AMD HD 2400/2600 Benchmarks

[Extelleron]

Inquirer Story: http://www.theinq.net/default.aspx?article=40612
Benchmarks :http://we.pcinlife.com/thread-786552-1-1.html

Tests were run w/ Catalyst 7.6 and Forceware 158.24 drivers.

EDIT: It seems alot of the tests were run with FW 158.43, not 158.24.

Unfortunately they didn't test against the 8600GTS, but they compare the HD 2600XT, 2600 Pro, 2400XT, and 2400 Pro against the 8600GT, 8500GT, 7300GT, and 7300GS in alot of tests.

In DX9 performance, the HD 2600XT is faster than the 8600GT in the vast majority of cases, sometimes by a large margin, sometimes by a small one, and a few times it loses. At the 1600x1200 resolution, the 2600XT wns every test but one (FEAR).

When it comes to the HD 2600 Pro vs 8500GT, at 1024x768 the 2600 Pro wins every time, often it is much faster.

The HD 2400XT appears faster than the 8500GT in DirectX 10, in DX9 they are not compared. It is, however, consistantly faster than the 7300GT. The HD 2400 Pro is only featured in one 3D Mark 06 benchmark; here it is slightly slower than the 7300GT and much faster than the 7300GS.

In terms of DirectX 10 performance, it looks like a resounding win for the HD 2400/2600 series, except in Lost Planet. In Call of Juarez and Company of Heroes, the HD 2600XT and even the HD 2600 Pro are faster than the 8600GT and the 8500GT is left in the dust.
As I said earlier, the HD 2400 Pro is able to beat the 8500GT in DX10 (except for Lost Planet, once again).

Overall, it looks like AMD has a strong midrange and low-end this time around, although the HD 2600XT will not be much faster (and in some cases will be slower) than the 8600GTS. The one thing that looks clear is that AMD has very strong DX10 performance, although this might have been less of a win had beta nVidia drivers been used (v158.45 improves DX10 performance over 158.43).

Personally I think nVidia cut down the 8600/8500 series too much in terms of shader units. The 8600 is strong, and should be, in texture heavy games due to having twice the number of TMUs as the HD 2600 (16 TMUs vs 8). However, it has a big problem in terms of shader performance due to only 32 SP's. I think this is what is killing DX10 performance, and performance in more shader-heavy games.

One other thing that we can take from this is that the 7.6 drivers really improved STALKER performance; the HD 2600XT beats the 8600GT here and that would have been impossible on the old drivers.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Nice... Very impressive results if true, specially concerning DX10... Means you can still play DX10 games with midrange cards if you tone down the settings

 

[Furen]

The 2600 series looks decent enough assuming the XT is price-competitive with the 8600GT and the pro is competitive with the 8500GT. The one problem, as I see it, is that the 2600XT being tested is the GDDR4 version and price for this part may end up being a bit higher than predicted since it uses "new" memory tech. That said, it would have been nice to see how the GDDR3 XT performs, the bandwidth difference between the two is massive but the core clock is the same. Two very nice things about the AMD parts are the UVD (that actually works ) and the fact that they're fabbed at 65nm (I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen that pic of a PC running 3dMark06 on an E6700 + HD 2600 that only uses 150ish watts).

The one problem for AMD, as I see it, is that it is not competing at the "high-end". It fails to match the 8800GTX (never mind the Ultra) and can barely compete with the 8800GTS, most likely due to the fact that AMD wasnt able to clock it any higher due to leakage, and now we're seeing the same in the midrange. As far as I know, even the 2600XT (GDDR4) will not beat the 8600GTS so AMD's products are being targetted at the GT and lesser parts. Still, AMD will give Nvidia a price war with a cheaper-to-produce part so it does hold some advantages.

Overall, I'd say that AMD's parts will be the better buys at their respective price brackets due to the fact that they offer a bit better performance, lower power draw and UVD.

 

[Extelleron]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Furen
The 2600 series looks decent enough assuming the XT is price-competitive with the 8600GT and the pro is competitive with the 8500GT. The one problem, as I see it, is that the 2600XT being tested is the GDDR4 version and price for this part may end up being a bit higher than predicted since it uses "new" memory tech. That said, it would have been nice to see how the GDDR3 XT performs, the bandwidth difference between the two is massive but the core clock is the same. Two very nice things about the AMD parts are the UVD (that actually works ) and the fact that they're fabbed at 65nm (I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen that pic of a PC running 3dMark06 on an E6700 + HD 2600 that only uses 150ish watts).

The one problem for AMD, as I see it, is that it is not competing at the "high-end". It fails to match the 8800GTX (never mind the Ultra) and can barely compete with the 8800GTS, most likely due to the fact that AMD wasnt able to clock it any higher due to leakage, and now we're seeing the same in the midrange. As far as I know, even the 2600XT (GDDR4) will not beat the 8600GTS so AMD's products are being targetted at the GT and lesser parts. Still, AMD will give Nvidia a price war with a cheaper-to-produce part so it does hold some advantages.

Overall, I'd say that AMD's parts will be the better buys at their respective price brackets due to the fact that they offer a bit better performance, lower power draw and UVD.</end quote></div>

With the newer drivers from ATI, the HD 2600XT looks like it's going to be around as fast as the 8600GTS, sometimes faster and sometimes a bit slower. The 8600GTS is only 15-20% faster than the GT, so in many cases the XT will still be faster, and when it comes to DX10 it definately will be.

The good thing is the low power consumption (for once, lower than nVidia), and the fact that AMD has more flexibility with pricing than nVidia does - on a 65nm process the HD 2600 should be cheaper to produce. At around $150~, the HD 2600XT will be a very good seller.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
With the newer drivers from ATI, the HD 2600XT looks like it's going to be around as fast as the 8600GTS, sometimes faster and sometimes a bit slower. The 8600GTS is only 15-20% faster than the GT, so in many cases the XT will still be faster, and when it comes to DX10 it definately will be.

The good thing is the low power consumption (for once, lower than nVidia), and the fact that AMD has more flexibility with pricing than nVidia does - on a 65nm process the HD 2600 should be cheaper to produce. At around $150~, the HD 2600XT will be a very good seller.

People also used to say that, with driver improvements, the 2900XT would match the 8800GTX and I have yet to see a driver for it that improves performance significantly (in non-CF setups). I don't doubt that performance WILL improve as drivers mature but we won't know just how much of an improvement we'll see until the drivers actually come out. If these parts were, without question, faster than the Nvidia ones then they'd be priced accordingly, AMD isn't pricing these parts so low just because of the goodness of its heart (it could be a bid to gain marketshare by sacrificing margins but I doubt that).

 

[Traveler]

Disappointing result. If HD2600XT is the same price as GF8600GT, I would pick ATI.
But it's probably not the case, Nvidia gets my $.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Furen
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Extelleron
With the newer drivers from ATI, the HD 2600XT looks like it's going to be around as fast as the 8600GTS, sometimes faster and sometimes a bit slower. The 8600GTS is only 15-20% faster than the GT, so in many cases the XT will still be faster, and when it comes to DX10 it definately will be.

The good thing is the low power consumption (for once, lower than nVidia), and the fact that AMD has more flexibility with pricing than nVidia does - on a 65nm process the HD 2600 should be cheaper to produce. At around $150~, the HD 2600XT will be a very good seller.</end quote></div>

People also used to say that, with driver improvements, the 2900XT would match the 8800GTX and I have yet to see a driver for it that improves performance significantly (in non-CF setups). I don't doubt that performance WILL improve as drivers mature but we won't know just how much of an improvement we'll see until the drivers actually come out. If these parts were, without question, faster than the Nvidia ones then they'd be priced accordingly, AMD isn't pricing these parts so low just because of the goodness of its heart (it could be a bid to gain marketshare by sacrificing margins but I doubt that).

Well, the 7.5 and 7.6 drivers definately improve performance and there are a number of cases where the HD 2900XT is close to/equal to the 8800GTX in games. Really the big issue is improvng AA/AF performance, which I'm not sure is going to be possible through the driver. Still, the HD 2900XT has seen big improvements in the drivers; the recent 7.6 drivers SUBSTANTIALLY improve performance in STALKER, for example.

These benches are with the new 7.6 drivers, and it seems like the HD 2600XT is pretty competitive with them; it doesn't really NEED new drivers at all, although they will certainly jelp. If these results hold true, the HD 2600XT should be faster or equal to the GTS in most cases; the GTS is approx. 20% faster than the 8600GT and in many of those benchmarks the HD 2600XT was more than 20% faster than the GT.

Personally I'm also excited to see what the HD 2900XT does with the new 7.6 drivers in DX10 games; it seems that they must have improved DX10 performance, because this refview shows very good performance in CoH and Call of Juarez.

 

[chewietobbacca]

This is good news for ATI. Keep in mind folks that the low end and midrange is where the vast majority of sales are. The high-end enthusiast market, especially at the prices the 8800's and 2900's cost, is surely a very very very small percent of the market. If ATI's 2400 and 2600 do well, then they will surely make a healthy amount of profit, especially with the lower 65nm cost. We need ATI to stay alive to make sure no one can dominate the market.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
This is good news for ATI. Keep in mind folks that the low end and midrange is where the vast majority of sales are. The high-end enthusiast market, especially at the prices the 8800's and 2900's cost, is surely a very very very small percent of the market. If ATI's 2400 and 2600 do well, then they will surely make a healthy amount of profit, especially with the lower 65nm cost. We need ATI to stay alive to make sure no one can dominate the market.

ATI (as a division of AMD) actually isn't doing that bad and still making a small profit, the problem is it is only a small part of the huge sinking ship that is AMD right now. Success from the graphics division will definately help AMD, but if they can't make profits on CPUs, then they will still be screwed.

The good thing is I can see OEMs like Dell gobbling up these HD 2400 / 2600 cards. They offer good performance, but that's not the main reason. They're also going to be CHEAP and have low power consumption and produce little heat.. this means OEMs don't need to put a big power supply in their PCs (saves $$) and also their PCs will be very quiet.

 

[SlowSpyder]

http://www.tweaktown.com/artic...ra_compared/index.html

I saw that review the other day. It looks like the drivers are starting to help ATI's performance.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
This is good news for ATI. Keep in mind folks that the low end and midrange is where the vast majority of sales are. The high-end enthusiast market, especially at the prices the 8800's and 2900's cost, is surely a very very very small percent of the market. If ATI's 2400 and 2600 do well, then they will surely make a healthy amount of profit, especially with the lower 65nm cost. We need ATI to stay alive to make sure no one can dominate the market.</end quote></div>

ATI (as a division of AMD) actually isn't doing that bad and still making a small profit, the problem is it is only a small part of the huge sinking ship that is AMD right now. Success from the graphics division will definately help AMD, but if they can't make profits on CPUs, then they will still be screwed.

The good thing is I can see OEMs like Dell gobbling up these HD 2400 / 2600 cards. They offer good performance, but that's not the main reason. They're also going to be CHEAP and have low power consumption and produce little heat.. this means OEMs don't need to put a big power supply in their PCs (saves $$) and also their PCs will be very quiet.

Yep, it looks like the rumor of Dell buying tons of 2600-2400 might actually be real, considering how nicely those cards fit the OEM market, and I hope so, for AMDs sake

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Traveler
Disappointing result. If HD2600XT is the same price as GF8600GT, I would pick ATI.
But it's probably not the case, Nvidia gets my $.

Yeah, they left out the GTS. I will see what Techreport says.

It's funny that "some people" jumped all over the 8600 results and now a few months later those kind of numbers are just fine. :thumbsdown:

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Traveler
Disappointing result. If HD2600XT is the same price as GF8600GT, I would pick ATI.
But it's probably not the case, Nvidia gets my $.</end quote></div>

Yeah, they left out the GTS. I will see what Techreport says.

It's funny that "some people" jumped all over the 8600 results and now a few months later those kind of numbers are just fine. :thumbsdown:

I'm disappointed with ALL the midrange of this generation, but nVidia set the bar very low and as long as AMD meets or exceeds that, they'll do fine and have a decent card.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Traveler
Disappointing result. If HD2600XT is the same price as GF8600GT, I would pick ATI.
But it's probably not the case, Nvidia gets my $.</end quote></div>

Yeah, they left out the GTS. I will see what Techreport says.

It's funny that "some people" jumped all over the 8600 results and now a few months later those kind of numbers are just fine. :thumbsdown:

Thing is Ati has the 1950pro/xt that kill anything in its price range, so was there a need to have another card with the same price and same performance? And judging by those benchmarks the HD2600XT will best even the 8600GTS, although I do hope its priced fairly low, because if it retails at anything more than 150$ its a waste of money, just like the 8600 was

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Yep, it looks like the rumor of Dell buying tons of 2600-2400 might actually be real, considering how nicely those cards fit the OEM market, and I hope so, for AMDs sake

I don't know, you can already order a Dell with a 8600 in it. Not sure why they would switch.

 

[HopJokey]

Any word on the price and release date of a 2400Pro? This would be perfect in a HTPC type machine if cheap and passively cooled.

 

[f4phantom2500]

man i hope amd/ati decides to kill the segment in which i'd buy (less than 8800gts [$ reasons], more than 8600gts [performance reasons]) and releases like a 2900gto. then sapphire can make one that unlocks i'd be all over one of those for like $200.

 

[Genx87]

How did it compare to the X1900XT?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How did it compare to the X1900XT?

It's going to be considerably slower than the X1900XT, even the X1950 Pro is going to be faster.

 

[Extelleron]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: HopJokey
Any word on the price and release date of a 2400Pro? This would be perfect in a HTPC type machine if cheap and passively cooled.</end quote></div>

Release date for the entire 2400/2600 series seems to be the end of this month; rumored that June 30th is the day.

The 2400 Pro will be very cheap; I'm going to guess it'll cost around $50-60.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
How did it compare to the X1900XT?

</end quote></div>

It's going to be considerably slower than the X1900XT, even the X1950 Pro is going to be faster.

What a ripoff!

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Extelleron
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
How did it compare to the X1900XT?

</end quote></div>

It's going to be considerably slower than the X1900XT, even the X1950 Pro is going to be faster.</end quote></div>

What a ripoff!

Well, it's not really a rip-off, the X1950 Pro was never intended as a $150 or below card, so the HD 2600XT shouldn't have to beat it - the HD 2600 is the successor to the X1600/X1650 series, the HD 2400 is the successor to the X1300 series. It's the same with the 8600 series - it is the successor to the 7600 series, and doesn't have to beat the 7900GS or GT in performance.

The reason we're seeing what seems like a weak midrange this generation is because we're moving to a totally new architecture, both nVidia and ATI. Previous "new cards" were based on the same architecture as the old ones, with some improvements. These new cards feature radically different architectures from the previous gen, and thus everything is not as "clear cut" as it usually is. In some games, the HD 2600 will perform very well and probably equal or beat the X1950 Pro / 7900GS. In others that don't benefit from the new architecture as well, it will only beat the previous X1650XT and 7600GT.

 

[GEOrifle]

What about AGP series of HD cards, will they on same level with PCI ?

 

[lyssword]

I was saying just when 2900xt came out that 2600xt (which wasn't out then) would not be so powerful alone, but will have EXCELLENT crossfire scaling (better than SLI in most tests), because 2900xt's cf had very good scaling which led me to believe same for 2600xt will happen Haven't seen many benchies, but I'm hoping xfire'd they come close to 8800gts 320mb levels. If they consume less power combined than the GTS and match performance, that would be sweet I'll keep on dreaming The thing is 2 of them will prolly be more expensive

 

[schneiderguy]

Hexus Review

...it's clear that Radeon HD 2600 XT performance is, frankly, horrible.

:Q