2900XT on the rise?

[Stormcrow]

As I've said for quite some time, its come time to upgrade the graphics department of my comp, as my poor 6200 flees in terror at the mention of Oblivion. My previous cards were a 9200, and a FX 5500, so I've gonna go with a high end model for once. I'll have 400 saved by the end of the month, and there a couple of choices.

The thing that sticks out though, is I'm seeing a lot of "reviews" floating around of the R600 becoming more competent with driver revisions, some people even listing it as good as the 8800 GTX in Vista. So, I'm in a dilemma.
I have three options, one is the 8800 GTS 320, its well in my budget and offers the best bang for the buck. Also, the monitor I'm getting is widescreen 19 incher, so it would be a beast at the resolution it'll be running in.

Then theres the step up, which is in the upper echelon of my budget. I've seen benches of the 640 mb walking all over the 320 with higher levels of AA and AF, and then some where their pretty much equal with the same AA and AF at the lower resolutions. Since I wanna see what this AA/AF rabble is all about, I want to pour on the most I can for the money.

Then, comes the meat of my question. If the 2900 is preforming on par with the GTX, it would the better buy out of both of them. Yet theres contradicting information, such as only the 1 GB GDDR4 model will be able to pass the GTX, or that the 2900 struggles to keep up with the GTS 320. The reviews are either using XP or Vista, neither comparing both at the same time, so perhaps AMD's drivers are for Vista are just better then Nvidias? Or is the R600 architecture just that inefficant and these "reviews" are talking hot air?

To sum it up, would I be better off with the 8800 GTS 320, its bigger brother the 640, or the 2900XT?

[garetjax]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

...some people even listing it as good as the 8800 GTX in Vista.

And they would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Then, comes the meat of my question. If the 2900 is preforming on par with the GTX...

Erm... it doesn't? The 2900XT is about on par with the GTS. The GTX and the Ultra still kick the shit out of the 2900XT. I would encourage you to read the review in the August edition of MaximumPC, page 68 for further clarification why the 2900XT is a bad choice for an enthusiasts videocard.

[Computer-Ed]

Originally Posted by garetjax

why the 2900XT is a bad choice for an enthusiasts videocard.

This is NUTS! The 2900 does not out run a GTX true. However does does run right with and passes a GTS 640 and in DX10 benchmakrs to date it actually comes very close to the GTX.

As for being a bad choice!? It will run anything out smooth with great image quality and ATI still has a much better driver team than nVidia.

If you go on pure benchmakrs the order of power first to last is:

8800Ultra
8800GTX
HD2900XT
8800GTS 640
8800GTS 320

In the actual play experience there is ZERO difference in this entire group. All play games smooth and look super.

[Quakindude]

The 2900 is a decent enough card. If you want VIVO, it's the only card in Ed's list.

Here's my issues with the 2900XT. It has a 512 bit memory interface, 2.5 times the unified stream processors and draws GOBS of power to run the damn thing. It requires an 8-pin, 6-pin and all 75 watts from the PCI slot.

Drawing all that power and having significantly more stream processors, not to mention the unheard of 512 bit memory interface, and the 2900XT's UVD driver support is MIA?

I don't think the 2900XT is a bad card by any means. But having all the muscle in all the right places and yet it still can't blast the 8800GTS 640 out of the water? And it can't even begin to approach a GTX? Sure, it's a decent difference in gaming benchmarks between the 2900 and the GTS. But it should be on par with the GTX, and rather easily I think, given the physical attributes of the 2900.

That's like having a 383 stroker motor in a Chevette. Small car, big engine should turn rubber and asphalt into 0-60 times of under 4 seconds. If it doesn't, it's very indicative of a problem somewhere that's preventing the car as a whole to perform to it's utmost ability.

IMHO, something ain't right with the 2900XT.

[Computer-Ed]

I will not disagree on that. I really wonder if part of it is no true DX10 material to see in action? I mean I have seen some benchmarks where the 2900 is staying with the GTX and beating it in pure DX10. I wonder if this could just be a case of not getting to see it stretch it's legs?

As for the UVD was this not a driver issue and the fix is already in the works?

[Lokie]

Very good point Q, ATI's ring buss architecture is still an early technology that has yet to be refined, if it actually can be. I personally think it will but will time kill it before it can mature and really shine? If it takes to long nvidia will move on to the next technology to make this whole convo a mute point.

I would stick with the GTS for the proven stability.

[Stormcrow]

Looking at the specs for the 2900XT, one thing stands out. It only has 16 ROPs and texture units, as opposed to 20/24 on the GTS and 24/32 of the GTX. So even with all those shaders, it looks like it's horsepower is getting throttled by this bottleneck. Still, if it sits between the GTS and GTX, and costs 150 less then the GTX, its the better buy. I think I may just go with a 320mb GTS and save some bucks towards a new processor or monitor, as I dont think my psu is up to the task of powering that beast, and getting the 512mb version seems kinda moot with the 1GB GDDR4 on its way. Later on I could SLi the GTS anyway, so that seems the best way to go.

[Quakindude]

Take into consideration your near future monitor selection. If you'll be gaming at or above 1200x1600, I'd spring for the 640MB version personally.

Comp Ed, the driver support isn't there for UVD AFAIK. With Nvidia cards, you have to go with an 8600 to get UVD support. MaximumPC Mag has an article about it this month. Soon as I can get a copy of it, maybe I'll know more about why UVD support wasn't included in the 2900XT drivers. Could be intended for a future driver package. I just don't know at this point.

[qazwsx]

as everyones said, the HD2900XT has all the specs and still isnt living up to them, plus it drains up to 299w when in full 3D.
Still, I think its the best price vs spec card out there. I want to know how this 1gb ddr3 stands against the GTX. Anyone got a link?

[Computer-Ed]

Originally Posted by garetjax

I would encourage you to read the review in the August edition of MaximumPC, page 68 for further clarification why the 2900XT is a bad choice for an enthusiasts videocard.

You know I thought about this and read the article today and wonder if you read the same article. They praised the 2900XT and only ditz it on being out of whack with power requirements to power provided and a driver issue.

The card scored 8 out 10 and would have likely scored 9 if the driver issue was fixed, which it will be I am sure. They go on to comment that the 2900 was scoring 15% to 20% faster than a GTS and I can find no real let down in the article.

I am curious where they say this is a bad choice.