Ati x2900xt is out!!

[Heatseeker 0]

BUZZARD @ May 15 2007,18:33)]

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...

Got Arma delivered in March and new card shortly after (actually whole pc), enjoying great graphics and performance since, no problems with 1.04 (505), 1.05 or 1.05b.

Only with 1.07 beta .

Only great games will convince me to shell out for new hw, Arma is one of those, best game there is imo.

Never used Ati, dont think i will anytime soon.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

BUZZARD @ May 15 2007,16:46)]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

Very lame comment.

I did not buy that card to win a counter strike leet speak pissing contest against you, I wanted ArmA to run smooth.

It's a shame to read crap like this here in the BIS forums.

MfG Lee ...

[Dynamax 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 .

HA!, i got me a ATI X1950XTX and i get 60-70 FPS average on evolution.

games settings : Res-1680x1050, 16:9. everything else at high or very high. viewdistance set to 1,800 meters (1.8KM)

CPU- AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz-OCed to 2.8Ghz)

DDR2 PC6400 800Mhz (2gigs)

250Gig WD SATA3

MB- Asus M2N-E AM2

soon to change over to a AMD AM2 FX62, and a second X1950XTX in CF

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

BUZZARD @ May 15 2007,16:46)]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

Very lame comment.

I did not buy that card to win a counter strike leet speak pissing contest against you, I wanted ArmA to run smooth.

It's a shame to read crap like this here in the BIS forums.

MfG Lee ...

I run ArmA smooth, even without 8800...

CPU: Intel C2D E6600

RAM: 2 x 1gb Kingston PC 5300 @ 667mhz

HDD: 2 x Raptor 35GB @ RAID-0

MoBo: Asus P5N32-E

Graphics: Asus EN7950GT w/ 512mb...

No problem!  

[Heatseeker 0]

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 .

HA!, i got me a ATI X1950XTX and i get 60-70 FPS average on evolution.

games settings : Res-1680x1050, 16:9. everything else at high or very high. viewdistance set to 1,800 meters (1.8KM)

CPU- AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz-OCed to 2.8Ghz)

DDR2 PC6400 800Mhz (2gigs)

250Gig WD SATA3

MB- Asus M2N-E AM2

soon to change over to a AMD AM2 FX62, and a second X1950XTX in CF

Well, its possible... maybe.

Its not easy to post an average frame rate with Arma since things depend alot on where you are and what is going on.

For me the important thing is a stable and constant frame rate.. not 60/70 almost everywhere and 20 looking at some bushes.

But im being 100% honest. FRAPS shows me an average of 50 frames with everything high (only PP and shading detail low) and only 1280x960 resolution playing evolution.

My fps are capped by a 60hz refresh rate with v-sync enabled.

No overclocking yet, no tweaks (in game, driver or system) and im not complaining .

[Dynamax 0]

looking at bushes and or trees doesnt affect my FPS at all really.

in Paraiso, i get on average 40-50 FPS

guess im one of the lucky ones.

[Key Dutch 0]

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.

i can just guess, HD 2900XT use DDR3 only by one reason. ATI leave steps for upgraded version like HD2900XTX wich , i bet, will use DDR4 and have faster GPU and memory clock. however, as long HD2900XT have drivers problem, unlikely will will see XTX unttill ATI sort this. my guess , when ATI fixed drivers HD2900XT wil mach 8800GTX , or allmost mach (2-3 FPS would not play big role, compere with price) then ATI relise HD2900XTX to outrunn 8800GTX. then dual-core like HD2900X2 and ect., ect., ect. (from comercial view, there no point relising best product stright away, when u can earn $$$$$$ with second best (or 3rd))

P.S. if u go to origenal ATI site, and look in to spec. of HD2900 series u will see opisite type of memory use stand DDR3/DDR4

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd2900/specs.html

there is big chans im guessing right.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

viewdistance set to 1,800 meters (1.8KM)

CPU- AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz-OCed to 2.8Ghz)

DDR2 PC6400 800Mhz (2gigs)

250Gig WD SATA3

MB- Asus M2N-E AM2

soon to change over to a AMD AM2 FX62, and a second X1950XTX in CF

Heh, I thumb my nose at your measly 1800 metre viewdistance.

[Key Dutch 0]

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 .

HA!, i got me a ATI X1950XTX and i get 60-70 FPS average on evolution.

games settings : Res-1680x1050, 16:9. everything else at high or very high. viewdistance set to 1,800 meters (1.8KM)

CPU- AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz-OCed to 2.8Ghz)

DDR2 PC6400 800Mhz (2gigs)

250Gig WD SATA3

MB- Asus M2N-E AM2

soon to change over to a AMD AM2 FX62, and a second X1950XTX in CF

Well, its possible... maybe.

Its not easy to post an average frame rate with Arma since things depend alot on where you are and what is going on.

For me the important thing is a stable and constant frame rate.. not 60/70 almost everywhere and 20 looking at some bushes.

But im being 100% honest. FRAPS shows me an average of 50 frames with everything high (only PP and shading detail low) and only 1280x960 resolution playing evolution.

My fps are capped by a 60hz refresh rate with v-sync enabled.

No overclocking yet, no tweaks (in game, driver or system) and im not complaining .

its is posible i have stable 50FPS on 1600x1200 resolution(all setting on high or highest). my 4600+ windsor OCed to 2.7

btw if u have x1950XTX

first u cant put second x1950XTX , if u use crossfire advantige motherboard, u need x1950CF or u can use optionaly x1900CF

there is tabe of crossfire capble video cards and CF configuration

http://ati.amd.com/technology/crossfire/charts.html

second its would be completly useless put second video card for Arma, Arma do not support SLI or CF configuration, and work faster on one video card.

and last  Dual-core FX62 old CPU, i would prefer wait and see if AMD will relise FX 72/74 for AM2 slot, then spend money for last year CPU.

P.S. What bout view distance, its not realy effect on frames anyway, i use 2500 . be onest can put more but cant see point, its not posible see that far anyway and even 1 km away make barly posible to hit target.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Quote[/b] ]P.S. What bout view distance, its not realy effect on frames anyway, i use 2500 . be onest can put more but cant see point, its not posible see that far anyway and even 1 km away make barly posible to hit target.

Uh huh. But if you wanted to show off how good the ole system really is, you would ram the viewdistance to 10,000m, all settings to high, and AA to 8x. Then tell me how many FPS you get.

...I get 25-30, minimum 19.  

That said, 2500 is certainly enough for gaming - agree totally there.

[Key Dutch 0]

its probably would not go higer than 20-25, ill chek on weekend, and post here

[Yoma 0]

Very nice, guys, but do get back on topic, it's not because admin moved it to Offtopic that you have to take that seriously...

Still no benches of Arma with this lovely new technology?

[Key Dutch 0]

hi u probably want chek here, very usefull info bout HD2900XT plas benchmarks and power consuming

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1099

[Heatseeker 0]

First impressions found in the troubleshooting forum section.

I know that this likely is going to be an issue that I will have to wait for a driver update, but I wanted to be sure as the amount of information I have found of the topic is none.

I am having an issue with the new HD2900xt graphics card running ArmA. I had previously the x1950pro which ran the game fine, but now with this new card the game loads up with a black screen not showing any of the intro graphics, then when the main menu loads, it shows only a grayed outline of some terrain and everything else totally black. If I click on the area where the exit button would be, the game closes fine. Again, I am well aware of the fact that the card is very new, but I just wanted to be sure this wasn't an issue addressed with other hardware setups.

My PC is as follows:

Core 2 Duo e6600

4Gb DDR2

HD2900xt ATi

Vista Ultimate 64-bit

This game did run fine on the other card, so vista compatibility seemed ok. Thank you in advance for your assitance.

Waiting for drivers, might take a while...

[berghoff 11]

Still no benches of Arma with this lovely new technology?

Lets hope for some soon with new drivers, since this topic has turned into "my system is better than yours"..

[Key Dutch 0]

unlikely someone will buy it soon, all who have money gone for 8800GTX all who have not have them, not gona buy it, untill someone post beanchmarks.

P.S. As i promis test my Limited edition x1950xtx and CF

in Evolution, with AAx8 AAA on qualaty, AFx16 and additionaly High Qualaty AF on,With Vertical refresh and Triple buffering and resolution 1600x1200 its das average 24-27 FPS

in deserd 37 top and in wood 19 Low. not bad i guess.