Well... ATI's next big card is here and....
Moderator: ForumModerators
-
law.of.averages
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 7:24 pm
- Location: Beautiful, Sunny Florida
Ace wrote:Just recently upgraded from a 9700 Pro to a 8800 GTS, I gained a ridiculous amount of fps, that's it. The game looks the exact same, plays the exact same and I play the exact same
ahem.....
Ace wrote:Loyalty to a person is admirable, loyalty to a brand is childish (because they sure as hell aren't going to reward you for being a customer). Buy a card because it plays the games you want at the price you want, bottom line. 10 fps here, 5 degrees cooler there, give me a break they do the EXACT same thing in the end.
Well put!
Just for the record, I am not an ATI "fanboi" I am a fan of whoever makes the best product for the least amount of money, as I said "Price concious consumer."
I used AMD in my PC's for ~5 years, and with the release of Intel's Conroe processor, I switched without hesitation because it's just a better product for a lower price.
After my X850XT, I did a lot of research before upgrading, and I was under the impression that the 7900GT KO Superclock cards were the best bang/buck cards on the market.
I bought TWO Nvidia cards and ran SLI, I was disappointed with the performance, so I returned the Nvidia cards and SLI board... Purchased a Single X1800XT and the single ATI card beat out dual Nvida cards in SLI.
There is *NO* debating that 8800Ultra is the fastest card on the market, I never once said that Nvidia's product was no good, I was examing FACTS.
In the $400-$500 price range, there is no card better than the HD2900XT, if you want to spend $1000 on an 8800Ultra be my guest.
And everyone crying about lower resolutions, I have a 19" LCD with native resolution of 1280x1024, and I never run any game with a resolution different than that.
If I upgraded my monitor, I might have reason to, but for now I don't.
The only point I was trying to make, is that there are differences between the two cards which make them appeal to different markets, just because it doesn't do what YOU may want - doesn't mean it's a piece of shit card.
Doesn't it make sense, that a single card with 512MB memory, would lose to DUAL cards with a total of 1.5GB of memory, of course it does - it's not even a fair comparison... The fact that the single card with 70% less memory beats out the competition in lower resolutions is still an impressive feat.
I test products from both sides of the fence, and I keep the components I feel give me the most value for my hard earned money, and I'm sure you do too. 8800GTS (320/640) are good cards, I have nothing bad to say about them, except the high price point.
As far as two cards being exactly the same in-game, that's a little bit of a stretch, depending on the features you use. I never play my games on default settings, I like to crank up the anti-aliasing, and the anisotropic filtering... I can't stand blurry textures or jagged corners, some people don't notice - I'm not one of those people. I need my games looking smooth and perfect. So each company offers something different when it comes to Image quality enhancements.
As far as being able to see the difference between 60FPS on one card, and 70FPS on another card... You're absolutely correct.
I used AMD in my PC's for ~5 years, and with the release of Intel's Conroe processor, I switched without hesitation because it's just a better product for a lower price.
After my X850XT, I did a lot of research before upgrading, and I was under the impression that the 7900GT KO Superclock cards were the best bang/buck cards on the market.
I bought TWO Nvidia cards and ran SLI, I was disappointed with the performance, so I returned the Nvidia cards and SLI board... Purchased a Single X1800XT and the single ATI card beat out dual Nvida cards in SLI.
There is *NO* debating that 8800Ultra is the fastest card on the market, I never once said that Nvidia's product was no good, I was examing FACTS.
In the $400-$500 price range, there is no card better than the HD2900XT, if you want to spend $1000 on an 8800Ultra be my guest.
And everyone crying about lower resolutions, I have a 19" LCD with native resolution of 1280x1024, and I never run any game with a resolution different than that.
If I upgraded my monitor, I might have reason to, but for now I don't.
The only point I was trying to make, is that there are differences between the two cards which make them appeal to different markets, just because it doesn't do what YOU may want - doesn't mean it's a piece of shit card.
Doesn't it make sense, that a single card with 512MB memory, would lose to DUAL cards with a total of 1.5GB of memory, of course it does - it's not even a fair comparison... The fact that the single card with 70% less memory beats out the competition in lower resolutions is still an impressive feat.
I test products from both sides of the fence, and I keep the components I feel give me the most value for my hard earned money, and I'm sure you do too. 8800GTS (320/640) are good cards, I have nothing bad to say about them, except the high price point.
As far as two cards being exactly the same in-game, that's a little bit of a stretch, depending on the features you use. I never play my games on default settings, I like to crank up the anti-aliasing, and the anisotropic filtering... I can't stand blurry textures or jagged corners, some people don't notice - I'm not one of those people. I need my games looking smooth and perfect. So each company offers something different when it comes to Image quality enhancements.
As far as being able to see the difference between 60FPS on one card, and 70FPS on another card... You're absolutely correct.
Everyone may piss in the pool but you have to be extra mean to do it from the high diving board.
-
law.of.averages
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 7:24 pm
- Location: Beautiful, Sunny Florida
There is *NO* debating that 8800Ultra is the fastest card on the market, I never once said that Nvidia's product was no good, I was examing FACTS.
In the $400-$500 price range, there is no card better than the HD2900XT, if you want to spend $1000 on an 8800Ultra be my guest.
Your facts seem to be full of opinion. Here's a number summary for everyone:
Newegg prices:
8800GTX: 549.99 (529.99 after rebate)
HD2900X: 409.99
8800GTS: 349.99 (319.99 after rebate)
3D Mark 2005 (1280x1024) 0AA 0AF, 4AA 8AF:
8800GTX: 16134, 14752
HD2900XT: 16366, 12622
8800GTs: 13671, 11380
Doom 3 (1280x1024) 0AA 8AF, 4AA 8AF:
8800GTX: 183.8, 150.1
HD2900XT: 159.9, 132.2
8800GTs: 174.7, 118.0
FEAR (1280x1024) 0AA 0AF, 4AA 8AF:
8800GTX: 169, 111
HD2900XT: 155, 75
8800GTs: 134, 80
Oblivion (1280x1024) out, in:
8800GTX: 43.62, 214.4
HD2900XT: 39.60, 147.10
8800GTs: 33.68, 157.03
And here is my conlusion/opinion drawn from the numbers:
8800GTX beats the other 2 cards hands down (only one 3DMark test has the HD2900XT scoring higher than the 8800GTX and that is quickly reversed once AA and AF are turned on). However, the 8800GTX is $140 ($120 after rebate) more than the HD2900XT and $200 ($190 after rebates) more than the 8800GTS.
Now look at the HD2900XT and 8800GTS; ATI wins the 3DMark contest, but the cards go back and forth in Doom, FEAR, and Oblivion.
If two cards are so similiar in performance don't you have to admit the one that costs $60 less ($90 after rebates) is the best bang for the buck?
Trinity you are assuming you are dealing with logic here. 
If you didn't notice rob disappeared when ati got trounced and now he's back that they have a new card out.
Every respected publication, anandtech being one of the best, says the ati card didn't deliver and was late. Any other arguments are just people invested emotionally in their product.
The renamed r650 should be a nice card on a different fab and should be faster than what's out now but nvidia per usual will give them something new to look at too.
Competition is good for us.
If you didn't notice rob disappeared when ati got trounced and now he's back that they have a new card out.
Every respected publication, anandtech being one of the best, says the ati card didn't deliver and was late. Any other arguments are just people invested emotionally in their product.
The renamed r650 should be a nice card on a different fab and should be faster than what's out now but nvidia per usual will give them something new to look at too.
Competition is good for us.
Last edited by nonstop on Fri May 25, 2007 12:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Not everyone orders online, and I go by the prices I can purchase things locally, also you didn't state whether that was the 320MB version or the 640MB version.
Also, where are the benchmark numbers from, you could quote a source?
Not that it matters, because every review site is going to have differing results, depends on who paid them the most money... Or what other hardware was in the PC used for testing. Most of these graphics cards are going to be limited by the performance of the CPU they're used in conjunction with.
An ATI HD2900XT coupled with an AMD Athlon64 X2 4800+ (939) is going to perform worse than an Nvidia 8800GTS with an Intel Core2duo E6600. And vice versa.
Also, where are the benchmark numbers from, you could quote a source?
Not that it matters, because every review site is going to have differing results, depends on who paid them the most money... Or what other hardware was in the PC used for testing. Most of these graphics cards are going to be limited by the performance of the CPU they're used in conjunction with.
An ATI HD2900XT coupled with an AMD Athlon64 X2 4800+ (939) is going to perform worse than an Nvidia 8800GTS with an Intel Core2duo E6600. And vice versa.
Everyone may piss in the pool but you have to be extra mean to do it from the high diving board.
nonstop wrote:Trinity you are assuming you are dealing with logic here.
If you didn't notice rob disappeared when ati got trounced and now he's back that they have a new card out.
Every respected publication, anandtech being one of the best, says the ati card didn't deliver and was late. Any other arguments are just people invested emotionally in their product.
The renamed r650 should be a nice card on a different fab and should be faster than what's out now but nvidia per usual will give them something new to look at too.
Competition is good for us.
As for Rob... thanks for coming in and making more friends with your great attitude. Thumbs up.
Talk about insulting?
You think I disappeared from the forums because ATI didn't have a video card out?
That's brutal.
Everyone may piss in the pool but you have to be extra mean to do it from the high diving board.
Let's take a look at Robs past quotes from our forums...
Just more of the same crap, you're not dealing with logic with this guy. He comes in, craps in the forums and leaves for months.
rob[GL] wrote:The links work for me, as I said previously... And *IF* you cared enough, you *WOULD* check the links yourself... You obviously are just an Nvidia user, so you don't want to see the evidence...
You fanboy.
rob[GL] wrote:Yes, I realize you run this show, but I don't take snide comments lightly...
The graphics show up fine on my machine...
rob[GL] wrote:nvidia cards are a joke.... just enable antialiasing/anisotrophic + HDR & you tell me who's leading in architecture goodness. Overall i have a better experience w ATI cards over nvidias' cro ..
rob[GL] wrote:Dude, whatever, you're obviously very set in your ways... Enjoy your overpriced underpowered hardware.
Just more of the same crap, you're not dealing with logic with this guy. He comes in, craps in the forums and leaves for months.
You still debate that the X1900XTX/X1950XTX were worse cards than the 7800GTX/7900GTX? Your shoe might be on the other foot now.
What I said back then holds true. The 7-series cards from Nvidia COULD NOT do AA+HDR at the same time, and they DID use more power than the ATI cards, and they DID cost more.
What I said back then holds true. The 7-series cards from Nvidia COULD NOT do AA+HDR at the same time, and they DID use more power than the ATI cards, and they DID cost more.
Everyone may piss in the pool but you have to be extra mean to do it from the high diving board.
rob[GL] wrote:As far as two cards being exactly the same in-game, that's a little bit of a stretch, depending on the features you use. I never play my games on default settings, I like to crank up the anti-aliasing, and the anisotropic filtering... I can't stand blurry textures or jagged corners, some people don't notice - I'm not one of those people. I need my games looking smooth and perfect. So each company offers something different when it comes to Image quality enhancements.
No stretch, EXACT same settings. My .ini from my old system went directly to the new system. Only change was changing the resolution from my old 1280 to the 1900, everything is turned up. Same.
ATI has come out with a card that puts them right in the same ballpark as the 8800 GTS and the 8800 GTX, except it took them over 6 months longer to do it. If in the future a game comes out that either of those two nVidia cards can't play, the ATI card sure as hell won't play it either. I honestly don't see how it's a better card.
ATI is playing catchup right now. If your competitor beats you table with a product, there's three options: Do nothing, come out with a comparable product, or beat their product and raise the bar. It took ATI 6 months to release a comparable product. ATI didn't raise the bar at all with their card, which puts nVidia comfortably in the drivers seat. If ATI were in good shape, they would have released a card that beat nVidia's by 20% in most tests given the extra development time. That alone tells me they are struggling as a company and are only capable of trying to keep up.
I don't know of anyone who actually runs a resolution that high, but for posting some actual benchmark scores, there it is; on par with, or exceeding the GTS 640MB in almost every game. Beats the GTX on a few too...
Of course, you can change the resolution, change the AA and AF, and make whatever card you want win benchmarks on a review site...
There's lot to factor in, as I said previously, but how many here have actually used one of these cards?
If you haven't personally used the card, how can you say something bad about it?
Of course, you can change the resolution, change the AA and AF, and make whatever card you want win benchmarks on a review site...
There's lot to factor in, as I said previously, but how many here have actually used one of these cards?
If you haven't personally used the card, how can you say something bad about it?
Everyone may piss in the pool but you have to be extra mean to do it from the high diving board.
Ace wrote:rob[GL] wrote:As far as two cards being exactly the same in-game, that's a little bit of a stretch, depending on the features you use. I never play my games on default settings, I like to crank up the anti-aliasing, and the anisotropic filtering... I can't stand blurry textures or jagged corners, some people don't notice - I'm not one of those people. I need my games looking smooth and perfect. So each company offers something different when it comes to Image quality enhancements.
No stretch, EXACT same settings. My .ini from my old system went directly to the new system. Only change was changing the resolution from my old 1280 to the 1900, everything is turned up. Same.
ATI has come out with a card that puts them right in the same ballpark as the 8800 GTS and the 8800 GTX, except it took them over 6 months longer to do it. If in the future a game comes out that either of those two nVidia cards can't play, the ATI card sure as hell won't play it either. I honestly don't see how it's a better card.
ATI is playing catchup right now. If your competitor beats you table with a product, there's three options: Do nothing, come out with a comparable product, or beat their product and raise the bar. It took ATI 6 months to release a comparable product. ATI didn't raise the bar at all with their card, which puts nVidia comfortably in the drivers seat. If ATI were in good shape, they would have released a card that beat nVidia's by 20% in most tests given the extra development time. That alone tells me they are struggling as a company and are only capable of trying to keep up.
I totally hear that, and I never said the HD2900XT was the best on the market, I said it's the best choice in its price range. 8800Ultra is fastest, no doubt about it, but who can afford $1000 graphics card? (Canadian Dollars)
And I don't like how everyone says "6 months late" because ATI and Nvidia *ALWAYS* release cards 6 month away from eachother, I don't ever remember both companies releasing cards at exactly the same time?
The card does come 6 months AFTER Nvidia's offering, and it does not perform better than Nvidias top card, but the price at which it entered the market was very reasonable.
We still have not seen the XTX cards, and we still have not seen an official driver from ATI. It's only been 2 weeks since the launch, it just really upsets me that everyone can pass so much judgement on a product they haven't used.
Also, the real question still remains, how are these 2 cards going to compare in DirectX 10 games?
Everyone may piss in the pool but you have to be extra mean to do it from the high diving board.
rob[GL] wrote:If you haven't personally used the card, how can you say something bad about it?
I haven't said anything bad about it, I just question the claim why it's the "best" card out there (price wise).
Where was this card around Christmas time?
The card will play every game out there now. I would have looked at it when I was building my system last month had it been out. Looking at the numbers, I'm not disappointed I bought when I did. In three years when my system won't play the latest games, waiting for this card, would not have given me any more longevity the what I currently have, bottom line.
It's not a revolutionary card like you are making it out to be, it's inline with what's currently out there....and has been for months.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests