HD2900XTX

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 17 May 2007, 10:49

So far the ATI HD series has really impressed me.

The prices seems nice, and the HD2900XT compared to the 8800GTS is a better card.

And then I see the HD2900XTX. From what I have seen in the link below, this looks like a really good contender. Looks like it beats the GTX card and this is with old drivers.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... p?t=143915

Stock Score of 12858 on 3D mark 2006 and a overclocked score of 14372 all on AIR.

viceroy · Post by **viceroy** » 17 May 2007, 10:55

It might score well in 3DMark, but it's not that impressive in real world 3D apps.

And its power consumption is horribly high...

ravenlord · Post by **ravenlord** » 17 May 2007, 11:12

And the heat dispersian on them is just as high and will make it dificult to overclock if you cant find better cooling for them. Still prefer the GTX then

Tander · Post by **Tander** » 17 May 2007, 11:16

I've heard about the 290XT TOXIC?

Aparrently meant to beat the 8800 series?

viceroy · Post by **viceroy** » 17 May 2007, 11:20

The toxic is just a watercooled card isn't it?

FTB_Screamer · Post by **FTB_Screamer** » 17 May 2007, 11:27

viceroy wrote:It might score well in 3DMark, but it's not that impressive in real world 3D apps.

And its power consumption is horribly high...

Ja, I think ATI is doing the same thing nVidia did when they released the FX and found out it sucks, optimise 3DMark drivers.

PS I read somewhere that the 2900XTX will never be released, I's too impractical, performance/power consumption whise.

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 17 May 2007, 11:30

Still seems to be pretty awesome.

Tander · Post by **Tander** » 17 May 2007, 11:41

Oh, my bad.

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 17 May 2007, 12:54

Just wait for the 65nm.

Pollynator · Post by **Pollynator** » 17 May 2007, 13:52

FTB_Screamer wrote: PS I read somewhere that the 2900XTX will never be released, I's too impractical, performance/power consumption whise.

I would like to read this. Link?

I would be tempted by the 2900XT because it offers good preformance at a reasonable price in comparison. And tho they don't out gun the GTX it still does very well in benchmarks given its price.

Problem i have is the power, noise and drivers.

viceroy · Post by **viceroy** » 17 May 2007, 13:56

Pollynator wrote:
FTB_Screamer wrote: PS I read somewhere that the 2900XTX will never be released, I's too impractical, performance/power consumption whise.
I would like to read this. Link?

I would be tempted by the 2900XT because it offers good preformance at a reasonable price in comparison. And tho they don't out gun the GTX it still does very well in benchmarks given its price.

Problem i have is the power, noise and drivers.

In real world gaming, the 2900XT struggles to even beat out the GTS...

Ati need to get out a new revision or they will lose out horribly because that will leave us where we were when 3dfx went under...Not doing very well, and with only NV being around the cards were not all that wonderful.

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 17 May 2007, 14:08

And you've played with one?

Let's get Gouhan here, he has one.

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 17 May 2007, 14:35

O my word. I hate fanbois.

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 17 May 2007, 14:49

O RLY? I assume you hate yourself then?

Pollynator · Post by **Pollynator** » 17 May 2007, 15:04

HAHA

No it was a mear opinion. i am no fan boi and am definitley voting for the green (nVidia) team.
One thing to remember is that their the X2900Xt is retailing at almost a R1000 less then GTS.
Their drivers are far superior, and well the GTX owns the 2900XT and the 8900's aren't even out yet.

BioFreak · Post by **BioFreak** » 17 May 2007, 15:41

The reason the 2900XT is beaten in games is purely driver related...
Give ATI/AMD some time to release proper drivers and then ***** about it. honestly...

Pollynator · Post by **Pollynator** » 17 May 2007, 15:47

No driver fixes will span the gap between the X2900XT and the 8800GTX. Never mind the massive 8900's meantioned.

DoOb · Post by **DoOb** » 17 May 2007, 17:40

Why dont we just wait and see than rather presuming what they can and can not do.

There arent even any proper DirectX 10 games out

BioFreak · Post by **BioFreak** » 17 May 2007, 18:21

@ Pollynator - Why don't you do some research before opening your pie hole?

The XT was never intended to be a GTX killer. The 8900's are not yet launched and the XT (without intending it) has taken the WR in 3D Mark 05 for a single card:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... 190&page=3

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 17 May 2007, 18:34

The XT was never intended to be a GTX killer.

It was. It isn't marketed to be a GTX killer because it's will never be on 80nm. The architecture is good but the implementation is very bad.

The reason the 2900XT is beaten in games is purely driver related...

There is no way anyone besides ATI engineers that knows this for certain. ATI have had the same amount of time to develop their driver as nVidia has, their HW release is late but they could have been tweaking the driver the entire time.

BioFreak · Post by **BioFreak** » 17 May 2007, 18:39

Hex_Rated wrote:
The XT was never intended to be a GTX killer.
It was. It isn't marketed to be a GTX killer because it's will never be on 80nm. The architecture is good but the implementation is very bad.

The reason the 2900XT is beaten in games is purely driver related...
There is no way anyone besides ATI engineers that knows this for certain. ATI have had the same amount of time to develop their driver as nVidia has, their HW release is late but they could have been tweaking the driver the entire time.

Well, time will tell about the drivers.

Please link me to these so called rumours that the XT would be faster than the GTX?

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 17 May 2007, 18:43

Do you think that when ATI designed R600, they designed it to be competition with the GTS and not the GTX? I don't need links to tell you that they intended it to be faster, which it isn't, only because it leaks current like a sieve.

BioFreak · Post by **BioFreak** » 17 May 2007, 18:45

hmm, the R600 is not one card. The fact that the XTX has fallen flat on it's face doesn't mean the XT follows the same fate.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 17 May 2007, 19:21

What they would have done is designed R600 to beat the GTX. ATI would have speed binned R600 cores and used the slower chips to make HD2900XT and faster chips to make HD2900XTX.

Because the R600 chip uses so much power, a version that could compete with 8800GTX is impractical and they wouldn't sell well so the R600 chips being used in the 2900XT were originally intended to be used in the XTX as well.

When ATI realized they couldn't compete with G80, they dropped the last X off the name and made the IHV's halve the size of the mem chips on the board. I can't link you to definite proof or press release but this is the only explanation for what is currently happening.

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 17 May 2007, 21:42

In my Opinion this XTX is really powerfull and if you have the money to buy one then PSU etc shouldnt be an issue.

NB: This is AMD/ATI First DX10 Card so we should try to compete it with the 8900s.

XT Vs GTS, looks like the XT Wins

XTX Vs GTX, XTX Wins.

And this is with old drivers.

So far every single review I have seen has been using Overclocked GTS cards to compete with the XT.

I think ATI/AMD is going in the right Direction