Xbitlabs show the 2900 in a new light

cosmogenesis · 25 May 2007 at 12:13

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd-2900-games_21.html

Considering its price it does suggest that it is a worthy product apart from the heat and fan noise apparantly. In some games it can match the 8800 GTX but it does play second best to it in most games. However it does match the GTS well for the money and if it was not for the inadequate number of texture processors it could have been a winner.

So maybe the R700 will have better cooling and hence be quieter and have more texture units etc and hence be once again a match for Nv.

Vista was the OS ued for these tests so maybe some additional driver releases can make it a winner still.

Darkwave · 25 May 2007 at 12:17

I'm not sure how it's in a new light, lol. Pretty much every other review says the same thing.

cosmogenesis · 25 May 2007 at 12:19

Well it seems to be holding its own relative to its price point. I thought that most people were really peeved with its performance ?

Darkwave · 25 May 2007 at 12:21

Most people are peeved with the inconsistent performance, and the Xbit Labs article lays that out pretty nicely as they put emphasis on benchmarking minimum framerates as well as the usual stuff.

The main problems with the 2900XT at this point in time are the power consumption and all the (hopefuly for ATI users) driver problems like borked coolers and image quality which are really beta-level problems at best.

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 12:28

thought it was more of a case of people expecting ATi to come up with a GTX killer bearing in mind they'd had 6 months longer to work on a DX10 card. Don't think anyone's really slagged off the performance unless AA is introduced which seems to cripple it by all accounts.

Darkwave · 25 May 2007 at 12:29

zytok said:
thought it was more of a case of people expecting ATi to come up with a GTX killer bearing in mind they'd had 6 months longer to work on a DX10 card. Don't think anyone's really slagged off the performance unless AA is introduced which seems to cripple it by all accounts.

It's not even a GTS killer until all these faults are fixed.

That's the problem, 6+ months late and dodgy as hell. Shouldn't happen.

xtr3eme · 25 May 2007 at 12:32

zytok said:
thought it was more of a case of people expecting ATi to come up with a GTX killer bearing in mind they'd had 6 months longer to work on a DX10 card. Don't think anyone's really slagged off the performance unless AA is introduced which seems to cripple it by all accounts.

My HD2900XT plays games faster and smoother than my XFX 8800 XXX 320MB in all games ive played with and without AA... in fact i can use higher AA modes (on the 2900XT) and still have better frames.

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 12:44

xtr3eme said:
My HD2900XT plays games faster and smoother than my XFX 8800 XXX 320MB in all games ive played with and without AA... in fact i can use higher AA modes (on the 2900XT) and still have better frames.

Must have been reading the wrong articles. Was sure that most people were saying that the 2900 offered little if any benefit over an 8800 currently so I'm surprised that you made the swap so early.

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 12:52

xtr3eme said:
My HD2900XT plays games faster and smoother than my XFX 8800 XXX 320MB in all games ive played with and without AA... in fact i can use higher AA modes (on the 2900XT) and still have better frames.

I'd have to agree with that. While the average frames don't neccesarily support that view, the great advantage of these cards is the high minimum fps, and significantly less framerate fluctuation. Fluctuations can be just as bad as a low framerate if they're big enough.

cosmogenesis · 25 May 2007 at 12:57

So we are talking about highest average frame rates and the 2900 XT is good from a gaming experience perspective as it has good average framerates ?

Sounds logical captain

willhub · 25 May 2007 at 13:10

Looks brilliant, just on gothic3 I am like wtf!?!?!?, still got the AA problem?

Dutch Guy · 25 May 2007 at 13:45

isn't any different than other reviews, it is faster than a GTS in some games but fails horribly in STALKER

cosmogenesis · 25 May 2007 at 13:55

Is STALKER a popular game then or something that you play or does it demonstrate some DX technology that cards can be judged by ?

xtr3eme · 25 May 2007 at 13:58

well my 2900xt is noticably faster in stalker so dont know what reviews youve been reading...but i can tell you 1st hand from someone who has had a 8800gts.

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 13:59

cosmogenesis said:
Is STALKER a popular game then or something that you play or does it demonstrate some DX technology that cards can be judged by ?

you are having a laugh right? It's a very delayed game that seems to run quite poorly on most systems despite not looking all that great. It's very buggy and refused to work at all on Vista until recently. Plenty of people seem to harp on about it despite only ever posting screenies of dimly lit corridors and cracked toilets. You get to spend the first half hour of the game talking to people in Russian and getting killed by invisible blobs.

titaniumx3 · 25 May 2007 at 14:19

So you haven't played it then? (lol)

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 14:23

titaniumx3 said:
So you haven't played it then? (lol)

for about 5-10 minutes when I decided I hadn't played such a pile of dog excrement since I downloaded a demo of "big brother the game"

and chucked it in the bin.

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 14:23

I really like Stalker

The graphics do seem a little bland, but I had a real shock when I maxed out all the sliders manually. It suddenly game alive, really really good graphics. But you need a lot of GPU power to pull it off.

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 14:24

Boogle said:
I really like Stalker The graphics do seem a little bland, but I had a real shock when I maxed out all the sliders manually. It suddenly game alive, really really good graphics. But you need a lot of GPU power to pull it off.

did the invisible killer blobs look any better on max settings ?

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 14:26

zytok said:
did the invisible killer blobs look any better on max settings ?

Nope

But tbh you wouldn't really see anomolies in real life, and you certainly don't see radiation.