2900XT vs. 8800GTX

Rackerz · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:24

2900XT is considerably cheaper and Ati's best card out at the moment. I've read around and the 8800GTX out peforms the 2900XT, but what kind of performance decrease am I looking at if I'm going to compare?

I'm looking to buy either of these cards so I'm just wondering what the major differences are, I don't mean to start a graphics card fight.

Thanks

Cyber-Mav · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:26

if you like to game using AA then the gtx is your best bet, heck even a gts would be a better option.

all depends though on your budget since there is a bit of a gap between the 2900 and the gtx.

helmutcheese · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:26

if you dont care about money then the GTX but if you can get by on current card, wait till Nov when new cards from Nvidia are SUPPOSED to be released.

Cyber-Mav · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:28

id personally wait now till november and see what g90 is like.

Rackerz · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:42

Thanks, do any of you know of any recent reviews or benchmarks comparing the cards? I've done a bit of a search and some people are saying with new drivers the 2900 is catching up a bit.

Cyber-Mav · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:46

Rackerz said:
Thanks, do any of you know of any recent reviews or benchmarks comparing the cards? I've done a bit of a search and some people are saying with new drivers the 2900 is catching up a bit.

people are saying that but the reviews iv been reading don;t show that to be true. best thing is to search on the next for reviews, its damn easy to do that. and make you your mind based on the facts you see. cuz if you ask on a forum all your going to get are personal experiences which may be a tad bit biased.

TheRealDeal · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:46

I think the x2900xt is faster than the gts in most things even faster than
a gtx or ultra in some games but the gtx is still a good bit faster in most
games. As far as the AA goes pretty sure its been improved in a lot of games
also. Its still not perfect but its a good buy for the money.

TheRealDeal · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:49

I think tom and willhub both had the gts and post there results from tests
they have done with both cards more tom though. You can say people are
biased a little mav but you tend to be biased towards bringing the hd2900xt
down at any point you can.

LoadsaMoney · 20 Aug 2007 at 19:54

2900 is faster than the 640mb GTS, and in about 1-2 games the GTX/Ultra, but GTX is the faster overall out of the pair.

Cyber-Mav · 20 Aug 2007 at 20:01

TheRealDeal said:
I think tom and willhub both had the gts and post there results from tests
they have done with both cards more tom though. You can say people are
biased a little mav but you tend to be biased towards bringing the hd2900xt
down at any point you can.

not biased in any way really, i can only bring down the 2900 on a couple of points, heat, power consumption being the major ones along with poor AA performance, and then comming to the market 6 months late with a card that can;t even rival one thats been out for a lot longer than the 2900 has is only other real drawback.

but if you can look past those issues, then the 2900 is a fairly rounded package although it should be around 20 quid cheaper than it currently is to make up for its shortcommings in my eyes.

truebluecfc · 20 Aug 2007 at 20:02

Depends what res your playing at and how much your willing to spend, 1680x1050 or lower then just get the 2900xt and save your money.

ACESHIGH · 20 Aug 2007 at 20:06

It may well be hard to find reviews with the newest ATI drivers, as usually reviews are done when the cards come out & those drivers were slower compared to how the 2900XT performs now.

If money is no object then i would get the 8800GTX, if youre after a more budget conscious choice for your topend card then get the 2900XT (& play whatever you like untill you can use your free Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Portal coupons).

TheRealDeal · 20 Aug 2007 at 20:07

Thing is its now the best card in its price bracket and priced pretty well
towards the gts 640. The 6 months late thing i agree with you on that front.
Heat most people posted there temps and the heat dosen't seem to be bad
at all i wish my his x1900xtx ran as cool as most of the hd2900xt's are atm.
I think on the power it really should be using less than it is for its
performance level but if i am being honest never something i look at
when buying a gpu unless i know it could be tight on my psu.

Rackerz · 20 Aug 2007 at 20:32

So budget wise I'm making a good choice on the 2900, but if money isn't an issue then an 8800GTX is a good choice?

If I wait till November will their be a significant price decrease in the 8800 series because of the new cards? I can wait till November if there is going to be a price drop.

Thanks

ACESHIGH · 20 Aug 2007 at 23:57

Rackerz said:
So budget wise I'm making a good choice on the 2900, but if money isn't an issue then an 8800GTX is a good choice?

If I wait till November will their be a significant price decrease in the 8800 series because of the new cards? I can wait till November if there is going to be a price drop.

Thanks

If the new cards are released there probably will be a price drop, unless Nvidia simply replace the 8800GTX/GTS with their 9800 counterparts, in which case i would expect the prices to stagnate.

At this point their also is no firm info to suggest any new cards will be out at that time. Theres rumours suggesting Nvidia will release cards in Nov but also rumours to suggest it will be later due to problems encountered.

vairo · 21 Aug 2007 at 00:00

LoadsaMoney said:
2900 is faster than the 640mb GTS, and in about 1-2 games the GTX/Ultra, but GTX is the faster overall out of the pair.

i thought 640 GTS is faster than a 2900 ? at least thats what everyone been talking about , can ya comment on it a bit more or show some reviews for me plz , since i am about to purchase one of thouse babys

ACESHIGH · 21 Aug 2007 at 00:07

vairo said:
i thought 640 GTS is faster than a 2900 ? at least thats what everyone been talking about , can ya comment on it a bit more or show some reviews for me plz , since i am about to purchase one of thouse babys

With the latest drivers the 2900XT is infront of the 8800GTS 640MB.

Loadsamoney did link some reviews showing this in at least 1 other thread, but without a search function i cant lead you to them.

Alexrose1uk · 21 Aug 2007 at 00:10

640MB GTS USED to be faster (I recommended one to a mate when the 2900XT came out 4 months ago, and he's happy with it), but recent driver releases have really upped the bar for the 2900XT. It now beats the GTS in just about everything, in a lot of cases now with reasonable AA afaik, and ATI are still working on the drivers.

Here's a techspot review based on recent drivers from late may which backs up what I've been saying

Orange bars in the graphs are the HD2900XT, red bar is the 8800GTS 640, blue is the 8800GTX.

http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/page1.html

Judging on the Stalker test, later drivers have really given the card an edge at medium resolution too, as its beating the GTX and GTS rather soundly at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200.

As summed up above, in general, the GTX is faster, but coming in at over £100 less, the 2900XT is nowadays with the latest drivers, a very respectable offering, and I wouldnt hesitate to recommend it any longer, as long as you have a capable PSU to power it. The ATI card now offers really good bang for buck

Klo · 21 Aug 2007 at 00:15

vairo said:
i thought 640 GTS is faster than a 2900 ? at least thats what everyone been talking about , can ya comment on it a bit more or show some reviews for me plz , since i am about to purchase one of thouse babys

It was initially, but with the new revised drivers, they have managed to get some more performance out of it, meaning it is beating the 640gts in most things. Unfortunately I don't have any links for you, I've just picked this up by various comment by various people whilst browsing the forum.

vairo · 21 Aug 2007 at 00:19

Alexrose1uk said:
640MB GTS USED to be faster (I recommended one to a mate when the 2900XT came out 4 months ago, and he's happy with it), but recent driver releases have really upped the bar for the 2900XT. It now beats the GTS in just about everything, in a lot of cases now with reasonable AA afaik, and ATI are still working on the drivers.

Here's a techspot review based on recent drivers from late may which backs up what I've been saying Orange bars in the graphs are the HD2900XT, red bar is the 8800GTS 640, blue is the 8800GTX.

http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/page1.html

Judging on the Stalker test, later drivers have really given the card an edge at medium resolution too, as its beating the GTX and GTS rather soundly at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200.

As summed up above, in general, the GTX is faster, but coming in at over £100 less, the 2900XT is nowadays with the latest drivers, a very respectable offering, and I wouldnt hesitate to recommend it any longer, as long as you have a capable PSU to power it. The ATI card now offers really good bang for buck

ohh ok , thanks very much for your info , now i can see i have been away for a while ! So for my 1650 x1050 resolution you would now recomend Ati2900XT 512 than a GTS640 right ? Btw my SPU is 600w , i guess it still would be enough right ?
cheers

vai