New - 1GB 2900XT Released

fornowagain · 11 Jun 2007 at 18:55

flibby said:
Thing is with that though, is it's Canadian dollars I think, so 650 CA to USD is about 600, then giving that it's very hard to get ahold of at the moment and that the model in that link is pre-overclocked... I'm still thinking $500 - $525 (or £280 - £320). Be interesting to see what it does retail for though over here when it's available in masses

Its says CAD on my conversion, that's Canadian dollars. If you look around the US sites its a minimum of $110+tax over the 512Mb. Works out to roughly £320 after tax and we always pay more. Like I said, at least £330. GDDR4 is not cheap. Not so sure its pre-overclocked. I'm looking at four sites here, all say 825MHz, 1GB 2.1GHz, all about the same price.

Chipset: ATI RADEON HD 2900XT
Memory: 1024MB GDDR4
Engine clock: 825MHz
Memory clock: 2100MHz (1100MHz DDR)
Memory interface: 512-bit
Stream Processors: 320
Pixel Fillrate: N/A
Geometry Rate: N/A
Bus Interface: PCI Express x16
Crossfire Compatible: Yes

Teaf · 11 Jun 2007 at 19:05

fornowagain said:
Not so sure its pre-overclocked. I'm looking at four sites here, all say 825MHz, 1GB 2.1GHz...

Hmm, could be right... Only reason I assumed a pre-overclocked version from that URL is due to their first paragraph in the description and the first sentence after that, saying something like "That means higher core and memory speeds", just seemed to imply that the card was overclocked

fornowagain · 11 Jun 2007 at 19:11

Ive taken out any competitor bits.

NightSt@lk3r · 11 Jun 2007 at 19:20

Gonzo0 said:
Duno bout you but those 3D Mark06 scores are mighty close and i bet two 2900XT 1 GB are cheaper than two 8800 ultras

8800 Ultras will more than make up for the difference on what you would save on the elctricity bill.

Tom|Nbk · 11 Jun 2007 at 19:29

Cyber-Mav said:
i though i was on your ignore list?

You are, I just view your post's now and then to see if youve stopped spouting your usual BS and gibberish, or trying to bad mouth me some way

, anyway as he said. Don't sidestep.

Lewcifer · 11 Jun 2007 at 20:09

Uh, excuse my apparent lack of knowledge here, and for being a bit OT, but an 8800 Ultra is more or less just an oc'd GTX is it not?

jaykay · 11 Jun 2007 at 20:11

Yes it is. As well some of the new GTX have the A03 core which can overclock like the ultra core so its a no brainer.

fornowagain · 11 Jun 2007 at 20:46

jaykay said:
As well some of the new GTX have the A03 core

Where did you see that?

Azrael1 · 11 Jun 2007 at 20:53

Yeah but already Nvidia are cutting prices on the 8800 ultra which coincides with the release of the 1 gb version.

Now imagine if the original 2900xt was on par with the 8800 GTX there would have been price drops galore. ( healthy competition is what we need here fan bois ! )

I always buy the card that is good for the games i play !

jaykay · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:01

fornowagain said:
Where did you see that?

This thread here
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1199383

Cyber-Mav · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:02

Tom|Nbk said:
You are, I just view your post's now and then to see if youve stopped spouting your usual BS and gibberish, or trying to bad mouth me some way , anyway as he said. Don't sidestep.

right then, although people say the 2900 is not supposed to be marketed towards the gtx, then it has a few short commings.

for a card thats supposed to compete with a 8800gts it shoudl also have a similar level of power consumption. that is what it clearly does not do. very inefficient architecture requiring more power than a gtx to deliver gts performance.

thats the main drawback of the 2900 and why its seen as being so crap. its power consumption and performance per watt ratio. if its power consumption had been at the same level as a gts then there is nothing to argue about since it can then be classed as a card which is on par with gts.

but for it to do that it needs to shed around 80w of power consumption.

jaykay · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:04

Cyber-Mav said:
right then, although people say the 2900 is not supposed to be marketed towards the gtx, then it has a few short commings.

for a card thats supposed to compete with a 8800gts it shoudl also have a similar level of power consumption. that is what it clearly does not do. very inefficient architecture requiring more power than a gtx to deliver gts performance.

thats the main drawback of the 2900 and why its seen as being so crap. its power consumption and performance per watt ratio. if its power consumption had been at the same level as a gts then there is nothing to argue about since it can then be classed as a card which is on par with gts.

but for it to do that it needs to shed around 80w of power consumption.

The 1900xtx consumed lots of power compared to the 7900 but that didnt stop people from buying it??

Cyber-Mav · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:06

jaykay said:
The 1900xtx consumed lots of power compared to the 7900 but that didnt stop people from buying it??

yea, the high failure rate of the 79 series card is what boosted sales for ati.
even i bought my x1900xt after a failed 7900gs. nvidia were just a bunch of fools on the 79 series cards with thier alarmingly high failure rate.

Final8y · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:12

Cyber-Mav said:
right then, although people say the 2900 is not supposed to be marketed towards the gtx, then it has a few short commings.

for a card thats supposed to compete with a 8800gts it shoudl also have a similar level of power consumption. that is what it clearly does not do. very inefficient architecture requiring more power than a gtx to deliver gts performance.

thats the main drawback of the 2900 and why its seen as being so crap. its power consumption and performance per watt ratio. if its power consumption had been at the same level as a gts then there is nothing to argue about since it can then be classed as a card which is on par with gts.

but for it to do that it needs to shed around 80w of power consumption.

Utter rubbish!
The number1 priority for most gamers is its gaming performance.

Teaf · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:16

Not really the power consumption that worries me so much, especially after reading the thread on power consumption that was posted here not long back, it's the price

erformance ratio as currently, the performance of the 2900 XT compared to the price it costs (£250+) isn't worth it when you could get a 8800 GTS and save yourself £30. If it was £30 cheaper I think there'd be less for people to argue about.

Or that's my opinion anyway

Cyber-Mav · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:22

flibby said:
Not really the power consumption that worries me so much, especially after reading the thread on power consumption that was posted here not long back, it's the priceerformance ratio as currently, the performance of the 2900 XT compared to the price it costs (£250+) isn't worth it when you could get a 8800 GTS and save yourself £30. If it was £30 cheaper I think there'd be less for people to argue about.

Or that's my opinion anyway

same here, i know people who have opted for a 8600gt over a x1950pro just becuase they don;t want to spend 50 quid extra on a new psu to make sure it all works fine. and the guys im on about have standard pcs like dell's and hp's which come with ok psu's but not really up to tthe task of high power munching gfx cards.

TheRealDeal · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:25

Never ever built a games machine and wondered what power a card takes
to run each day month or year. Just want a good machine really. I think ati
have put this card a little more expensive than a gts 640 because they know
it will perform better than a 8800 gts 640 when drivers are optimised and also
when dx10 games are released. Also builtd all my pc's so i always have the
correct psu to go with the card i want to buy.

Final8y · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:29

Cyber-Mav said:
same here, i know people who have opted for a 8600gt over a x1950pro just becuase they don;t want to spend 50 quid extra on a new psu to make sure it all works fine. and the guys im on about have standard pcs like dell's and hp's which come with ok psu's but not really up to tthe task of high power munching gfx cards.

People buyng because they are on a budget is a different matter.
There is always give & take you cant always have your cake & eat it.
The 2900xt is starting to look overall faster than a gts.

I have started to see a patten from you that every time the 2900xt does a little better over time & knocks down a hurdle that you put up as its main weakness, you move your focus to something else & then claim thats the main weakness.

Cyber-Mav · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:37

Final8y said:
People buyng because they are on a budget is a different matter.
There is always give & take you cant always have your cake & eat it.
The 2900xt is starting to look overall faster than a gts.

I have started to see a patten from you that every time the 2900xt does a little better over time & knocks down a hurdle that you put up as its main weakness, you move your focus to something else & then claim thats the main weakness.

its main weakness has always been its power consumption and its crap performance compared it its specs. 320 stream processors vs 96 on the gts? i mean come on :rolleyes:

Final8y · 11 Jun 2007 at 21:40

Cyber-Mav said:
its main weakness has always been its power consumption and its crap performance compared it its specs. 320 stream processors vs 96 on the gts? i mean come on

We already know that but what really matters is what it shifts on screen and in that case its doing better than the gts.
You also must take into account that the stream processors are not the same for both cards so that apples & oranges.