Elite Computers
REGISTER Other People All Forums Active Topics Contact Staff Enter a PC Buy a PC Forum Search Forum Help Main Forum menuNoLogin Image Map
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Who's here at 12:55:39 AM on 10/23/2017?
 All Forums
 Computer Forums
 Hardware Reviews
 Video - ATI 2900XT vs. NVIDIA 8800 GTS
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

KC
Head Honcho
MY PC

USA
3052 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2007 :  10:50:20 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Full Artical with Benchmarks at DailyTech.com.
-------

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT puts up some impressive numbers in benchmarks

After several delays, AMD plans to launch its long-awaited R600 graphics processors. AMD is currently briefing select members of the press on its R600 architecture in the Tunisia, but there is no embargo date on the R600 for DailyTech -- we can show you benchmarks now.

AMD plans to launch a completely new DirectX 10 lineup with the flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX. Other models such as the Radeon HD 2900 XT, Radeon HD 2600-series and Radeon HD 2400-series will also join AMD’s DirectX 10 family after the initial high-end launches.

AMD equips the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT with 320 stream processors to take on NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800 GTS, which features 96 stream processors. However, AMD and NVIDIA have taken different approaches towards their unified shader designs. AMD pairs the R600 GPU with 512MB of GDDR3 memory clocked at 1.65 GHz across an eight-channel, 512-bit memory interface. In comparison, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS features 640MB of 1.6 GHz GDDR3 memory on a 320-bit memory interface.

AMD equips the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT with a dual-slot, blower-type heat sink. Unlike the OEM Radeon HD 2900-series previously pictured, which is an 11.5” long card, the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT makes use of a smaller cooler so everything fits within the 9.5” PCB. Although the R600 GPU supports HDMI audio and video output, the our reference design only features dual dual-link DVI.
--------



The benchmarking was done on an Intel D975XBX2 BadAxe2, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and 2x1GB DDR2-800 MHz.
Even though the AMD/ATI card tested higher in all tests, I would think that it would be even better on the top of the line AMD CPU.

With the ability to tune hardware and drivers to maximize each ones stregnths it would make sense for AMD to have their drivers optimized for an AMD platform machine.

One other note is using FPS as the judging factor.
Sure, you can virtually see how many frames the card is capable of, but what good is 92 FPS in "Company of Heroes" or 112 FPS in "Half Life 2: Episode 1" when you are running 75Hz or less monitor refresh rates?

What is the correlation between a LCD monitor's millisecond rating and a CRT monitor's Refresh Rate?

ms vs hz
Milliseconds and Hertz are inversely proportional. 1 second = 1000 ms, and 1 hz = 1/s. So to convert 15ms into hz (refresh rate) it would be 1000 ms / 15 ms = ~67hz (or 67 FPS)

Here is a small chart detailing some of the more common LCD ms ratings and their relationship to Hz. Notice the non-liinear relationship between milliseconds and hz. As milliseconds get smaller, the corresponding hz gets larger a lot faster.

LCD CRT
ms Hz (Displayable FPS)
--- -----
35 28.57
30 33.33
25 40
20 50
18 56
16 62.5
12 83.3
10 100
08 125
05 200
02 500

In short, if you have an LCD monitor and it is running slower than 12ms refresh you are getting hosed regardless of your video card.

I would say that if you are going to run a machine capable of displaying over 100 FPS you'll need an LCD monitor capable of running at 8 ms refresh at the resolution you want to run at.

Just keep that in mind before you go dropping hundreds of dollars on a video card when you just won't see the difference frame rate wise in a game.


KC's Kruisers - It's all how you look at things ©¿©¬

WheelSmoke
Advanced Member
MY PC

USA
1255 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2007 :  11:44:53 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Not to mention the AVIVO related performance.




Go to Top of Page

KC
Head Honcho
MY PC

USA
3052 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2007 :  1:09:44 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I just spent the last what.. hour and a half on the phone with ViewSonics main engineers asking questions about ture FPS and learned a bunch.

Just like a CRT, an LCD monitor only refreshes the screen at the Hz rate.
What the Response Time in ms does is indicate how fast each pixel on the screen can change states (color).

Unlike a CRT, an LCD disply only changes the pixels that have changed, for example a static image display wouldn't be updated at all.

But, in an action game pretty much every frame changes.
If you have a game pumping out 120FPS and the LCD monitor is set at 85Hz but it is only a 16ms response time monitor (62.5 Hz), you are going to get ghosts and such because the monitor is trying to change pixel states as fast your input and can't, so when the screen re-draws you get leftover garbage from the last image.

That said, unless you get an LCD monitor that can refresh faster than 85Hz, I would think anything under 8ms (120FPS) Response Rate is a waste of money because 8ms will re-draw the image faster than you can display it at 87Hz (87 displayed FPS) so long as your game is not pumping out more than 120FPS.



KC's Kruisers - It's all how you look at things ©¿©¬
Go to Top of Page

WheelSmoke
Advanced Member
MY PC

USA
1255 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2007 :  5:56:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Would the CCC 3D setting "Wait for vertical refresh" fix the ghosting?




Go to Top of Page

KC
Head Honcho
MY PC

USA
3052 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2007 :  07:08:05 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I suppose if you slowed the video stream to your slowest component (the 62.5 Hz for a 16ms response time monitor) the ghosting would go away, the monitor would have time to fully change all pixel states before the image was displayed.

If you had a 16ms monitor I would set the refresh rate at 60 Hz too.
You get nothing by running at 85Hz because the pixels can only be processed at 62.5Hz.

Regardless, even if you run a 2ms response time monitor (500FPS) you won't see it.
You monitors Hz refresh rate is all the frames per second you are going to get.

KC's Kruisers - It's all how you look at things ©¿©¬
Go to Top of Page

KC
Head Honcho
MY PC

USA
3052 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2007 :  10:41:45 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/641/

-------
Test of the 1st LCD at 100 Hz

Gamers, the future of LCDs is at 100 Hz !
Partially unveiled at CeBIT 2006, 100 Hz technology is coming for LCDs.
The idea is that monitors will no longer display 50 or 60 images per second but 100. How it does this is something we will go into later.

What is important is that Samsung is headed in the right direction. Finally, LCD technology is considerably improving much more than going from 16 to 2ms.

Under certain circumstances, the first 100 Hz LCD is as good as a CRT.

AND

Now back to games. Whether it’s with the computer or game console, 100 Hz brings a considerable improvement.
It is so good that for the first time it looks very much like CRT rendering.
Now, this improvement is so significant that one silly question came to our mind: why work on interpolating an image to double the frequency and not impose real support of 100 or 120 Hz for graphic cards or game consoles?

We agree on the fact that none of the current consoles are currently able to sustain this frequency, but our computers do. At least those who have a very good GC and /or who play games that aren´t too performance hungry. (With vertical synchronisation if your card couldn´t hold the 100 fps, you could reduce it to 50).

For now there are no answers to this question and we should directly ask panel manufacturers.
---------

I searched around for some 21" CRT's that would run 1600x1280 at 100Hz in 32 bit color and couldn't find a single one.

However, with my 21" CRT monitor I can run at 1152x864 at 100Hz.
Most if not all DirectX games take control of the video when it starts.
Now that I know my limits, I'll play with Flatout 2's excelent display options and press the limits but add a "what looked best" at the end.

KC's Kruisers - It's all how you look at things ©¿©¬
Go to Top of Page

KC
Head Honcho
MY PC

USA
3052 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2007 :  12:11:27 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I did some tests.
Higher rez at higer Hz is a benefit if the game supports it, up until you hit the refresh vs. rez mark.

I will post post my results when I get another first hand opinon here tonight.
I am leaning towards 1280x1024 @ 72 as the overall best.
On my harware I never drop below about 70 FPS truely displayed at that.

At 1600 and 72Hz I see drops down to 50 FPS.
At 1024 and 100Hz I get 100 frames constant, but the picture just doesn't look near as good.

At 1280x1024 and 85Hz I think I found the perfect hardware match for Flatout 2, which is about all play.

Nice picture and a steady 85 FPS my monitor can actually display.


KC's Kruisers - It's all how you look at things ©¿©¬
Go to Top of Page

WheelSmoke
Advanced Member
MY PC

USA
1255 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2007 :  2:24:17 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If your display was exactly the same but the FPS was less I wonder at what point that we would be able to see a difference?

The same test on a slower computer doing 25 FPS for example.




Go to Top of Page

KC
Head Honcho
MY PC

USA
3052 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2007 :  8:29:54 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You loose frames.
I could get 1600x1200x72Hz to drop clear down to low 60's for example.
Fraps says whats going to the monitor maxing at what the game does, what you set it at, if the machine slows down it shows.
If you have a slow machine you'll see it.

KC's Kruisers - It's all how you look at things ©¿©¬
Go to Top of Page

Stampede
Better Poster
MY PC

USA
360 Posts

Posted - 04/26/2007 :  1:36:27 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I do CRT's. Especially high end ones like the Sony TriniTron MultiScan 17f II.


Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Elite Computers Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000