Last message on previous page:

Thats pretty good if you can get the card for <$50 And its dx10 compatible, w00t!

it would be, if the 8500 GT wasn't $100... maybe in a few months the price'll drop alot though, who knows?

are there no 2900xt card benchmarks out there yet? usually you've got this updated before I can buy the parts in Canada, but I see them already in my local stores this time.

We're all kinda waiting to see some benchmarks.
And from a variety of cards.
But the powers that be are slow in coming fourth
with them.
(waiting, not very patiently)

Will a DX10 card such as 8800 GTS/GTX perform well on DX9 games?

I'm an old style gamer and I still play Counterstrike 1.6/Source and WoW.

Will it? IT DOES!!

Get an 8800gts 320mb card and you will get killer framerates on those games

EDIT: Just make sure you have a good enough power supply to run it.

Right now I'd say the HD2900 doesn't belong in the general recommendation area yet, it's price hasn't dropped since launch it's gone up, it's performance is only now becoming clear with driver releases like the 8.38 release, and then it's very app/game dependant as to value versus other candidates. In most cases the price of the GTS-640 has dropped significantly keeping it a strong contender for even money. But that's not the case in all countries/currencies.

For now I'd say that the HD2900 is primarily for people who already know what benefits they want, for the general user who's approching this with no knowledge of either player, the GTS series (either 320 or 640) might be the way to go.

I suspect Cleeve's just waiting for more solid numbers that done change from day to day before penning any recommendation/criticism/avoidance.

but I have not yet seen any THG benchmarks of these cards. Of course any new card release usually needs some driver enhancements, but usually we can get a baseline with current drivers right at release date, and maybe a follow up article with a new driver release if there's enough of a performance difference.

I don't understand why the benchmarks are taking so long for these cards. Are they so dramatically disappointing? At least if I knew the performance was better/worse than the 8800series, I would then know if I should purchase one when its prices drop.

Personally I prefer to see card benchmarks right away than wait, because it says something about the manufacturer if they release a card without having a necessary driver to draw out its performance potential. Should that not be a release date requirement? I know I'd be angry if I bought a card released yesterday (with a premium price) and its performance was not up to par until months later with a driver release.

Darren Polkowski's article featured some 2900 XT benches:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] age20.html

wow I sure did miss that one! nice to see the 2900's will come with some really nice games (portal, hl2ep2, tfc2). I'm also happy to see the 2900 wins almost accross the board against the GTS around the resolution I play at (1600x1050). hopefully they'll copy nvidia and have a lower memory version for around the same price as the 8800GTS 320mb so they have a value segment competition.

considering how long it took to release the 2900 though I must admit I'm pretty disappointed the margin is not larger compared to the GTS. It's faster (at my desired resolution), but not by the margin I was looking for with the extra time delay (and therefore more driver development time).

ATI's falling behind... I guess that's the cycle. I was so happy with my x800gto, 1950pro is now doing me well, but now the momentum has definitely swung to Nvidia leading the card release dates and performance firsts. here's hoping the pendulum continues to go back and forth, but for the moment the newest ATI card release is far too expensive for its small performance increase on the GTS. The price is VERY close to the 620mb nvidia GTS, but who cares, I don't think many ppl would buy the 620mb version. *yawn*

I have a question, if anyone can help out.

I am currently building a new computer,
but for the videocard, i decided to wait for the next wave, or until Vista works decent.

SO i am looking for a good video card (that will run upcomign games), but under the $300 bucks.

and i found this one :
evga 7950GT 512 MB OC for $250
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814130066

but while reading the article,
it says that the ATI one might be good choice aswell...


so am i wondering,
evga 7950GT 512 MB OC or ATI X1950 XT ?

to me they seem roughly the same :\

thanks.

The X1950 XT should still be a good deal stronger than a 7950 GT with 512mb or RAM.

If you want a card to play now games and past ones buy directx9 compatible card. But why to buy directx9 graphics card when we are so close to directx10 games. My opinion is if you don't want to waste your money buy directx10 compatible card.

I recommend Geforce 8800GTS 320, 640 or Ati HD2900XT, price range $300-$400 great value for money. Performance/price ratio i think these cards gives you the best for your bucks.

People said the same thing when Dx8 and Dx9 arrived, only to be proven wrong.

Why are Dx9 cards still a good buy? Because Dx10 games will all have a Dx9 codepath for a couple years to come, at the very least. And the final render output will look quite similar.

Nobody will make a DirectX 10 'only' game for quite some time. There's not enough of a user base to justify it.

That's why you're better off with a good Dx9 card (that can actually play games, i.e. an X1950 PRO) instead of a crappy Dx10 card (that will struggle to do so, i.e. an 8500 GT).

Although I will agree with you that the 8800 GTS cards are a good buy. Not so much the 2900XT though...

I agree with you with every single word that you said but playing games that support dx10 with dx9 GPU you lose details that might not be noticed immediately but if you compare screenshots you will see that difference.

For example i found the link below which has two screenshots for comparison.

ATI 2900XT Call of Juarez screenshots

Yes, in some Dx10 titles you'll lose visual fidelity. But my point is that Dx10 compatibility isn't enough; it has to be a GOOD Dx10 card.

Given the choice between an 8600 GT or DirectX 9 X1950 PRO, you'd be crazy not to choose the X1950 PRO because the 8600 GT is so much slower - and probably wouldn't run any Dx10 games at a decent resolution.

You are right that's why i did recommend 1st nVidia 8800GTS 320MB,2nd 640MB or 3rd ATI 2900XT Dx10 GPU. It's impossible to get playable framerates with anything lower than that in Dx10 games max out settings at 1280x768.

There are some interesting Dx10 bench that prove that. Check that link for more details.

Extremetech - Company of Heroes with Dx10 patch

I have narrowed down my graphics card selection to either the 320 mb or 640 mb GTS 8800, but I have several concerns:

first off I have a "new" HP a6030n using an Athlon 64 X2 (B) 4800+ 2.5 GHz running Vista 32 bit version. My RAM is currently 2Gigs, to be upgraded to 4 Gig, which I gather is the maximum allowed with my current system under 32 bit Vista, still it seems plenty for now.

My questions are:

1. Is the stock PSU going to be enough to handle either choice of GTS ?

2. Ultimately, I have seen arguments for and against the viability of one card against the other. Using the above information, will I be able to take full advantage of the (apparently minimal but there) benefits of the 640 mb? Otherwise I'll just take the 320mb and be happy.


Thanks so much, this is my first post

1. Not sure... don't know the specs of the PSU in your machine

2. The long and short of it is, you'd never regret buying either card. It's not like in 6 months you'll be saying "Oh damn, if I only got the other one I would have saved money/had more power!"

If you think you'll be running 1600x1200 or higher, the 640mb version looks better. If you're running resolutions below that, I'd definitely consider the 320mb version.