I wonder what is this thing going to compete with ?
And would it be possible to OC it to match the XT ? If so , then it'll be a sweet deal I suppose .

I think it's the 320mb version of the 8800 gts it will be competing against.

I might get one of these

The 320MB 8800 GTS is as fast as the 640MB ( in terms of clocks/bandwidth , etc. , only less memory ) . The Pro has a lower memory and core clock speed compared to the XT .
Atleast it has a nicer power draw ( 150W only , hell the XT takes 215W ) .

I never thought I'd say this, but this could actually prove to be a good deal.

But it will never compete with my 8800 Ultra.

review of the HIS one is great. Best bang for buck card out.

with a lot cheaper price than 8800ultra, HD2900Pro is a very good choice for a low budget people..it still can't match 8800 ultra, but with that price, the HD2900Pro is quite fit wih its price..

Of course it will never compete with the 8800 Ultra . It's not supposed to . But two of these cost less than a single Ultra .

Would this card run with FSP 400W power supply with 12V1@18A, 12V2@16A?
Thanks.

@anonymous Probably. It really depends on how many optical and hard drives you have to power as well. If you want to be able to overclock the card you will need to connect a 6 pin and 8 pin connector. So if you want to do that you may to get a new PSU with the new 8 pin connector. http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1189/3/page_3_the_card/index.html

it will depend on your cpu and everything else, you'll be pushing your power supply to the max though when gaming, in one review it shows using 300 Watts...even with an 80% PSU for 400 Watt thats 320 Watts that your PSU will put out

NOW this is a true midrange card(midrange always started at $200-270 before DX10's mid cards)

What are you talking about? The 8800 GTS 320 has been the "true" midrange card for 8 months.

And I would still recommend the 8800 GTS 320 because the R600 fails miserably at AA.

You'll need a 500W PSU atleast , I suppose .
This is like the X1950Pro / 7900 GS , high midrange or low highend .

How would this compare to a x1950xt? All the HD Pro has is 16 000 more shaders.

The HD 2900 Pro is much faster than the X1950 XT .

tempting. this is a good upper midrange card. it's like a 7950GT-which is just a ~hundred Mhz slower than the highend 7900GTX.

just OC that Pro to XT>:)

guys,,..i wait for 2 decaids for this video card..

but now its was relised version with 512 and 1024 for a diference of 55%u20AC ..whats the big diference?

is it matter ?????and what abaout the newest hd2950 pro

The 1024MB one is more "futureproof" , but I'd get the 512MB , the 1GB one just isn't worth it . Seems , that you can flash the BIOS to make a HD 2900 XT out of it .

I'm planning on purchasing this card, water cooling it and then OC'ing it beyond the XT's specs. But concerning the difference between 512mb and 1024mb, I don't understand how this couldn't make a considerable increase in performance. I will say that my 3DMarks scores did not change much after upgrading from 1 to 2 gigs of system memory, but games loaded so much quicker and played smoother. Would I be correct to assume the same principle applies?

Guys i need help. I need to choose from 8800 GTS 320/640 or HD 2900 PRo money is not a much of a concern. I have Samsung 226BW 22" LCD and want to play all the latest games. Which one do you suggest?

@Babalugats - You can simply flash it to be an XT , with the same cooler . Performance-wise, there is no difference between the 512MB and 1GB one right now . Probably will make a difference in newer games , but by then there will be newer and better cards out probably .
@Ren - That monitor's native resolution is 1680x1050 right ?
The 8800 GTS 320MB has too low memory for that resolution , I'm having doubts about the 640MB even , but it'll be good enough . ( for newer games 320MB might not be enough , for older ones it doesn't make a difference ) .
So , 8800 GTS 640MB , HD 2900 Pro or a HD 2900 XT for that monitor . The 640MB and the XT cost about the same , I'd get the HD 2900 XT .

2x 2900pro 1gb cards are the way to go for 3dmark06 scores :D

IMO if you use a 24inch screen or higher, its better to get the 1gb ati cards over nvidia, dx10 will need a but load of memory available and thsi cards AA performance isnt great, with higher res you dont need as much AA.

god if this thing had 32/32 of pixel and texuture this thing be hauling ass it could see 16000 3dmark easily since it 11000 at stock

I've been seeing some unbelievable oc's for the 2900pro. Looks like it is definitely a sweet deal. GDDR3/4, 512/1024MB, and some really surprising OC potential when you flash to XT BIOS for voltage...

That AA problem is kind of holding ATI back right now though isn't it? If it weren't for that and the power draw of a card flashed to XT specs, I'd say that the 1GB 2900pro beats to 640GTS hands down on all fronts.

Makes me want one...

I'm planning to buy ATI Radeon HD2650XT or ATI Radeon HD2950 because they use 55nm core which reduces power usage and with lower temperature. In respect to HD2600 and HD2900, it has lower memory bandwich (lower than 512mb) but with higher overclock speed. With 55nm and lower temperature, this allows AMD to make a cheaper card with higher overclock speed (I think). Having lower memory bus bandwich would lower the price of this new-generation DX10 video card. Some people told me that higher memory bandwich is not necessary when it comes to a 55nm core video card because that would just increase the price. I think that the performance would be similar but the price is different. The point for having 512mb memory bus bandwich for HD2900 is because it uses 65nm core with higher temperature? (i guess) so that caused the price to go up which makes it more inconvenience for some people to buy??

However, I bet that most people would go for HD2950 since it is an upgrade of X1950 and HD2900.

Err I think its called the HD 3800 now (look at home page)err the nm manufacturing process has nothing to do whether a card needs a lot of bandwidth or not it's the chips processing power itself that dictates that however lower end cards use a smaller manufacturing process than the high end due to complexity.

Well , as the HD 2900 XT proved it , memory bandwidth isn't everything . You really don't need more than 60 GB/sec .
55nm will probably allow them to clock the HD 2950 ( Pro? ) to around 800-900 Mhz core . And IF they use GDDR4 , they can achieve about 2-2.2 Ghz on the memory .

Most people really dont know what they are talking about here. The Pro is just an underclocked XT (remember the king of 3dmark06?) Full blast a pair of the 512-bit versions will be far more value for your dollar than anything else on the market. They do run a little hot and are a little noisy but who cares!! When you pay less than $400 for both cards and are knocking down high scores in w/e game your playing just dont use the extra money you saved as a mouse pad.

i have this card , made by sapphire & its the 1gb gddr4 version , very good card & together with my other system's x1950xtx 512 gddr4 make a nice duo & to look at & to play games with , i dont have vista yet but use xp home & pro for those 2 pc's.
amd64 x2 4400 (939) & 6400 b.e.(am2) accompany them ,very good value & futureproof for both i have,since i never buy what they advertise that we need but buy according to my needs for now & 1-2 next yrs ratio.
i dont care for 3dmarks etc since i hardly overclock anything until its needed badly for the extra performance needed whenever.
have fun all & take care.