2900XT or wait?

[easyrider]

I think you were looking for an excuse to call ATI "poo", but I'm going to leave it at that.

You agree and yet you still deem it fit to twist my response to the op.

ATI dont have a card at the top to compete with the GTX

 

[the_champ_101]

Well I can say that I will not be getting a G80 series card, doesn't mean they are not good cards because in fact they are very good, but in real world tests I've heard stories of games like C&C3 Tiberium Wars 3 lagging on the 8800GTS when units gets numerous on the screen at once, all of which is faultless on my 1900XT. But note to esiemi, if you want to test your GTS on a source engine game then please run lost coast on at least 1680 x 1050 resolution maxed out or HL2 Episode 1.

I'm sure in most benchmark tests the 640MB GTS will destroy my 1900XT but at a price even higher than the 2900XT with drivers for vista and a user interface that looks like a pig's behind I won't be getting Nvidia this time round. Money is not an issue because I can sell my 1900XT 512MB for £160 and I can afford the £90 extra required which is not a huge amount to fork out for high end graphic card.

Anyway thanks for all your help people I will be ordering a HIS 2900XT in the near future.

 

[easyrider]

Just get the 2900 I had the GTS 640MB but sold it because I didn’t find it THAT impressive. If I was buying a card right now and the budget was 250 ish I would not look at GTS.

the thing that really did put me off with GTS was C&C 3, it lagged at high setting but as soon as AA was off everything was running smooth but even 2AA was killing the performance, so I really don’t get all these people here saying that the AA performance of GTS is better than 2900. I don’t have a 2900 yet so I can’t really comment on 2900's AA performance but I know GTS’s AA wasn’t that good.
I played some other games like HL, CS: S etc. and I could run the games perfectly with all the setting on high, but i could get the same performance with 1950 pro i had so what was the point of GTS? Don’t know.
the other thing I didn’t like was the Vista driver, when i switched to vista all the games started to run slower.
atm I’m waiting for the new drivers for 2900 to decide to buy it or not. Hope the drivers are good or I might have to get a GTX.

GTS AND GTX not really a big difference.

I have had both.

 

[esiemi]

GTS AND GTX not really a big difference.

I have had both.

so im not getting the GTX then

 

[the_champ_101]

Esi read my revised post above.

 

[easyrider]

so im not getting the GTX then

If you think a 640 GTS is not up to scratch then a 2900 will not be either,

I suggest you take alook at your PC overall before coming out with what quite frankly is misinformation

 

[the_champ_101]

What esi said about some of the problems about the GTS doesn't occur even on my 1900XT so I have to say the 2900XT will have them areas covered especially in the Vista AA department.

 

[esiemi]

If you think a 640 GTS is not up to scratch then a 2900 will not be either,

I suggest you take alook at your PC overall before coming out with what quite frankly is misinformation

That’s not misinformation! That was my experience and opinion of GTS.


so you saying GTX is not much better than GTS(and i think GTS is not that good) and 2900 is crap too so whats a good card atm? what do you have?

 

[the_champ_101]

I believe easy rider must have a Nvidia card.

 

[esiemi]

What esi said about some of the problems about the GTS doesn't occur even on my 1900XT so I have to say the 2900XT will have them areas covered especially in the Vista AA department.

it might be the problems that nvidia has with specific games like C&C3, just like the problems 2900 has with specific games atm.

from what i have gathered 2900 performance in vista is good.

 

[esiemi]

I believe easy rider must have a Nvidia card.

i think hes got a GTS 320 maybe im wrong

 

[xtr3eme]

2900xt is a good card

 

[bfar]

What esi says hasn't been the case with most of us, and he's only mentioned c&c. I had no trouble with the demo at least For me the 8800 AA and AF is excellent across the board as far as I've seen, it's one of the strong points of the card.

If your worried about the 2900XT, then I'm afraid your only alternative is a GTS or better. Most of us have told you it's a great card. It's entirely your choice.

I'd be very careful about choosing a 2900XT based on your previous ATI experiance - this one really doesn't look like it's up to their usual standards. It's not all bad, but I definately wouldn't rely on future driver updates to fix performance - thats a big gamble. It might happen and it might not.

Otherwise wait, but you could be waiting a while

 

[zytok]

Just get the 2900 I had the GTS 640MB but sold it because I didn’t find it THAT impressive. If I was buying a card right now and the budget was 250 ish I would not look at GTS.

the thing that really did put me off with GTS was C&C 3, it lagged at high setting but as soon as AA was off everything was running smooth but even 2AA was killing the performance, so I really don’t get all these people here saying that the AA performance of GTS is better than 2900. I don’t have a 2900 yet so I can’t really comment on 2900's AA performance but I know GTS’s AA wasn’t that good.
I played some other games like HL, CS: S etc. and I could run the games perfectly with all the setting on high, but i could get the same performance with 1950 pro i had so what was the point of GTS? Don’t know.
the other thing I didn’t like was the Vista driver, when i switched to vista all the games started to run slower.
atm I’m waiting for the new drivers for 2900 to decide to buy it or not. Hope the drivers are good or I might have to get a GTX.

wow, I don't know where to start with this post......

let me get a couple of things straight, you have recommended a 2900 over a GTS despite admittedly having no experience of one. This is based on C&C3 lagging when AA was applied (no mention of the res being used), yet you have no evidence whatsoever as to whether the 2900 is better, same or worse under the same circumstances

You also saw no point in having a GTS as one 2-3 year old game ran about the same on a GTS as a 1950 (no benchmarks supplied) and it was a bit slower on Vista than XP which applies to pretty much every graphics card available under pretty much any game due to the OS overhead.

At least if you're gonna criticise one card and recommend another, put some effort into your reasoning man!!!!