Radeon HD 2900 XT VS Nvidia 8800 GTX oc

[Ravioli]

I have read reviews and seen a few benchmarks which states that the 8800 GTX is better than the HD2900XT, but by simply comparing the specifications on the two you can see that the HD2900XT has

+150 core clock speed
+192 stream processors
-150 memory clock
-256 memory size
+128 memory interface

the rest is pretty much the same! Overall the HD2900 specifications are better than the 8800 GTX so why is 8800 GTX better??? Is it because it has a better architecture and all that stuff? Can someone please explain!

 

[The Brick]

It's just faster. They're two entirely different cards with different chips. There's no comparison in specs except for maybe memory size.

 

[VirusType2]

One thing that Is interesting is that Nvidia took note that the current trend in games is tons of pixel shaders ( i think thats what I read ) so they put tons of the performance in this area, whereas I suppose ATI went with the traditional - just more of the same.

 

[-Psy-]

These cards are all fine and dandy but they're not really worth the money at the moment.

 

[CyberPitz]

These cards are all fine and dandy but they're not really worth the money at the moment.

I don't know, that new radeon, you save the money on the Orange box! :O

 

[The Brick]

Black box, you don't get HL2 and ep1.

 

[CyberPitz]

Black box, you don't get HL2 and ep1.

oh...well, shoot. NM

 

[Asus]

ATI went a little overboard with their design for the games today. And it has some issues. I'll leave it at that.

One thing that Is interesting is that Nvidia took note that the current trend in games is tons of pixel shaders ( i think thats what I read ) so they put tons of the performance in this area, whereas I suppose ATI went with the traditional - just more of the same.

If anything Nvidia is closer to the traditional.

 

[Gray Fox]

But lets say if you knew the video card had to last you at least 4 years.
Would you go for
8800 gts 640mb
or
8800 gts 320 mb
or
2900 xt
Please list the order in which you would take them.

What about the 8800 320mb. In a test between the 2 I read there was very little difference between the 320 and 640 mb at a res of 1200x1024 with no aa or af.
Will that remain so, like by the time you need 640 mb at that res with no aa and af both cards will be so old it won't matter. Or will you need that 640mb of memory pretty soon at that res.

 

[The Brick]

8800gts 320
8800gts 640
2900xt


Because the 8800's perform more consistently in different games.

 

[Asus]

The future is really unknown. How will games built for DX10 from the ground up perform on the 8800 or 2900? unknown.

The 2900 is even more of a question mark. Are it's issues driver related or hardware? Will it be fixed soon or will it take a refresh or totally different architecture?

The 8800 is the pick if you had to buy today. Hands down. The 640MB over the 320MB is probably the better pick if you are thinking of the future so you can keep using higher texture and filter settings. While the 320MB version gives you the better performance/price ratio.

 

[Gray Fox]

But I won't be using aa or af and will play in a res of 1200x1024 or 1024x786. But I do want to have all settings on high as long as possible. Like I said if by the time that 640mb becomes useful at those setting it's already to old to play the game then there is no point in it for me.
So what should I get?

 

[The Brick]

The 640, because you will probably use AA and AF anyway. Just because you can. Later you'll just miss it.

 

[Gray Fox]

Hey a guy in da haus just posted this:

 

[NeptuneUK]

If you were to use a 1280x1024 resolution, would getting a GTX over a GTS even be worth the extra cash? Seriously.

 

[Asus]

Hey a guy in da haus just posted this:

Those pics don't load for me without copy/pasting the link.
Just post the review. Then you get the whole picture. The 2900XT went south in the first reviews with the beta drivers when using AA/AF and those pictures make no mention of those settings being used. If you only judge it based on those pictures then you have no idea if AA/AF performance has been improved. But if you visit the review then you'll know they did use AA/AF.

 

[Gray Fox]

So it kicks monkey balls
The thing is in Holland. the cheapest 2900xt costs 350,-
the cheapest 8800 gts 640 mb costs 340,-

Not a week ago it used to be 330,-
8800 gts 640 370,-

I think I will wait until amd comes out with the 65 nm version.

 

[VirusType2]

If anything Nvidia is closer to the traditional.

What makes you say that?

"For example in certain shader operations it is found that 8800 GTX is 11 times faster than a Radeon X1950 XTX 512MB and 7900 GTX 512MB GPUs"

 

[Asus]

What makes you say that?

"For example in certain shader operations it is found that 8800 GTX is 11 times faster than a Radeon X1950 XTX 512MB and 7900 GTX 512MB GPUs"

Well the 8800 is faster than those. Yes.

From what I've read it seemed to me like Nvidia was closer to the normal balance between vertex shaders, pixel shaders and texture performance than where ATI has gone with their chip. In the past texture performance was a lot more important than pixel/vertex shaders. While, for example, the vertex power ATI put in their chip isn't used with todays games. Well I guess Valve mentioned it when showing off the facial animations with their TF2 heavy presentation. But texture performance is still really important but ATI didn't put the same focus on that like Nvidia. So where ATI put it's time might not shine in current or 1yr+ old games.

That's just the impressions I have from reading some of the more technical reviews. I mean, I might have got the wrong idea. Some of that stuff is boring to read. hehe

 

[VirusType2]

Hmmm well I may have all my 'facts' (read - rumors and jargon) twisted as well.

All I know is that they said that the 8800 cards put tons of the performance in a different area this time - the area that is the most heavily used by the latest games (but ATI didn't). I thought they said pixel shaders but honestly, it could have been something different.

It would make sense to explain why the 8800 seems to be far better at rendering [the recent games they usually test] compared to the 2900 in the benchmarks, taking into consideration that the 2900 seems to be generally more powerful on paper, but gets clearly stomped in a actual usage.

 

[Max_Payne]

Well if it helps..

i am a owner of a 8800 GTS-OC 640mg.
The card is simply amazing... i havnt seen any game it cant touch... with absolutley everything maxed out. Im running Xp, so when Dx10 comes around.. vista might be a cool upgrade latter on to see its true potential.

One of the best looking games i had cranked.. was PREY. its stunning...

PEACE

Mikey:thumbs: