GeForce 8800 Ultra vs. Radeon HD 2900 XT
@ 2007/07/18The hardcore enthusiast with really deep pockets will want more than reference performance, and ASUS doesn't oblige. That, in a nutshell, is the inherent problem of releasing such an expensive product; a stock-clocked GeForce 8800 Ultra, whilst undeniably fast, is bordering on the pointless.
Out of the two, then, we'd opt for the ASUS EAH2900XT. That may appear to be, prima facie, contradictory advice given the EN8800ULTRA's benchmark dominance, but exorbitant pricing and default-clocked status means it's a generic card in a niche market - £400+, remember - where performance is everything.
Out of the two, then, we'd opt for the ASUS EAH2900XT. That may appear to be, prima facie, contradictory advice given the EN8800ULTRA's benchmark dominance, but exorbitant pricing and default-clocked status means it's a generic card in a niche market - £400+, remember - where performance is everything.
1920x1200 R6 Six: 8800GTS: 26
1920x1200 R6 Six: 8800GTS 320: 25.8
~both unplayable, 26FPS is too low.
1920x1200 4AA Battlefield 2 8800GTS: 105.7
1920x1200 4AA Battlefield 2 8800GTS 320: 67.5
~both playble 60+ is good
1920x1200 4AA Oblivion 8800GTS: 21.8
1920x1200 4AA Oblivion 8800GTS 320: 22
~both unplayable, barely over 20FPS
1920x1200 4AA Prey 8800GTS: 49.6
1920x1200 4AA Prey 8800GTS 320: 49
~both playable, no difference
1920x1200 4AA STALKER 8800GTS: 33
1920x1200 4AA STALKER 8800GTS 320: 26.2
~limited playable, 33FPS is "okay" at best, no comfortable, 26 is too LOW, at 1600x1200 640mb has bigger lead, 38 vs 28.
if you put them in SLI (640SLI vs 320SLI) difference is negligible, even with games which showed larger difference in single GPU
source: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=1