GeForce 8800 Ultra vs. Radeon HD 2900 XT

jmke · 18th July 2007, 10:56

The 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.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9309

jmke · 18th July 2007, 10:57

Correct answer would be "neither", with 8800 GTS 320Mb being much cheaper than HD 2900 XT and delivering on par performance, you'd be quite a fool to NOT opt for that it

18th July 2007, 18:00

Unless you need the 512mb / 640mb of onboard VGA RAM, of course. 320MB just does not cut the cake at 1920x1200 resolution.

jmke · 18th July 2007, 18:02

Not sure, but GTS 640Mb doesn't run new games fluently at that resolution

18th July 2007, 19:29

It still runs them better than a 320mb GTS, I've seen the numbers! I also own a 320MB GTS, and it cannot handle new games at 1920x1200 with settings on high. Especially if I wanted to use AA/AF.

jmke · 18th July 2007, 20:12

Neither can the GTS 640Mb, extra memory space can only do "so much", you need faster GPU core

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

18th July 2007, 10:56	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,010	GeForce 8800 Ultra vs. Radeon HD 2900 XT The 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. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9309 __________________

18th July 2007, 10:57	#2
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,010	Correct answer would be "neither", with 8800 GTS 320Mb being much cheaper than HD 2900 XT and delivering on par performance, you'd be quite a fool to NOT opt for that it __________________

18th July 2007, 18:02	#4
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,010	Not sure, but GTS 640Mb doesn't run new games fluently at that resolution __________________

18th July 2007, 20:12	#6
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,010	Neither can the GTS 640Mb, extra memory space can only do "so much", you need faster GPU core 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 __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NVidia considers an across-the-board overhaul of its marketing strategy	Shogun	WebNews	4	9th May 2008 14:08
Radeon HD2900XT 1GB vs GeForce 8800 Ultra	jmke	WebNews	0	27th November 2007 10:48
XFX GeForce 8800 Ultra 650M Extreme	jmke	WebNews	0	15th June 2007 15:31
Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB Performance Unveiled	jmke	WebNews	8	2nd May 2007 19:17
GeForce 8800 Ultra to Come Out on April 17	jmke	WebNews	0	17th March 2007 13:23

18th July 2007, 18:00	#3
Kougar Posts: n/a	Unless you need the 512mb / 640mb of onboard VGA RAM, of course. 320MB just does not cut the cake at 1920x1200 resolution.

18th July 2007, 19:29	#5
Kougar Posts: n/a	It still runs them better than a 320mb GTS, I've seen the numbers! I also own a 320MB GTS, and it cannot handle new games at 1920x1200 with settings on high. Especially if I wanted to use AA/AF.