Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Reviews & Articles from the Web (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/reviews-articles-web/)
-   -   ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX, Dailytech fakes results? (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/reviews-articles-web/1044-ati-radeon-hd-2900-xtx-dailytech-fakes-results.html)

Babrbarossa April 26, 2007 07:00 AM

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX, Dailytech fakes results?
 
1 Attachment(s)
This performance comparison from Dailytech seems a little odd- They did have limited time to review the card, but for one thing they pitted the 2900xtx at stock speed against an overclocked 8800GTX- The card they tested is a 12" long OEM version, while the retail version will be 9" long- It just seems baffling that with 1GB DDR4 and the number of shaders it has, that it wouldn't perform better. How could ATI be this far along, and still have a flagship card that doesn't outperform their own 2900xt? Anyway- it looks like this one will die in the womb if there's anything to these benches.

Beermaster April 26, 2007 07:01 AM

unbelivable how disapointing :shok: :sad:

Babrbarossa April 26, 2007 07:08 AM

Well at least the 2900XT works good (beats the 8800GTS)- and it's going to be fairly affordable.

SKYMTL April 26, 2007 07:36 AM

FAKE!!!!!!!!!!! And it has already been proven to be so.

Babrbarossa April 26, 2007 07:39 AM

what's fake? c'mon! c'mon! tell us!

Patriote April 26, 2007 08:02 AM

This can't be it! I can't believe this. It has to be FAKE! It must be FAKE! http://www.hardwarecanucks.com//imag...273e55af02.gif

SKYMTL April 26, 2007 08:09 AM

I can't go into details but I will give you this post from Dailytech to go by:

I checked Tomshardware VGA chart for oblivion score. It reports that
Oblivion outdoor, 1920*1200*32, no AA, 8xAF, Max quality, HDRR manages 28 FPS

From Anh description I understand that the test was an outdoor.
While there are different outdoor areas where the performance will be different still I am not sure if the 98.4 FPS for the 8800 GTX is correct.

Looking at the numbers for 2900XTX, they seem to be very close to the 1950XTX which is difficult to believe.

For example:

Company of heroes 1280*1024:
1950 XTX 99 (tweaktown) E6600
2900 XTX 97 (dailytech) QX6800

Company of heroes 1600*1200:
1950 XTX 70 (tweaktown) E6600
2900 XTX 73 (dailytech) QX6800

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1084/6/page_6_benchmarks_company_of_heroes/index.html

FEAR 1280*1024:
1950 XTX 80 (tomshardware) No softshadow 4AA 8AF , X6800
2900 XTX 84 (dailytech) with softshadow 4AA 16AF , QX6800

FEAR 1600*1200:
1950 XTX 57 (tomshardware) No softshadow 4AA 8AF , X6800
2900 XTX 58 (dailytech) with softshadow 4AA 16AF , QX6800

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/12/the_amd_squeeze/page6.html

In Fear the softshadows can make a big difference but in company of heroes it seems the 2900 XTX has no advantage over 1950 XTX.

Babrbarossa April 26, 2007 08:16 AM

Secret Squirrel!

SKYMTL April 26, 2007 08:20 AM

I will tell you this: I do not have an 2900XTX but I know someone who does. I can tell you right off the bat that those numbers you see of the performance difference between it and the 8800GTX are fake.

In some cases the 8800GTX numbers are inflated and in many others the X2900XTX numbers are severely handicapped.

Babrbarossa April 26, 2007 08:29 AM

The forums seem to be abuzz right now with this- some people saying that the card doesn't really exist, some people saying the results were faked, but most people saying "AMD IS DOOMED" - If those results are fake, it's a real shame, because it's really hurting AMD t have them out there.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM.