X-bit labs

Started by: nick_S | Date 10/31/07

Comments: 17 | Last Comment:  11/10/07

[1-13]

1. Again, the MSRP of the 2600XT and the 8600GT are both $149....... so why aren't they directly compared? For some reason, Xbit authors seem to put the $149 AMD solution up against more expensive nVidia products, and places the $149 nVidia solution against more entry-level AMD products.

At least they used Catalyst 7.10 this time........ oh wait....

2. hmm.... The GTS 320, 640 are obsolete.

3. I don't understand how the cards tested perform so poorly in Episode 2.
I have a 7900GT and an E6600. I have everything set to the highest plus 2xAA 16xAF @1600x1200 and the game runs flawelessly between 40-50FPS. A 8800 or 2900 should be pumping FPS in the hundreds.

4. Why do they insist on using catalyst 7.9?? 7.10 has been out for more than long enough. Makes the whole ATI side of the results bogus in the extreme. Stop rehashing old drivers! shheeeeeesh

5. put 8800gt for benchmark too, thanks

6. This article was written BEFORE the 8800 gt was out!
This applies to the ati drivers as well. Cunts.

- This article is 9 pages long and benches only one game.
- The drivers have been released for THREE weeks now.

Does writing this article take tree weeks ?!? A week, week and a half perhaps more like it.

So perhaps you should STFU noob.

I think that xbitlabs should indeed stop using outdated drivers version - It's not fair towards the AMD-ATI manufacturer and possibly (or maybe probably) my lead to wrong conclusions.

The 7.10 drivers were released within a day of Episode 2's launch. Obviously it took them under a day to write the article and then they waited three weeks to publish it?

7. How can you suggest to people that the 8800GTS-320mb is a good buy? The 8800GT has been released at the moment of publishing this review. Anyone buying the 320mb version will be wasting their money. Bad, bad conclusion!

8. I found it ironic and laughable that you kept talking about the Ati driver yet, you are using old drivers to benchmark the cards.

9. "But if you are choosing a card to buy, we recommend you to wait and see if the performance of AMD/ATI solutions changes for the better with driver updates."

You guys could start with using the most recent Catalyst (released 3 weeks ago) or wait, 7.11 is probably around the corner by now lol

10. why yet again same old habit of old drivers, xbit is losing credibility

although i understand not testing the 8800GT, you still should have thought about it when doing the conclusion

11. pathetic.. still using the 7.9 (worst drivers performance wise of the year)
well i now am sure, XBit is on the Ncrapia paylist
Goodbye.

12. Well expect a update with 8800GT numbers and Catalyst 7.10 performace, stop the been rude people!

BTW I can run the game at 1280x1024x32 2xAA 8xAF high settings and still get 50 FPS P4 3.4Ghz 6800GS OC AGP8x Thanks.

Thats my point. The game is not demanding at all. Its Half Life 2 with HDR and better textures. Something is wrong with the performance figures in those graphs.

13. Great article, but one big flaw in this benchmark is that Nvidia's transparency multisampling AA is compared against ATI's Adaptive AA.

ATI's AAA uses supersampling with a much bigger performance hit and much better IQ.

I am wondering if Episode Two already calls for AA on alpha textures if left to application preferences. I have to confirm this with game screenshots on my own.. heard it from one of the other reviewers.

[1-13]