• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GTS 320Mb Vs GTS 640Mb Vs 2900XT

Ive actually been wondering about this too.

Ive always liked ATi - the X1900 series did it for me. They were solid, brilliant cards.

However, the benchmarks of the 2900XT that ive seen have been lacklustre to say the least. Judging by what ive read here though, that was to do with crappy drivers.

Im on the verge of ordering my PC with a EVGA 8800GTS 320 - should I jump for a 2900XT 512MB instead ?
 
OutpostCommand said:
Ive actually been wondering about this too.

Ive always liked ATi - the X1900 series did it for me. They were solid, brilliant cards.

However, the benchmarks of the 2900XT that ive seen have been lacklustre to say the least. Judging by what ive read here though, that was to do with crappy drivers.

Im on the verge of ordering my PC with a EVGA 8800GTS 320 - should I jump for a 2900XT 512MB instead ?
Click to expand...

In a nutshell - yes.

The 2900XT is faster than the 8800GTS. Don't let a single benchmark put you off - the 2900 wins just about all of the others. :)
 
Tute said:
In a nutshell - yes.

The 2900XT is faster than the 8800GTS. Don't let a single benchmark put you off - the 2900 wins just about all of the others. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah all the others, except Lost Planet, Company Of Heros DX10, Stalker, Oblivion, Supreme Commander , Fear, Neverwinter Nights 2, Gothic 3, Hitman: Blood Money, Flight Simulator X , Colin McRae DIRT, COD2, Tomb Raider Anniversary etc..
 
Last edited:
i wasn;t around these forums during the GF5 FX series release but i wonder if people defended it as much as they defend the 2900.

how far back are the threads kept on this forum?
 
Cyber-Mav said:
i wasn;t around these forums during the GF5 FX series release but i wonder if people defended it as much as they defend the 2900.

how far back are the threads kept on this forum?
Click to expand...

The threads get periodically purged, unless archived. IIRC the last purge was around Jan 2006. Then sometimes due to critical database issues the whole lot gets nuked and you are forced to re-register (e.g. March 2001, October 2002).

IIRC there was some typical fanbois defending the gf5, in fact I know quite a few on here got one for free (the original FX5800 'dustbuster') by attending a conference of some sort.

Overall however most people acknowledged that the 9700/9800 series were the best. I think this was helped by softmods such as 9500->9700 and 9800SE->9800pro which helped to win ATI a lot of market share.

To be fair while their shader performance was pretty shocking, some of the later gf5 series weren't that bad especially in DX8 titles which were the norm. For example the FX5950ultra was a bit of a beast and could live with ATI outside of some shader-heavy DX9 stuff. The 5900LX was also a decent midrange offering when overclocked.
 
It's not a case of defending the 2900xt, more correcting opinions.

Right now there is nothing between the 8800GTS 640MB and the 2900XT.

Facts:
1.) The 2900xt is noisier than the 8800 640
2.) The 2900xt consumes more power.
3.) Performance wise they are neck and neck (8800 better in some tittles, 2900 in others)
4.) The 2900xt performs better at 3dmark06
5.) With AA enabled the 2900xt takes a greater performace hit than the 8800.
6.) AMD are more consistent with their driver releases.

Myths / speculative opinions

1.) The 2900xt is better at DX10 as its architecture is more suited to it.
2.) With the new drivers the 2900xt is (performance wise) between the 8800 640 and the GTX (They are still very much on par as the new forcewares are quite good too.)


I currently have a 2900xt and wish i got an 8800 640 as at idle the fan is just too loud for my liking. Performance wise there is nothing at all in it,
 
xsnv said:
It's not a case of defending the 2900xt, more correcting opinions.

Right now there is nothing between the 8800GTS 640MB and the 2900XT.

Facts:
1.) The 2900xt is noisier than the 8800 640
2.) The 2900xt consumes more power.
3.) Performance wise they are neck and neck (8800 better in some tittles, 2900 in others)
4.) The 2900xt performs better at 3dmark06
5.) With AA enabled the 2900xt takes a greater performace hit than the 8800.
6.) AMD are more consistent with their driver releases.

Myths / speculative opinions

1.) The 2900xt is better at DX10 as its architecture is more suited to it.
2.) With the new drivers the 2900xt is (performance wise) between the 8800 640 and the GTX (They are still very much on par as the new forcewares are quite good too.)


I currently have a 2900xt and wish i got an 8800 640 as at idle the fan is just too loud for my liking. Performance wise there is nothing at all in it,
Click to expand...

Good post. :)
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Point 3 is incorrect, with the latest drivers the 2900 is a lot faster than the 640mb GTS.
Click to expand...

Yup. I can't find any reviews right now with the games Shocky listed above that have the updated ATi drivers, but the ones I in the 2900XT thread prove that it is a faster card than the GTS in pretty much all benchmarks.
 
No No No No it's not!!, if it was a lot faster, it would be like GTS - GTS and a half, the GTS outperforms in Bioshock.

In some games the GTS is faster, in others the 2900 is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom