Printable View
Well, not sure how to put this..
Don't really want this to be true, but Daily Tech seems okay-ish on the trust side.. ok, maybe not really.. but still obvious bad press..
Figures why DT has an upperhand over the NDA..
And the numbers seemed pretty rigged as well..
Oh well..
http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Radeon+...rticle7052.htm
at least its not going to be a foot long, the test configuration is vague for my liking as well
Dear God let that not be true. Don't get me wrong - i'm either going 8800 or R600 in May (I've no brand affinity) - but it will do us no good if the AMD/nVidia aren't neck and neck.
Those benchies seem a little screwy to me - as someone pointed out in the comments the x1950xtx was actually faster in some circumstances.. I'm happy to wait and see, everything bar STALKER runs ok for me (and STALKER has many, many issues anyway..) right now.
no kidding, STALKER has to be one of the most unwarranted waste of 25 quid I paid in a long time..
Totally didn't enjoy it.. and its sitting there doing nothing now.. and if I cant find the urge to play it again in the next coming weeks.. its going to the For Sale section..
But AMD and ATI seems to be in a fix at the moment... If the R600 series dont sell. then we'll end up with OR Nvidia.. and OR Intel.. Thus, Intel/Nvidia prices go up the roof...
Remember the days of 3DFX Voodoo? Those things cost more than an arm and a leg but works so much slower until TNT came up.. Don't get me wrong, Voodoo acceleration was fine, but there's really no competition hence the series after that really didn't have any improvements other than adding more chips, stripping down stuff.. while again using the very same accelerator..
Voodoo 2 = 2 Voodoo chips in one board with slightly more mem
Voodoo Banshee = A very broken and stripped down Voodoo Rush chip bumped up with better 2D support..
I recall how expensive my pair of Voodoo 2 cost me.. Lets not have Nvidia do that to me/us just like how 3dFX screwed on everyone before..
Am I reading this right? They just bumped the 2900XT to XTX levels? That's just not going to work... it has half the memory. You can overclock 8800GTS to GTX levels, and that doesn't match the GTX.
There's obviously some problems with the test or drivers. The XT is faster than the XTX in some tests...
I'm not reading much into it.
Hmmm.. I got an 8800 back in December so I've been following the R600 progress out of interest.
Disappointing if it's accurate - I'm the same as dangel no particular brand loyalty - it's best for the consumer if the big firms are pushing each other constantly in terms of performance and price.
Watch this space, I suppose.. interesting..
You are reading it wrong. They have a oem 2900xtx.
Typical case with ATI though gear their cards all on gaming performance but never seem to release good drivers.
TBH made the move to 8800 myself and I can't complain on the performance I have now and can't wait until they release games which will use my card to its full potential
You'll probably find that recently (last year, perhaps a touch longer) it's the other way around. At least with Windows. It's fair to say the ATi Linux drivers are dire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulm@scan
I've been particularly interested in the new 8600 (etc) series nvidias and the general disappointment with their performance.
I think that whilst we would all love a greater performance increase from generation to generation, we have to remember that there has been some significant degree in the change in architecture going on here, and from one point of view is unfair to compare one to another.
If we view these cards as version 1 of DX10, then all is well and version 2 will be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSIC
I think like you said though its too early to say as in DX9 compatibility they are not much different from their 7950 counterparts but you may see some benchmark improvements in DX10 ... too early yet i think to compare
I think you mean 7600 counterparts. :) But i take your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulm@scan
Can the ATI drivers really be worse than the NVidia drivers of the last few months?
To be honest, if a card isnt performing due to drivers, they shouldnt release it, until the drivers are ready.
Not really fair given the huge amount of issues the 8800 has had with drivers..Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulm@scan
Personally i've never really had a worse experience with either - i think they're much of a muchness these days.
On the contrary I feel ATI does better drivers, at least for XP.. CCC aside, their stuff works alot better for me..
Nvidia just seems to be 'feel' better.. and I must admit the GUI for their control panel feels better than the infamous CCC. Other than that, Nvidia's drivers are ok at best.. I recall having games which doesnt run, rendering that's isn't all that good, and performance thats just dire in some titles..
The 6800GTs I had during the golden age was very good, until a new game comes off, and the driver's just doesnt work for it. One classic example is probably the TRL, the 6800GT will not even render the game correctly until a new driver release.. others are probably Act of War and BF2.. all require new drivers for optimised performance..
Believe it or not, my X1800XT is still using drivers that came with the card, and it runs everything i throw at it without any need to fiddle with driver upgrade..
yeah thats what I meant!!! mulitasking is not my strong point atm :surrender:Quote:
Originally Posted by MSIC
It's worth the upgrade for the speed boosts (been a few as I remember) with ATI drivers. I guess it depends on it's use tho :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sawyen
I had to stick with the CD drivers for some time as ATI didn't support my card for a bit.. and oddly the CD drivers were also quite a lot more stable/faster for a while. But in the end I needed to update to get a function I wanted (which I've gone and forgotten, so can't have been that important!)
I also had a 6800GT but yeah.. NVidia's drivers I wasn't all that happy with - the performance boosts over time were impressive, but I hated the fact they kept breaking older games and then never bothered to fix them.
Back to the results.. interesting, but of course we'll have to see. I do remember the 8800GTX having really quite a performance advantage over the GTS, so it could well be that we see a pecking order of roughly 8800Ultra->8800GTX (OC)->X2900XTX->X2900XT->8800GTS
Pricing will determine where's best to head for, and this'll probably shake up quite quickly once the lower nm products come out.
Based on the the technical spec, it seems that the XT is not a major downgrade from the XTX - especially when bandwidth is not the bottleneck. And looking at the 1900x1200 numbers, it doesn't look like bandwidth is not too a huge issue even of 24" monitors for current games (at least at their detail settings).
I guess that AMD/ATI are going to be even more aggressive with their refresh than they did with the X1900 series: the X1800 arrived late, but provided performance parity with nVidia's offerings at the time (give or take depending on games). Whereas here, assuming the card is not bugged, they pretty unconfortably behind, even 5 months since the 8800GTX came out.
Having said that, the 2900 XT is still looking pretty good. And unless the 8800GTX undercut the XTX, will probably still look quite attractive even after this.
Anyone reckons the HD 2950XT gonna get sent in right after 8800 Ultra? :D
No one really expected the R580 until the R520 actually came out..
Perhaps then will it be better competition.. I'm just telling myself that as I really REALLY don't want AMD/ATI to flop this one..
Hmm this is a bit dissapointing. I expected more especially with all the hype that it's had.
All I can say is wait until it's released ;)