According to Anandtech, the Radeon HD 2900XTX performed considerably worse than an 8800GTX clocked at 650MHz, which is the speed the "8800Ultra" is expected to run at.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8571/anandtechr600benchszs8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
These tests were also run on Retail drivers given to ATI's board manufacturing partners.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7052
The less than stellar performance benchmarks are no surprise to board partners and AMD insiders. Two independent ATI board builders told DailyTech that Radeon HD 2900 XTX will not be a part of their initial portfolios. Given the additional memory cost and bulky card footprint, it seems unlikely the XTX will ever see the light of day given its current performance. Another problem will likely be power consumption as the initial R600 yields had very high thermal outputs. The performance disadvantage may come from the R600 only having 16ROPS, the same number the X1800/X1900 and 7800/7900 series, where the 8800GTX has 24 ROPS meaning it can draw more pixels per clock cycle, and the fact that the 8800GTX has 64 TMUs vs. the HD 2900XTX's 32TMUs mean it'll be much better for texture intensive applications.
If this is all true, it looks like even more rough times for ATI/AMD.

I am very unhappy. :(. Maybe I will to go the dark side Nvidia

Well, its not looking good for ATI at the moment. Iv'e never really been a fanboy for either side, I go on and off.
My very first graphics card was an 6200TC
Then I went and bought a 6600
Then an x850xt
then an x1950xt
and then my 8800gts

I really think both sides do good at times, right now though, go with Nvidia

This is why I trust Nvidia more often.

This is why I trust Nvidia more often.
Then you obviously haven't been with the industry for very long. ATI generally has a better track record than Nvidia. Nvidia's Geforce FX series cards blew hardcore in Direct X9, and ATI's Radeon 9xxx series beat them on every price point. Then with the Geforce 6 series/X8xx series, it was really more of a tie with ATI having the best performance, and Nvidia having the richer feature set with Shader model 3.0 and FP16 support. Then in the Geforce 7 series, ATI's X1800 and X1900 series were faster, had better anisotropic filtering, support of FP16+AA and a very competitive price point.

Every once in awhile the companies have a better product one generation to the next, so it really just depends.

i have an ATI that i dont want.
but my warranty is void if i install a graphics card so im stuck with it.

i have an ATI that i dont want.
but my warranty is void if i install a graphics card so im stuck with it.

Man it sucks for people like you. Crappy over price machines.

Man it sucks for people like you. Crappy over price machines.

He's right, companies overprice you outrageously on computers. I've seen some Dell Demensions that cost $800, but the parts are only valued at a few hundred. But yet people still buy them

He's right, companies overprice you outrageously on computers. I've seen some Dell Demensions that cost $800, but the parts are only valued at a few hundred. But yet people still buy them

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4374/img1031ax6.jpg

Check out that low price.

yeah.
it was actually in conjunction with school (its a laptop)
we give them $4500, and they go and "invest" our money in computer technology.
to this day we still have not had a single technology related lesson.
all we've done is used Microsoft word.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4374/img1031ax6.jpg

Check out that low price.thats from like 02 man.

i hate my computer.....

thats from like 02 man.

Heh, actually that was from my last trip to Poland, about a month ago. The flyer might be old but I highly doubt it, since my aunt throws out all her old flyers.

i throw out all my flyers

The r600 turned out to be a flop. :(

The r600 turned out to be a flop. :(
I'm still happy with the 8800GTX I bought a few months ago. :D

yeah, the r600s turned out to be junk.
Im happy with my card too, even though its not a GTX, but a GTS

You know HeyYou it's not all about graphics, if you have alot of ram (about 4 gigs) and a killer processor then games will run fine i don't know why your getting hung up in the whole graphics side cause processors also create good looking graphics aswell and good fps rates.

Dude, do you know anything? You are telling us that you could have a piece of shit graphics card, but a good cpu and ram, and games would run fine?

You know HeyYou it's not all about graphics, if you have alot of ram (about 4 gigs) and a killer processor then games will run fine i don't know why your getting hung up in the whole graphics side cause processors also create good looking graphics aswell and good fps rates.
That doesn't make sense at all...you need a good graphics card if you have good CPU and RAM. If you have good CPU and RAM, but a shitty graphics card then what's the point of getting good CPU and RAM? Also...if you don't have a good graphics card then how are you going to play those games that require the higher end video cards? The CPU and the RAM contribute to help make the graphics and FPS better...they don't exactly do 100% of the job. If CPU and RAM does that then nobody would make video cards.

You know HeyYou it's not all about graphics, if you have alot of ram (about 4 gigs) and a killer processor then games will run fine i don't know why your getting hung up in the whole graphics side cause processors also create good looking graphics aswell and good fps rates.That's wrong; an Athlon X2 3800+ with an 8800GTX will always outperform a X6800 with an X1950XTX. There isn't a game out that benefits from having more than 2GBs of RAM, and XP/Vista 32-bit can't even access all 4GBs. Running the 64-bit versions would only mean more trouble and you'd be losing all of the benefits of the extra memory.