the settings screenshots cut off some of the information.

 

[Matt2]

Sorry boys, but I'm officially ringing the BS bell on this review.

STALKER
1920x1200

---------------8800GTX---------------
Anandtech---------------TechSpot
44.5 fps ----------------- 99.1 fps

---------------HD2900XT--------------
Anandtech---------------TechSpot
26.7 fps -----------------94.6 fps

You MIGHT be able to convince me that AMD's drivers were so incredibly broken that a magic driver gave it almost a 75% boost, but you're going to have jump through a couple million hoops to find me the driver that gave 8800GTX a boost of over 50%.

It's obvious that they didnt even use the Full Dynamic Lighting DX9 path to bench the cards and the fact that they didnt say that was what they were doing just shows that they were trying to make AMD look good.

:disgust:

I motion to have TechSpot placed on the DNQ (Do Not Quote) list.