Xbitlabs review is up

[Cookie Monster]

Link

Highs:

* Acceptable level of performance in high resolutions with 4x FSAA and 16x AF
* Wide choice of antialiasing modes
* Supports FSAA and floating-point HDR simultaneously
* Excellent quality of anisotropic filtering
* Future-proof with support for DirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0
* Supports hardware tesselator unit for future games
* Supports fully hardware decoding of H.264 and other HD video formats
* Unified architecture with 320 stream processors
* 512-bit memory bus
* Efficient cooling system

Lows:

* Imperfect drivers
* Perhaps, insufficient number of texture processors and render back end processors
* High power consumption
* Noisy cooling system
* New FSAA methods may blur image

It is clear that the Radeon HD 2900 XT with its current drivers cannot compete against Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX or Ultra, which, by the way, cost substantially more, the latter costs ($829 and up) more than two Radeon HD 2900 XT graphics cards, in fact. But maybe ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is the best graphics card for $399?

Well, it is either as fast, or faster than GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB in most cases, but it has performance issues with such games as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl , Neverwinter Nights 2 , Gothic 3 and probably some other. At some point those problems are going to be solved, but when ? we do not know. So, performance-wise, ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is a good solution.

In addition, AMD?s partners will include four free games with each Radeon HD 2900 XT graphics board: Half-Life 2: Episode 2 , Day of Defeat: Source , Team Fortress 2 and Portal . This increases overall value of the product to a gamer.

However, with sufficient performance and free games come power consumption of 161W as well as very noisy cooling system (at least, in case of our board) in addition to imperfect drivers, which, for example, do not allow to enable FSAA with edge-detect filter, something, which is projected to provide high image quality amid minimal performance drop. As a consequence of such driver limitation of the Radeon HD 2000, Nvidia?s GeForce 8800 can claim better image quality, as its CSAA works without an issue.

All-in-all, it is up to end-user to decide whether ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is the best graphics card for $399 or not. It has a lot of advantages and the main one is truly extreme shader processing capabilities, but it also has a number of drawbacks./Q]

Theres multiple situations where the X1950XTX beats the 2900XT! The performance of this GPU is whack. It somtimes competes with the GTX, and then competes with the X1950XTX..

 

[the Chase]

Sounds about right and in line with most other reviews. Have to read it tomorrow as it's time for bed.....Thanks for the linkage.

 

[CrystalBay]

The thing thats holding me off is, it doesn't scale well as you bump the resolution ..Hopefully it will be fixed.

 

[kreacher]

Finally! Looks pretty good against the 8800GTS and should improve as drivers mature according to the site.

 

[Killrose]

I am still wondering when a newer WHQL driver set will appear and what it will actually do. I wonder:

(1) Is the chip revision so new that drivers are quite a bit different than the ones used
on earlier revisions and are very beta? which once drivers are developed could
yeild quite a bit of performance?

OR:

(2) This chip revision has been around so long that all the rabbits have been long pulled
out of the hat and there aint no more driver bunnies to be had?

I am having a problem with the price of the card too. I just dont see the worth compared to the 640GTS. I think their lucky to be getting the $ they are getting for this thing. And I have always been partial to ATi products.

 

[yhelothar]

Wow...
ATI/AMD looks like they're in big trouble now, especially being in the money pit they're in.
I was really hoping ATI to do really well to get drop NVIDIA's prices.
They can't afford to be falling behind like this.

 

[BFG10K]

Some positive performance signs (I wouldn't worry about the low scores as they're likely drivers) but the card is just too noisy for me to consider it.

 

[yacoub]

* High power consumption
* Noisy cooling system

gg ATi, this is the same reason I avoided the X1800 and X1900 series.

 

[A554SS1N]

I think the true performance of the X2900XT lies between being faster than an 8800GTS and faster than an 8800GTX, if looking at the better games, and simply awful drivers (they'd have to be) are holding it back to slower than X1950XT performance in other games. Either that, or they're produced a rubbish architecture, which is less likely.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: yacoub

* High power consumption
* Noisy cooling system

gg ATi, this is the same reason I avoided the X1800 and X1900 series.

I can't believe they haven't done anything about this yet. Its was pretty much the number one complaint about their hardware over the last 2-3 generations. It does look like the cooler has improved somewhat design wise.

 

[Arkaign]

Until they make a quieter, more power efficient design, they won't be selling many of these. Fix those problems, and bump the performance a notch, and they will sell TONS @ the mid-$300 price point.

 

[KeithTalent]

Good review, I always love X-Bit! :thumbsup:

Once these drop to $400 Cdn I am in for 2.

KT

 

[Wreckage]

Yeah, they say pretty much the same thing as most other reviews. Wins some, loses some to the GTS640 but it is louder and draws more power. Not too mention it costs about $100 more.

R600 GPU with only 16 texture filtering units and 16 render back ends, which limits performance in a number of games

Drivers will not fix this. So certain games will continue to see low performance regardless of driver improvements.

I think they should have targeted this card at the GTS320 and had a price at around $250-$275.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Yeah, they say pretty much the same thing as most other reviews. Wins some, loses some to the GTS640 but it is louder and draws more power. Not too mention it costs about $100 more.

I think the actual quote was "it is either as fast, or faster than GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB in most cases". So what you SHOULD have said is "Wins most compared to the GTS 640"

Originally posted by: Wreckage
I think they should have targeted this card at the GTS320 and had a price at around $250-$275.

So its performance lies between an 8800GTS 640 and an 8800GTX in most cases, yet you think it should be priced at 8800GTS 320 level.


Brilliant deduction, Watson.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig

I think the actual quote was "it is either as fast, or faster than GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB in most cases". So what you SHOULD have said is "Wins most compared to the GTS 640"

Funny how you left this part of the quote out.

but it has performance issues with such games as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl , Neverwinter Nights 2 , Gothic 3 and probably some other

The 2900 has lost to the GTS320 in some games.

 

[Creig]

That's why they said "in most cases".

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig
That's why they said "in most cases".

Wins some, loses some is very accurate, especially considering some of those wins were only by a few FPS. Hardly worth the extra $100. That's why I said it would better compete with the GTS320. Not sure what you are so confused by.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig
That's why they said "in most cases".

Wins some, loses some is very accurate, especially considering some of those wins were only by a few FPS. Hardly worth the extra $100. That's why I said it would better compete with the GTS320. Not sure what you are so confused by.

it is either as fast, or faster than GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB in most cases

It is between the 8800GTS 640 and 8800GTX in overall performance, it is between 8800GTX 640 and 8800GTX in price.

Sounds logical to me.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig

It is between the 8800GTS 640 and 8800GTX in overall performance, it is between 8800GTX 640 and 8800GTX in price.

Sounds logical to me.

Sure if you ignore the games that it loses to the GTS640. Although I don't know why you would do that. Also many other games it's merely even. So while most sites overall at best call the card even, I guess a little denial goes a long way.

You would also have to ignore the heat, noise and power draw along with the extra cost. Sure, why not.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
I think the true performance of the X2900XT lies between being faster than an 8800GTS and faster than an 8800GTX, if looking at the better games, and simply awful drivers (they'd have to be) are holding it back to slower than X1950XT performance in other games. Either that, or they're produced a rubbish architecture, which is less likely.

Agreed. It HAS to be some awful drivers.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig

It is between the 8800GTS 640 and 8800GTX in overall performance, it is between 8800GTX 640 and 8800GTX in price.

Sounds logical to me.

Sure if you ignore the games that it loses to the GTS640. Although I don't know why you would do that. Also many other games it's merely even. So while most sites overall at best call the card even, I guess a little denial goes a long way.

You would also have to ignore the heat, noise and power draw along with the extra cost. Sure, why not.

Wreckage, you are a detriment to the Video forum. Know that while accepting whatever bribes Nvidia has paid you, you have ruined these boards for thousands of people.

 

[yacoub]

He's right though. Until AMD learns to make a card that isn't a noise and power hog, there's no reason for some of us to consider them. It's frustrating more than anything. I preferred their cards and IQ for several years but I'm forced to NVidia because they're quieter and use less of my PSU. And that's assuming both cards perform equally well.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: yacoub
He's right though. Until AMD learns to make a card that isn't a noise and power hog, there's no reason for some of us to consider them. It's frustrating more than anything. I preferred their cards and IQ for several years but I'm forced to NVidia because they're quieter and use less of my PSU. And that's assuming both cards perform equally well.

Saying that the card is worse than an 8800GTS 320mb is silly. It's got over 100MB less memory, and every review I've read has had the card competing with the 8800GTS 640MB consistantly.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
but it has performance issues with such games as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl , Neverwinter Nights 2 , Gothic 3 and probably some other

Yes, it has issues with some games, but not with most others. Obviously there are some driver bugs to be worked out. I don't know what you're hoping to prove with this.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Sure if you ignore the games that it loses to the GTS640. Although I don't know why you would do that. Also many other games it's merely even. So while most sites overall at best call the card even, I guess a little denial goes a long way.

You would also have to ignore the heat, noise and power draw along with the extra cost. Sure, why not.

You can keep trying to downplay Xbit's findings that the HD2900XT "is either as fast, or faster than GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB in most cases" all you want, but it won't change their final conclusion.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
I think the true performance of the X2900XT lies between being faster than an 8800GTS and faster than an 8800GTX, if looking at the better games, and simply awful drivers (they'd have to be) are holding it back to slower than X1950XT performance in other games. Either that, or they're produced a rubbish architecture, which is less likely.

Agreed. It HAS to be some awful drivers.

Actually I've been reading that ATI simply messed up the architecture.

They gave it only 16 texture units. The X800XT has 16 texture units and it's obsolete by a few generations now.

Apparenly the 320 shaders it has are highly inefficient, and it is nearly impossible to put them all to use at once.

It's disappointing. The chip has 700 transistors, which is why it runs so hot and needs so much power.