HD 2900xt bad in DX10 ?

[Just Some Dude]

I've just read a review of the card single and crossfire in DX10 on PC Perspectives and the results are abysmal for every game bar Call Of Juarez. I just got a HD2900pro
today and was wondering if I should send it back and go with Nvidia? :shrug:
The review for the 2900pro at TweakTown showed it does ok.
Anyone have an opinion or a reason why these benchmarks are so bad?

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=461&pid=2

[Rattle]

look at this way. a 2900xt is not worth it and I would never buy one. a 2900 pro on the other hand if bought for $250, no more than 275 can be clocked and FLASHED TO XT.
In most things the XT is as fast as a 320 and in some as fast as a 640 and in some it just sucks. a 8800gts 640 can be had for $330 after rebates is the cheapest one.
All in all the 2900 pro isnt a bad buy.

[vixro]

I had 2900XT and bought 8800ultra instead. The 2900XT just can't handle DX10 with eye candy, I had trouble with speeds AND quality in every benchmark and game I tried. (pt boats, call of juarez 10, crysis demo, bioshock).

They all ran fantastic in dx9 (where available) and even had great quality but the DX10 performance just was not there.

[PhysX]

yeah which is weird it just doesn't make sense, 512bit memory, 320 stream shaders...

[Neural Net]

yeah which is weird it just doesn't make sense, 512bit memory, 320 stream shaders...

True, on paper it looks like it should obliterate the 8800GTX. Although I heard the 2900 doesn't have enough ROPs and that was causing the poor performance, and the shader processors on the 8800s also run faster than the GPU clock speed which isn't the case for the 2900.

[batboy]

The 2900XT is not bad in DX10, it's just that the 8800GTX is better. The 2900XT will compare more closely to the 8800GTS. The GTX version will beat it and that's coming from a guy that has and likes his 2900XT. On the otherhand, the 2900XT is cheaper than the GTX.

[PhysX]

kinda off topic, but not really, batboy, have you tryed th crysis beta ? if so how well does your card perform FPs wise.

[Just Some Dude]

But in the linked review above, the 2900xt performs worse than the 8800gts

[Hardin]

Something about the ati cards doesn't like dx 10.
All the cards are slower in dx 10 but it hurts the 2900xt more so than the others.

[ViperJohn]

I've just read a review of the card single and crossfire in DX10 on PC Perspectives and the results are abysmal for every game bar Call Of Juarez. I just got a HD2900pro
today and was wondering if I should send it back and go with Nvidia? :shrug:
The review for the 2900pro at TweakTown showed it does ok.
Anyone have an opinion or a reason why these benchmarks are so bad?

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=461&pid=2

The R600's just do not have the ASIC design or horsepower for good performance when you start dialing in
AA and in DX10 it only gets worse. Throw in some HDR lighting in DX10 and they just drop to their knees.

Viper

[Shell]

The R600's just do not have the ASIC design or horsepower for good performance when you start dialing in
AA and in DX10 it only gets worse. Throw in some HDR lighting in DX10 and they just drop to their knees.When was the last time a GPU was an ASIC? :p

I don't really see the R600 being the least bit deficient at anything other then AA, it is good at DirectX 10, just compile MSDN's HLSL-HDRIBL(it should be incloded with the DirectX 10 sample package you can down right off Microsoft's site) and run it on nVidia's G80 and the R600, the performance drop is pretty much the exact same between the two, even with full precision HDR.
The only reason why the thing is doing poorly at DirectX 10 is because %90... 9/10 titles out there are specifically optimized for nVidia, and the only reason why the thing even works is because they have not deviated from Microsoft's standards.
There are many ways to get the same end result, and why not use the methods given, from nVidia, they are giving all of that money to plaster their logo all over your product after all.

[ViperJohn]

When was the last time a GPU was an ASIC? :p

I don't really see the R600 being the least bit deficient at anything other then AA, it is good at DirectX 10, just compile MSDN's HLSL-HDRIBL(it should be incloded with the DirectX 10 sample package you can down right off Microsoft's site) and run it on nVidia's G80 and the R600, the performance drop is pretty much the exact same between the two, even with full precision HDR.
The only reason why the thing is doing poorly at DirectX 10 is because %90... 9/10 titles out there are specifically optimized for nVidia, and the only reason why the thing even works is because they have not deviated from Microsoft's standards.
There are many ways to get the same end result, and why not use the methods given, from nVidia, they are giving all of that money to plaster their logo all over your product after all.

You have obviously never seen Call of Juarez DX10 with an 8800GTX/Ultra and a well OC'ed 2900XT running
side by side. The 2900XT just gets reamed and look like crap in comparison. Now CoJ DX10 is the one that
NV was pitching a royal fit about it being coded so it really hurt their AA performance lol.

Viper

[batboy]

kinda off topic, but not really, batboy, have you tryed th crysis beta ? if so how well does your card perform FPs wise.

No, haven't tried it yet. But, maybe I should downloaded it if keys are still available.

[Vento1]

Having had a 2900XT i was happy with its performance for what i used it for and it did oc well, i am now waiting for R670 hopefully ATI have upped there game a bit.

[batboy]

I do envy the 8800GTX guys a little. But, my watercooled 2900XT keeps up with the 8800GTS crowd just fine.

[chaos]

I'm thinking about getting a 2900 pro to go into a htpc(maybe change the cooling on it) and I'm running media center and will not put vista on it. Since i won't be running Vista, dx10 performance wont be an issue correct????

[Rattle]

dont stop yourself from getting a 2900 pro, you wont tell much difference at all depending on games and res you mess with compared to a gts 320 and its the way to go for HTPC

for $257 its a nice card, dont forget, you can flash it to XT, some guys are buying the sapphire pros and they come up as xt's in CCC, atitool and gpuz already lol.

I havnt seen one guy on XS not be able to run XT speeds.
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-29PRO51

I know guys here and elsewhere that game at higher than 1680x1050 with this card in vista, in bioshock and crysis demo and they have no complaints.

[AngryArtichoke]

More evidence to support Nvidia.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/09/directx_10_shootout/page9.html

I try not to be biased, but at this point it looks like it would be illogical to buy a ATI card right now. Granted, they are a great company and make awesome AGP cards, it seems they are just in a slump. While you can argue the opposite, it's just like saying the AMD X2's are better than the C2d's.

And yes, you can still get good fps with these cards with Bioshock and current games. But what about tomorrow? The argument isn't that these cards suck, but they just don't run as well with the new technology.

[deathman20]

Well first off Bioshock and that where games of the future, they have new tech in them compared to when the cards where released.

The cards not horrible but its huge handicap is the performance hit it takes from AA, as well some other things dealing with the improper core that was sent out originally for the card. The R600 core is flawed, period. It has many things internally that ATI couldn't get working properly when it was released that offloaded alot of its calcs to be software driven which gave a hit on performance.

With the now R670's coming out in the next month, things will hopefully change. No more power hungry cards, back down to its respectiable lvls' of what last generations was at, fixes to the R600 core that basically crippled it in some instances.

The card is good it does work and work well and they just need to figure out how to properly unleash the power within the core through driver releases which they've been doing. I don't regret getting my card one bit, its a great card that does what it needs to do in games even in Crysis.

[AngryArtichoke]

Well first off Bioshock and that where games of the future, they have new tech in them compared to when the cards where released.

The cards not horrible but its huge handicap is the performance hit it takes from AA, as well some other things dealing with the improper core that was sent out originally for the card. The R600 core is flawed, period. It has many things internally that ATI couldn't get working properly when it was released that offloaded alot of its calcs to be software driven which gave a hit on performance.

With the now R670's coming out in the next month, things will hopefully change. No more power hungry cards, back down to its respectiable lvls' of what last generations was at, fixes to the R600 core that basically crippled it in some instances.

The card is good it does work and work well and they just need to figure out how to properly unleash the power within the core through driver releases which they've been doing.

Bioshock isnt a game of the future. It is a console port developed on DX9. But hopefully the R670's will kick some 8800GTX ass. Competition is good for the end user!

[Immortal_Hero]

Bioshock isnt a game of the future. It is a console port developed on DX9. But hopefully the R670's will kick some 8800GTX ass. Competition is good for the end user!

I am pretty sure it was ported from PC to console. It is built on the UT3 engine. It really is a game of the future. The UT3 engine will be hot and a lot of games will be on it. There are 3 that I know of already: MOH: Airborne, Bioshock, and UT3.

Really I dont think the 2900 is a bad buy either. @ 275 it is definatly a good "mid range" card.

[ViperJohn]

But hopefully the R670's will kick some 8800GTX ass. Competition is good for the end user!

I wouldn't count on it. An R670 X2X yes. The only problem with that is by the time the R670 is released
it will be beating, or trying to beat, 14 month old NV technology!! Now that is pretty dang sad/bad lol.

Viper

[Gabkicks]

hopefully something will happen to cause prices to drop :(

[Neuromancer]

The 2900XT is not bad in DX10, it's just that the 8800GTX is better. The 2900XT will compare more closely to the 8800GTS. The GTX version will beat it and that's coming from a guy that has and likes his 2900XT. On the otherhand, the 2900XT is cheaper than the GTX.

There are some real shady reviews out there I think,I read one review that showed 8800s performing better in dx10 then in dx9 :confused: Where the 2900s dropped to 50% of DX9 frame rates.

[PhysX]

clearly a lot of them are biased. you get that a lot from the 8800 gts owners here too, i thin kthey just arent happy about what nv i s doing to the 8800 gt...etc..

[vixro]

I've used an 8800ultra and a 2900XT. i extensively tested both cards in the games that I play and there is just no comparison. The 8800 has better quality, better framerates (by a LOT, not even a little), and you can use AA without dying. It's a switch I am glad I made. Nothing wrong with jumping on the bandwagon of technology. Don't stick yourself into one category, just buy and use what is the best at the time.

[LeAd_Poisoning]

Ive played quite a few recent games in DX9 mode on my friend's 2900pro system (e6600 @ 3.2ghz, DDR2 @ 800mhz, stock gfx clocks) and i wasnt that impressed. Compared to the aging system in my sig, at the same in game gfx settings and AA/AF levels, he didnt beat it by much. In the UT3 Demo at max everything (1024x768 resolution) he only beat my card by 10fps, managing a constant 55-60. In the Call of Duty 4 demo at the same graphical settings (high detail, 2xAA, mid-setting AF, 1024x768 resolution), he only beat my system by around 10fps, managing the low 50s. His stranglehold performance was distinctly better however, managing around 15-20fps higher (65-70fps) at the same max settings (1280x1024 resolution). His CSS performance at the absolute max settings(AA/AF/HDR etc) scored roughly140fps constant on Dust2 at 800x600 resolution, mine gets that at 1600x1200.
Dont get me wrong im no fanboy, i'll strive for whatever is the best bang for buck at the time. If i didnt see the ultra cheap 7900GTO, i would have bought an X1900XT. I only took a comparative interest because i was seriously considering buying a 2900pro as a budget card to overclock for the next generation of games out soon.

PS: I know this is a DX10 thread, but the 2900pro's DX9 performance in these new games doesnt fill me with confidence and the desire to go and buy one

[ProBoner]

Ive played quite a few recent games in DX9 mode on my friend's 2900pro system (e6600 @ 3.2ghz, DDR2 @ 800mhz, stock gfx clocks) and i wasnt that impressed. Compared to the aging system in my sig, at the same in game gfx settings and AA/AF levels, he didnt beat it by much. In the UT3 Demo at max everything (1024x768 resolution) he only beat my card by 10fps, managing a constant 55-60. In the Call of Duty 4 demo at the same graphical settings (high detail, 2xAA, mid-setting AF, 1024x768 resolution), he only beat my system by around 10fps, managing the low 50s. His stranglehold performance was distinctly better however, managing around 15-20fps higher (65-70fps) at the same max settings (1280x1024 resolution). His CSS performance at the absolute max settings(AA/AF/HDR etc) scored roughly140fps constant on Dust2 at 800x600 resolution, mine gets that at 1600x1200.
Dont get me wrong im no fanboy, i'll strive for whatever is the best bang for buck at the time. If i didnt see the ultra cheap 7900GTO, i would have bought an X1900XT. I only took a comparative interest because i was seriously considering buying a 2900pro as a budget card to overclock for the next generation of games out soon.

PS: I know this is a DX10 thread, but the 2900pro's DX9 performance in these new games doesnt fill me with confidence and the desire to go and buy one





I actually went from a 7900GTO to a 2900pro recently and I don't think it was too much of an upgrade (mind you, it only cost me a little less than $100 after selling the GTO). In UT3 you have to remember that by default there is a frame cap at 62fps. When I removed it, the 2900 with all settings favoring quality over performance (even AA at 24x)was averaging over 100fps at 1280x1024.
My new 3dmark06 score is 12300 running the card at 815/2000 (it runs faster but I haven't found the need to push it any further than that)

[Krogen]

I've used an 8800ultra and a 2900XT. i extensively tested both cards in the games that I play and there is just no comparison. The 8800 has better quality, better framerates (by a LOT, not even a little), and you can use AA without dying. It's a switch I am glad I made. Nothing wrong with jumping on the bandwagon of technology. Don't stick yourself into one category, just buy and use what is the best at the time.

I know 2900XT is currently ATI's top of the line card but IT SHOULDN'T be compared to 8800 Ultra. 2900XT retails for about $400 while 8800 Ultra retails for $600. If you compared 8800GTS 640MB to 8800 Ultra you'd say the same thing because there is a huge performance difference between those two cards.

In the UT3 Demo at max everything (1024x768 resolution) he only beat my card by 10fps, managing a constant 55-60.

There is a cap in UT3 at 60 FPS, that's why there is such a small performance difference.

I actually went from a 7900GTO to a 2900pro recently and I don't think it was too much of an upgrade (mind you, it only cost me a little less than $100 after selling the GTO). In UT3 you have to remember that by default there is a frame cap at 62fps. When I removed it, the 2900 with all settings favoring quality over performance (even AA at 24x)was averaging over 100fps at 1280x1024.
My new 3dmark06 score is 12300 running the card at 815/2000 (it runs faster but I haven't found the need to push it any further than that)

I might be wrong on this but are you sure you enabled AA? If you enabled AA in Catalyst Control Center (or ATI Tray Tools or whatever else you use) it actually DID NOT get enabled. In Bioshock (based on Unreal Engine 3) the only way to enable AA was to change bioshock.exe to Oblivion.exe (with ATI cards, with NVIDIA I'm quite sure it was doable in the control settings).

[LeAd_Poisoning]

In UT3 you have to remember that by default there is a frame cap at 62fps.
i know

In the UT3 Demo at max everything .......managing a constant 55-60.

he was still noticably shy of the cap in the FRAPS readout, for a new card i would have expected a little more performance over my old card

[joesaiditstrue]

There is a cap in UT3 at 60 FPS, that's why there is such a small performance difference.

UTEngine.ini:

[Engine.GameEngine]
bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE

Change to FALSE

:)

[vixro]

You can't compare cards at those resolutions. You need to compare at 1680x1050 +. 800x600 and 1024x768 a damned 9800Pro can still run 100fps in CSS. Besides, the Half life 2 engine (and HL1) are heavily favored by processor over video speeds.