• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Another decent HD 2900XT 1gb review...

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Lol, it's completely nvidia biased. Just based on the language of the writing.

"finally some competitiom"
"cheesy metallic flames"
[calling out AMD for saying DDR4 being faster but not using it on 2900XT.]

That's just the first page.


Not to mention the testing was done on a 2.93ghz quad system when AMD's graphics card shines at higher CPU clock speeds (exponentially).

All I got out of this was that the 1gb version doesn't improve much over 512mb.
 
That review sucked...
If you're going to be biased, at least do a good job at writing the article so the literate will fall for it.

Even the 8800 was performing poorly.
 
Shell said:
That review sucked...
If you're going to be biased, at least do a good job at writing the article so the literate will fall for it.

Even the 8800 was performing poorly.
Click to expand...


When the 8800 did poorly, it was listed as excuses OR ignored while bashing the 2900XT.

Don't know about you but I think when you're below 60fps on both cards, they both suck.
 
vixro said:
Lol, it's completely nvidia biased. Just based on the language of the writing.

"finally some competitiom"
"cheesy metallic flames"
[calling out AMD for saying DDR4 being faster but not using it on 2900XT.]

That's just the first page.


Not to mention the testing was done on a 2.93ghz quad system when AMD's graphics card shines at higher CPU clock speeds (exponentially).

All I got out of this was that the 1gb version doesn't improve much over 512mb.
Click to expand...

Yes there was some bias in the write up but not in the numbers. While the 2900's bench well they
fall apart in games when you dial in the AA.

As to system speed the higher the better for both the 2900's and the 8800's.

Viper
 
ViperJohn said:
Yes there was some bias in the write up but not in the numbers. While the 2900's bench well they
fall apart in games when you dial in the AA.

As to system speed the higher the better for both the 2900's and the 8800's.

Viper
Click to expand...
If you look again you will see there is no common resolution among games tested.
 
ECH said:
If you look again you will see there is no common resolution among games tested.
Click to expand...


Moot point. While the resolution varied between the games it was the same for both cards
in a given game so the number are quite valid.

I've had the luxury for running both stock and modded 2900XT's, 8800GTX's and 8800Ultra's
in the DX10 demo's and the 2900's just flat get their asses kicked in them.

Viper
 
Last edited:
ViperJohn said:
I've had the luxury for running both stock and modded 2900XT's, 8800GTX's and 8800Ultra's in the DX10 demo's and the 2900's just flat get their asses kicked in them.
Click to expand...
Well last I checked, the 2900XT falls right between the GTS and GTX, I've tried all 3 cards myself in 3DMARK06 and several DirextX 10 tech demos.

Dual 2900XT's really makes for some fun with AFR. :drool:
 
ViperJohn said:
Moot point. While the resolution varied between the games it was the same for both cards
in a given game so the number are quite valid.

I've had the luxury for running both stock and modded 2900XT's, 8800GTX's and 8800Ultra's
in the DX10 demo's and the 2900's just flat get their asses kicked in them.

Viper
Click to expand...
Actually not moot at all when you only see 1/4 the picture. The varied resolutions don't show the whole picture of performance per game. Therefore, doesn't validate the performances of what the tested cards are capable of.
I've had the luxury for running both stock and modded 2900XT's, 8800GTX's and 8800Ultra's
in the DX10 demo's and the 2900's just flat get their asses kicked in them.
Click to expand...
Now this is a moot point knowing good and well the HD2900XT doesn't compete with the GTX and Ultra. Nor is it priced to compete with the GTX/Ultra.
 
Shell said:
Well last I checked, the 2900XT falls right between the GTS and GTX, I've tried all 3 cards myself in 3DMARK06 and several DirextX 10 tech demos.
Click to expand...

You are talking 512Mb cards. The 1Gb card, which was the subject of the review, sells for the same
or almost the same as a GTX. Just two weeks ago you could get an Ultra for $570 after rebate from
the Egg.

Viper
 
ECH said:
Actually not moot at all when you only see 1/4 the picture. The varied resolutions don't show the whole picture of performance per game. Therefore, doesn't validate the performances of what the tested cards are capable of.
Click to expand...

Sure they are since the resolution was the same for both cards. Up the resolution and AA and it only gets worse for the 2900's.

ECH said:
Now this is a moot point knowing good and well the HD2900XT doesn't compete with the GTX and Ultra. Nor is it priced to compete with the GTX/Ultra.
Click to expand...

Again you are talking 512Mb 2900's. The review was on a the 1Gb 2900 cards.

Viper
 
vixro said:
Not to mention the testing was done on a 2.93ghz quad system when AMD's graphics card shines at higher CPU clock speeds (exponentially).
Click to expand...

Can you honestly fault them for using the fastest CPU money can buy? Not everyone OCs. ;)
 
ViperJohn said:
Sure they are since the resolution was the same for both cards. Up the resolution and AA and it only gets worse for the 2900's.
Click to expand...
And here is the actual problem with the review. There is no higher resolution benchmarked using the same game :beer: Therefore, what you post cannot be proven unless the same game is used.

ViperJohn said:
Again you are talking 512Mb 2900's. The review was on a the 1Gb 2900 cards.

Viper
Click to expand...

Come on Viper you should know better then that! Just because more memory was added (at a premium to the customer) doesn't change the performance of the HD 2900XT thus not a competitor with GTX/Ultra. The only thing that changes is the price. This is nothing more then a HD 2900XT with more memory. Also, HD 2900 series does not use the same arch advances/differences as found on the GTS vs GTX for example.
 
ECH said:
And here is the actual problem with the review. There is no higher resolution benchmarked using the same game :beer: Therefore, what you post cannot be proven unless the same game is used.
Click to expand...

Get the cards and run the tests to prove it to yourself...I DID although I did have an OEM version of the
2900XT 1Gb.

ECH said:
Come on Viper you should know better then that! Just because more memory was added (at a premium to the customer) doesn't change the performance of the HD 2900XT thus not a competitor with GTX/Ultra. The only thing that changes is the price. This is nothing more then a HD 2900XT with more memory. Also, HD 2900 series does not use the same arch advances/differences as found on the GTS vs GTX for example.
Click to expand...

My point (and the reviews) WAS the 1Gb's price which you seem to be missing. The 2900XT 512's have
price in their favor to balance the lower gaming performance especially when AA is dialed in. The 512Mb
does give decent value for it's price if you can get it under $400.

The 2900XT 1Gb's loose that advantage while still getting clobbered in games. The whole point of paying
the premium for the extra 512Mb's of memory is so you can run higher resolutions with more eye candy
dialed in and that is exactly when the 2900XT's drops to their knees.

Viper
 
Last edited:
ViperJohn said:
Get the cards and run the tests to prove it to yourself...I DID although I did have an OEM version of the
2900XT 1Gb.



My point (and the reviews) WAS the 1Gb's price which you seem to be missing. The 2900XT 512's have
price in their favor to balance the lower gaming performance especially when AA is dialed in. The 512Mb
does give decent value for it's price if you can get it under $400.

The 2900XT 1Gb's loose that advantage while still getting clobbered in games. The whole point of paying
the premium for the extra 512Mb's of memory is so you can run higher resolutions with more eye candy
dialed in and that is exactly when the 2900XT's drops to their knees.

Viper
Click to expand...
The price increase for the HD 2900XT to the 1 gig version is do to the memory, bottom line. The price increase of the GTS to GTX to Ultra is do to the arch. differences. Also, as I said before, the varied resolutions don't show the whole picture of performance per game. Therefore, doesn't validate the performances of what the tested cards are capable of. There is no evidence that adding more memory allows for a faster video card.
Here is one example of what the HD2900Xt can do at 2048x1536 using stalker (bottom of the page). This is just one example of what I found from many other reviews that show that the HD does get better at resolutions of 2048. However, this is not a resolution that most game at. This alone should tell you that if you are going to benchmark a game, you do so at every resolution. Not one resolution here, use another game, another resolution there, pick another game, etc.
 
Last edited:
Its odd to read threw that review Viper, as it almost reminds me of the old NV 5xxx line, where NV had superior raw FPS, and ATI just killed them as soon as any aa or af was applied. Strange reversal of fortune. I guess I am still surprised that they even released this product. I think it will go down as one of their biggest failures, and surely blamed on what happens when a CPU company is put in charge of a GPU company.
 
ECH said:
The price increase for the HD 2900XT to the 1 gig version is do to the memory, bottom line. The price increase of the GTS to GTX to Ultra is do to the arch. differences. Also, as I said before, the varied resolutions don't show the whole picture of performance per game. Therefore, doesn't validate the performances of what the tested cards are capable of. There is no evidence that adding more memory allows for a faster video card.
Here is one example of what the HD2900Xt can do at 2048x1536 using stalker (bottom of the page). This is just one example of what I found from many other reviews that show that the HD does get better at resolutions of 2048. However, this is not a resolution that most game at. This alone should tell you that if you are going to benchmark a game, you do so at every resolution. Not one resolution here, use another game, another resolution there, pick another game, etc.
Click to expand...

So what is your point??? It doesn't matter the reason for the price difference. If you are going to pay
the price for a 1GB 2900XX then you might as well get an 8800GTX instead as it is damn near a push
and enjoy the better gaming performance at all resolutions at high AA. Heck if you watch the sales
and rebates you can get an Ultra for about $50 more lol.

Viper
 
ViperJohn is right. I am in a position to buy myself, and am looking at a new GTX (maybe sending it to you Viper). The 2900's just don't have enough to make them a viable Cost/performance purchase. Lets hope they fix it and that their cpu's aren't the same let down these were. If they don't I can see NV keeping the prices up there on the 9xxx series with no fear of competition.
 
ViperJohn said:
So what is your point??? It doesn't matter the reason for the price difference. If you are going to pay
the price for a 1GB 2900XX then you might as well get an 8800GTX instead as it is damn near a push
and enjoy the better gaming performance at all resolutions at high AA. Heck if you watch the sales
and rebates you can get an Ultra for about $50 more lol.

Viper
Click to expand...
Back peddling? As I stated before, no one can make any conclusive opinions with that review unless their is more information per game (in particular different resolutions). I've proven my point. There is no need to discuss pricing now. As I said before, the consumer is simply paying more for memory. There is no other arch difference between the 512meg vs 1 Gig version. But in any case, the lowest price GTX found at newegg:
here

The lowest priced HD 2900XT 1 Gig found:
here

This leaves a considerable difference making the HD2900 XT 1 Gig still cheaper. And, I didn't even bother with Ultra's prices, LOL. Which also means that the 1 Gig is not priced to compete with the GTX. Therefore, what you posted makes no sense. The HD 2900 XT (1 gig or not) is a medium range card that on occasions competes with the higher priced GTX at higher resolutions. You making a bigger deal out of this then should be. On another note, will ATI release a R650 (some think it's a R680) in Q3 making this a X1800xt > X1900xtx all over again? Hard to say, all I can say is stay tuned, LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kenrou
This Amiga 500 was left outside for years. Let's try to revive it!
Replies
6
Views
241
Woomack
W
W
Small review on Unionsine and HIKSEMI and JEYI ssd enclosure's.
Replies
0
Views
667
wade7575
W
Cor3000000323
Monitor shows screen for 1 second then goes black
Replies
11
Views
1K
Zerileous
Zerileous
don256us
We are #8 in the world.
Replies
16
Views
694
Flamethrower1972
Flamethrower1972
rainless
WrestleQuest vs Resident Evil 8 (Also: Games You Haven't Finished)
Replies
3
Views
273
rainless
rainless
Back