Radeon HD 2900 (R600) reviews thread

I agree, eventually it will all come out in the wash, with the XT looking whiter than white, but probably by that time most people will have already hung it out to dry.

 

That's the thing, here in europe it's the other way around. You'll typically shell out between €360 and €380 for an XT which is the exact pricepoint of the 640 (€350 for the Club3D and €445 for the overclocked EVGA model.)

So mail in rebates and price cuts might benefit the US market, the XT is very comfortable at it's current pricepoint over here..

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/16/r600_ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt/1

Bit-tech's review is up.

 

Good job Tim!

 

Thank you

I really think we will see some good numbers coming from HD 2900 XT very soon...but time will tell. There are too many different driver sets and none of them is a final one. Also, different benchmarks have been run on different reviews. Just seeing how much did our STALKER results change with a game reinstall tells you a lot about the current situation. Of course, this is nothing but sad for AMD-ATI, but has nothing to do with the performance of the card which i think will improve in just a few days...

 

Yes is real !!! AA 4X Free in R600






Source

 

AA does not work in Vegas, I believe it uses deferred lighting.

 

Dunno...what`s holding me back from jumping on the whole-drivers will make it GTX beating material is the fact that AMD priced it the way it did. If they were certain that they could eventually grab nV by the balls in terms of across the board performance they would've priced it higher. It`s not like they can rethink the whole stuff once they get better drivers and say:sorry, we've just released CAT7.6, with much added performance. Also, our prices will now be 499$(for example). And since I`m a prick and don`t think that AMD are sent by God to do only good and I assume they actually want to sell their stuff as expensive as possible(in an envelope allowing it to sell), and factoring that the chip is likely not cheap(which means lowish margins, if any, at current price-point), I think that it`ll not become a GTX conqueror ever. I`d love to be proven wront though

 

So you would prefer that AMD sets it at $499 and and gets flamed for the next 3-4 months about the price and by time the drivers are getting decent R650 is out?

 

I cant even remotely see how that was implied...

 

It work with the forceware 160.03 in XP, , but with some errors in the shadows . But not many , not is frequent . The perfomance drop is great



U3 engine dont employ deferred lighting , is the shadowing algorythm the problem

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=976631&postcount=6

Code:

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

 

r600 is looking might nice according to matbe... is it just me or are overseas reviews a lot more favorable of 2900xt?
partisanship seems a lot more rampant from stateside websites.

still, overall i've seen about 12 of 15 sites recommend ati's new hardware. not bad at all

 

Why would any sane site recommend an XT over a GTS or GTX?

A GTS matches it (and exceeds it at times) in performance and it doesn't have any of the image quality issues listed on this site:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r600-architecture_16.html

Oh, and it's significantly cheaper as well and can be overclocked nicely too.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130071

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130080

R600 is a bust until the new revision comes out.

 

Nice quake 4 performance
Perhaps becase it finally has decent stencil performance?

 

Because not everyone lives in the US and thus the GTS isn't automagically cheaper in the rest of the world?
Because it does deliver major improvements in areas where we didn't expect it?
Because crossfire is improved beyond SLI?
Because it offers great performance when running HDR?
Because it seems to do great with Unreal Engine 3 (or 2.5) based games?
- This seems to be true in more games it has been "profiled"for
Because some people want the highest 3dMarks?

 

Well, its $349-399 € price point here, so it shouldn´t go for GTX or Ultra, but just GTS 640MB...it could be very good at some situations and compete well with GTX and Ultra, but don´t really think that will happen in most games.

 

Read again. Attempt to understand. Stop petting the ATi logo for a moment and understand that AMD/ATi are in this for the money. If in a 3-4 months timeframe they would`ve expected it to hit over/equal GTX performance across the board, they would`ve priced it higher, because, you know, you can afford to get some flak if you add about 100 bucks to your margins per unit sold.

Marifire...I tend to agree. Is this as noisy as the X1900XT was?

 

Forgive my pink glasses

Running R6/SC at higher resolutions (16x12 and up) with AF most reviews show the XT on par with the GTX or trailing in the region of a few frames, more indicative of the "expected" performance.
TechReports ShaderMark performance shows the only place where the 2900 will actually win is in the HDR tests.
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/radeon-hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=3.

With profiled I mean there are a few cases in which the XT seems to work "normally"
Company of Heroes performance is normal for instance, enabling AF or AA doesn't make the performance jump around like it does in Oblivion for instance. This (to me) looks like the scheduler is doing it's job just right there. Take stalker, it performance on GTS level at low resolutions but climbs up when resolution and AA/AF are enabled. This erratic behavior really looks like driver issues.