Linky.

It's not out yet, but it looks cool. I now know what I want.

*checks latest CPC issue* Oh look, there it is, and it's consistently beaten by all the 8800 cards except the 8800GTS 320MB at high resolutions (RAM bottleneck, the X2900XT has 512MB) and at the lowest resolutions, where a few extra fps doesnt matter as you're already hitting around 100.

Edit: Oh, its a 1GB version... well of course it's going to win at high resolutions, simply due to RAM bottlenecking. And the low resolutions don't matter. Medium resolutions would be more interesting, but that's a very crude way to increase performance. Also note the simple inclusion of GDDR4. Also note the use of SLi and CrossFire, and currently, nVid drivers in Vista aren't the best, so SLi won't work to full effect.

But the biggest killer:

That article appears to be broken, but if it's about the X2900XTX 1GB, I've been touting about that card for the past few months.

It is about the X2900XT 1GB. Comparing it to 8800GTX 768MB. Both running in their appropriate dual card setups under Vista.

Bear in mind that Nvidia still don't have a fully operational SLI driver for Vistula.

The article works fine for me.

Anyway, you can buy the card here:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showprodu ... =GX-062-OK

Also, a card that pwns the 8800GTX would be the 8800 Ultra, overclocked. Obviously.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showprodu ... subcat=877

LOL, so much for new systems only...

One thing worth noting is while these cards do pwn a lot, the much cheaper 8800GTSes are nearly as good, for only 170/220quid for the 320/640MB respectively. Bargain.

I don't quite understand the reviews of this card...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showprodu ... -OK&tool=3

Everybody is saying that it blows the 8800 out the water. All I can say is that this just is not true.

Not just that, but probably since this article has been released, Microsoft released a patch for Windows Vista that fixed problems with all types of dual GPU setups. So it wasn't a problem with Nvidia or ATI after all! In fact, this is pretty much typical of Microsoft.

And I know what I want... a new nVIDIA card (I stick to what I know works and pwns)

Unfortunately, I can't get a GTS because they can't keep up at the higher resolutions (2560x1600)

The 640 can... The 320 runs out of memory. I'm not entirely sure about 2560x1600, but they do go pretty high.

Oh, and if those reviews are for Vista, they could be correct. nVidia screwed up the Vista drivers.

I think it's more of a Vista problem, than an Nvidia problem. Microsoft issued another patch recently that made dual graphics card configurations work better.

Talk about late reply.



And I don't suppose you know anyone with this ATI card? You are all starting to sound like NVidia fan-boys when there are reviews saying different. There was not one review on that page below 4 stars, and most of them were 5 stars.

I've only ever had the experience of ATI cards, so I can't speak for NVidia. Whichever is best, I will probably buy soon, but I really need the facts, not speculation. :/

Anyway, show me EVIDENCE other than 'NVidia is the best so stfu'.

Nvidia cards perform better.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9309&page=8
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9309&page=9
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9309&page=10
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/18/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/19/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/20/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/21/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/22/

The HD2900XT is slow, power hungry, and runs hot (inefficient).

I used to use ATI graphics cards when they were considered better than Nvidia cards for performance. Now Nvidia cards are considered better than ATI cards for performance, and this is proven by the above benchmarks.

At the moment, ATI's flagship product, the HD2900XT 512MB is almost always outperformed by the Nvidia 8800GTS 640MB, Nvidia's mid/high-end card. Beyond the GTS, there is the GTX, and then there is the Ultra. Then there are the overclocked models. Then there are the heavily overclocked models.

That said, the HD2900XT is quite overclockable given the correct cooling equipment, and could outperform an 8800 Ultra under some benchmarks. But with temperatures closing in on 90C, it's a bit beastly to control, and sucks far too much power, we're talking over 300W for a fat overclock. That and the fact that I've never seen proof of this claim...

Ok, those are most interesting. However, what are the costs? Which card can be found cheapest?

EDIT: Also, what is this card?

http://www.yalu.pl/index.php?action=product&pid=14133

The 8800GTS 640MB can be found for less than the HD2900XT so it makes little since to go for the ATI card.

The HD2900 Pro is a stripped down version of the HD2900XT. It has a 600/1600MHz core/memory speed.

Those reviews on OCUK are probably purchase justification and ATi fanboys. Myself and Aaron base our opinions on proper reviews, and the 8800GTSes are better than the 2900XTs, never mind the GTXes and Ultras.

The 8800GTSes are generally cheaper.

Also, Met, you getting a new graphics card? I thought your recent driver upgrade did wonders for performance?

I'm just curious.

And this looks interesting:

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/188364-ati-2900xt-beats-8800gts-3dmark.html

They don't state which of the 8800GTSes that is, they also didn't install drivers properly. Infact, the lack of data there in regards to both cards makes me wonder a lot about it, which cards are they, who's their supplier (IE XFX/Sapphire), what speeds are they at etc makes me not trust those results fully.

The age of the test also brings to light the drivers, as it is well known the original nVidia drivers for the 8 series, especially in Vista SUCKED COMPLETELY.

Also, the XT is more expensive than the GTSes, so it should be better, the problem is in a lot of cases, it's not, especially real gameplay tests.