Ati x2900xt is out!!

[Yoma 0]

Hi guys, does anyone have the new Aticard yet?

If so how does it perform?

[xav 0]

More importantly: does it have the handle leak issue too?

If so, I'll feel desperate and sorry for ATI.

[xnodunitx 0]

This should be in Off Topic.

And its rather doubtful anybody is going to get the card right away, especially if they know the lesson of "Bleeding edge".

[psycosmos 0]

Google translator raped german ArmA bench

Doesn't look too impressive, but well, it's also cheaper, but then, it needs more power...we'll see.

Edit:To clarify that a bit, by "needs more power" I meant it has a higher electric power consumption.

[NeMeSiS 11]

The x2900XT should be compared to a GTS, not a GTX. IMO its doing quite good for that price range. (Although currently all ArmA Ati vs 8x00 benchmarks are flawed because of driver issues )

[NeZz_DK 1]

But I think it could performe wery well in arma because of the design difference to the 8800 series, It has alot more shader power then the 8800 and a wery high bandwith to the memory

[ArmaVidz 0]

lmfao I hardly think ATi will be putting it's next-gen hardware in a lagtastic trail behind the 8800's. Either the reviewer is not competant enough, or the ATi software is in alpha or beta driver form. New card + new drivers = bad performance. Everytime. Once the drivers are fixed, they smoke the previous gen GPU's(generally).

[4 IN 1 0]

well both drivers are 2 different kinds of ulter crap IMO

lets see who fix it first

[adumb 0]

Lets hope the 8800GTX price goes down some now.

[-Puma- 2]

Lets hope the 8800GTX price goes down some now.

exactly

but i think my next card will be ATI.

[Key Dutch 0]

gad dem, that crap, HD2900 so slow, 750 GPU clock on 1650 memory clock, memory clock even slower than on X1950XTX. and look on recomendet PSU for crossfire 2xHD2900XT , 1200 Wats.

http://velocitymicro.com/wizard.php?iid=32

plas its use DDR3 memory type. man i hope R790(HD2900X2) would be better. only one good thing bout it, its should drop prices.

[sickboy 13]

GFX isnt all about Frequency in mhz...

Look at the Pentium 4 processor, gets his ass kicked by Athlon 64 clocked lower...

Look at Athlon 64, gets his ass kicked by Core 2 clocked lower...

Same goes for videocards, more clock doesn't mean faster card.

DDR4 has larger latencies than DDR3, so if you can squeeze a high clock out of DDR3 it can outperform DDR4.

Give the benchies some time, I guess the Radeon is also a totally new design so Drivers will take quite a bit, but hopefully less than GF8800 crap

[Key Dutch 0]

GFX isnt all about Frequency in mhz...

Look at the Pentium 4 processor, gets his ass kicked by Athlon 64 clocked lower...  

Look at Athlon 64, gets his ass kicked by Core 2 clocked lower...

Same goes for videocards, more clock doesn't mean faster card.

DDR4 has larger latencies than DDR3, so if you can squeeze a high clock out of DDR3 it can outperform DDR4.

Give the benchies some time, I guess the Radeon is also a totally new design so Drivers will take quite a bit, but hopefully less than GF8800 crap

i know that, but its would be more efficent , if they (ATI) would use DDR4 and 2Ghz memory clock. there no point drop the memory clock if u in last genuration achive higer spped.

and its not make any sinse to go with less energy efficent memory. Btw if u would chek 8800GTS run on DDR3 GTX on DD4 with better speed , and X1950 pro have DDR3 XTX have DDR4, i think this prove DDR4 can be more efficent than DDR3 couse in both sitacion they run with higer GPU and memory clock speed.

[berghoff 11]

Also the ATi drivers seems to having trouble with AA + AF modes, fps takes a leap down when active.

[LoFFeN 0]

The 8800GTS 640MB is faster than the HD 2900XT, in almost every benchmark. There are also complaints on the 2900XT's heavy Power Usage.

Here are the Specs of Nvidias GF8 Series and ATI's HD 2900 Series:

- ATI Radeon HD 2900 Series - Specifications.

- Nvidia GeForce 8 Series - Specifications.

[berghoff 11]

The 8800GTS 640MB is faster than the HD 2900XT, in almost every benchmark. There are also complaints on the 2900XT's heavy Power Usage.

But strangly not in every review . I haven't seen so many differences in reviews ever with the R600.

[LoFFeN 0]

^Yeah yeah.

Anyway here are some reviews of ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, at:

Anandtech

Digit-Life

Firingsquad

Guru3D

HardOCP

HotHardware

Legit Reviews

The Tech-report

Tom's Hardware

VR-Zone

[Dwarden 1125]

this card is extremely driver limited ...

there are now 5 or 6 versions of drivers floating around

and in some games there is 150% difference in results between these ...

(w/o any quality change)

cards like ASUS one came with Stalker and Valve BlackBox (EP2, TF2, Portal, DODS)

there are only two bad thing about HD X2900XT and that's

1) powerusage

... mainly due to 80nm process and GDDR3 used, You can be sure if GDDR4 model appear it gets 20% drop in powerusage and then again when respin on 65nm appear ...

2) cooler loudness

it's not loud as FX but You can hear it , there is need for AIB partners to quickly release SILENT solutions ...

[Yoma 0]

still noone has it?

Come on hardwarepimpers run to the store, buy one, test arma with it, i want some news...

I don't expect wonders or anything, but the difference in architecture might lead to some unpredictable results.

And yes it does come out slower in a lot of benches compared to the GTS/GTX.

BUT: it looks like it performs much more equal under vista/xp compared to the GTS/GTX in some reviews

[hoz 0]

Moving to OFFTopic, not really suited for ArmA-General

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

You know, when I upgraded my PC to one day play ArmA, I chose a Geforce 7950 GT over any new-gen card... I think I could still today be laughing my ass off at all those who bought these 8800's and whatnot, paying the heavy price, but moaning just about everywhere about how they're not "pwning" everything although that's what they should be doing...

Serves the lesson to better invest in proven technology than rather jumping the gun and buying the latest and newest...

[Yoma 0]

Admins i don't doubt your right to move it to offtopic, but i can't see how Arma performance of a brandnew card is supposed to be offtopic.

Have a nice day

[sickboy 13]

i know that, but its would be more efficent , if they (ATI) would use DDR4 and 2Ghz memory clock. there no point drop the memory clock if u in last genuration achive higer spped.

and its not make any sinse to go with less energy efficent memory. Btw if u would chek 8800GTS run on DDR3 GTX on DD4 with better speed , and X1950 pro have DDR3 XTX have DDR4, i think this prove DDR4 can be more efficent than DDR3 couse in both sitacion they run with higer GPU and memory clock speed.

Well, I simply do not believe that in the high-range video segment, a company would take DDR3 if it would have serious limitations as opposed to DDR4...

Though, DDR4 is more expensive and possibly less available than DDR3, which could be the reason why they went for DDR3....

Still, it depends on the memory bus and controller, which memory fits and performs best.

Having more memory bandwidth available, does not automaticly mean higher performance, for instance when the consumption is lower due to design or incase the rest of the components would not benefit from this extra memory bandwidth.

[Heatseeker 0]

BUZZARD @ May 15 2007,15:46)]You know, when I upgraded my PC to one day play ArmA, I chose a Geforce 7950 GT over any new-gen card... I think I could still today be laughing my ass off at all those who bought these 8800's and whatnot, paying the heavy price, but moaning just about everywhere about how they're not "pwning" everything although that's what they should be doing...

Serves the lesson to better invest in proven technology than rather jumping the gun and buying the latest and newest...

Dont laugh just yet, just because we experience some problems with the latest Arma beta patch... maybe we are not seeing all that our cards could pull out of Arma but i've been playing Evolution with an average of 50 FPS in mostly high settings.

I dont think there is much proven technology that can handle high shadows, textures, AA, AF, etc... with a reasonable frame rate.

20'ish is just not smooth for me.. and future proof beats proven any day, i'm very happy with my G80 .

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

BUZZARD @ May 15 2007,15:46)]You know, when I upgraded my PC to one day play ArmA, I chose a Geforce 7950 GT over any new-gen card... I think I could still today be laughing my ass off at all those who bought these 8800's and whatnot, paying the heavy price, but moaning just about everywhere about how they're not "pwning" everything although that's what they should be doing...

Serves the lesson to better invest in proven technology than rather jumping the gun and buying the latest and newest...

Dont laugh just yet, just because we experience some problems with the latest Arma beta patch... maybe we are not seeing all that our cards could pull out of Arma but i've been playing Evolution with an average of 50 FPS in mostly high settings.

I dont think there is much proven technology that can handle high shadows, textures, AA, AF, etc... with a reasonable frame rate.

20'ish is just not smooth for me.. and future proof beats proven any day, i'm very happy with my G80 .

The thing is, you paid a buckload of money for your advanced graphics chip, and weren't able to advantage of it right away... If you only had bought the card by the time the bugs are ironed out and the drivers are all ok, I bet it would already have been cheaper, and then of course I wouldn't have that much reason to laugh, of course...