It should beat the 8600gts lah. The 8600 series not as great a leap as expected.
Ok is the article saying 3dmark, 2600-2105, and 20 fps faster than gts in need for speed???
Definitive R6xx thread, Some more solid info
Definitive R6xx thread, Some more solid info
|
|
Apr 23 2007, 11:44 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
188 posts Joined: May 2006 |
It should beat the 8600gts lah. The 8600 series not as great a leap as expected.
Ok is the article saying 3dmark, 2600-2105, and 20 fps faster than gts in need for speed??? |
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2007, 10:16 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
188 posts Joined: May 2006 |
Aw you beat me to it. How do they compare to a gtx?
|
|
|
Apr 25 2007, 06:02 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
188 posts Joined: May 2006 |
It should be real. Those guys are at tunisia event.
Game settings for yesterday's dailytech benchmark. QUOTE The quality settings for the games were as follows: Call of Duty 2 - Anisotropic filtering, 4xAA (in game), V-Sync off, Shadows enabled, a high number of dynamic lights, soften all smoke edges and an insane amount of corpses. Company of Heroes - High shader quality, High model quality, Anti-aliasing enabled (in game), Ultra texture quality, high quality shadows, high quality reflections, Post processing On, High building detail, High physics, high tree quality, High terrain detail, Ultra effects fidelity, Ultra effects density, Object scarring enabled and the model detail slider all the way to the right. F.E.A.R. - 4x FSAA (in game), maximum light details, shadows enabled, maximum shadow details, soft shadows enabled, 16x anisotropic filtering, maximum texture resolution, maximum videos, maximum shader quality. Half Life 2: Episode 1 - High model detail, high texture detail, high shader detail, reflect all water details, high shadow detail, 4x multi-sample AA (in-game), 16x anisotropic filtering, v-sync disabled, full high-dynamic range. Pretty much as high as you can crank it. This post has been edited by dos: Apr 25 2007, 06:18 PM |
|
|
Apr 28 2007, 10:31 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
188 posts Joined: May 2006 |
http://dailytech.com/ATI+Radeon+HD+2900+XT...article7052.htm
XTX is going to suck from the looks of this. Only a little better than an XT. That's it then, nvidia has got the best card for this round. I hope there'll be more info on 2600 coming and how it compares. |
|
|
Apr 29 2007, 10:18 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
188 posts Joined: May 2006 |
QUOTE(zeustronic @ Apr 28 2007, 02:20 PM) lol... its engineering sample vs 8800GTX factory overclock core speed@ 650Mhz (575Mhz standard) dude... & there no official drivers for ATi. lol ATi sucks?? Imagine without ATi, we can get cheap price from NVidia. For me the Guru3D is the best trusted sites for GC comparison, coz Guru3D done their review much more detail.... You say you trust another website more and you provide a dailytech link... and the in-depth reviews are all under embargo probably currently.here's is the comparison HD2900XT VS 8800GTS.... Link Besides I said nothing about price only performance. The XTX does not look like it'll be able to compete with the GTX. XTX too similar to the XT to offer big advantage like GTX and GTS. Maybe R650 will be XTX when it's ready. |
| Change to: | 0.0177sec
0.61
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 21st December 2025 - 03:18 AM |