Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think the 2950 will prove to be more interesting. 65nm shrink, core clocks close to 1Ghz, a supposed increase of render backends, and lower power consumption. Of course, you'll have to wait until September, but the 2900 really doesn't impress me.

 

I expected it to do far better, since it is technologically superior to the 8800.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 2950 will prove to be more interesting. 65nm shrink, core clocks close to 1Ghz, a supposed increase of render backends, and lower power consumption. Of course, you'll have to wait until September, but the 2900 really doesn't impress me.

 

I expected it to do far better, since it is technologically superior to the 8800.

 

Ohh Whaat? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh Whaat? :blink:

 

Architectually speaking, it physically has a processing advantage over the G80. Or as the scientists like to say, "The 8800 gpu has like a gazillion transistors, and the r600 has like a gugillion or something."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Architectually speaking, it physically has a processing advantage over the G80. Or as the scientists like to say, "The 8800 gpu has like a gazillion transistors, and the r600 has like a gugillion or something."

 

I guess that's why it so much faster! :rofl2:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this page sums it up well Ocean: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display...s_21.html#sect0

 

More specifically, this:

 

Highs:

Acceptable level of performance in high resolutions with 4x FSAA and 16x AF

Wide choice of antialiasing modes

Supports FSAA and floating-point HDR simultaneously

Excellent quality of anisotropic filtering

Future-proof with support for DirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0

Supports hardware tesselator unit for future games

Supports fully hardware decoding of H.264 and other HD video formats Not on the 2900...

Unified architecture with 320 stream processors

512-bit memory bus

Efficient cooling system

 

Lows:

Imperfect drivers

Perhaps, insufficient number of texture processors and render back end processors

High power consumption

Noisy cooling system

New FSAA methods may blur image

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this page sums it up well Ocean: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display...s_21.html#sect0

 

More specifically, this:

 

Highs:

Acceptable level of performance in high resolutions with 4x FSAA and 16x AF

Wide choice of antialiasing modes

Supports FSAA and floating-point HDR simultaneously

Excellent quality of anisotropic filtering

Future-proof with support for DirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0

Supports hardware tesselator unit for future games

Supports fully hardware decoding of H.264 and other HD video formats Not on the 2900...

Unified architecture with 320 stream processors

512-bit memory bus

Efficient cooling system

 

Lows:

Imperfect drivers

Perhaps, insufficient number of texture processors and render back end processors

High power consumption

Noisy cooling system

New FSAA methods may blur image

 

They are great bang for the buck! No doubt about that, but they still do not optperform the 8800 Ultras ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they do, considering for the price of an 8800 Ultra, you can buy two 2900s. The 2900 beats it by a long shot. ;)

 

Of course, performance would easily be taken by the two 2900s, but they will be roughly equal in price, so it's a valid comparison.

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites

hope its not too expensive in the UK

 

:clap::clap::cr@sh::cr@sh:

 

High end gamers can expect incredible performance out of Extreme PC, and we never fail to deliver! 1GB DDR4 at 2100Mhz delivers over 146GB/sec of memory bandwidth to drive any HD resolution - a NEW WORLD RECORD! Here are some examples of what this hardware is capable of - numbers are provided by Denny - an Xtreme overclocker:

 

Single HD2900XT 1GB DDR4 (Click on the score to see the performance settings and the 3Dmark score)

 

@default

 

3Dmark01.......................68753

3Dmark03.......................39360

3Dmark05.......................22842

3Dmark06.......................12944

 

 

 

@overclocking to 858Mhz Core / 1153Mhz (2306Mhz DDR4 Ram)

 

3Dmark01.......................69669

3Dmark03.......................43351

3Dmark05.......................23978

3Dmark06.......................14439

 

 

Dual (CrossFire) HD2900XT 1GB DDR4 S(Click on the score to see the performance settings and the 3Dmark score)

 

@default

 

3Dmark03.......................60120

3Dmark05.......................26586

3Dmark06.......................19390

 

For a comparison, here is the Nvidia 8800GTX Ultra in SLI score ($1880 + tax CND in GPUs):

 

3Dmark06 701/1163 SLi.............19819

 

Edited by aaronlewis89
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-aliasing needs all the bandwidth it can get, so bandwidth = speed. However, in some things, the performance increase is marginal at best, but is there if you look hard enough. Dual channel memory, ever increasing memory speeds, decreasing latencies, all add up to higher performance, and more bandwidth.

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-aliasing needs all the bandwidth it can get, so bandwidth = speed. However, in some things, the performance increase is marginal at best, but is there if you look hard enough. Dual channel memory, ever increasing memory speeds, decreasing latencies, all add up to higher performance, and more bandwidth.

 

AA is yuckey and fuzzy. :geezer: 16x and the screen looks like I need glasses, but the glasses don't make it look better, and now I'm wearing glasses, but my computer is still fuzzy... See the problem? :b33r:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find games unplayable without at least 2x anti-aliasing, and 16x High Quality anistropic filtering. The quality sucks without them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filtering

 

That pic is proof enough that Anistropic filtering is a Godsend.

 

Anti-aliasing is great too, since I hate jaggies in any game I play. I find 2x to be an acceptable setting, since my monitor's resolution makes really high anti-aliasing settings unnecessary.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find games unplayable without at least 2x anti-aliasing, and 16x High Quality anistropic filtering. The quality sucks without them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filtering

 

That pic is proof enough that Anistropic filtering is a Godsend.

 

Anti-aliasing is great too, since I hate jaggies in any game I play. I find 2x to be an acceptable setting, since my monitor's resolution makes really high anti-aliasing settings unnecessary.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

 

I'm 100% with you on the 2x AA, I was just thinking that the 16x AA was getting out of hand.

 

Good links.

 

Edit: Added thanks. :)

Edited by rtyrie1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...