Radeon HD 2900 XT vs. 320MB 8800 GTS @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,718
Radeon HD 2900 XT vs. 320MB 8800 GTS - Following up on our initial Radeon HD 2900 XT evaluation, we aim to see how the 320 MB version of the GeForce 8800 GTS compares in games against the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. We have also included some Lost Planet demo DX9 testing with interesting results.

We hoped newer driver revisions would improve performance on the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. With the newer driver we used for this evaluation we did not see any “magic” happen when it comes to real world gaming experiences at resolutions at and above 1600x1200. The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is not even a match for even the much less expensive and much less power hungry 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS.
Click to expand...

PLEASE Digg to share!
 
I'm getting a [H] page with no article on that link.
 
Kyle,

I thought it was good, however...it might be personal taste, but I thought the image for 1942 here gave me pause.

1. I think the 2900XT looks a bit better overall (better left to right overall AA)
2. Why so little difference between 4x/16x and 16x/16x in terms of quality?

As for the fence image...yes TS filtering is very obvious.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Kyle,

I thought it was good, however...it might be personal taste, but I thought the image for 1942 here gave me pause.

1. I think the 2900XT looks a bit better overall (better left to right overall AA)
2. Why so little difference between 4x/16x and 16x/16x in terms of quality?

As for the fence image...yes TS filtering is very obvious.
Click to expand...

If you look at it you'll see the image with 16X AA has better AA by blending and smoothing the "stair steps" of the aliased lines. Zoom into the image and you will clearly see what's going on. In-game the differences are better seen in motion rather than just standing still, as you move through the game you notice less aliased lines shimmering in the distance.

Rabid Badger said:
Why was no overclocking comparison performed?
Click to expand...

That was not within the scope of this evaluation since this HD 2900 XT was supplied by ATI is not a retail boxed card. We will do overclocking with two Sapphire cards coming up.
 
Rabid Badger said:
Why was no overclocking comparison performed?
Click to expand...

Overclocking was not the focus of the article.

We are trying to change up our formats some to produce more focused and less diluted content on fewer pages. Basically saying what is important and getting away from re-regurgitation and 20 page articles. Sometimes 20 pages are needed, but not all the time.

If we do an OC article it really needs to include more power usage data and heat data and that simply did not fit into the scope of the article......looking again at the card with new drivers and how it stacked up to the competition out of the box.
 
Good article, but I wish you would have tested a larger array of games. There is alot of debate on how much impact newer drivers have had on the XT's performance, and I think if you would have included more games the bigger picture on GTS vs XT would have shown itself more clearly.
 
apcor said:
Good article, but I wish you would have tested a larger array of games. There is alot of debate on how much impact newer drivers have had on the XT's performance, and I think if you would have included more games the bigger picture on GTS vs XT would have shown itself more clearly.
Click to expand...


Given "larger array" to mean "older games" I would argue the opposite. We start testing all these older games and what really does it mean? Today's cards have more than enough horsepower to deliver a great gaming experience in most of these, that is exactly the reason we do not use them for comparison anymore. If you start trying to show what real experiences are to the gamer using many of those older games you quickly find out that you can turn on all the eye candy and then you are arguing over which frame rate is better, 225 or 265, and personally, I don't care and don't think anyone else should either. Our content is very expensive to produce so sitting around spending resources on tests games such like that are useless to us and inefficient when it comes to forming a valuable opinion about the hardware.

This is certainly not the first time we have used this focus either as you can read in the 8800 Ultra / SLI evaluation, although it is not a fully direct analogy, it still applies.

Why only two games you are asking? Currently the GeForce 8800 GTX delivers such a copious amount of 3D processing power that most games are wasted on it. We wanted to focus on two of the most popular shader-heavy games available now that natively scale to high resolution levels in order to see how performance stacks up between the GeForce 8800 GTX and GeForce 8800 Ultra.

We know that in Battlefield 2142 the 8800 GTX is able to run it well at 1600x1200 16X TR SSAA/16X AF. The GeForce 8800 Ultra simply gives you slightly faster framerates at the same, and in that type of game 16X TR SSAA is plenty. There is no point in even testing World of Warcraft, such an old game runs very well on the 8800 GTX, 1920x1200 with 16X AA as well, the Ultra would add slightly higher framerates. Flight Simulator X is so very CPU limited right now that all we can do is scale up AA settings, and both video cards can run it fine at 16X AA at 1920x1200. See the pattern?
Click to expand...

Bottom line is we focus on what we think is most important to our readers when it comes to making a buying decision. To make an extreme statement as to video card evaluations, "If a Quake 4 framerate demo is most important to you, then we are obviously not the site for you. And even if Quake 4 real world gameplay is important to you I would suggest that we are not going to be a good source of that either." Hopefully this answers your question given you did not actually mention any game titles.
 
it would have been nice to see some DX10 gaming comparisons, but those are very scarce I guess :cool:
 
LOL Well obviously [H] isn't the site for me to read reviews since I like reviews I can take seriously. :rolleyes:
 
Great review as always, though I agree with what mekkanic said:

mekkanic said:
it would have been nice to see some DX10 gaming comparisons, but those are very scarce I guess :cool:
Click to expand...

It would be nice to see some DX10 numbers, since we do have something now.
 
It would have been more interesting to see all the tests run in Vista, as that's clearly where the industry is going. I mean, heck, it's already required for some games sitting on store shelves today ('Shadowrun', for example, which I noticed wasn't tested).

I think when we have examples of major new games requiring a specific OS, and will no longer work on previous ones, we can call that the threshold to start testing with that OS instead of previous versions.
 
dderidex said:
It would have been more interesting to see all the tests run in Vista, as that's clearly where the industry is going. I mean, heck, it's already required for some games sitting on store shelves today ('Shadowrun', for example, which I noticed wasn't tested).

I think when we have examples of major new games requiring a specific OS, and will no longer work on previous ones, we can call that the threshold to start testing with that OS instead of previous versions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but IIRC [H] choose games based on popularity and also top selling titles, provided they do push the hardware.
 
Personally I find its a bit too early to do a follow-up on the drivers.

Ater all, the 8800 GTS has been on the market around 7-8 months, while the HD 2900 XT just arrived. Give ATI/AMD 2-3 driver revisions 'in the field', and the card would probably look better.

But its nice to see those 600 $ I spent on the 8800 GTS at release wasn't completely wasted.
 
43n1m4 said:
Personally I find its a bit too early to do a follow-up on the drivers.

Ater all, the 8800 GTS has been on the market around 7-8 months, while the HD 2900 XT just arrived. Give ATI/AMD 2-3 driver revisions 'in the field', and the card would probably look better.

But its nice to see those 600 $ I spent on the 8800 GTS at release wasn't completely wasted.
Click to expand...

Several people asked for a re-review with CAT 7.5. So now that it's done (and they did not produce any significant performance increase), AMD/ATI should still get more chances with the next driver release...? When is that going to end ?
 
interesting read, that's for sure... i keep hoping to read a front page article on [H] which sheds the shitskin currently coating the 2900; i'll have to keep reading the user-reviews i guess; i like hearing positive things about all current hardware (that could end up in my machine sometime soon) and i REALLY like the way the 2900 overclocks. can't wait for that crossfired sapphire 2900 review i believe was mentioned ;)

it's getting less fun to stick with my plan of skipping this generation altogether. however, i'm still not buyin a dx10 card until i can play a dx10 game that scores a 'MUST OWN' in a review.

how the flip can ATI be bested in a memory-reliant contest (specifically, oblivion grass) by the 320MB? i've looked again and again at stupid 2900 process schematics and nowhere within did they illustrate data moving through a shit-screen. and why can't my 7600's turn into an 8800 while i'm away at work?

i wish it was spring again, i don't like seeing my e4300 idling @ 40C :p
 
I would like to see some tests in Vista64 - Thats what I´m using right now with 2900xt and until now I didnt have single problem with drivers and everything I play is smooth in 1920x1200.:) :cool:
 
Silus said:
Several people asked for a re-review with CAT 7.5. So now that it's done (and they did not produce any significant performance increase), AMD/ATI should still get more chances with the next driver release...? When is that going to end ?
Click to expand...
Yeah really, just stop asking. Myself personally I just bought the card and moved on to reading more reliable websites. Like this. It's worked for me. :cool:
 
Fascinating review, great job guys. I've been entertaining the idea of building a new system for a few months now, so it's good to see that I can already get rock-solid card for $300 or less. I can only imagine what the situation will be like this winter, when UT3 (hopefully) comes out and I get serious about dropping significant change on a GPU.
 
I'm still of the opinion that ATi has spend far too much time worrying about raw shader power. The fact is that right now games are still depending more on raw pixel power than having a shader powerhouse. I mean, I've more than one benchmark where the 2900 can't even beat out the 1950 until you move into very high resolutions with AA/AF turned up, and then the 2900 shows it's bandwidth power...but not much else.

For now I think I'm going to continue to try and find an X1950 Crossfire master card and give Crossfire a go.
 
Silus said:
I agree because I don't care what kind of framerates today's cards get in old games. I still play Need for Speed Most Wanted and UT 2004 (which my lowly 7800 GTX crunches through with great ease), but it doesn't make sense to test these powerhouses of today, using games that don't push the hardware at all.

I really hope you include DX10 numbers soon enough. That's the only fault of this review IMHO.
Click to expand...

WE WANT DX10!!!!
WE WANT DX10!!!!
WE WANT DX10!!!!
What about the Lost Planet DX10 version of the demo?
 
Dwight said:
Yeah really, just stop asking. Myself personally I just bought the card and moved on to reading more reliable websites. Like this. It's worked for me. :cool:
Click to expand...

They why the fuck do you continue to post here? If you don't like the [H] reviews and their conclusions, then go read FiringSquat or one of the more "reputable" :rolleyes: sites that people like you always like to quote.
 
digitalfreak said:
They why the fuck do you continue to post here? If you don't like the [H] reviews and their conclusions, then go read FiringSquat or one of the more "reputable" :rolleyes: sites that people like you always like to quote.
Click to expand...
Oh, oh, I just love it when with people like you roll out the "people like you". LOL

Fortunately I don't have to read the reviews to read and post on the boards. Or did I miss something in the Agreement when signing up for my account here? On these boards there are people that are posting links to other places here. Lots of other places. Plus there are people providing some firsthand info about various things.

Of course there might be better boards out there for info on numerous subjects. But this isn't the only board I read either and I'm really, really sure limiting myself to only this board was not in that Agreement. I looked close for that one. ;)
 
I noticed that a couple sites have pointed out that Vista and Unreal Engine 3 (Rainbow 6) favored the XT over the GTS. The point of the review was did ATI create a card that was designed for Vista/DX10/the one engine everyone is using.

I'll see if I can find it again. I seem to recall the XT getting fps that matched high end 8800 cards in Rainbow Six.

Since I run Vista I was going to get an XT, the frame difference were very noticeable in reviews. It went 8800=XP and XT=Vista.
 
Dwight said:
Yeah really, just stop asking. Myself personally I just bought the card and moved on to reading more reliable websites. Like this. It's worked for me. :cool:
Click to expand...

So, what's it like in your universe? Does your mighty 4.5GHz Pentium 4 beat these lowly 3.0 GHz Core 2s?
 
apcor said:
Sorry, I think I should have been more specific. By "larger array" I only meant a few more games (like 7 or 8 rather than just 4), and not necessarily "older". Rainbow 6 vegas gives my GTX a hard time, Call of Juarez, Dirt. Just a few examples which could shed a bit more light and hopefully not set you back on expense too much. Just think of the versus threads you might squash! Again I did like the article, just trying to be constructive.
Click to expand...

i've been asking [H] to put rainbow six vegas in their test from as far back as the 8800 gts 320 launch. same answer comes back: not popular enough. now that splinter cell double agent has dropped to 19.99 on direct2drive maybe enough people will pick it up and give [H] a reason to add at least one unreal 3 to their game stable of tests.
 
rennyf77 said:
i've been asking [H] to put rainbow six vegas in their test from as far back as the 8800 gts 320 launch. same answer comes back: not popular enough. now that splinter cell double agent has dropped to 19.99 on direct2drive maybe enough people will pick it up and give [H] a reason to add at least one unreal 3 to their game stable of tests.
Click to expand...

$19.99?? I might have to check that out... maybe even just load up Chaos Theory, I never finished that game...
 
Dwight said:
LOL Well obviously [H] isn't the site for me to read reviews since I like reviews I can take seriously. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dwight said:
Yeah really, just stop asking. Myself personally I just bought the card and moved on to reading more reliable websites. Like this. It's worked for me. :cool:
Click to expand...

Dwight said:
Oh, oh, I just love it when with people like you roll out the "people like you". LOL

Fortunately I don't have to read the reviews to read and post on the boards. Or did I miss something in the Agreement when signing up for my account here? On these boards there are people that are posting links to other places here. Lots of other places. Plus there are people providing some firsthand info about various things.

Of course there might be better boards out there for info on numerous subjects. But this isn't the only board I read either and I'm really, really sure limiting myself to only this board was not in that Agreement. I looked close for that one. ;)
Click to expand...

please move along now, you have made your point very clear, you are not happy with the results you find here

on topic:

enough with the DX10 stuff guys!! :D

this was a cost/performance comparison done to follow up a poor R600 introduction, giving yet another angle to see if there was some other reason to maybe jump on the R600 GPU based x2900, people want to know where their money is best spent, they answered that clearly, of course there will be a Vista/DX10 follow up, but by the time there's enough to do a proper review with on that subject there will likely be better hardware already out anyways....
 
Dwight said:
Oh, oh, I just love it when with people like you roll out the "people like you". LOL

Fortunately I don't have to read the reviews to read and post on the boards. Or did I miss something in the Agreement when signing up for my account here? On these boards there are people that are posting links to other places here. Lots of other places. Plus there are people providing some firsthand info about various things.

Of course there might be better boards out there for info on numerous subjects. But this isn't the only board I read either and I'm really, really sure limiting myself to only this board was not in that Agreement. I looked close for that one. ;)
Click to expand...


I personally don't put any weight on your postings, but obviously others are bothered by it, enough to start considering you a troll or at the very least posting off-topic.

By your own admission you don't read the content, so you should not be commenting on it IMO. If you have bones to pick with HardOCP, please do it in a thread that is on topic. Thanks.

Your opinions are noted, please move along so we can get focused on the hardware and not what Dwight has to say.
 
nobody_here said:
of course there will be a Vista/DX10 follow up, but by the time there's enough to do a proper review with on that subject there will likely be better hardware already out anyways....
Click to expand...

For a while, that might just be the last frontier. We don't have an array of DX10 titles or mature DX10 drivers (for that matter we may not have a mature DX10 OS). I really liked the review, and thanks to [H] I've been very happy with my 8800 card purchase a few months ago. And, yet, it's boring. I don't quite remember a time when we've had so much power at our disposal, and still it feels vanilla and sleepy. Maybe I'm waiting for quantum computers or the end of silicon. Either way, it's not looking good for AMD/ATI. Was hoping for a better show.
 
Dwight said:
Yeah really, just stop asking. Myself personally I just bought the card and moved on to reading more reliable websites. Like this. It's worked for me. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yea you're definitely a guerrilla marketer.

I also feel that H is slacking by not adding any Unreal Engine 3 games onto their list of games to test. Even still. this review really made my change my decision from buying a 640mb GTS to a 320mb GTS. I have two 19in LCD's that are stuck at 1280x1024 max resolution. Only a few games allow me to play spanned across both so this320mb GTS should be a good upgrade from my $270 7900GTO. What do you guys think?
 
XamediX said:
Yea you're definitely a guerrilla marketer.

I also feel that H is slacking by not adding any Unreal Engine 3 games onto their list of games to test. Even still. this review really made my change my decision from buying a 640mb GTS to a 320mb GTS. I have two 19in LCD's that are stuck at 1280x1024 max resolution. Only a few games allow me to play spanned across both so this320mb GTS should be a good upgrade from my $270 7900GTO. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

The 320 will eat that resolution alive. I wouldn't spend extra for the 640 to play at 1280/1024.

I play at 1600/1200 on mine, and it eats that resolution alive too on anything I play with high setting and AA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top