| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 83727 | 2007-10-10 22:20:00 | 8800GTS vs 2900 XT | LOWTEC (7821) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 600428 | 2007-10-11 02:02:00 | I'd go 2900XT personally. It looks like it may be tossing 8800GTS 640MB after recent driver updates. | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 600429 | 2007-10-11 02:26:00 | I'd go 2900XT personally. It looks like it may be tossing 8800GTS 640MB after recent driver updates. Well it is supposed to compete with the GTX, its taken this long to pass the 320Mb GTS and now compares to the 640Mb card. I guess its not a bad card if you dont use AA or run a linux box! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 600430 | 2007-10-11 05:34:00 | thanks for the responses everyone, I did mean to ask when the next range of cards were coming out, seems like its best to wait anther month or two before parting out with that much cash. atm I'm thinking ill go with an ATI card as Ive always been an ATI fan just with their recent short falls ive been almost forced to get nvidia cards. | LOWTEC (7821) | ||
| 600431 | 2007-10-11 05:43:00 | Well it is supposed to compete with the GTX, its taken this long to pass the 320Mb GTS and now compares to the 640Mb card. Even better. That is, if the problem lies in poor drivers. For $620, 2900XT is certainly a good deal over the 8800GTX ($890) if it can be saved by future drivers. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 600432 | 2007-10-11 06:35:00 | The 2900PRO is 50/50 with the 8800GTS. They both perform better then each other depending on the game. The 2900PRO being an underclocked XT can be overclocked past a stock XT and beats the GTX in some games. Not as much as some would hope though. But for the price what do you expect :D? |
trinsic (6945) | ||
| 600433 | 2007-10-14 22:04:00 | Even better. That is, if the problem lies in poor drivers. For $620, 2900XT is certainly a good deal over the 8800GTX ($890) if it can be saved by future drivers. NO, as I said, poor design of the 2900XT cripples it when you start to use AA, even the 320Mb GTS is better with 4 x AA enabled. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 600434 | 2007-10-14 22:46:00 | some useful info here. im all good as long as both companies have a card that can do over 60fps other than that, i don't see it as an issue, although future proofing is the large factor. get the one that has most bang for buck i reckon. im waiting for next load of cards before i upgrade. as use linux atm, and no real need for an awesome card. on that, are the latest cards not supported by linux properly? I.E no decent drivers yet? |
Cho (12330) | ||
| 600435 | 2007-10-14 23:44:00 | I have an 8800GTS 320M and although it is awesome when it works properly I am very dissapointed with the ongoing frame rate / compatability issues with games, especially under vista. These cards have been available for something like a year, and the drivers are still in Beta ! ATI may have dragged the chain with hardware but Nvidia need to get their act together and release some decent drivers. It does turn out though that I overshot a bit when I chose a graphics card, and my CPU is the current bottleneck in my system. I run all my games at 1280x1024 with 4xAA & 4xAF with no probs, except supreme commander which I turn off AA & AF for. Titan quest maxes out cpu but runs smooth most of the time, Quake4, Doom 3 look awesome. Everything else I play is too old to push the graphics card. Most Frustrating is Quake3 which I still play quite a bit having issues with smooth playback, generally need to restart it 2-3 times before the framerate settles down. This card should be able to play this game without breaking a sweat. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||