2900XT or 640GTS?

Tom|Nbk · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:01

LoadsaMoney said:
Your forgetting though, it only beats the GTS and comes close to the GTX, and beats it in some with no AA, if you want to buy a card that you can't use AA on then get the 2900, but when you buy a top end card like the GTS/GTX/2900 you expect to be able to use AA.

What on earth?, you can use AA just fine with the 2900, it also beats the GTS and is normally on par with AA enabled. :confused:

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:28

My bad, i didnt realise they fixed the AA problem already.

Tom|Nbk · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:34

It's lacking in some titles but nothing that major, certainly wouldnt go as far to say its totall broken :confused:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/503/11/

Marvel Alliance

Tomb Raider Legends

F.E.A.R

Need I go on Loadsa, youv'e been here long enough to not make such sweeping statements as that, tut.

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:37

Strange as you said they havn't fixed the AA yet, and when the XT was released when AA was applied it was getting crippled, said it in all the reviews, so how has it magically got faster at AA if they aint fixed it. :confused:

Cyber-Mav · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:38

Tom|Nbk said:
Need I go on Loadsa, youv'e been here long enough to not make such sweeping statements as that, tut.

please do go on

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:42

Well im totally :confused:

then, if there is no AA problem what the hell is everyone going on about, whats with all the, 'drivers wont fix it, as its a hardware problem, its the way ATi have done the AA', and 'hopefully they can fix it in the drivers'.

Tom|Nbk · 17 Jun 2007 at 21:44

LoadsaMoney said:
Strange as you said they havn't fixed the AA yet, and when the XT was released when AA was applied it was getting crippled, said it in all the reviews, so how has it magically got faster at AA if they aint fixed it.

They havnt fixed AA yet, the card suffers in some titles but not by a huge margin, normally in 95% of the cases it beats the gts or is on par, I certainly wouldnt write it off and say it cant do AA AT ALL like you did above

, yet again another broad sweeping statement from a GTS owner. Sigh. More performance fixes are yet to come once they do 100% cases it will be faster or at least 99%.

fornowagain · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:08

Of course it can do AA. Its just that sometimes it doesn't do so well.

Tom|Nbk · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:15

that Oblivion benchie is way out, I get around 60fps with 4xAA 16xAF 1680x1050, goes up in the towns aswell

EDIT : will retest tommorow though

Tute · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:20

They're all just wrong, I mean 2900XT Crossfire slower than a single card? The EVGA Ultra Superclocked outperformed by GTSes, GTXes, and what on earth is the X1950 doing in F.E.A.R?

Bit-tech are doing something really wrong when they benchmark.

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:20

fornowagain said:
Of course it can so AA. Its just that some times it doesn't do so well.

snip

That can't be right, its supposed to be a lot better than GTS, and even beating the GTX in some supposedly. :confused:

As said here, supposedly much better than the GTS in about 95% of cases, or on par.

Tom|Nbk said:
They havnt fixed AA yet, the card suffers in some titles but not by a huge margin, normally in 95% of the cases it beats the gts or is on par, I certainly wouldnt write it off and say it cant do AA AT ALL like you did above , yet again another broad sweeping statement from a GTS owner. Sigh. More performance fixes are yet to come once they do 100% cases it will be faster or at least 99%.

Yet that review above its beaten, and in some cases by the old x1950 XTX. :confused:

TheRealDeal · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:24

Where in that statement does he says its much better than a gts?

Tom|Nbk · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:26

LoadsaMoney said:
That can't be right, its supposed to be a lot better than GTS, and even beating the GTX in some supposedly.

As said here, supposedly much better than the GTS in about 95% of cases, or on par.

Yet that review above its beaten, and in some cases by the old x1950 XTX.

It clearly isn't getting through Loadsa, so im not going to waste my time and everyone eleses to repeat myself.

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:26

he doesn't, he said in 95% of cases its faster, or on par, yet those benchies posted above say otherwise.

Tom|Nbk · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:29

LoadsaMoney said:
he doesn't, he said in 95% of cases its faster, or on par, yet those benchies posted above say otherwise.

and those benchies are the other 5%, besides they look odd anyway.

. Yawnfest.

TheRealDeal · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:30

Well one of the reviews above is wrong as they both have fear in there
and one shows hd2900xt winning other gts.

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:31

Yup and the same can be said for the benchies you posted, so lets forget it, obviously the 2900 is much better than the GTS as its on par in some, and faster in some, and even faster than the GTX in some.

killer_uk · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:31

The Xbit Review shows the 2900 coming out on top more often than not as well.

Cyber-Mav · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:32

LoadsaMoney said:
That can't be right, its supposed to be a lot better than GTS, and even beating the GTX in some supposedly.

As said here, supposedly much better than the GTS in about 95% of cases, or on par.

Yet that review above its beaten, and in some cases by the old x1950 XTX.

ouch, if i were dumb enough to get a 2900xt to replace my x1900 id be doing a downgrade

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jun 2007 at 22:34

MaXXeH said:
lol no it is agp

i went for the

EVGA 8800GTS 640MB KO ACS3 Dual DVI HDTV PCI-E

better be good!!

Should have got the 2900, its better