sdy284 Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 just added a digg link guys, so be sure to show your support! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raven65 Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Dissapointing results there i would have expected it to perform better under those conditions, seeing as ATI has had the thing in development for so long. Just a bit of criticism on the review Paul - Maybe add that the 8800GTS was the 320Mb version in the specs, as i know myself i was woundering if it was the 320, or 640 version. Also in the test bench specs you list Windows XP Pro With SP2, though it is clearly Windows Media Center Edition in the screenshots (unless you are running a MCE skin on XP) - Just wanted to get a bit of clairification on those matters. Other than that it looks like a decent review though again the performance is a shocker. "XFX (nVidia) 8800GTS 320mb" taken from the specs in the review in testing setup. People do use skins. "Even though the 8800 GTS is only a 320 MB video card," taken from the conclusion. here is the full quote "The Sapphire HD 2900 XT did very well against its competitor out-scoring it in almost every benchmark. Even though the 8800 GTS is only a 320 MB video card, it is also an overclocked edition being the XXX with a 1.8 GHz clock. The Sapphire HD 2900 XT is just a Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compxpert Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Its too bad it didn't do better. Though later this year or next I'll consider Ati for my next build. Hopefully they are much better by then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Guys don't forget this is the first card. There is a few higherend models coming up here that should perform better, including the 1gig model so it shall be intresting to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
upok Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 I don't know if I'd say a $300 card is "low end". Maybe to some people, but I think you'll find that 8800 anything is generally referred to as "high end". GTS is nVidia's second best, and XT is ATi's second best. Now technically the 640GTS is 2nd, and the 320GTS is 3rd, but you get the point. 2nd best vs. 2nd best is pretty fair. And if you just take a general look at performances over all the categories, they're pretty evenly matched. Maybe I should have referred to it as "a budget conscious performance card". I certainly didn't mean that it was a cheap card. It seems that video cards come in three classifications anymore: 1. Performance or enthusiast card--to heck with the money, this thing will rock in 3dmark!!! 2. Mid-grade--oh man, I hope this thing can play WOW!! Can it, huh, can it?!? 3. Budget--"So, this will crank out 90 frames per second in solitaire huh? That's pretty impressive!" So, with that as a baseline I called the 8800gts 320 a "low end performance card". But like you said, $300 is not "low end". Have you ever tried explaining to a non-techie person how you can justify $300, or $400 or even $600 for a video card? I love that "deer-in-the-headlights" look they get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCC10281982B Posted May 18, 2007 Posted May 18, 2007 Personally I would have found it helpful to see how this card compares 79xx and x19XX series. Yes I know we have rules about comparing. But, for someone like me who is planning an upgrade, info about how the card preforms vs. last gen cards would be helpful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts