ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX, Doomed from the Start

[Berzerk]

ok this sucks....


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7052


AMD's flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX fails to usurp the GeForce 8800 GTX's performance crown

[W1nTry]

Tis not what I read in another review, and since technically the NDA's are still in effect i'd take this with a pinch of salt.

[Crixx_Creww]

what did yu read in the other review.

[Spazosaurus]

Well that sucks for AMD. If this turns out to be true then i'm def not going to be waiting on 2900xt. This part of the article is particularly interesting though...

"The less than stellar performance benchmarks are no surprise to board partners and AMD insiders.  Two independent ATI board builders told DailyTech that Radeon HD 2900 XTX will not be a part of their initial portfolios.  Given the additional memory cost and bulky card footprint, it seems unlikely the XTX will ever see the light of day."

Where did that come from? I've never gotten any wind of that happening. Quite the opposite actually.

[Czar]

Tis not what I read in another review, and since technically the NDA's are still in effect i'd take this with a pinch of salt.

DailyTech wasn't/isn't affected by the NDA...

From http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Radeon+HD+2900+XT+Performance+Benchmarks/article7043.htm

...but there is no embargo date on the R600 for DailyTech -- we can show you benchmarks now.

All the same, if this turns out to be true that the card doesn't outperform the 8800GTX, it could still possibly find a spot in the market if it is priced low enough to compete with lesser performing cards.

[.:Jedi:.]

This better not be true, else thais real mess. i'll wait for a few more official looking benchies tho....

[W1nTry]

What I find interesting is the VERY same site has teh HD 2900XT besting the 8800GTS (which is its direct competitor) yet the higher clocked XTX is not even in the same class as teh GTX??? anyone else smell a fish?
http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Radeon+HD+2900+XT+Performance+Benchmarks/article7043.htm

check this out:



How is it that in the very same game we're seeing different results? wouldn't they have taken the results from the 2900XT and placed them into the XTX table for comparison.. yet the results are NOT the same? In fact the XTX has the same score as the XT in F.E.A.R not only that but in the review of the XTX the XT can't run @ 1600x1200... but its the SAME card with lower clocks? this is either nonsense or a SERIOUS driver issue. I'm leaning towards teh prior.

[Czar]

The difference between the GTS and GTX is quite large yes...the GTX has 128 stream processors, whereas the GTS only has 96, in addition to the extra ram on the GTX, it can outpace the GTS comfortable...

Regardnig the different framerates, they ended up using different drivers between those comparisons. From the article:

The benchmarks DailyTech performed yesterday utilized release candidate drivers. Today's tests used retail drivers ATI released to its board partners.

[TrinireturnofGamez]

 not to be taken too seriously , note how the X2900XT beats the XTX in a few areas , obviously something is wrong with the sample card they have , drivers etc. ATI isn't so stupid to have all this time and NOT take the oppurtunity to make sure their top end card is clocked to beat the 8800GTX.

 Several versions of the card exist.. remember the delay was to produce them on 65nm for higher clocks and lower power, this might be an 80nm model .

http://dailytech.com/Overclocking+the+R600/article7044.htm

 Look at the overclock article... they were able to take their XT to 845mhz core/ 995mhz RAM on stock cooling , ATI wouldn't have left the XTX at a mere 5mhz higher than the XT if it had that much potential , and couldn't beat the GTX ..

I'm thinking if this article is legitimate , they probably have a pre release model with lower clocks than the final version .