PDA

View Full Version : R600 Launches today...



TgD Thunderbolt56
05-14-2007, 08:17 AM
...and reviews have it comparable to the 8800GTS. Still well below the 8800GTX.

Here's one of many reviews: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


TB

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-14-2007, 08:17 AM
...and reviews have it comparable to the 8800GTS. Still well below the 8800GTX.

Here's one of many reviews: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


TB

Vike
05-14-2007, 08:21 AM
Thx! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 08:22 AM
It's about time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Although I miss the old days where each new card would actually be better than the competition's as opposed to comparable to it.

But at least with a little competition we may start to see some realistic pricing again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Airmail109
05-14-2007, 08:23 AM
Thats bollocks

heres another, from gibbo who runs overclockers.co.uk it was posted on their forums ...hes had one under NDA for ages

System Specification
To begin with we started testing on an Intel based system to see how well the card managed with Intel fastest processor today, the QX6800. The system specification was the following:-
Intel QX6700 @ 3.00GHz (1333FSB)
DFI ATI RD600 Motherboard
Corsair PC2-8888 (1150MHz) CAS4 DDR2 Memory
WD Raptor 150GB 10,000rpm HDD
Creative SB Fatal1ty Sound Card
Antec P900 Case
Enermax 1000W PSU
Windows XP Pro
Windows Vista Premium
BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC 768MB GDDR3 (600MHz Core / 1800MHz Memory)
ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (750MHz Core / 1600MHz Memory)


Drivers
Installation with the NVIDIA card was easy under both operating systems. In testing all applications ran but Farcry had minor corruptions under both Windows XP and Vista which must be an issue with NVIDIA's drivers. Also the Farcry benchmark programme would not run with the NVIDIA card under windows Vista. Apart from that the BFG card gave good results under Windows XP but it was noticeably slower under Windows Vista which clearly says NVIDIA still have a lot of room to make improvements on their Vista drivers.

Moving on the ATI HD 2900XT was also an easy installation under both Windows XP and Vista. All I will say is make sure that on release the cards also have the dotnet software as part of the installation too as to prevent any installation issues. Under Vista the ATI installation was very polished and superior to NVIDIA's attempt.
Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did.


Benchmark / Game results

NVIDIA BFG 8800 GTX OC (Overclocked) vs ATI R600 (HD 2900) at stock speeds (Overdrive ATI Speeds = 850MHz / 1800MHz)

Windows Vista

NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 57fps
ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 68fps (71fps OC)

NVIDIA Farcry (1920x1200) = Crashes on benchmark programme
ATI Farcry (1920x1200) = Looks similar speed with better image quality and does not crash (54fps)

NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 154.28fps
ATI AquaMark Default Test = 155.36fps (159.54fps OC)

NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 33/64/140
ATI Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 22/54/108 (Possible driver issue here?)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 16,097
ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,025 (17,457 OC)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,504
ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,500 (12,504 OC)


Windows XP

NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 71fps
ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 70fps

NVIDIA Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 51fps
ATI Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 55fps (ATI better IQ)

NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 163.43fps
ATI AquaMark Default Test = 158.37fps

NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 34/67/158
ATI Fear 1920x1200, Settings max = 23/57/142

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,250
ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,110 (17,554 OC)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,950
ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,788 (12,617 OC)


As you can see from the results in brackets I overclocked the ATI card using the overdrive utility to compare against the BFG overclocked card. I ran the ATI overdrive utility which maxed out both sliders. The new clock speed were 850MHz Core and 1800MHz memory, even at these clock speeds the card still remained both cool and quiet. Now onto the results well I was very impressed as now the ATI card was pulling ahead of the NVIDIA card under Windows XP and under Windows Vista the R600 was considerably ahead of NVIDIA's offering.
So in 3D Mark 2005, 3D Mark 2006, AquaMark, DOOM3, FarCry the ATI card won on both performance and image quality. It was only Fear where NVIDIA had quite a good lead which is no doubt due to the fact it's a "best played on NVIDIA" game possibly or drivers?


Summary
Overall from my early testing the new ATI HD 2900XT 512MB looks like a serious contender to the GTX and GTS 640MB for gamers and benchmarkers. The only disappointing results were in the game called Fear but everything else was faster on the ATI product. The ATI card was also quieter and cooler running with fantastic overclocking potential. The product is a little more expensive than a GTS 640MB but cost considerably less than a GTX. So considering the card already has fantastic Vista drivers and far superior features to NVIDIA's offerings such as HDMI along with better video editing and DVD abilities does indeed make the HD 2900 XT worth while considering.

If your thinking of buying a new high-end card then I would suggest you don't make your decision based just on my review because my game testing is limited and as such I would recommend you check reviews done by professionals on a wider range of games before making your decision. If I was buying a graphics card and 300 was my limit then yes the HD 2900 XT would be my choice not only because its about the best performer in this price region but due to the fact it has great features, has little to no performance hit under Vista and is very overclockable. It appears most HD 2900 XT cards hit 850MHz-900MHz core and upto 2000MHz memory and beyond. However if you want the best then it does seem that the GTX does offer a performance edge on most games under Windows XP, but under Windows Vista the R600 based card is keeping pace with the 8800 GTX and for a lot less money in the programmes I tested.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-14-2007, 08:25 AM
As with the first versions of the 8xxx the driver do not yet support all the features completely. There are newer drivers on the way, though.

The ATI HD2900XT is aimed as a competitor for the 8800GTS with 640MB and it seems to compete with that quite good, though AA & AF seem to have a real bad effect with the current drivers.

During the summer the production is shifted to 65nm chips, allowing a less power-consuming architecture. The R650 called chips will also be used in the HD2900XTX, which is planned to compete with the 8800Ultra.


The current tests are not much more than a preview and there are no tests on image quality, yet, which is a real pitty, cause that was always the strength of ATI, while nVidia ran for pure frames per second.

Airmail109
05-14-2007, 08:27 AM
The 2900Xt is as fast as the GTX and faster thanthe GTS, it also overclocks better than both according to Gibbo

The 2900Xt is better under Vista than the Nvideas in both OpenGL And DirectX

Capt.LoneRanger
05-14-2007, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting!

Sounds like ATI further concentrated on image and rendering quality.

It's also noteworthy, that the fan-control is not working with current drivers. The fans are automatically controlled, depending on the temperature of the GPU - apparently, the fan is either 0 or 100% turning.

Airmail109
05-14-2007, 08:32 AM
The comparable to the Gts thing was a rumour started about a week ago by the inquirer or some site like it, I bet those guys haven't even got their hands on the real card....

JG52Uther
05-14-2007, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Thats bollocks

heres another, from gibbo who runs overclockers.co.uk it was posted on their forums ...hes had one under NDA for ages

System Specification
To begin with we started testing on an Intel based system to see how well the card managed with Intel fastest processor today, the QX6800. The system specification was the following:-
Intel QX6700 @ 3.00GHz (1333FSB)
DFI ATI RD600 Motherboard
Corsair PC2-8888 (1150MHz) CAS4 DDR2 Memory
WD Raptor 150GB 10,000rpm HDD
Creative SB Fatal1ty Sound Card
Antec P900 Case
Enermax 1000W PSU
Windows XP Pro
Windows Vista Premium
BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC 768MB GDDR3 (600MHz Core / 1800MHz Memory)
ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (750MHz Core / 1600MHz Memory)


Drivers
Installation with the NVIDIA card was easy under both operating systems. In testing all applications ran but Farcry had minor corruptions under both Windows XP and Vista which must be an issue with NVIDIA's drivers. Also the Farcry benchmark programme would not run with the NVIDIA card under windows Vista. Apart from that the BFG card gave good results under Windows XP but it was noticeably slower under Windows Vista which clearly says NVIDIA still have a lot of room to make improvements on their Vista drivers.

Moving on the ATI HD 2900XT was also an easy installation under both Windows XP and Vista. All I will say is make sure that on release the cards also have the dotnet software as part of the installation too as to prevent any installation issues. Under Vista the ATI installation was very polished and superior to NVIDIA's attempt.
Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did.


Benchmark / Game results

NVIDIA BFG 8800 GTX OC (Overclocked) vs ATI R600 (HD 2900) at stock speeds (Overdrive ATI Speeds = 850MHz / 1800MHz)

Windows Vista

NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 57fps
ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 68fps (71fps OC)

NVIDIA Farcry (1920x1200) = Crashes on benchmark programme
ATI Farcry (1920x1200) = Looks similar speed with better image quality and does not crash (54fps)

NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 154.28fps
ATI AquaMark Default Test = 155.36fps (159.54fps OC)

NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 33/64/140
ATI Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 22/54/108 (Possible driver issue here?)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 16,097
ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,025 (17,457 OC)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,504
ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,500 (12,504 OC)


Windows XP

NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 71fps
ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 70fps

NVIDIA Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 51fps
ATI Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 55fps (ATI better IQ)

NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 163.43fps
ATI AquaMark Default Test = 158.37fps

NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 34/67/158
ATI Fear 1920x1200, Settings max = 23/57/142

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,250
ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,110 (17,554 OC)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,950
ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,788 (12,617 OC)


As you can see from the results in brackets I overclocked the ATI card using the overdrive utility to compare against the BFG overclocked card. I ran the ATI overdrive utility which maxed out both sliders. The new clock speed were 850MHz Core and 1800MHz memory, even at these clock speeds the card still remained both cool and quiet. Now onto the results well I was very impressed as now the ATI card was pulling ahead of the NVIDIA card under Windows XP and under Windows Vista the R600 was considerably ahead of NVIDIA's offering.
So in 3D Mark 2005, 3D Mark 2006, AquaMark, DOOM3, FarCry the ATI card won on both performance and image quality. It was only Fear where NVIDIA had quite a good lead which is no doubt due to the fact it's a "best played on NVIDIA" game possibly or drivers?


Summary
Overall from my early testing the new ATI HD 2900XT 512MB looks like a serious contender to the GTX and GTS 640MB for gamers and benchmarkers. The only disappointing results were in the game called Fear but everything else was faster on the ATI product. The ATI card was also quieter and cooler running with fantastic overclocking potential. The product is a little more expensive than a GTS 640MB but cost considerably less than a GTX. So considering the card already has fantastic Vista drivers and far superior features to NVIDIA's offerings such as HDMI along with better video editing and DVD abilities does indeed make the HD 2900 XT worth while considering.

If your thinking of buying a new high-end card then I would suggest you don't make your decision based just on my review because my game testing is limited and as such I would recommend you check reviews done by professionals on a wider range of games before making your decision. If I was buying a graphics card and 300 was my limit then yes the HD 2900 XT would be my choice not only because its about the best performer in this price region but due to the fact it has great features, has little to no performance hit under Vista and is very overclockable. It appears most HD 2900 XT cards hit 850MHz-900MHz core and upto 2000MHz memory and beyond. However if you want the best then it does seem that the GTX does offer a performance edge on most games under Windows XP, but under Windows Vista the R600 based card is keeping pace with the 8800 GTX and for a lot less money in the programmes I tested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
HA I would not trust anything said by anyone who works for that bunch of incompetent sharks

Airmail109
05-14-2007, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Thats bollocks

heres another, from gibbo who runs overclockers.co.uk it was posted on their forums ...hes had one under NDA for ages

System Specification
To begin with we started testing on an Intel based system to see how well the card managed with Intel fastest processor today, the QX6800. The system specification was the following:-
Intel QX6700 @ 3.00GHz (1333FSB)
DFI ATI RD600 Motherboard
Corsair PC2-8888 (1150MHz) CAS4 DDR2 Memory
WD Raptor 150GB 10,000rpm HDD
Creative SB Fatal1ty Sound Card
Antec P900 Case
Enermax 1000W PSU
Windows XP Pro
Windows Vista Premium
BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC 768MB GDDR3 (600MHz Core / 1800MHz Memory)
ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (750MHz Core / 1600MHz Memory)


Drivers
Installation with the NVIDIA card was easy under both operating systems. In testing all applications ran but Farcry had minor corruptions under both Windows XP and Vista which must be an issue with NVIDIA's drivers. Also the Farcry benchmark programme would not run with the NVIDIA card under windows Vista. Apart from that the BFG card gave good results under Windows XP but it was noticeably slower under Windows Vista which clearly says NVIDIA still have a lot of room to make improvements on their Vista drivers.

Moving on the ATI HD 2900XT was also an easy installation under both Windows XP and Vista. All I will say is make sure that on release the cards also have the dotnet software as part of the installation too as to prevent any installation issues. Under Vista the ATI installation was very polished and superior to NVIDIA's attempt.
Image quality was on par with NVIDIA for 2D and general windows applications. The noise levels of the card was quieter both at idle and underload, the card also ran cooler than an 8800GTX does as well, these are great points. Performance the card was every so slightly slower than the 8800GTX under windows XP, but this was less than 5%. However under Windows Vista the ATI card was quicker in both Direct3D and OpenGL application plus the card was more stable too and had no issues running my Farcry benchmarks unlike the NVIDIA card. Plus the ATI also displayed NO visual corruptions at all in Farcry wheras the NVIDIA card did.


Benchmark / Game results

NVIDIA BFG 8800 GTX OC (Overclocked) vs ATI R600 (HD 2900) at stock speeds (Overdrive ATI Speeds = 850MHz / 1800MHz)

Windows Vista

NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 57fps
ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 68fps (71fps OC)

NVIDIA Farcry (1920x1200) = Crashes on benchmark programme
ATI Farcry (1920x1200) = Looks similar speed with better image quality and does not crash (54fps)

NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 154.28fps
ATI AquaMark Default Test = 155.36fps (159.54fps OC)

NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 33/64/140
ATI Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 22/54/108 (Possible driver issue here?)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 16,097
ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,025 (17,457 OC)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,504
ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,500 (12,504 OC)


Windows XP

NVIDIA DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 71fps
ATI DOOM3 1600x1200, settings max, 8x = 70fps

NVIDIA Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 51fps
ATI Farcry 1920x1200, 8x AF & 8x AA = 55fps (ATI better IQ)

NVIDIA AquaMark Default Test = 163.43fps
ATI AquaMark Default Test = 158.37fps

NVIDIA Fear 1920x1200, settings max = 34/67/158
ATI Fear 1920x1200, Settings max = 23/57/142

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,250
ATI 3D Mark 2005 Default test = 17,110 (17,554 OC)

NVIDIA 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,950
ATI 3D Mark 2006 Default test = 11,788 (12,617 OC)


As you can see from the results in brackets I overclocked the ATI card using the overdrive utility to compare against the BFG overclocked card. I ran the ATI overdrive utility which maxed out both sliders. The new clock speed were 850MHz Core and 1800MHz memory, even at these clock speeds the card still remained both cool and quiet. Now onto the results well I was very impressed as now the ATI card was pulling ahead of the NVIDIA card under Windows XP and under Windows Vista the R600 was considerably ahead of NVIDIA's offering.
So in 3D Mark 2005, 3D Mark 2006, AquaMark, DOOM3, FarCry the ATI card won on both performance and image quality. It was only Fear where NVIDIA had quite a good lead which is no doubt due to the fact it's a "best played on NVIDIA" game possibly or drivers?


Summary
Overall from my early testing the new ATI HD 2900XT 512MB looks like a serious contender to the GTX and GTS 640MB for gamers and benchmarkers. The only disappointing results were in the game called Fear but everything else was faster on the ATI product. The ATI card was also quieter and cooler running with fantastic overclocking potential. The product is a little more expensive than a GTS 640MB but cost considerably less than a GTX. So considering the card already has fantastic Vista drivers and far superior features to NVIDIA's offerings such as HDMI along with better video editing and DVD abilities does indeed make the HD 2900 XT worth while considering.

If your thinking of buying a new high-end card then I would suggest you don't make your decision based just on my review because my game testing is limited and as such I would recommend you check reviews done by professionals on a wider range of games before making your decision. If I was buying a graphics card and 300 was my limit then yes the HD 2900 XT would be my choice not only because its about the best performer in this price region but due to the fact it has great features, has little to no performance hit under Vista and is very overclockable. It appears most HD 2900 XT cards hit 850MHz-900MHz core and upto 2000MHz memory and beyond. However if you want the best then it does seem that the GTX does offer a performance edge on most games under Windows XP, but under Windows Vista the R600 based card is keeping pace with the 8800 GTX and for a lot less money in the programmes I tested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
HA I would not trust anything said by anyone who works for that bunch of incompetent sharks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Meh, I found OCuk to be really good....oh well

Jaws2002
05-14-2007, 12:43 PM
There's a fresh in detail review on guru3d site.
Tests included.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/

I hope the new ATI cards sell really good so they can stay in business.
I would hate to see only one company selling graphic cards. Only competition brings progress.

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

I hope the new ATI cards sell really good so they can stay in business.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As AMD owns ATI, I really don't think there is much to worry about, there.

Jaws2002
05-14-2007, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freelancer-1:


As AMD owns ATI, I really don't think there is much to worry about, there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly why i'n worried about it.
Amd is not doing too great in it's fight with Intel either. Intel's core 2 Duo and constant price cuts hit AMD sales really bad.
If they (AMD/ATI) mess up now, we could be left with only INTEL and NVIDIA.
That means slow progress and high prices. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Jaws2002
05-14-2007, 01:13 PM
BTW. What is this http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif suppose to mean? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 01:20 PM
Jaws,

AMD could lead master classes on being the underdog.

They're up, then down, then up again.

When their quad core (some say the only true quad core) is released they may once again become the gamers choice for CPUs.

ATI is no stranger to playing second fiddle, either.

No, I'm not concerned in the least at this point.

Oh...

The icon thingy...

Dunno

Jaws2002
05-14-2007, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Jaws,

AMD could lead master classes on being the underdog.

They're up, then down, then up again.

When their quad core (some say the only true quad core) is released they may once again become the gamers choice for CPUs.

ATI is no stranger to playing second fiddle, either.

No, I'm not concerned in the least at this point.

Oh...

The icon thingy...

Dunno </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Financially AMD is not doing too good. You can find a lot of info on some forums. they have cash flow problems and ATI costs right now about half of what they paid for it.

The Quad core amd is going to have reall tough competition from the next gen Intel chips. The 45nm architecture.
They'll start building them sooner then all expected. We could have Penryn on the market early Q4 this year just to keep pressure on AMD.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-14-2007, 01:41 PM
O.K. I only posted a single link as I knew others would have some as well, but it's not my intention to fan the fanboi fires...merely to help eliminate ignorance.

Accordingly, here is a plethora of reviews:

German
http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/radeon_hd_2900_xt/index13.php

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/449

http://www.hartware.de/review_707.html


Spanish
http://www.chilehardware.com/Revisiones/Tarjetas-de-Vid...XT-200705131808.html (http://www.chilehardware.com/Revisiones/Tarjetas-de-Video/ATI-Radeon-HD2900XT-200705131808.html)

And, of course, English
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/16

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r600reviewz/index.php

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2128867,00.asp

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8687

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2900_XT__R600_Has_Arrived/

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/radeon-hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=1

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1100/ati_radeon_hd_29...u_arrives/index.html (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1100/ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt_amd_s_long_awaited_r600_dx10 _gpu_arrives/index.html)


Hopefully one of these links will tell each and everyone what they want to hear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jaws2002
05-14-2007, 01:43 PM
http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif


I found this in the list of smilies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Airmail109
05-14-2007, 02:40 PM
The X2900Xt kicks the GTXs but in Oblivion, but not in other games, which makes me think its got driver issues at the moment....apparently some new beta drivers give it a 10-35 percent performance increase

Anyway, Ill get the XTX when its out as ATIs have always been reliabe

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8417/driverpwnagewo3.jpg


The card will get better, every review has stated so far they have found oddities due to the pre mature drivers 2900.......since this has happened many a time in the past and ATi's track record with drivers I have full confidence they will sort it.

staticline1
05-14-2007, 02:45 PM
Thanks for the posting, now here's hoping some of the prices of the older cards comes down. Things can only get better from here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

sunflower1
05-14-2007, 03:26 PM
AMD hasn't returned its cost of capital in the last decade. That's bad. You'd have been better off parting out the company and buying t-bills with the proceeds. Grim.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AMD&t=my

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=AMD&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=intc

The world bought PC's and these guys couldn't buy a vowel, at least they had one to start. I'll be trying out that R650.

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 04:38 PM
Bummer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VW-IceFire
05-14-2007, 05:34 PM
I know the super prestige enthusiasts are saying that the HD 2900XT is a disappointment but I don't really think it is. This is a problem for AMD but market wise I hope its not.

First they can probably win out big time with the multimedia PC crowd. If that industry takes off like it keeps almost doing then ATI/AMD has a big winner here. The full HDMI plus on board sound capability is huge once the low end cards come.

Second the HD 2900XT is seemingly a very powerful card that is performing well. Its not winning the best of the benchmarks versus nVidia but its supposed to have a 399 USD MRSP which is awesome because its performance, in general, seems to be better than its contemporaries at that price.

For the people who must have the super fastest ultra powerful mega card and the system to back that up...then this isn't a winner. But for everyone else this is pretty good. I'm waiting to see what the HD 2600XT is like...that'll be interesting to see.

One other big bonus at this point...Catalyst is kicking Forceware in the nuts for Vista performance. Less than 5% difference for XP versus Vista with the 2900XT and thats with drivers that probably aren't tweaked out yet. I'm hoping nVidia has this fixed soon...I'm building a PC for a friend right now with a 8600GT card on Vista.