• 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.

8800GTS or 2900Pro?

benopeth

benopeth

benopeth

Associate
Joined
14 Oct 2005
Posts
84
Location
www.benjaminwaller.co.uk
Following on from other threads regarding the ATI 2900Pros', I've been set on snapping up an 8800GTS 320MB for my new PC and have been waiting to get paid, in order to do so.

However, the various threads regarding the imminent release of the 2900Pros' have come to my attention and the pre-orders at just 170 quid. Given their specs (512-bit, 512mb ram, dx10, 600mhz core, 1600mhz memory speed), should I really be considering now whether to snap up one of these instead?

On paper, I'm now thinking I should probably order one of these 2900Pros' but I'm assuming it might be more sensible to wait for some benchmarks first? Thoughts/advice on this would be welcomed!
 
benopeth said:
I'm assuming it might be more sensible to wait for some benchmarks first? Thoughts/advice on this would be welcomed!
Click to expand...

Remember the 8600GTS? It was supposed to be all that and when it arrived it was overpriced and pants? Never pre-order anything, as, if for no other reason, they take your money today, but don't give you anything for it.

If these are any good, then there will be some proper competition and prices will drop on the 8800's too.

WAIT FOR THE BENCHMARKS. THEN TWO WEEKS WAIT FOR THE PRICES TO DROP.
 
deffenitly the 2900Pro, its going to perform the same as a 2900XT aint it, no need to wait for benchmarks, it is a 2900xt.
 
While the 2900 Pro looks very promising, I agree with WJA96...it's always best to wait until the product is out and reviewed first.
 
From what I understand the XT just about matches a GTS, so I expect the Pro will lose out to some degree. Just my opinion of course.

Just go for your GTS.
 
the 320MB of ram can become lacking in shader intensive titles, people have stressed about that! If you go for the 640MB you will be spending an extra £50+ and you gotta ask yourself if its worth it.

We dont know what the performance is like but we have had the confirmation this morning from Gibbo that the card will be a basically downclocked XT so we can get a rough idea of performance.
 
If using a sub 1680x1050 screen the 320 will have no problems. I find that my 640mb gts gets me about 20 to 40 fps more than my freinds similar spec pc with a 320mb. We both have 20.1 w/screens.
 
Dyson said:
If using a sub 1680x1050 screen the 320 will have no problems. I find that my 640mb gts gets me about 20 to 40 fps more than my freinds similar spec pc with a 320mb. We both have 20.1 w/screens.
Click to expand...

In what exactly? In 95% of games the difference is only 2-3 fps (if that).

In Tom Clancy Ghost Recon you get about 30 fps difference at 1680 x 1050 but the 320Mb card is still doing over 30 fps.

No difference in Bioshock, COH, MOH:Airbourne etc.

If you think it's an issue for you though, it probably isn't worth the extra money for the 640Mb card just for a few games (which will run at a good speed anyway). If considering the 640Mb card, better to either save up and get the GTX or get a 2900xt or 2900 pro.

To my mind the 8800 GTS 640Mb card is too dear and there are better cards to buy for the money.
 
Dyson said:
From what I understand the XT just about matches a GTS, so I expect the Pro will lose out to some degree. Just my opinion of course.

Just go for your GTS.
Click to expand...

Considering with the newest drivers that the 2900XT beats the 8800GTS 640MB & that Gibbo confirmed with the supplier that the 2900Pro cards use a 512bit interface & so essentially only slightly underclocked 2900XT's the 2900Pro is going to be the best bet at its low release price.
 
Well, given what you've all said then I think I'll just wait for the 2900Pros to come in stock and snap one up. If it is essentially a downclocked 2900XT then I guess it's fair to presume the kind of performance it will bring. The 512MB RAM and 512-bit memory interface do sound very appealing and hopefully with ATI improving it's drivers then it could end up being a great purchase!

Thanks for your time and help, very useful indeed!
 
Greebo said:
In what exactly? In 95% of games the difference is only 2-3 fps (if that).

In Tom Clancy Ghost Recon you get about 30 fps difference at 1680 x 1050 but the 320Mb card is still doing over 30 fps.
Click to expand...

You answer it yourself! Also TDU, BF2, CSS. 30 fps ok to you??
 
Dyson said:
You answer it yourself! Also TDU, BF2, CSS. 30 fps ok to you??
Click to expand...

I did rather answer it myself but that was the only game I knew off where it made a big difference.

Suprised at BF2 though as the extra memory is only supposed to make 1-2 fps difference in that game. And with CSS, depending on your setup, does 30 fps make much of a difference if the results are 150 fps and 180 fps? And remind me what game TDU is please? :confused:

My point still stands, you would only get a gain with a handful of games with a 640Mb GTS and therefore the extra £50+ is not worth it. If you are looking at the 640Mb GTS you might as put another £50+ and get the GTX. You really then would notice a difference in fps.
 
Speculation says that the 2900pro will not be up to match with the 8800GTS. It will be better than the 8600GTS, but slower than the 8800. I agree with some of the posts above about waiting to see benchmarks.

But if you cant wait, then i vote for the 8800GTS.
 
Basically the 2900pro is an xt downclocked. So in theory you should
be able to clock it upto an xt no problem. With the xt being faster than
a 8800gts 320 or 640 in most games then so will the 2900pro with an
overclock. At 170 pound its a steal as you get the 512 memory that will
not be such a drawback compared with the 320 of the gts at the same
price point. Look at the x1900xt to the xtx not much of a difference and
can clock well past xtx speeds. As far back ati made a 9800 non pro version
which i had and i could ramp it up way past a pro. This 2900 pro probably
won't be any different from the cards i have just mentioned.
 
GTS is overall better product, less heat, far less power consumption and ability to use custom profiles with games along with far better overclocking capabilities than the 2900.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Don't think to many will care about that stuff mav for 170 pound with
the 512meg of memory. I would have the extra memory and put up with
that anyday.
Click to expand...

yea the 170 quid is a real good price point, as long as that price sticks its good, hopefully it doesn;t end up in the 190 quid mark when its out. if 170 quid holds then the 2900pro is performance wise gonna be the mid range champ.
id still want a cooler running card which has less power consumption though, hopefully the 55nm ones make a showing this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom