backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 30 comment(s) - last by P4blo.. on May 28 at 9:05 AM

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT @ t-break
DailyTech's roundup of reviews from around the web for Monday

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT
@ PCPerspective
@ HWUpgrade.IT
@ Tech Report
@ t-break
@ Hot Hardware
@ TweakTown
@ Phoronix
@ Driver Heaven
@ Bjorn3D
@ Altgamer.org
@ Elite Bastards
@ VR Zone
@ IT-review
@ Legit Reviews
@ OCC
@ Hardware Secrets
@ Guru3D
@ techPowerUp
@ Chile Hardware

Motherboards
MSI K9AGM2-FIH Motherboard @ PCSTATS.com
XFX 680i LT SLI Motherboard @ TweakTown

Memory
OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper HPC Edition @ X-bit Labs
Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8500 @ Auphanonline.com

Video
Asus EN8800GTX 768Mb Videocard @ Rbmods

Displays/TVs
BenQ FP241VW 24" LCD @ 3dGameMan

Cooling
Thermaltake Mini Typhoon Value Pack @ ThinkComputers.org
Nexus NHP-2200 Silent North Bridge Cooler @ XtremeComputing

Power Supplies
Tt Toughpower 1200w PSU @ OC Cafe

Storage
ASUS DRW-1814BLT SATA 18x DVD±RW/RAM @ CDRLabs.com

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By Ard on 5/14/2007 2:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By yxalitis on 5/14/2007 3:55:40 AM , Rating: 4
Really: Try reading this:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2900_XT/...
And this:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/449/10
And here:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1100/14/page_14_...
And Here:
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx...

So, one article in 5 shows a poor performace...Check Mate?
According to the majority, the 2900 XT nearly matches the GTX.


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By P4blo on 5/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By ioKain on 5/14/2007 8:47:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You can stack it up against the GTS if you like but that's not what AMD had intended originally.


Wrong.


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By P4blo on 5/28/2007 9:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
If the R600 performance had been anything like as good as they'd hoped (they certainly went for the performance crown with the hardware spec) then they would have sold an XTX to blow away the GTX. They couldn't compete so ditched the XTX model and *renamed it* the XT.

You cant tell me that from day one they said 'Ahh screw it, we cant be bothered with the performance crown'. Piffle.

Stop being such a fanboy.


By Sh0ckwave on 5/14/2007 8:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
I want to read Anandtech's review, whats taking them so long...


By redbone75 on 5/14/2007 8:04:12 AM , Rating: 1
Let me ask you something: Do you play games or benchmarks?


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By bfellow on 5/14/2007 9:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
According to the majority the 8800 GTX beats the HD2900XT. Did you not read the articles?


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By elegault on 5/14/2007 10:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
The 2900XT is to be positioned against the 8800GTS, the price matches none-the-less. The 2900XTX is to be positioned against the 8800GTX/Ultra.


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh...the first sign: denial.


By redbone75 on 5/14/2007 7:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
I prefer checking out HardOCP.com's videocard reviews as they are, IMO, the most dependable. The only knock I have against this particular review is that the cards used are not retail cards. Still, it's a good read even though it doesn't paint a rosy picture for the 2900.


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By TechLuster on 5/14/2007 7:36:21 PM , Rating: 3
I already posted this in DT's 2900 launch article, but it seems relevant here also:

----------------------------------------

A few weeks ago, [H]ard|OCP gave a glowing review of the 8600 GTS, in which they concluded that it soundly beats the X1950 PRO (for now, we'll ignore the fact that they were comparing the $150 1950 to $220 OC'ed versions of the GTS, which cost roughly 50% more). Of course, every other review on the web concluded that in the best cases, the 8600 GTS keeps up with Ati's 1950 Pro, and in the worst case is completely embarassed by the 1950; in several cases, even a stock 7900 GS can cream the 8600 GTS.

So when they stated in the intro of their HD 2900 XT review that the 8600 offers "the best performance in [its] class," I was reminded of their deceptively positive review of the 8600, and thus was not a bit surprised when they showed the 8800 GTS outperforming the 2900 XT in virtually ALL cases. Most reviews I've seen so far have had the 2900 keeping up with, and in some cases soundly beating, the 8800 GTS in at least a few significant games (see, e.g., Rainbow Six: Vegas in AnandTech's review).

I won't go as far as to say that [H]ard|OCP massaged or fabricated data, but I do think they deliberately chose their tests in both their 8600 and 2900 reviews to make the ATI parts look bad.

In any case, I don't think any of us can ever trust that website again.

Here are the relevant links:

[H] 8600 review:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM...

[H] 2900 review:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM...

AnandTech Rainbow Six: Vegas benchmark of the 2900 & 8800:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988...


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By schmunk on 5/17/2007 8:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah! They turned on all the special effects and features just to show that the 8800GTS was faster with all the extras, and then they increased the resolution to show the advantage it had on larger screens. Plus, rather than sticking to benchmarks, they actualy played the games, what deception! Who buys a video card to turn all the features on and play games? Everyone knows we only use them to run 3dmark at 1280 by 1040 on 17" monitors.
Seriously, I have owned both companies cards, and I will buy whatever gives me a better value, and I like to turn every feature on and game widesceen, my 8800GTS 640 superclock was only $370, and I can run two on my 650W PSU. If you can't read HardOCP review and understand it, you are doomed to waste your money, but it's your choice.


RE: ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT a "Flop"
By schmunk on 5/18/2007 2:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
I just want to say how wrong this claim is by TechLuster:

"I won't go as far as to say that [H]ard|OCP massaged or fabricated data, but I do think they deliberately chose their tests in both their 8600 and 2900 reviews to make the ATI parts look bad.
In any case, I don't think any of us can ever trust that website again."

HardOCP has been reviewing cards like this for four years now. Kyle Bennett HardOCP Editor-in-Chief himself said,

"I was telling Brent the other day, that even though we went to this "real world gaming" format over 4 years ago, that is it just now truly coming into its own and I think this evaluation is the crowning jewel when it comes to showing why the way we do it gives our readers better information than canned benchmarks and time demos.
Interestingly enough, it was ATI's image quality superiority that pushed me to make the changes back then."

That original review was of the 9700Pro, and I bought one based on the review, and loved it.
You can't say its no fair when your favorite brand gets a bad review!

I have been in contact with Kyle for years now, and he is a true advocate of the consumer, and fully supports your right to buy whatever brand offers you the best value. They have pointed out strengths and weaknesses in all hardware, no matter if it's Nvidia or ATI, Intel or AMD. Kyle had routinely refused to review engineering samples of hardware and systems to instead review off the shelf hardware for yours and my own benefit, showing us what we can expect. You couldn't have slandered a fairer site!

If you take time and really read through the review, it makes a lot of sense to move away from caned benchmarks and design specs, and instead to run games the way we run them, turning on features to give the best experience possible while maintaining a frame rate high enough for smooth and enjoyable game play.
Also, doesn't it make you wonder why at any resolution higher than the one in this review, that the card can no longer perform with any features turned on?
Think people-what about the power requirements, what about the filtering comparison, what about the blurred tent AA modes, what about the fact that the ring bus never added up to an advantage before, bandwidth doesn't matter if the GPU can't keep up with it. Everyone in this forum says extra memory doesn't do anything for the 8800s (which I disagree with, developers of DOOM3 pushed to add ultra mode for 512MB, they could always add higher frame buffer modes for the Nvidia card, and they also scale better at high resolutions), but no one considers extra bandwidth could be useless.
-Anyone that throws out a in depth review of this card on HardOCP without even asking a few questions isn't looking for the best card, they are only interesting in believing that ATI made a better card.
And no one in the high tech community benefits when someone slanders a quality web site and good people without looking into the facts first.


By Puddleglum1 on 5/14/2007 2:55:43 PM , Rating: 3
By clemedia on 5/14/2007 11:23:52 PM , Rating: 1
Terribly done review too. Whats with the colors on the graphs meaning different cards for different games? CONSISTENCY PLEASE! After about 3 games I just stopped looking at the review and went to a different site.


By ioKain on 5/15/2007 9:00:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Terribly done review too. Whats with the colors on the graphs meaning different cards for different games? CONSISTENCY PLEASE! After about 3 games I just stopped looking at the review and went to a different site.


I hope for your sake that you're just joking.


mixed...
By Mithan on 5/14/2007 1:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
My feelings are mixed on this card.

It isn't a bad card, but it sure as hell isn't something that makes me go "WOW" either.

Anyways, hopefully a few more driver revisions get another 10-15% performance out of the card (likely). I am sure a few of the games are currently slightly broken as well and will see some huge performance increases.

Either way, I hope the card does good for AMD because they sure as hell need a success at the moment and as they say, strong competition for nVidia only keeps prices down.




RE: mixed...
By redbone75 on 5/14/2007 7:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree with you there. ANY company, not just videocard manufacturers, are going to try to squeeze every last cent they can out of their products. Look at the 8800 Ultra: $850US? Are you kidding me?! And for only a mild overclock? Just goes to show that options breeds honesty. There is no option in the 8800 Ultra's price range, so nvidia feel they can charge the highest price they can and get away with it.

It's unfortunate that ATI seriously dropped the ball on this one, and they knew it. I'm sure it was just too late in the development of R600 to make any major changes to it, as the card has been tremendously delayed already. You can bet your bottom dollar, though, that they've already been hard at work on a refresh/replacement. For their sake they'd better be.


RE: mixed...
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2007 9:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
T