BENCHMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS
Okay, enough jawbonin’ about specs and features. Let’s get to the question on everyone’s mind: Just how fast is the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The core on the evaluation sample we were provided was clocked at 743MHz, while its 512MB of GDDR3 memory was set to run at 828MHz. We tested it in an Intel 975XBX2 motherboard with a Core 2 Extreme X6800 running at 2.93GHz and 2GB of DDR2 RAM.
That and the 2900 XT’s 320 stream processors delivered Quake 4 at a healthy 76.1 frames per second in Ultra Quality mode—nearly three frames per second faster than a stock-clocked 8800 GTS could manage running in the less-demanding High Quality mode. That’s impressive performance compared to a stock-clocked 640MB 8800 GTS, which delivered Quake 4 at just 65.4fps in Ultra Quality. And when we dropped the 2900 XT to that level, its numbers catapulted to 84.7fps.Our FEAR benchmark results were also notable, with the card pumping out 63fps compared to the 8800 GTS’s measly 52fps.
AMD is hoping to get a lot of mileage out of the fact that cards based on their best GPU will not only retail for just $400 (we found boards from PowerColor and Sapphire selling for $410 each today), but that each card will also come bundled with three brand-new Valve games: Half-Life 2: Episode 2, Team Fortress 2, and Portal. Bundling brand-new games is a good move on AMD’s part, but it doesn’t change the fact that cards based on GeForce 8800 GTS with 640MB frame buffers were selling for an average on $332 (not including mail-in rebates ranging from $20 to $30) on the day of AMD’s announcement.
It also doesn’t change the fact that the GeForce 8800 XTX leaves AMD’s part in the dust in terms of gaming performance—and at an average price premium of just $111. And then there’s the 8800 Ultra and the whole matter of CrossFire to consider. Intel’s 975 BX2 boards support CrossFire today; but now that AMD owns ATI, who knows how much longer Intel will want to support its primary competitor’s technology.
The 2900 XT looks a lot better when you eliminate all consideration of dual videocards in your rig. It’s certainly a better solution for delivering both high-def video and solid gaming performance than anything Nvidia currently has to offer. But when you consider how little penetration the next-gen optical-drive formats have managed to achieve, I don’t know that it will be enough to generate the sales volume AMD needs.
Comments are closed on this article
wkdyff
July 18, 2007 at 1:05pm
I went to buy a 2900 radeon at 3 stores checking out pricing.
When I noticed that those stores had the card I wanted, but they were all returns APROX 9-10 BOXES no new ones. The reasons for returning are....
"not giving the benchmarks quoted"
"Poor quality, not fast enough"
Then I looked for specs and benchmarks on pages like this one. they only show one or two games that out bench Nvidia. But Nvidia seems to out bench on dozens of other games that Ati dont benchmark with.
I wanted a Ati, but after what I have seen with the returns, I DONT WANT ONE!!
Ceadderman
September 15, 2007 at 3:02am
Everytime we've used an ATI(pre AMD merger)they work fine for a few months and then just crap out. And I'm not talking their low end stuff either.
Now that they've merged with AMD, I just might actually make a change in my purchase process. Because every AMD chip I've owned has NOT crapped out. If AMD can put a solid chip on the ATI boards and they run those kinds of speeds I will think long and hard whereas before there wasn't even a glance in their direction. Come to think about it I'm off to compare pricess now.
"If at first you don't succeed... Shoot the summabiotch. Problem solved."
zioburosky13
May 15, 2007 at 10:24pm
Until DX-10 games are release, I don't see the point getting a DX-10 card, for now.
Geot
May 15, 2007 at 1:39pm
by Michael Brown
When you’re the lead dog, the only thing the rest of the pack sees is a bull’s-eye. And the folks behind in AMD’s ATI brand have been staring at that target for more than two years.
Having failed to defeat their graphic rivals the high end, AMD has lowered its sights to focus on the middle range—the price point where they figure most people actually buy new videocards.* by Geot: !WTF i know Nvidia 8800 GTX has a lot better performance than this new ATI HD 2900 XT and i know you guys is alway about supreme power but you dont see the other side of the face, hell and hell i bet you i will`nt have any problems running Crysis with most settings up using this new ATI video card, who needs a lamborghini when you can have a corvette to get to the same place without lossing playable performace in a game,i think this video card will be able to run smoth performance in most of direcxt 10 games, why the heck do i need more,unless someone invent a game that is not playable in any fricking machine and what about the price dont you see why they have this price this product is approaching not only to gamer but for movies entertaiment enthusiast with digital video and sound solutions, i know AMD/ATI is late with this product but it wont take that long when they begin to bring more powerfull video cards to the market that way you can be happy, the problem with you people its a little of arrogance with Nvidia cards......
JNorman
May 14, 2007 at 5:49pm
its nice to see the frames comparison, it is all that matters. now id like to see one of these companies just absolutely blow the competition out of the water with a performance breakthrough. after all anyone buying these cards aren't looking to improve the performance in solitaire, hearts or pokerstars.
Geot
May 14, 2007 at 12:50pm
Ha,Ha,Ha I dont know but i been reading Maximun PC for the last two years and every time ATI bring something new to the market Maximun PC magazine always write negatives article against ATI products, what are you ATI haters guys.....?
blackzarg
May 14, 2007 at 5:34pm
I think that AMD's choice to go for the midrange is good for now - it's better to have something than nothing at all. The price will probably drop as there are more available.
I don't think the staff @ MPC are ATI haters. They've given them some favorable reviews, especially for the budget cards (the x800 XL and the X1950 Pro come in mind), and I remember that the 9800 dominated the best card list for awhile back in the day. They just give the truth, that's all.
grandmasterub
May 14, 2007 at 11:54am
The card comes with a DVI->HDMI adaptor that will provide the video and audio of HDMI. Also a 1GB version of the 2900 will be released at some point.
ironmon1
May 14, 2007 at 8:30am
lol...that's funny, especially from a company that was planning to release a 1GB DDR4 2900XTX, before they saw that it preformed so poorly that it was defeated by the XT most of the time. I'm curious, though...I see 2 DVI ports, and HDCP support. Does this mean I don't need HDMI? Otherwise, instead of buying a new monitor for HD stuff, I'll just get me anyHDDVD-and give the MPAA the finger!!!!!
sammyd253
May 14, 2007 at 6:33am
I think this is a good move on AMD's part. For users who enjoy HD movies and want to view them on their PC's, this would be a good choice.
Also, you mentioned that since AMD is only attacking the mid-range series of cards, so what are they to do when the GTX drops to mid-range? Simple, release an updated version of the current GPU, or release a new one. AMD has had plenty of time to research the GTX and find ways to come out with better products. If they always stay one step behind Nvidia, they can come out with a more reliable, efficient, and better costing product.
I think they have the right idea here.
Print
