ATI backs out of the Highend video card market on this one

[SteveLord]

Just got the latest MaximumPC and AMD/ATI have confirmed that they will not create a card to compete against the 8800GTX/Ultra.

They are claiming that most people dont like to spend more than $400 on video cards anyway.

For those who didnt already know, the 2900 series is struggling to even "topple" the 8800GTS by a significant margin, much less touch the GTX or Ultra.

However, ATI is offering HDCP dual-link DVI in order to support native res of 30inch displays. ATI's new cards should also offload more HD video decoding work from the CPU than nvidia's best because nvidia's 2nd generation PureVideo HD engine is only available to its lower end 8500 and 8600 cards.

[OC Noob]

Just got the latest MaximumPC and AMD/ATI have confirmed that they will not create a card to compete against the 8800GTX/Ultra.

They are claiming that most people dont like to spend more than $400 on video cards anyway.

For those who didnt already know, the 2900 series is struggling to even "topple" the 8800GTS by a significant margin, much less touch the GTX or Ultra.

Dude, they totally read my post in the video card section.

Where do I pick up my check?

[Hardin]

:( is all I have to say.

[vixro]

[...]
For those who didnt already know, the 2900 series is struggling to even "topple" the 8800GTS by a significant margin, much less touch the GTX or Ultra.


Lol???????????? Go read the ATI forums! I have posts open, viperjohn has posts open, deathman20 has posts open, forum users from THIS forum and our personal performance is the same as the 640mb GTS, more than the GTS, and in some cases MORE than the GTX. Have you just been trolling the nvidia forums?

Why do people continue to bash ATI when we're already shown the performance of the XT to be awesome!!!!

This is even with complete garbage drivers, when they mature over the next couple months you can expect it to be higher than the GTS in all cases and rubbing the GTX and beating the GTX with overclocks.

[Hipcrostino]

we arn't bashing ATI, we were just expecting more out of the 6month delay between thier solution to DX10 and Nvidias.

[SteveLord]

I've had ATI cards for quite a long time now. But I am still going to cater to who's better. If you want to go with whats slower, and wait 3-6 months till better drivers come out, then go ahead. I'll be playing on nvidia's new toy by then while you're bragging about being faster than last year's video card.

Like Hipcrostino said...its a disappointing product considering the time they've had. Looks like the AMD/ATI seem are both suffering the same problem. AMD lost the dualcore performance crown, and their quadcore solution is far behind and doesnt look promising at all while Intel has been enjoying theirs for quite a while now.

[Omsion]

So what happens when Nvidia's midrange cards catch up to what's left of ATI's "high-end"?
If they can't push the top (like the x19--s did for last gen), then the middle has nowhere to move up to.

[vixro]

Lol, I thin kthat everyone that continues to read this post need to check the thread made earlier about this kind of thing. This end of the world **** has got to stop.

The opinions you continue to state have absolutely NO backing to them. Call me a fanboy or whatever but i have personall used and own the 2900xt and it runs fantastic. saying it cant compete with a 8800GTS 640 is ridiculous and saying its not even close to 8800GTX is ridiculous. We've already stated that it is faster than a GTS640mb which is hardly *midrange* and catches up to the 8800gtx without even trying that hard, and thats with immature drivers. we were saying that since 8800gtx already has mature drivers, once the ATI ones are tweaked we'll be past the 8800gtx in speed and that's at almost half the price.

Scroll down to the thread that says ATTENTION

[largon]

They are claiming that most people dont like to spend more than $400 on video cards anyway.True.

AMD/ATi classifies GPUs to 5 market categories:
1. Value @ $30-$90
quarterly sales ~150M$
revenue share <5%

2. Mainstream @ $80-$149
quarterly sales ~600M$
revenue share 15%

3. Performance @ $150-$249
quarterly sales ~3000-3500M$
revenue share 70%

4. Enthusiast @ $250-$700
quarterly sales ~200M$
revenue share <5%

5. Workstation @ $180-$5000
quarterly sales ~250-300M$
revenue share <10%

No need to guess what price range actually makes a difference.
The real problem ATi has is the fact that RV630 and RV610 are running late, these parts are the products where the profits are. R600 has no financial meaning for the company at all, high-end is only for the image.

[SteveLord]

once the ATI ones are tweaked we'll be past the 8800gtx in speed and that's at almost half the price.


Except that by the time that happens, Nvidia will most likely have something else thats better. Thats the flaw in that logic which I've already talked about.

I like ATI and AMD and I want them to stay competitive like everyone else here.

Only time and games will tell...

[jivetrky]

I remember reading somewhere that the R600's were the last cores designed by old ATI people....the newer cores are ATI/AMD. I'd bet that they simply cannot beat nvidia with the R600, so they are just kind of bowing out and working hard to get their next core up and going.

I mean yeah, the x2900XT CAN beat any 8800GTS and even be competitive with an 8800GTX...but that is from a very skilled modder that put custom cooling and volt mods on the card (ViperJohn).

I really want ATI to get back into things (And AMD into the CPUs for that matter!) and in stiff competition with Nvidia. I'm hoping to buy a new video card sometime in the next few months (definitely by September) and if ATI can get out there, it'll help lower the prices in the market. I think if ATI had a competitive card out there, we wouldn't see an $800 8800 GTX Ultra out there....we'd see a $600 Ultra. Which is still too much, but it's at least in the realm of sanity.

[PhysX]

yeah I don't even like spending 400 anyways, the x2900xt is more than enough for any game anyways :)

[deathman20]

The R600 has its issues but it still preforms decently. Maybe not per watt standard but it does nicely I'd have to say and is a nice upgrade from a X1900XT.

Surely the R650 or R670 core thats going to be a redesigned core thats suppositly still on track for 3rd Q will do much better, and fix the glitches that are holding back the current design right now.

As well while the R600 series will probably be the last fully ATI designed core, really it will be after next gen's cores probably where there will be more of a ATI/AMD core design though since they take a bit of time to design.

[dudleycpa]

Just got the latest MaximumPC and AMD/ATI have confirmed that they will not create a card to compete against the 8800GTX/Ultra.

They are claiming that most people dont like to spend more than $400 on video cards anyway.

For those who didnt already know, the 2900 series is struggling to even "topple" the 8800GTS by a significant margin, much less touch the GTX or Ultra.

Does this mean the 2900XTX is cancelled?

[ahbroody]

Its funny how a poster who posted in this thread personally insulted people in another thread and was warned for his behavior. Basically being an over anxious fanboy not being able to give any opinion but his any credit. The old if you dont agree with me you must be an idiot. The same poster seems to be to much of a fanboy to help himself.
When Ati itself conceeds to nvidia its hard for anyone to take you seriously when you contradict what the company you are fanboying says. Also while the cardmay be able to surpass a stock gtx, it can only do this when modded. Yhis is not comparing the same factors. You would need to volt mod and water cool the GTX an then come back and talk. The fact is also that ATI took 6 more months to release the card. In the video world this is allowing for 6 more months of R&D and looking at NVidias cards to see what they did and get ideas to try and do better. Basiclly they let nvidia blaze the trail saw the issues and then attempted to fix a few Also even with 6 more months they couldnt prduce a decent set of drivers????? How much do you think these new drivers will do?? you sound like they will completely transform this card.

Saying that Ati took 6 months to produce a card that competes with Nvidias mid range dx10 card is not predicting the end of the world, it is reality. Unless you want to argue with ATI the company that actually produced the card. Its a good card with some good features, but it is not the best card on the market and drivers wont magicaly make it that.

[ahbroody]

Does this mean the 2900XTX is cancelled?
The article doesnt sy that, it does say not this quarter though ( i think they meant q3). Maybe next quarter, who knows. Maybe they can get the price down on it. thearticle discusses that in frame rates nvidia is champion, but in other features ati wins out. Both cards are good and have their pluses an minuses. if fps matters though nvidia is the way to go. I am actually depressed that their will be no 2900xtx as nvidias next line up may be more expensive now do to lack of competition.

[freakdiablo]

Its a good card with some good features, but it is not the best card on the market and drivers wont magicaly make it that.
I agree. There will be a difference in performance between a good and bad set of drivers, but saying they would make a mid range card better then the best high end cards is ridiculous. And yes, I do like ATI, and I am upset that they wont be making a high end line, but Im not about to go and deny the facts.

[dudleycpa]

The article doesnt sy that, it does say not this quarter though ( i think they meant q3). Maybe next quarter, who knows. Maybe they can get the price down on it. thearticle discusses that in frame rates nvidia is champion, but in other features ati wins out. Both cards are good and have their pluses an minuses. if fps matters though nvidia is the way to go. I am actually depressed that their will be no 2900xtx as nvidias next line up may be more expensive now do to lack of competition.

I agree competition is always a good thing. Wonder if this does cancel the 8900?

[deathman20]

I agree competition is always a good thing. Wonder if this does cancel the 8900?

I know I mentioned this in the other thread in the nVidia section about that.

If theres no competition then why spend millions in R&D to put another product out when they can just concentrate on the next gen model. Then again if ATI does swing around with there 65nm product of the R600 they are basically shooting them sleeves in the foot then. I'd think they;d continue on it to make sure that if ATI does come out something they can really counter it. But with a next gen card suppositly coming early next year its hard to say lets put out another full line of cards.

Surely the XTX model of ATI's will come back but not with its current cores.

[Nandro]

Not to mention AMD's financial woes and NV's ability to employ more dev teams. Be sure that they already have an answer to any upcoming product, they would be fools not to. But why release anything newer or better now. Its what Intel is doing. They have better, but no reason to release it currently, and a next gen beyond that as well if need be. AMD will suffer for a bit till they get back on track and hopefully be back in the arena will gloves on to compete fully against both, I am sure we all hope as it only benefits us.

[ahbroody]

the same issue of maximum PC has a great write up on intel and the processors they have waiting in the wings. If the article is true intel alreay has a counter release to anything AMD will come with. All things considered it looks real real bad for AMD an ATI. This sucks as intel has shown in the past it will price gouge if it can. Seems the only reason the c2d was so cheap was becaause intel wanted to win back the market. If they get a real strong lock on the market I wonder if they will revert back to high prices.

I also find it funny that ATI which has always been the higher priced graphics card company for the past few years is suddenly going after the midlevel market. Also there midlevel card is 400.00, while the 8800gts can be had for 295.00 with rebates. Man someone needs to be fired over at ATI/AMD the industry needs competition, not companies that say "well we cant compete at the top so lets go after the middle"

[deathman20]

the same issue of maximum PC has a great write up on intel and the processors they have waiting in the wings. If the article is true intel alreay has a counter release to anything AMD will come with. All things considered it looks real real bad for AMD an ATI. This sucks as intel has shown in the past it will price gouge if it can. Seems the only reason the c2d was so cheap was becaause intel wanted to win back the market. If they get a real strong lock on the market I wonder if they will revert back to high prices.

I also find it funny that ATI which has always been the higher priced graphics card company for the past few years is suddenly going after the midlevel market. Also there midlevel card is 400.00, while the 8800gts can be had for 295.00 with rebates. Man someone needs to be fired over at ATI/AMD the industry needs competition, not companies that say "well we cant compete at the top so lets go after the middle"

The 2900 isn't a mid level card, either is the 8800GTS's they are both high end cards. As well your forgetting the 2900 lands in the middle of the GTS and the GTX in most cases. Mid level cards would be 8600 and 2600 cards.

[rainless]

This is most unfortunate. I was actually looking forward to a 65nm 2900XTX that would run cooler and require less energy than the 2900XT. It's really sad they won't be able to deliver. I really think they're on the right track by having their low-end card run on 85 watts and less. A lot of PC enthusiasts wouldn't bat an eyelash at buying a 10,000 watt power supply. Even with the hot summer months coming and major cities (like mine) blacking out due to everybody hitting the air conditioners at once.

I think it is the duty of every corporation in the known and unknown universe to reduce the power consumption of all things. They've made incredible leaps and bounds with CPUs, monitors, televisions, and damned-near anything else you can name. (Certainly anything PC-related). And it seems graphics cards are the final frontier.

That's why I was hoping ATI would show-up NVIDIA in terms of power-consumption in the 2900XTX. If they could make a card as powerful as the 8800GTX that generated less heat and consumed less power, then not only would it win them back the high-end, but it would point the industry in a better (for you, me, the environment, and the next generation of human beings that nobody seems to care about) direction.

It's also bad news for NVIDIA because, without anybody to compete against in the hi-end, they won't be in any particular hurry to create better graphics cards or improve their existing designs. Why release an 8900 series? At this point they can save a bundle on R&D fees.

[Titan7170]

why do people say the 2900xt is a midrange card??:shrug: isnt the 2600 the midrange segment of ATI??.........If the X2900XT is a midrange card I cant wait to see what their high end line does!:drool:

[rainless]

why do people say the 2900xt is a midrange card??:shrug: isnt the 2600 the midrange segment of ATI??.........If the X2900XT is a midrange card I cant wait to see what their high end line does!:drool:

Read the title of the thread: There won't BE a high end.

[ahbroody]

because ATI, you know the company that made the card, says it is a midlevel card. GO take it up with them. As rainless said if it isnt competing with the 2 top cards (8800gtx, 8800 ultra) and it isnt competing with Nvidias bottom dx10 card the 8600gt, but it is competing with Nvidias middle dx10 card the 8800gts, the logic would be it is a middle level dx10 card.
Dont confuse the price of the card with the market it is in. Dont compare it to dx9 cards, because it is a dx10 card nd needs to be viewed in the dx10 market and to buyers in the dx10 market, not overall buyers.

[smokenjoe]

I love all these people most who dont even have a high end card getting all ****y about the Xt. Rainless if you really do care about power to performance the high end is not the place and never will be. Look at ATYI's mid rance cards they are seting new levels in that area. Despite the fact that 95% of the cards are going to be in the lower end market everyone seems to feel the need to get their pantys in a wad over cards they will never buy.



This is a card for people who are actualy in the market to buy it. The review sites did not do it justice look at some of the real world reviews here.

You have to rember that the job of a review site now is to make money they dont have to get the facts strait or make it apply to the real market. Yea lets do a review on outdated drivers, with stock speed video card and stock speed CPU. Does this give me usefull info- no. Does it give Nvidiots reason to read it link to it and brad to9 all their frends how smart they are because this review agrees with their previous decision- Yes.


Do yourselves a favor and go read some of the treads by people that actually own the cards instead of looking for someone to agree with you it could be a real eye opener. As someone stated the sky is not falling.

[Titan7170]

because ATI, you know the company that made the card, says it is a midlevel card. GO take it up with them. As rainless said if it isnt competing with the 2 top cards (8800gtx, 8800 ultra) and it isnt competing with Nvidias bottom dx10 card the 8600gt, but it is competing with Nvidias middle dx10 card the 8800gts, the logic would be it is a middle level dx10 card.
Dont confuse the price of the card with the market it is in. Dont compare it to dx9 cards, because it is a dx10 card nd needs to be viewed in the dx10 market and to buyers in the dx10 market, not overall buyers.

Oh you mean ATI the company that claimed to delay launch because they were working on drivers for launch of the 2900XT?? or do you mean ATI the company that said they delayed launch to release all their cards at the same time??.........why should I believe them now?? And why would you?? All this time the X2900XT and the supposed X2900XTX were their top of the line cards. What changes that other than they are a bit slower than the 8800 series with early drivers?

[deathman20]

because ATI, you know the company that made the card, says it is a midlevel card. GO take it up with them. As rainless said if it isnt competing with the 2 top cards (8800gtx, 8800 ultra) and it isnt competing with Nvidias bottom dx10 card the 8600gt, but it is competing with Nvidias middle dx10 card the 8800gts, the logic would be it is a middle level dx10 card.
Dont confuse the price of the card with the market it is in. Dont compare it to dx9 cards, because it is a dx10 card nd needs to be viewed in the dx10 market and to buyers in the dx10 market, not overall buyers.


WHich ever way you twist words and even what ATI says its self theres always been a high, mid and low range.

2900XT is classified in the Hihg range, anything under the 2900 name weather pro, GTO, what ever is considered high.
8800GTS is classified as High range, so is the GTX and Ultra.
Mid range would be 2600 series, 8600 series
Low range think its 2300 for ATI and 8500 for nVidia.

While they might not build a card specifically to fight the GTX doesn't mean the ATI doesn't have a high end card on there hands, which the 2900XT is.

Seriously if someone ran some tests that they had on a GTS or GTX to compare them to my results be my guest and prove me wrong but the 2900XT sits for the most part right between the 2 cards. Not talking about overclocks or anything like that, stock reference card clocks, or factory clocks.

[oakstave]

It's also bad news for NVIDIA because, without anybody to compete against in the hi-end, they won't be in any particular hurry to create better graphics cards or improve their existing designs. Why release an 8900 series? At this point they can save a bundle on R&D fees.

Amen to that... Competition makes better cards. This is just bad news all the way around.

[Titan7170]

WHich ever way you twist words and even what ATI says its self theres always been a high, mid and low range.

2900XT is classified in the Hihg range, anything under the 2900 name weather pro, GTO, what ever is considered high.
8800GTS is classified as High range, so is the GTX and Ultra.
Mid range would be 2600 series, 8600 series
Low range think its 2300 for ATI and 8500 for nVidia.

While they might not build a card specifically to fight the GTX doesn't mean the ATI doesn't have a high end card on there hands, which the 2900XT is.

Seriously if someone ran some tests that they had on a GTS or GTX to compare them to my results be my guest and prove me wrong but the 2900XT sits for the most part right between the 2 cards. Not talking about overclocks or anything like that, stock reference card clocks, or factory clocks.

I wish I had some people to compare to with AMD systems I did some testing at 1680x1050 and my score went down by only 1000 points down from 10,1xx at 1280x1024

Well moving from 1280x1024 up to 1680x1050 is a slight difference

project 2 is cpu@2880 gc stock resolution 1680x1050,.............................score 9106
project 1 is cpu@2880 gc oced to 850/900 resolution 1680x1050...............score 9574
project 3 is cpu@2880 gc 850/900 resolution 1280x1024...........................score 10,186

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/multicompare_view.jsp?p0=2081908&n0=Project+02&p1=2082021&n1=Project+01&p2=2081826&n2=Project+03&t=MultiCompare&k=14&s=1&l=1&c=649639505


Basically going from 1280x1024 to 168x1050 dropped performance by 2fps except in sm 3.0 where the drop was about 8fps

[smokenjoe]

Nice Review deathman20- anyone who has not seen it already really needs to look at it or another revew with more recent drivers. If you dont think good drivers matter look at how STALKER gain 50% framereate in the latest driver relese for some people. That is serious.

Realize some of the best improvements are home grown by people not on the parole. It seems bizzar but sometimes one person can do what a whole company cant. Fortunately ATI and Nvidia are well aware of this and add the better mods to the official drivers.


ATI had drivers a long long time ago who knows what internal politics caused the delay but these cards are not much different from the ones they had last December. We may never know the people who do know are not talking and when a company is taken over like that things can get chaotic.

The real story will be the next card RD700 or whatever they call it. This is the 6 moth old card they did not release and probably not for any sound reason just internal politics or position itbetter as a background for the verson to be used in render farms. The real mony will be in the high end server and work station market.

The "high end" game market is likely a loss leader! All that R&D and marketing is to sell other cards that can actualy make money.

[IAmMoen]

so will there not be a die shrink for the 2900xt anytime soon then?

[deathman20]

Nice Review deathman20- anyone who has not seen it already really needs to look at it or another revew with more recent drivers. If you dont think good drivers matter look at how STALKER gain 50% framereate in the latest driver relese for some people. That is serious.


Well I can't say anything for certain since I've only used the 8.38 RC2 and the 7.5 on stalker and theres basically zero difference between the 2 that I noticed in preformance, maybe the other drivers there was a bigger drop in preformance with them. Surely as drivers come out they will optimize better for games and squeeze more and more preformance from them.

so will there not be a die shrink for the 2900xt anytime soon then?

Yes the die shrink so they say is coming along well and should be released 3rd Quarter. Its not only a die shrink though its adding more features. I'll believe it when I see it of course but I'll wonder if it will be really better than these cards worthy of an upgrade for me, probably ;)

[rainless]

I love all these people most who dont even have a high end card getting all ****y about the Xt. Rainless if you really do care about power to performance the high end is not the place and never will be. Look at ATYI's mid rance cards they are seting new levels in that area. Despite the fact that 95% of the cards are going to be in the lower end market everyone seems to feel the need to get their pantys in a wad over cards they will never buy.


I wonder if the total strangers that take cheap shots at me lately ever even read what I wrote?

"Look at ATYI's mid rance cards..."

Yeah? New levels hunh? Where did I hear that...

Oh yeah. I remember: IT WAS IN MY POST!

I really think they're on the right track by having their low-end card run on 85 watts and less.

That's where I remember seeing praise for "ATYI's mid rance."

[tranceaddict]

I don't know where you people get off that the 2900xt is better than a 8800GTS 640MB. Out of the games that I have installed at 1600X1200 4AA/16AF:

(2900XT) [8800GTS 640MB]

BattleField 2 (94.5FPS) [124.9FPS]
Oblivion (21.6FPS) [27.3FPS]
Prey (57.1FPS) [56.7FPS]
Stalker (32.2FPS) [38.9FPS]
Supreme Cmd. (39.3FPS) [38.8FPS]

Not to mention that this is all at stock speed, and the 8800 series OC better on air than the 2900Xt.

[rainless]

I don't know where you people get off that the 2900xt is better than a 8800GTS 640MB. Out of the games that I have installed at 1600X1200 4AA/16AF:

(2900XT) [8800GTS 640MB]

BattleField 2 (94.5FPS) [124.9FPS]
Oblivion (21.6FPS) [27.3FPS]
Prey (57.1FPS) [56.7FPS]
Stalker (32.2FPS) [38.9FPS]
Supreme Cmd. (39.3FPS) [38.8FPS]

Not to mention that this is all at stock speed, and the 8800 series OC better on air than the 2900Xt.

Drivers. The 2900XT, in synthetic tests at least, is faster than the 8800GTS. In games... not so much. It has been hinted that this could simply be due to the immature drivers. Sounds plausible to me.

[Audioaficionado]

I'm with rainless on the need for the potentially cooler 65nm GPUs to help lower the current leakage and power/heat issues with that 80nm 2900XT GPU. It would be a disappointment if the 2900XT won't be reissued later as a 65nm die but I see the DAAMIT logic of not throwing dollars you don't have in further R&D to compete in the extreme high-end category where you can't win. If they get hardware HD decoding working better than the 8800 implementation or even the 8600/8500 series, I would be very interested, but not at the present 80nm 2900XT power consumption levels.

[smokenjoe]

They probability already have made the 2900 in 65NM if only for an engineering sample. They in all likely hood just could not take care of the heat fast enough to get good clock speeds or effecency at higher speed. It is pretty common for ATI and Nvidia to use a smaller process on the mid to low end chips first then use it on the top card later. Making a whole new chip and moving to a new chip process is just asking for trouble. They got it too. To make these GPU's more effecent simply slowing them down a little or use better cooling. The cooler they run the less heat they leak. Catch 22 once you get a certain speed unless you are willing to use high end cooling. In the end these cards may end up very effecent simply by getting more performance at the same power use.


Note most of the review sites power consumption readings are misleading. Most exclusivly use synthetic benchmarks for power testing one place ATI is doing more work and getting better scores than even the GTX. More work more power use simple as that. Dont use those synthetic readings for power use and then ignore the benchmark results if theonly use you make out of a video card is benchmarking you are not going to care about power use.


I am not sure where the performance card is going to come at a price and the economy cards are going to be more....economical. The next gen of cards will benchmark with lower power use, it seems to be a selling point even when it doesnt correlate to real world use. They will also use less power because this is important for server/render farm use.

[Oc1Kenube]

Hear ye hear ye the end i nigh....AGAIN..YAWN SNORE AND BIG ****ING ZZZZZZZzzzzzz's Heard it all before.

[vixro]

I don't know where you people get off that the 2900xt is better than a 8800GTS 640MB. Out of the games that I have installed at 1600X1200 4AA/16AF:

(2900XT) [8800GTS 640MB]

BattleField 2 (94.5FPS) [124.9FPS]
Oblivion (21.6FPS) [27.3FPS]
Prey (57.1FPS) [56.7FPS]
Stalker (32.2FPS) [38.9FPS]
Supreme Cmd. (39.3FPS) [38.8FPS]

Not to mention that this is all at stock speed, and the 8800 series OC better on air than the 2900Xt.

Which of those games actually has a real video test you can do? Easy to skew results when there isn't an actual benchmark for the games listed. Which drivers are being used and were those even your results or just ones you found posted elsewhere? Where are the other game results, like HL2, FEAR, Lost Planet, games that have real benchmarks that stay balanced in testing?

I'm confused once again.
:shrug:

[deathman20]

I don't know where you people get off that the 2900xt is better than a 8800GTS 640MB. Out of the games that I have installed at 1600X1200 4AA/16AF:

(2900XT) [8800GTS 640MB]

BattleField 2 (94.5FPS) [124.9FPS]
Oblivion (21.6FPS) [27.3FPS]
Prey (57.1FPS) [56.7FPS]
Stalker (32.2FPS) [38.9FPS]
Supreme Cmd. (39.3FPS) [38.8FPS]

Not to mention that this is all at stock speed, and the 8800 series OC better on air than the 2900Xt.

What drivers where you using? As well what setting within oblivion where you using, all maxed? I know I personally haven't forced AA in oblivion on my setup but getting 50-70FPS outside with 1920x1200 with settings high and high quality textures I'd say it does a very good job.

SC is the only one that I know that has a benchmark in, Oblivion has player made benches but its still you doing it, stalker, the other two I didn't think they do either.

As well when you stock, what stock clocks on the GTS? As well on air the 2900XT can easily top out its clocks due to voltage limitation.

As well ViperJohn even in his thread mentions since well he has alot of cards the 2900XT beats all but the highly modded Ultra he has. Mind you I don't run as high of clocks as he does but 850/1000 is basically easy for the 2900XT on air maybe a 2-3C rise in temps if that. My card tops out around 875-900 Core on its default voltage, its memory not 100% sure where that tops out. Surely it has alot more room in it, like said though maybe not on stock cooler because of the temps but overall it can OC very well.

The GTS is a powerful card don't get me wrong but the 2900XT will over take it with OC's even on stock cooler in DX9. DX10 has yet to be seen what really any card can do so we'll have to wait for those results.

[TTP]

Which of those games actually has a real video test you can do? Easy to skew results when there isn't an actual benchmark for the games listed. Which drivers are being used and were those even your results or just ones you found posted elsewhere? Where are the other game results, like HL2, FEAR, Lost Planet, games that have real benchmarks that stay balanced in testing?

I'm confused once again.
:shrug:

Supreme Commander has a demo benchmark mode.

[rainless]

What drivers where you using? As well what setting within oblivion where you using, all maxed? I know I personally haven't forced AA in oblivion on my setup but getting 50-70FPS outside with 1920x1200 with settings high and high quality textures I'd say it does a very good job.

SC is the only one that I know that has a benchmark in, Oblivion has player made benches but its still you doing it, stalker, the other two I didn't think they do either.

As well when you stock, what stock clocks on the GTS? As well on air the 2900XT can easily top out its clocks due to voltage limitation.

As well ViperJohn even in his thread mentions since well he has alot of cards the 2900XT beats all but the highly modded Ultra he has. Mind you I don't run as high of clocks as he does but 850/1000 is basically easy for the 2900XT on air maybe a 2-3C rise in temps if that. My card tops out around 875-900 Core on its default voltage, its memory not 100% sure where that tops out. Surely it has alot more room in it, like said though maybe not on stock cooler because of the temps but overall it can OC very well.

The GTS is a powerful card don't get me wrong but the 2900XT will over take it with OC's even on stock cooler in DX9. DX10 has yet to be seen what really any card can do so we'll have to wait for those results.

If I recall correctly the 2900XT is clocked faster than the 8800GTS in the first place. The 8800GTS is only clocked at 500 core 800 memory. But they have habitually been taken up to 650 core 900... and sometimes 1000 memory on stock voltage.

Mind you... speed isn't everything. The 8600 GTS defaults at 675 core 1000 memory... it's like the standard speed. But it's slower than a 7900GT. As another example, the Pentium D 805 is habitually clocked to 3ghz... alledgedly faster than my max E6400 OC, but I'm pretty sure I could annihilate TWO of those f***ers running on a dual CPU motherboard.

Actual game performance is the only thing that counts. ATI has been guilty, in the past, of rigging their GPUs to get higher 3DMark scores (or was that NVIDIA? I forget. But I think it was ATI). Not saying that's the case now, but I would trust no synthetic benchmark.

We'll only know the truth MONTHS from now when mature drivers and DX10 games are released. Could just so happen that the 8600GTS buries them both in terms of DX10 performance... :)

[deathman20]

If I recall correctly the 2900XT is clocked faster than the 8800GTS in the first place. The 8800GTS is only clocked at 500 core 800 memory. But they have habitually been taken up to 650 core 900... and sometimes 1000 memory on stock voltage.

Yes I know the 2900XT is clocked faster but if he was running the clocks in his sig well its faster than even a Factory OCed stock clock. If you really wanted to compare clocks you'd do it at its default reference clock, not factory OC or anything like that. At that point and only then you can truely compare the cards side by side for what it is "Default".

[rainless]

Yes I know the 2900XT is clocked faster but if he was running the clocks in his sig well its faster than even a Factory OCed stock clock. If you really wanted to compare clocks you'd do it at its default reference clock, not factory OC or anything like that. At that point and only then you can truely compare the cards side by side for what it is "Default".

But of course :)

("Bah, oui..." in French.)

We can do that when I get my 8800GTS on Monday.

[>HyperlogiK<]

I'm with rainless on the need for the potentially cooler 65nm GPUs to help lower the current leakage and power/heat issues with that 80nm 2900XT GPU. It would be a disappointment if the 2900XT won't be reissued later as a 65nm die but I see the DAAMIT logic of not throwing dollars you don't have in further R&D to compete in the extreme high-end category where you can't win. If they get hardware HD decoding working better than the 8800 implementation or even the 8600/8500 series, I would be very interested, but not at the present 80nm 2900XT power consumption levels.

Yes, Cedar Mill/Presler added a few features to Prescott/Smithfield but the design wasn't radically different, and the shrink to 65nm did wonders for heat output and power consumption.

Isn't HD decoding more important on the midrange and low end cards? Even my old Presler @ 4.1Ghz didn't break a sweat playing back 1080p in software, and I could still multitask so unless UVD adds some pretty funky post processing features it's surely not that important on high end PCs.

Viper John has been able to do some pretty awesome stuff with voltmodded/watercooled cards, but that doesn't mean they are ideal OCers for the rest of us. As I understand it Smithfield Pentium Ds could go pretty high on water or phase change, but most air cooling wasn't up to it.

[Audioaficionado]

But of course :)

("Bah, oui..." in French.)

We can do that when I get my 8800GTS on Monday.How much did you end up spending on that card?

[rainless]

How much did you end up spending on that card?

Well I (or I should say FR3@K3R) ordered it from Buy.com which ended up being the biggest jerk-around in all of humanity. The card was $325 before rebates and shipping and all that. I paid like 7 bucks for 3 day shipping that I'll never get. Still... considering what these cards USED TO cost... I think I made out alright.

[ViperJohn]

Read the title of the thread: There won't BE a high end.

Wrong the 2900XT is the high end and it is definitely competitive with an 8800GTX when both are stock OC'ed.
The 2900's issues, beside the crap drivers so far, are heat and the stock GPU cooler.

The stock 2900XT cooler fan speed never goes above about 16% fan speed below around 90C. That limits the
cards stock OC ability. While the stock cooler work pretty well it gets noisy at higher fan speeds unlike the
8800's cooler.

If you manually set the 2900's fan speed to about 50% (100% sounds like an FA18 spooled up to FMP for a
carrier launch) the card will OC and easily compete heads up (match or beat) with an stock OC'ed 8800GTX
in the benchmarks. At 50% fan speed the fan noise in definately louder that an 8800GTX's fan running full tilt
but it is tolerable and lower than a 1900's cooler noise.

Viper

[deathman20]

Well I (or I should say FR3@K3R) ordered it from Buy.com which ended up being the biggest jerk-around in all of humanity. The card was $325 before rebates and shipping and all that. I paid like 7 bucks for 3 day shipping that I'll never get. Still... considering what these cards USED TO cost... I think I made out alright.

Yeah sorry I couldn't get it for you just wasn't sure if my PP is even working properly.

[Audioaficionado]

...Isn't HD decoding more important on the midrange and low end cards? Even my old Presler @ 4.1Ghz didn't break a sweat playing back 1080p in software, and I could still multitask so unless UVD adds some pretty funky post processing features it's surely not that important on high end PCs.It's importaint for me on the top cards too. If you're paying that much, I don't want to miss out on any bells or whistles.

I run SMP_FAH on my high-end computers and I don't want any processor cycles being wasted on software decoding that could be going to FAH if they don't have to.

[rainless]

It's importaint for me on the top cards too. If you're paying that much, I don't want to miss out on any bells or whistles.

I run SMP_FAH on my high-end computers and I don't want any processor cycles being wasted on software decoding that could be going to FAH if they don't have to.

Agreed. This was the reason I almost got an 8600 GTS. But paying $200 for it... when I could get an 8800 GTS 320 for like $20 more or a 640 for $100 more... just didn't make any sense to me. They'll probably release an upgraded card (a la X1950XT...XTX) that had HD decoding. At which point I'll sell my 640, for not much of a loss, and get the new one. Hell... if they do it in the next three months, I'll just use EVGA's step-up if it appears I won't get as much as I want selling it used.

I've gotten really into virtualization technology... so the extra processing might be good for that. Other than that though...

[rainless]

Wrong the 2900XT is the high end and it is definitely competitive with an 8800GTX when both are stock OC'ed.
The 2900's issues, beside the crap drivers so far, are heat and the stock GPU cooler.

The stock 2900XT cooler fan speed never goes above about 16% fan speed below around 90C. That limits the
cards stock OC ability. While the stock cooler work pretty well it gets noisy at higher fan speeds unlike the
8800's cooler.

If you manually set the 2900's fan speed to about 50% (100% sounds like an FA18 spooled up to FMP for a
carrier launch) the card will OC and easily compete heads up (match or beat) with an stock OC'ed 8800GTX
in the benchmarks. At 50% fan speed the fan noise in definately louder that an 8800GTX's fan running full tilt
but it is tolerable and lower than a 1900's cooler noise.

Viper

Glad I didn't get a 1900 then :) I really wanted an X1950XT... and almost got one. Then again I wanted a Pentium D 805 too...

It's possible to match up stock 8800 GTX speeds with an 8800 GTS as well. I can also beat an X6800 C2D, at its stock, with my overlocked E6400. But that makes the unfortunate error of assuming the X6800 (or the 8800GTX) is standing still.

An overclocked 2900XT couldn't beat an overlocked 8800 GTX. Nor could I even come close to the 5ghz that people have been pulling off with the X6800. So saying an overclocked 2900XT can beat a stock 8800 GTX... isn't saying much.

An 8800 GTS can do that with lower heat and less fan noise.

[Anjow]

I'm disappointed, after 3 8800GTXs died on me I had resolved to buy an ATI card - and I was looking forward to it after seeing all that speculation of a 1GB version. I guess it is back to Nvidia then.

[tranceaddict]

I did not run the actual tetes, I used the results from Anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988 and just applied it to the games that I have installed right now.

[ryanmartini]

ati is being smart on this one. abandoning the high end market while focusing on the middle and upper middle class should bring better cards to the mainstream who buys cards for what they can afford.

this is where the money is in the market, and ati would do good to be THE man of the middle in computer graphics. i like this move. :)

[ViperJohn]

It's possible to match up stock 8800 GTX speeds with an 8800 GTS as well. I can also beat an X6800 C2D, at its stock, with my overlocked E6400. But that makes the unfortunate error of assuming the X6800 (or the 8800GTX) is standing still.

An overclocked 2900XT couldn't beat an overlocked 8800 GTX. Nor could I even come close to the 5ghz that people have been pulling off with the X6800. So saying an overclocked 2900XT can beat a stock 8800 GTX... isn't saying much.

An 8800 GTS can do that with lower heat and less fan noise.

That made absoutely no sense at all plus your are not reading my post correctly. Yes you can OC a GTS
to GTX speeds and often above on the core but it will no where near match a GTX or 2900XT for perfomance
in the benchmarks period.

I SAID a stock OC'ed 2900XT against a stock OC'ed 8800GTX can meet or match the GTX in all benchmarks
except AquaMark3 within repeatable margin of error, no problem. The 8800's always trail the 2900's in 3DM05.

The 5Ghz people were using the 2900's pre-release or CdRom drivers which were real junk (against 8800
drivers that have been tuned over 6 months no less). Things have improved with later drivers. BTW just how
many people are running a 5Ghz rig 24/7 lol. It is real world cooling that count on both the CPU and GPU
that counts and test score that are clean you need to look at. Not dirty suicide runs. BTW Shimano had no
trouble getting a 2900XT to match an 8800GTX either in his 4.8Ghz C2Q Ghz rig either.

The only card I have put through my test ring that can clearly outrun a modded on water 2900XT (this
was a 1Gb GDR4 card) was a modded on water 8800Ultra. Modded GTX's just matched the 2900 and
it was to close to call a clear winner.

Now in gaming the 8800's have an edge due to driver tuning over the last six months. there is still a lot of that
needing to be done to the 2900 drivers.

Viper

[Titan7170]

ati is being smart on this one. abandoning the high end market while focusing on the middle and upper middle class should bring better cards to the mainstream who buys cards for what they can afford.

this is where the money is in the market, and ati would do good to be THE man of the middle in computer graphics. i like this move. :)

Dude they are only using this excuse because they dont have a definative 8800 killer....... the X2900XT is good but its not enough to be king of the hill.

Im sure sure it will be able to equal the 8800gtx with overclocking and the right cpu but right now out of the gate its just not showing that potential stock.

This card needs to prove itself with better drivers and especially more game optimizations in those drivers

[ViperJohn]

ati is being smart on this one. abandoning the high end market while focusing on the middle and upper middle class should bring better cards to the mainstream who buys cards for what they can afford.

this is where the money is in the market, and ati would do good to be THE man of the middle in computer graphics. i like this move. :)

Ryan you are simply blowing smoke with statements like that. ATI has not abandonded

[ViperJohn]

ati is being smart on this one. abandoning the high end market while focusing on the middle and upper middle class should bring better cards to the mainstream who buys cards for what they can afford.

this is where the money is in the market, and ati would do good to be THE man of the middle in computer graphics. i like this move. :)

Ryan you are simply blowing inaccurate/incorrect smoke with statements like that. ATI has not abandoned
the high end market. Not even close.

Viper

[Rattle]

yes in benchmarks the 2900xt shines even more than a gtx sometimes

now in reality which are games for most of us, unless people sit and bench on these cards instead of playing games, the 2900xt is probably equal to a 640 gts and doesnt really compete with a gtx.

Now if your only gonna base the performance of these cards mentioned in benchmarks well then I guess your right the 2900xt is as good as a gtx maybe.

If you base it on GAMES, you know the things these pieces of hardware are made for?? frames, AA, AF and all the other features taken into consideration, drivers and 9 months for ati to release a card that can hold a flame to a $325 gts then I CALL BS.

games are what matters not benchmarks.

and I dont wanna hear any BS about nvidia fanboy or whatever else. my last card was a x1900xt that I loved and had 11 months, (the longest I have owned any single piece of hardware) and I was one of the first to have one around these parts, onlaunch day !

[deathman20]

I did not run the actual tetes, I used the results from Anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988 and just applied it to the games that I have installed right now.

Well thats my point its done by a major site. Those can be skewed so much one site might show one thing and the next site. Thats why its better if you personally did the tests, or a non-review site did the tests. You get better numbers and more of a real world example of them. Like all the tests I did was done with background apps going on more or less a typical system. Not shutting down everything in site to show the "best results".

[rainless]

I SAID a stock OC'ed 2900XT against a stock OC'ed 8800GTX Viper

Hahahaha! I think *THIS* is the problem john. You said "stock OC'ed". That's a contradiction. Either it's stock (as in no OC) or it's overclocked. "Stock OC" is like saying "Forward Reverse". I think the terms you were looking for were "Stock" vs. "Overclocked." (In Harley language that's "Stock" vs. "Chopped.")

Also, when you talk about the 2900XT beating the GTX.... if you're not talking about games then you're only talking about in synthetic tests. Like I said earlier, I do believe that it's plausible that the 2900XT's gaming issues could be the result of the drivers... but this has yet to be proven. The 2900XT has more stream processors (I think that's what they are) than the GTS and the GTX combined. It could be that the sole real-world application of these processors is improved synthetic benchmarking scores.

This is merely a theory of course. But so is the idea that the issues the 2900XT is having with games is only driver-related. Nobody will know for sure for another six months or so. (Though you could simply test the release drivers of the 8800GTX versus the release drivers of the 2900XT if you feel the 6 month gap is a concern.)

I doubt many people buy $400 video cards for the sake of synthetic benchmarking. The simple fact of the matter is that AMD doesn't HAVE 6 months to work on drivers. Bioshock and Crysis will be out in August, and if the 2900XT doesn't outperform both the 8800GTS and the GTX by then, then this will be reflected HEAVILY in sales.

ATI is playing catch-up. Since they aren't releasing a 2900XTX then they better put their backs into improving the XTs drivers quicker than anybody could imagine they could.

Improved drivers, a lower price, and superior performance by the release of the aforementioned games could completely turn the tide.

[ViperJohn]

yes in benchmarks the 2900xt shines even more than a gtx sometimes

now in reality which are games for most of us, unless people sit and bench on these cards instead of playing games, the 2900xt is probably equal to a 640 gts and doesnt really compete with a gtx.

Now if your only gonna base the performance of these cards mentioned in benchmarks well then I guess your right the 2900xt is as good as a gtx maybe.

If you base it on GAMES, you know the things these pieces of hardware are made for?? frames, AA, AF and all the other features taken into consideration, drivers and 9 months for ati to release a card that can hold a flame to a $325 gts then I CALL BS.

games are what matters not benchmarks.

and I dont wanna hear any BS about nvidia fanboy or whatever else. my last card was a x1900xt that I loved and had 11 months, (the longest I have owned any single piece of hardware) and I was one of the first to have one around these parts, onlaunch day !

It amazes me that people think that ATI would/should have hit a driver home run right out of the gate. You can
not tune the drivers until the final silicone is out in the users hands.

If you remember the 8800's had all kinds of games performance/bug issues with the early drivers and now 7-8
months later they are doing well with mature drivers.

Yes the 2900 gaming and AA performance was lacking in the pre-release and early drivers. That is improving
rapidly with driver development. Give the drivers time to mature some.

If either ATI or NV waited until the drivers were mature before releasing the cards you would have a long wait
for the hardware and still have buggy drivers. A 3 or 4 rigs running games in the lab isn't enough. You need
10's of 1000's of rig in the field to do that.

The one thing I can fault the 2900's on is their IQ in the benchmarks. It is not up to ATI's norms and on par
with the old 7800/7900 NV card which the 1900's smoked IQ wise.

Viper

[rainless]

It amazes me that people think that ATI would/should have hit a driver home run right out of the gate. You can
not tune the drivers until the final silicone is out in the users hands.

If you remember the 8800's had all kinds of games performance/bug issues with the early drivers and now 7-8
months later they are doing well with mature drivers.

Yes the 2900 gaming and AA performance was lacking in the pre-release and early drivers. That is improving
rapidly with driver development. Give the drivers time to mature some.

If either ATI or NV waited until the drivers were mature before releasing the cards you would have a long wait
for the hardware and still have buggy drivers. A 3 or 4 rigs running games in the lab isn't enough. You need
10's of 1000's of rig in the field to do that.

The one thing I can fault the 2900's on is their IQ in the benchmarks. It is not up to ATI's norms and on par
with the old 7800/7900 NV card which the 1900's smoked IQ wise.

Viper

Which post are you reading? When did I say anything about expecting the drivers to be good out of the gate? All I said is that they better damn-well be ready by the time Bioshock and Crysis are released. At that point it won't matter how buggy the 8800's drivers were last year, or how little time ATI has had to create drivers. All anybody's going to want to do is play those two games.

[tranceaddict]

I for one do not favour any particular company, and always go with what is the best value mixed with performance at the time. Currently, I just do not see the 2900XT to be a better buy. Even if with time the 2900XT surpasses the 8800GTS in games by a definitive margin, its price would have to drop significantly. Currently, here in Canada the cheapest 2900XT is $100 more than the cheapest 8800GTS 640MB.

[Titan7170]

Hahahaha! I think *THIS* is the problem john. You said "stock OC'ed". That's a contradiction. Either it's stock (as in no OC) or it's overclocked. "Stock OC" is like saying "Forward Reverse". I think the terms you were looking for were "Stock" vs. "Overclocked." (In Harley language that's "Stock" vs. "Chopped.")


I think he meant stock cooled and overclocked or maybe stock overcloced from the factory?

[oakstave]

As fun as it is to watch the fanboys slug it out, I agree with 'Trance. I swore with my new PC I wasn't going to buy ATI's video cards ever again. However, when I researched it, the X1950's were getting the rave reviews, and my chosen MB was crossfire compatible, and at the time Nvidea's Vista drivers were crap. If that wasn't so, I probably would have went with the 8800.

The entire concept of backing out of the high end market now sounds bizarre to me. I thought the high end became the mid-range after a year or so, and then the low-end a year or so after that. It's almost like Ford saying they are only going to produce used-cars from this point forward. (Vega anyone?)

The 2900's look identical to the 1950's in appearance except some flames painted on them. (Possibly in expectation for the flame wars to take place over it's performance) Does that have anything to do with why the 1950's dissappeared from the market? I had to buy my X1950XTX from ebay, and I didn't exactly get a super bargain at that. I wonder if they co-opted the parts for 1950's to produce 2900's?

IMHO, the benchies and FPS on the two cards are certainly comparable, and I'm not the least bit surprised that ATI hyped the card beyond reasonable expectations at least at launch.

When I go crossfire next week, I'm personally looking forward to seeing how the new cards compare to the old 1950's, and how the 1950's compare to the 8800s.

Interesting thread.

[Oc1Kenube]

I really dont care which card i buy as long as it performs well for what i need it to do,which is gaming although i am leaning slightly towards ati as i have a crossfire capable board.

I would be more than happy with any of the 8800 series or the 2900xt's and in fact am still happy that my 7900 gs performs admirably in everything with the exception of stalker with fulll dynamic lighting enabled, which is kind of annoying, but all this talk of 2900xt is a few hundred points behind the 8800gts/gtx in 3dm/x aquamark etc just sounds to me like a big dick swinging convention with everyone claiming they have the biggest knob.

Drivers will mature,new cards will be released and out perform current ones and ati will not pull out of the high end market,just like amd will not drop out of high end cpu market. Contrary to what the www. conspirators perceive to be reallity.

so lets all just be happy that the 2900 is reasonably priced between a gts and a gtx and offers a real alternative while not selling at an over inflated£400+ "cough gtx/Ultra" which is the price of a decent dual core laptop here over the pond or a ps3 hmmm laptop,ps3 or gfx card.

Ati/nvidia competing = consumers ftw

[oakstave]

just sounds to me like a big dick swinging convention with everyone claiming they have the biggest knob. Ati/nvidia competing = consumers ftw

:clap: LOL! It's called a DONGLE. (I swear, it's the last dongle joke...)

[deathman20]

Which post are you reading? When did I say anything about expecting the drivers to be good out of the gate? All I said is that they better damn-well be ready by the time Bioshock and Crysis are released. At that point it won't matter how buggy the 8800's drivers were last year, or how little time ATI has had to create drivers. All anybody's going to want to do is play those two games.

Agreed, really hope they get everything squared off by then. As well as Alen Wake / UT3 as well. While DX9 might not be up to high praises as what we where expecting I hope DX10 can pull a little more of the hidden power out of the card.

As well hope MS releases the DX10 update soon, or even there DX10 patch for FSX.

[rainless]

Agreed, really hope they get everything squared off by then. As well as Alen Wake / UT3 as well. While DX9 might not be up to high praises as what we where expecting I hope DX10 can pull a little more of the hidden power out of the card.

As well hope MS releases the DX10 update soon, or even there DX10 patch for FSX.

Yeah I should order that like RIGHT NOW.

[MadMan007]

It amazes me that people think that ATI would/should have hit a driver home run right out of the gate. You can
not tune the drivers until the final silicone is out in the users hands.

If you remember the 8800's had all kinds of games performance/bug issues with the early drivers and now 7-8
months later they are doing well with mature drivers.

Yes the 2900 gaming and AA performance was lacking in the pre-release and early drivers. That is improving
rapidly with driver development. Give the drivers time to mature some.

If either ATI or NV waited until the drivers were mature before releasing the cards you would have a long wait
for the hardware and still have buggy drivers. A 3 or 4 rigs running games in the lab isn't enough. You need
10's of 1000's of rig in the field to do that.

The one thing I can fault the 2900's on is their IQ in the benchmarks. It is not up to ATI's norms and on par
with the old 7800/7900 NV card which the 1900's smoked IQ wise.

Viper

The problem with the 'magic driver bullet' waiting game, especially for games - and I agree with Rattle that while synthetics are interesintg actual games is what matters - is how long does one wait and then at that point what else is available or what further tweaks may have been done by the competition, while in the potentially long meantime the other company's products were as good or better at a lower street price? NV is still getting gains on synthetics and real games after 6+ months. And while improved drivers are nice to hope for and see in action there is always going to be inherent hardware limitations that no driver tweaking can overcome.

ATi made some interesting but risky decisions on the x2900, like a real-time compiler for VLIW architecture and fewer 'ROPs' (whatever ATi calls them) for traditional texturing and pixel-pushing power. Tbh I think the G80 caught them flat-footed and they weren't expecting anything like that GPU from NV. Whether they can tweak the drivers enough to make these design decisions an asset rather than a liability is yet to be seen.

[shadin]

This is actually a really good move for them right now. The high-end market isn't profit, and if the company is hurting some then they need to focus on where the actual money is - mid-range products. Their current high-end card will run any game on the market right now, and probably for quite some time, so striving to "beat" NVIDIA with an even better high-end card that can... um, still run any game but scores better in benchmarks is wasted time and energy.

We can sit on these forums and balk at the news all day long, but the reality of the computer market is far different than the way we visualize it as enthusiasts.

[ViperJohn]

Which post are you reading? When did I say anything about expecting the drivers to be good out of the gate? All I said is that they better damn-well be ready by the time Bioshock and Crysis are released. At that point it won't matter how buggy the 8800's drivers were last year, or how little time ATI has had to create drivers. All anybody's going to want to do is play those two games.

Damn RainLess do you read the posts??? I qouted the person I was replying too - Brother Blue Rattle.

NV better be ready for them too lol.

Viper

[hyperasus]

Maybe if we are lucky they will realize that many of us are sick and tired of the uber fast cards at the price of insane heat and power consumption. I think whoever goes after the performance/yet-efficient market first will end up being ahead in the end. Intel needs expand their graphics devision to high performance graphics cards and show the world that high end graphics can be done without high end power supplies. I think gaming graphics power consumption has spun out of control much like the Intel CPU's did with the prescott cores. I think power consumption has peaked about as high as they can get away with and it cant be too much longer before Nvidia and ATI both start going back down the other side of the mountian on this. Well....I'm hoping anyways.

[MadMan007]

It should happen with the next generation (or whenever they do this) of multiple small cores with fast interconnects. It makes sense from every standpoint
- production: one base design for all cards, modularity for making low to high-end. the negative is increased complexity of PCB
- heat: less concentrated, smaller hotspots better able to dissipate heat load
- power draw: maybe less for this one but this depends a lot upon process technology. if it's hit a plateau some creative engineering should help

[ViperJohn]

Maybe if we are lucky they will realize that many of us are sick and tired of the uber fast cards at the price of insane heat and power consumption. I think whoever goes after the performance/yet-efficient market first will end up being ahead in the end. Intel needs expand their graphics devision to high performance graphics cards and show the world that high end graphics can be done without high end power supplies. I think gaming graphics power consumption has spun out of control much like the Intel CPU's did with the prescott cores. I think power consumption has peaked about as high as they can get away with and it cant be too much longer before Nvidia and ATI both start going back down the other side of the mountian on this. Well....I'm hoping anyways.

There is nothing to realize. If people do not want to pay the price in cost, power and heat for a high end card
no one is forcing them too lol.

You will never see GPU's with the power consumption of CPU, even with the same die sizes, because of the
nature and amount of work they are doing compared to a CPU, and the architecture required to process and
display graphics data at extreme speeds.

You can get a clue from the 3DM06 CPU test. It is a low 640x480 resolution, 256 bit color test and even a
well OC'ed C2Q crawls at 2-5FSP rendering it. If that same test was run in hardware using an modern high
end GPU you would have FPS rates in the several 1000's.

An Intel Core two has 291 million transistors per core and that includes the caches, which suck up a good
chunk of that transistor count, while doing no work to process data.

A G80 GPU has 681 million transistors and no cache to speak of while the R600 has 720 million transistors
with no cache to speak of as well.

The above were the reasons Graphics processing was broken out into dedictated hardware long, long ago.
If a C2D or C2Q were built to run graphics at the same speeds as the G80 and R600 GPU's while still running
everything else in your magic box everybody would be running serious phase change cooling just to keep the
CPU from going thermo-nuclear and melting down through the bottom of your case lol.

Viper

[hyperasus]

You're right, we don't have to buy high heat and power graphics cards, but the choices are get a card that sucks lots of power and creates lots of heat, or get a gutless card. I honestly believe they can get the power consumption down pretty easily if they want. Maybe ATI backing off a little will give both companies some breathing room to start thinking about something besides FPS. I realize FPS is important, but there is more to a video card then just its gaming capabilities. Don't get me all wrong. I'm no expert. Just thinking out loud here.

[ViperJohn]

You're right, we don't have to buy high heat and power graphics cards, but the choices are get a card that sucks lots of power and creates lots of heat, or get a gutless card. I honestly believe they can get the power consumption down pretty easily if they want. Maybe ATI backing off a little will give both companies some breathing room to start thinking about something besides FPS. I realize FPS is important, but there is more to a video card then just its gaming capabilities. Don't get me all wrong. I'm no expert. Just thinking out loud here.


They can get the power consumption down through die shrinks but that is anything but easy and the cost is
freaken enormous. Look at Daamit right now. They are just gushing red ink by the 100's of million a quarter
like someone cut their jugular as it is. There is also the fact they have to be able to sell the end product at
an "affordable" price too.

A die shrink does bring down power consumption and heat dissipation but that is only if the clock speeds
are held the same...and they won't. Higher speeds will just eat right back into that those reductions until
they are right back to where they were before the shrink in a relatively short time.

It is the end user and their desire to run high to extreme resolutions with lot of eye candy that drives the
GPU's to ever faster speeds and the higher power consumption and heat that goes with them.

The game makers of course do not help by designing ever more texture and shader intensive games either.

It is a vicious circle lol.

Viper

[InsaneManiac]

I would have to say that I would not trust Maximum PC, as much as they say that ATI is pulling out of the high end, I have a feeling their going to go back and redesign the R600 and see what they did wrong and make improvements to it. Just like they did with the X1800XT, they still used the ringbus architecture and totally revamped it to the monster known as the X1900. I bet if they make a few adjustments here and redo a little design improvements, they could have a major winnder.

The R600 is theoretically good on paper, but I have to say there has to be something somewhere that is really keeping the R600 from performing well. And I don't mean by drivers, something on the hardware level.

[>HyperlogiK<]

ATi made some interesting but risky decisions on the x2900, like a real-time compiler for VLIW architecture and fewer 'ROPs' (whatever ATi calls them) for traditional texturing and pixel-pushing power. Tbh I think the G80 caught them flat-footed and they weren't expecting anything like that GPU from NV. Whether they can tweak the drivers enough to make these design decisions an asset rather than a liability is yet to be seen.

My understanding of graphics hardware is fairly limited and I haven't read very much about the R600, but it sounds like the engineers were working away on some very ambitious and revolutionary designs that were some way from done when some angry beancounters turned up wanting to know why there wasn't a product to show for the vast sums of money they had been spending. Thus a product was rushed out that incorporated some not quite finished or badly implemented features and wasn't as coherent and well thought out design as it should be, and now they are trying to make up for it with drivers.

[deathman20]

I would have to say that I would not trust Maximum PC, as much as they say that ATI is pulling out of the high end, I have a feeling their going to go back and redesign the R600 and see what they did wrong and make improvements to it. Just like they did with the X1800XT, they still used the ringbus architecture and totally revamped it to the monster known as the X1900. I bet if they make a few adjustments here and redo a little design improvements, they could have a major winnder.

The R600 is theoretically good on paper, but I have to say there has to be something somewhere that is really keeping the R600 from performing well. And I don't mean by drivers, something on the hardware level.

Well the thing with the X1800 and X1900's is there was 2 seperate teams at work. X1800 was getting delayed and delayed, yet the X1900 was right on target. Hence why it came out ~2 months after the X1800 release, basically the X1800's was holding the release for the X1900's.

[rainless]

They can get the power consumption down through die shrinks but that is anything but easy and the cost is
freaken enormous. Look at Daamit right now. They are just gushing red ink by the 100's of million a quarter
like someone cut their jugular as it is. There is also the fact they have to be able to sell the end product at
an "affordable" price too.

A die shrink does bring down power consumption and heat dissipation but that is only if the clock speeds
are held the same...and they won't. Higher speeds will just eat right back into that those reductions until
they are right back to where they were before the shrink in a relatively short time.

It is the end user and their desire to run high to extreme resolutions with lot of eye candy that drives the
GPU's to ever faster speeds and the higher power consumption and heat that goes with them.

The game makers of course do not help by designing ever more texture and shader intensive games either.

It is a vicious circle lol.

Viper

Well how do you explain the 2600 and 2400 series then? If they are faster than the 1900xt/7900GT series, at a much lower level of power consumption, then your theory goes out the window.

Of course no one (except maybe YOU :) ) knows how fast they are yet. But I do believe it's possible to make a faster chip than consumes less energy. Let's go back to your own comparison and, instead of comparing a GPU to CPU, let's compare a CPU to a CPU:

Namely the Pentium D 805 to my Conroe C2D E6400. From 80nm to 65nm double... TRIPLE the power... much lower power consumption and incomparable heat.

It's already been done. And ATI seems poised to do it again. And, if they are successful, NVIDIA will follow suit.

It's not that it's not possible, it's just not easy. And if they can avoid the R&D costs, they will. But if either one of them succeeds in creating such a card, they will have forced the other's hand.

[deathman20]

The results so far in benches show the 2600XT if not mistaken where I saw it, was slightly lower than my X1900XT slightly OCed. So it has potential.

They had some game numbers but those didn't look that impressive.

http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.php?p=1776021&postcount=28 Yup it was an 2600XT 256Meg

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=146287 some box pictures.

[rainless]

The results so far in benches show the 2600XT if not mistaken where I saw it, was slightly lower than my X1900XT slightly OCed. So it has potential.

They had some game numbers but those didn't look that impressive.

http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.php?p=1776021&postcount=28 Yup it was an 2600XT 256Meg

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=146287 some box pictures.

Thanks. :beer:

[ryanmartini]

Ryan you are simply blowing smoke with statements like that. ATI has not abandonded


Well obviously they just released their new cards, so its not like Im saying they threw the R600 off a cliff. In the future, it seems according to this that we can expect more mid range cards. Ati needs to do this in my eyes. Taking over the mid range where the money is made would help them financially and help bring back their reputation. The company that keeps good midrange cards that perform well, overclock well, and actually release drivers that work will be the graphics leaders.

Majority of people drive say a camry, not a benz. If ATi realizes this, and makes cards accordingly, then great. Im so tired of last years top end cards a year or two later being praised as great budget cards. Coming out with new, well performing new offerings in a lower price range will appease the masses.

People who buy into the high end and mod like yourself are maybe 3% of buyers.

[Super Nade]

Note that few of the lower 2xxx models have GDDR4 on them which doesn't hurt one bit. ;)

You can bet that NV have their GDDR4 parts in the wings. They are just waiting for ATI to relase their 65nm offerings first.

Anybody with a 2900 series card mess with the official 7.5 catalysts yet?

[smokenjoe]

Drivers are not important- they are everything. think of it as an assembly line. If one person doesnt know what to do not only that persons work goes to waste but everyone behind him and ahead of him until he catches up. The kicker though is that where in a real assembly line every one gets a break on silicone they often continue working and using power even when the data is not ready for them to work with. Ever see that episode of I love Lucy in the chocolate factory?

This is not something completely new but it is very different from their last set up. Drivers are not going t be fast until they get some experience. Kindk of like on the job training. All the school work in the world doesnt completely prepare you for the real thing.

As for making a major increase in HP and a major decrease in power use: TANSTAAFL-There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. A civic is economical untill you try and make it go 120mph all day long.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/smokenjoe/r600-flow.jpg

[ViperJohn]

Well obviously they just released their new cards, so its not like Im saying they threw the R600 off a cliff. In the future, it seems according to this that we can expect more mid range cards. Ati needs to do this in my eyes. Taking over the mid range where the money is made would help them financially and help bring back their reputation. The company that keeps good midrange cards that perform well, overclock well, and actually release drivers that work will be the graphics leaders.

Majority of people drive say a camry, not a benz. If ATi realizes this, and makes cards accordingly, then great. Im so tired of last years top end cards a year or two later being praised as great budget cards. Coming out with new, well performing new offerings in a lower price range will appease the masses.

People who buy into the high end and mod like yourself are maybe 3% of uyers.

ATI has always had good competitive low and mid range cards. Like nVidia they always release them
into the retail channel after the high end cards of a new model come out. This time will be no different.
Just delayed a bit longer than normal.

5% is probably closer but it any case the top end cards are a minority of both ATI and NV's sales. Mid
range is where the money is at for sure and the bulk of that comes from the Tier 1 OEM box builders
like Dell, Gateway, HP, etc, etc. That OEM market is why the lower range cards come out later as well.
They have to build up stock to supply the huge volumes the Tier 1's will suck up ahead of they retail
market.

Actually I rarely buy a card. They come from my customers.

Viper

[ViperJohn]

Note that few of the lower 2xxx models have GDDR4 on them which doesn't hurt one bit. ;)

You can bet that NV have their GDDR4 parts in the wings. They are just waiting for ATI to relase their 65nm offerings first.

Anybody with a 2900 series card mess with the official 7.5 catalysts yet?

GDR4 isn't helping any of the cards yet. It all comes down to the chip speeds used. A 1ns, 1000Mgz GDR3
chip will mop the floor with a 1ns, 1000Mhz GDR4 chip cause the GDR3's run much tighter timings. GDR4
has to run 10-15% higher clocks than GDR3 to break even from the looser GDR4 chip timings

The GDR4's are capable of much higher speeds than GDR3 although Samsung is making the .8ns, 1200Mhz
GDR3's that are going on the Ultras. With the exception of the 1 clock cycle looser Row Pre-Charge timing
they are running the 1ns, 1000Mhz timing set too.

When the GDR4's operating speed ramps up to 1500Mhz+ they are really capable of down the line that is
when they will shine.

Viper

[Titan7170]

Note that few of the lower 2xxx models have GDDR4 on them which doesn't hurt one bit. ;)

You can bet that NV have their GDDR4 parts in the wings. They are just waiting for ATI to relase their 65nm offerings first.

Anybody with a 2900 series card mess with the official 7.5 catalysts yet?

Speaking of GDDR4

and I quote

The current Radeon 2900 XT with GDDR3 memory? It seems that later this month AMD will be releasing a new Radeon HD 2900 XT graphics card with GDDR4 memory. AMD plans to take another shot at Nvidia with this new version of the Radeon HD 2900 XT that features double the memory and improved memory bandwidth thanks to the higher memory clock speeds. This means we will soon see Radeon HD 2900 XT video cards with 1GB of GDDR4 memory per card! This card will remain at 9" (23cm) in length, just like the current model that's outfitted with 512MB of GDDR3 memory. I guess pretty soon we will be talking about how Nvidia's $800 GeForce 8800 Ultra comes with "only" 768MB of GDDR3 memory compared to the 1GB of memory on the Radeon HD 2900 XT. Oh how the times change...



from this link http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/3/

and the begining of the 3 page DX10 review which isnt looking good at all for ATI........http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/1/

[ViperJohn]

Speaking of GDDR4

and I quote



from this link http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/3/

and the begining of the 3 page DX10 review which isnt looking good at all for ATI........http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/1/

Yes the retail 1GB cards are coming. They are the same card and PCB as the 13.5" long 1024Gb OEM cards.
Not sure if they will use the .9ns, 1100Mhz chips the OEM card do though. My bet is they will.

If they use the same chips as the OEM 1Gig card and the same quality cores (unlikely since the OEM cards
got cherries) then you already have the benchmark results from what I posted. You can also see the cards at
my picture site (pics 4,5,6,7). If the chips and the good cores are on em they will easily compete with the GTX
...at least in the benchmarks.

They are no match for an Ultra with it's hand picked core and high shader clock speeds or it's much tighter
timed .8ns, 1200Mhz GDR3 that will clock as fast or faster on the memory but they cost a heck of a lot more too.



Viper

[Titan7170]

Yes the retail 1GB cards are coming. They are the same card and PCB as the 13.5" long 1024Gb OEM cards.
Not sure if they will use the .9ns, 1100Mhz chips the OEM card do though. My bet is they will.

If they use the same chips as the OEM 1Gig card and the same quality cores (unlikely since the OEM cards
got cherries) then you already have the benchmark results from what I posted. You can also see the cards at
my picture site (pics 4,5,6,7). If the chips and the good cores are on em they will easily compete with the GTX
...at least in the benchmarks.

They are no match for an Ultra with it's hand picked core and high shader clock speeds or it's much tighter
timed .8ns, 1200Mhz GDR3 that will clock as fast or faster on the memory but they cost a heck of a lot more too.



Viper

let me ask you something in your testing did you notice minimal increases in performance when overclocking the memory??

[ViperJohn]

let me ask you something in your testing did you notice minimal increases in performance when overclocking the memory??

No but I was core clocked at almost 1Ghz too. With core clocks in the low to mid 800's you may not see much
gain from memory clock increases as the core just doesn't need the extra bandwidth.

Viper

[Titan7170]

No but I was core clocked at almost 1Ghz too. With core clocks in the low to mid 800's you may not see much
gain from memory clock increases as the core just doesn't need the extra bandwidth.

Viper

gotcha!