8800GTX or HD2900XT, which to go with?

Well, it's about plumb time I tried to decide which route to go with. I currently have a P35A-S mobo, which is a P35 board, and has two PCI-e slots, probably designed for XFire, which would be fine with two ATI cards. However, I'm even wondering if eventually going with 2 x HD2900XTs would even be worth it? I mean, I hear that nVidia's rep is far better with their 8800GTX, and can certainly put up a fight with just a single card. I'm just wondering which route would probably be better in the long haul, especially which one will perform better with higher-end Blitz games.

Nvidia still has better multi-platform driver support - for me, that's a killer argument.

Well, you may just want to wait to see what happens with DX10 when Crysis is launched.

My 8800GTX, that has yet to see a DX10 game, is now going to be outdated by the newer DX10.1 cards. I'd suggest waiting for one of those.

Puki is right

I'd wait too, if you can I'd wait a month or too. If your going to pay premium prices then its probably better to wait and see if Nvidias new card comes out in November as usual. See how the top end cards compare.

Two HD2900XT crossfired ;) I'm a big ati fan. Lately ATI is better for it's low price, but sucks compared to Nvidia in performance means.

It depends, usually, ATI doesn't cheat when it comes to image quality versus performance, ATI will always give you the image quality.

http://www.theinq.com/?article=42430

Here's a powerful but relatively cheap card (Radeon 2900Pro):
http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a280560.html

It's basically the same as the 2900XT, but at a lower GPU / memory frequency. A real bargain for a 320 shader unit card that runs over 600mhz GPU and 800+ mhz DDR3 memory with 512bit bus.

And ATI are the kings of 3Dmark high scores at the moment, with overclocked crossfired 2900XT cards.

A DX10 card is forward compatible with DX10.1, so there's no need to wait.

Puki is wrong.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

I just bought a DiamondMM Stealth X1050 video card for my 2nd computer and it's pretty awesome.

Oh really?

"SIGGRAPH 2007 was the stage where Microsoft dropped the bomb, informing gamers that the currently available DirectX 10 hardware will not support the upcoming DirectX 10.1 in Vista SP1."

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41577

Comparison between the two:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=474&card2=518

As soon as the games use shaders in abundance, the 2900XT will shine the most ;)

Yeah, the comparisons seems sort of tight between the two, in most regards. Of course, the 2900XT is almost on par with the GTS version of the 8800, whether it be the 320 or 640MB version. Probably closer to the 640MB version, since both cards are in the same price range, primarily.

Eh? Most modern games use nothing *but* shaders. It's impractical ( to say the least ) to use fixed function when you're using a lot of shaders.

I'm talking about this sort of shader usage:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20060817/directx10-fabulous/

http://www.tweak3d.net/joomla/news/pc-gaming/directx-10-games

http://www.alanwake.com/screenshots.html

DX10.1 will be compatible with DX10 BUT DX10 hardware will not be able to use DX10.1 functions. Puki is right.

£5 on it?

Well, I got reason to bump this. Just recently, AMD/ATI unleashed a lower-end version of their 2900XT, called the HD 2900 Pro, which seems like it's very much worth the while. Seems like nVidia's gonna be running scared now, since this proves to outperform their 8800GTS 320MB version (whether or not their upcoming 1GB HD 2900Pro will outperform the 8800GTS 640MB version, that's another thing).

http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=341
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161201

Current best card is 8800GTX (or Ultra if you're excessively rich). ATI card is supposed to be noisier than the Nvidia, which is a real bugbear of mine.

Best price/performance card would be an 8800GTS 320mb.

Ehh, according to Tweaktown, seems like the 512MB HD2900Pro tells different... Could change, but that all depends on how well it's supported: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1189/his_radeon_hd_2900_pro_512mb_early_test/index.html

You could be right about the 8800GTS, but I hear that the 512MB HD2900Pro card may be a little cheaper than that... We'll have to see.

I'm an ATI fan so when I build my new system in a few months, I'll be gettin the HD2900Pro. It's better than the 8800GTS and is cheaper!

Right, just gonna wait until more vendors are on board with that card, and have a "grand release" of the card. Right now I believe only Hightech and GeCube are offering it.
Anyone know when the "true" release of the card should really be?

ATI make more noise and consume more power and now that Intel, who is connected more to NVidia than ATI bought Havoc, who does the only shader driven physics engine, its a real question if you want to risk your money to blow it out for nothing as the physics support on the card might blow up like a soap bubble.

Beside that: ATI has serious crappy OpenGL and Vista drivers.

DX10: Forget about it, none of the current generation will give you ANY enjoyable gaming experience under DX10. That won't happen until the 2nd or 3rd DX10 game generation where the programmers learned the ins and outs of Shader 4 ... its just too different to SM3 and DX9 and taking the fact that most even sucked at creating efficient SM3 shader effects and mostly used SM2 i would say its more 2 generations off than 1

I don't notice minor things like that. It's probably no louder than my current video card fan. And I don't have a multimeter hooked up to my video card and constantly monitor the watts use and heat of the card. That's what fans and my 550watt power supply are for.

The OpenGL FPSs are only slightly under the 8800 rates and I definitely won't notice it whatsoever. The ATI is higher in DX9 games 99% of the time.

That said, I'm going strictly on performance and price. It seems like a good deal to me.

Hmm, so you think that the HD2900Pro is cheaper than the 8800GTS 320MB for a reason, even tho Tweaktown gave the Pro a higher performance rating. Hmm...

EDIT: Well, according to this review that I can't make out, looking at the graphs, the 8800GTS *does* outperform this, even tho the 3DMark06 has the ATI Pro on top... Ah well, guess that the 2900Pro was more hype than we all thought. I was really expecting that card to be ATI's comeback from nVidia's dominance. Guess that'll have to wait until next generation...

http://pclab.pl/art28806-3.html

Why not waiting for the soon to be released 8800GT? Seems like this will be a reasonable priced and well performaning card. Hopefully also not eating too much power too. Or after this release the new Radeon HD 2900 Pro, DirectX10.1 in 55 process. At least i for sure now wouldn't buy a 8800GTS anymore as it will be outdated in maybe two months already.

I bought a 640MB 8800GTS to replace my aging 6800GS and the stock cooler is near silent, with a silent PSU and a zalman CPU cooler (turned 2 min speed) my system cannot be heard during the day cept for a slight whisper which is the sound of air being pushed out by the PSU.. i love it.
This is why I'll never go ATI my brother has a 1900XT and its like a lawn mower in a PC case, even when not gaming.

The #1 consideration when buying a gfx card is noise. So If I had to choose id go 8800GTX (it has the same cooler as GTS).

And as many have said Nvidia need less power, go with a 2900 then dont forget to buy a 800watt PSU too.

I think the HD2900Pro is a better value IMO. It was meant to compete with the Nvidia card which it does very well and at a slightly cheaper price. It's not leaps and bounds and I think either card is great.

Ehh, sweet. Well, since I'm planning on sticking with Win XP Pro when I build my rig, I'm even wondering if the X1950Pro will still be holding strong at all? I mean, I know that's been giving the edge over the 7950GT for the longest time. However, I'm wondering if the HD 2900Pro would have the better edge in b/c to DX9, even tho it's a DX10 card. Same holds true with the 8800GTS, that leads me to wonder if there's any advantage in performance when it comes to Win XP gaming... I don't plan on going to Vista on my desktop build until I'm forced no other option. I mean, I have Vista here on my laptop, but I'm not really using my laptop as a gaming platform that much.

EDIT: Grrr, now the HD 2900Pro's out of stock. That was a quick seller, and who knows if AMD's gonna make any more of these before the DX10.1 cards are unleashed? Why did I have to bloody miss out on this opportunity?! Well, guess I'm stuck with nVidia whether I like it or not, and I have a P35 mobo, and I really can't do SLI, if it's programmed for Xfire, now can I?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+106792278+1067931819&name=Radeon+HD+2900PRO

RAM Digital Media, if you're not afraid of Nvidia, you could always grab the 8800GTS with 640MB (not the 320MB version). The performance is very good, the card seems solid, and the price isn't over the top. Performance compared to a X1950Pro should be double if not more (depending on the rendering scenario) and image quality should be better (more Antialias and Anisotropic modes).

Or, wait for the HD2950Pro ;)

EDIT: Apparently Nvidia is planning to boost the performance of the 8800GTS. So, waiting is the best option.



And here's a review of the HD2900Pro (french translated):
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puissance-pc.net%2Fles-dossiers%2Fcomparo-hd2900pro-512-vs-8800gts-640.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Hmm, sweet...

Well, I really don't see AMD cranking out any more HD 2900Pros, so I guess you're right about the 2950 Pro, but I'm wondering if nVidia would ever consider an 8900 or 8950 series card before going to the 9xxx series?