AMD HD 2400/2600 Benchmarks

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
Hexus Review

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>...it's clear that Radeon HD 2600 XT performance is, frankly, horrible.</end quote></div>

:Q

This makes me a sad panda

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: lyssword
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: schneiderguy
Hexus Review

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>...it's clear that Radeon HD 2600 XT performance is, frankly, horrible.</end quote></div>

:Q
</end quote></div>

This makes me a sad panda

i find the benchies a bit hard to believe. i'm definitely waiting till the card is reviewed by anandtech/toms/xbitlabs.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: lyssword
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: schneiderguy
Hexus Review

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>...it's clear that Radeon HD 2600 XT performance is, frankly, horrible.</end quote></div>

:Q
</end quote></div>

This makes me a sad panda

I dont know why you guys are so surprised that these cards suck.

Oh and I dont put too much stock into the first review in the OP. Why not even test against the 8600GTS?

 

[n7]

jeez, terrible performance by both the nV mid range & AMD's midrange.

Basically, total crap by both companies aside from high end

It's pretty sad to see both new series getting smacked around by the previous gen's entry level high end...

 

[TejTrescent]

FINALLY!! I'm fairly happy with seeing these results if the prices are what they're expected to be--if they meet the $140 range I kept hearing about, I'll be VERY happy.

 

[Furen]

Funny how Hexus' review has the 2400XT beating/matching the 8500GT. I doubt this would happen in more modern titles but if it turns out that the 2600 Pro is the card that is price-competitive with the 8500GT, AMD will rule the extreme low-end... Power consumption is kind of a disappointment, as is the UVD benchmark.

 

[Acanthus]

I figured nvidia was going to lose the midrange with the pathetic showing from the 8600/8500 series.

They simply gutted the cards too hard.

 

[Regs]

In Inq fails again.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>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!

</end quote></div>

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.

Not necessarily a new architecture will guarantee a much higher performance, the Radeon X1K series of cards was a brand new architecture and didn't have any similarities with the previous R480 architecture, unlike the GeForce 7 which is a derived from the GeForce 6 architecture, and it's more advanced X1600XT was unable to beat the old Radeon X850XT PE. We have seen a trend that the new generation of midrange cards usually runs as fast or slighly faster than the previous high end, and this generation of cards is far from it, that's why it's a rip off. We saw this with the debut of the X700PRO/6600GT which performed as fast or slighly faster than a 9800XT, then we saw the X1650XT/7600GT performing almost as fast or slighly faster than the X850XT PE/6800Ultra, but today's 8600/2600 series of cards doesn't come close of any previous generation of high end of cards like the 7900GTX/X1950XTX. That's why it's a rip off.

 

[solofly]

The power results are interesting, with the Radeon HD 2600 XT pulling the highest wattage of any card.

Despite being based on a 65nm manufacturing process, the transistor-heavy AMD Radeon HD 2900 XT still pulls the same kind of full-load draw as any other card in this line-up.

(I think they meant 2600 not 2900)

Hexus

 

[GTaudiophile]

The Anandtech review is pretty negative:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023

I would say that AMD totally fubared their R600 lineup.

 

[dreddfunk]

GT - if not a total fubar, it's 'close enough for government work' (no offense meant to any government workers out there).

The sad part is that, given the way both companies seem to be handling development & launches (high-end first, then mid-range), it will be a while before we see any improvement.

I really hope that the market corrects AMD & nVidia here. My only real fear is that the companies have both decided that making money off of the $200-250 range is too hard. Either they have to make midrange ($150) cards that can scale up or they have to cut down high end models ($350+).

Neither of these options seems very profitable to me.

I'd really love to see the profit margins on parts like the 320MB GTS, or the x1900gt, x1950pro.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Anandtech review is pretty negative:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023

I would say that AMD totally fubared their R600 lineup.

Yeah at least the FX series recovered with the 5200 and 5900. There is no recovery here.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Anandtech review is pretty negative:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023

I would say that AMD totally fubared their R600 lineup.

Heh, and I thought it couldn't get much worse than the 8600s.

People often say that the midrange market is where these companies make the majority of their profits, so it's a bit odd to see them neutering these cards so much. They don't really matter as long as the X1950/7900 cards are still available, but I would expect the stocks of those to dry up now that both companies have their new "midrange" parts out.

 

[solofly]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: CP5670
People often say that the midrange market is where these companies make the majority of their profits, so it's a bit odd to see them neutering these cards so much. They don't really matter as long as the X1950/7900 cards are still available, but I would expect the stocks of those to dry up now that both companies have their new "midrange" parts out.</end quote></div>

I would never buy a DX9 card at this day and time no matter how powerful it is. DX9 is yesterday's news just like Windows XP is.

 

[yacoub]

If by "looks pretty good" you mean "more garbage shoved up to the mid-range that can't really be used to game worth a darn" then yeah ok.

 

[bigsnyder]

Originally posted by: solofly

I would never buy a DX9 card at this day and time no matter how powerful it is. DX9 is yesterday's news just like Windows XP is.

If DX10 titles were knocking down our doors with availability then I would agree. The sheer
numbers of XP boxes sold will keep supply of DX9 titles healthy for a long time. Since DX10
is Vista only, its adoption will be slow. To my knowledge, titles like Crysis will also be available
on DX9 with little difference to its DX10 counter-part. In a nutshell, I feel DX10 is marketing
hype than a realistic feature. Is the 8800 a good card because it is a "DX10" part? No, it
is just a damn good card that happens to support DX10 when it finally becomes relevant.
Fast forward to this time in 2008, then DX10 might be more of a reality.

C Snyder

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: solofly

I would never buy a DX9 card at this day and time no matter how powerful it is. DX9 is yesterday's news just like Windows XP is.

You'd be waiting a very long time for a DX10 then bud.

Just like those guys who bought a 9600XT with HL2, while HL2 was delayed for at least 16 months.

 

[ShreddedWheat]

If ATI and NV both went to a 256 bit bus would that make a tremendous difference? I would have expected both the 2600xt and 8600GTS to be at least on part with 1950pro?

I wonder how this is affecting Microsoft along with other software companies that decided to go with Vista only games? hehe

I have a feeling that the refresh will definately be faster than 6 months if they plan on selling any cards in the mid range to gamers (minus oem sales).

Also this would have been a perfect time for a company like say for example "Matrox" etc...to have been able to come in and make a comeback if they were interested in the gaming market (midrange only of course).

My 2 cents.....

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Regs
Just like those guys who bought a 9600XT with HL2, while HL2 was delayed for at least 16 months.

Hey I did that!!! Well, at least HL2 ran fairly well with the 9600XT when it did finally come out. Somehow I doubt DX10 games will run that well on these midrange cards.

Seriously...what the heck is ATI thinking. They could have made a killing had they made a decent $200-300 card. Golden opportunity wasted for sure.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: thilan29
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Regs
Just like those guys who bought a 9600XT with HL2, while HL2 was delayed for at least 16 months.</end quote></div>

Hey I did that!!! Well, at least HL2 ran fairly well with the 9600XT when it did finally come out. Somehow I doubt DX10 games will run that well on these midrange cards.

Seriously...what the heck is ATI thinking. They could have made a killing had they made a decent $200-300 card. Golden opportunity wasted for sure.

a 2900GT would be perfect. i suspect it will exist in the near future or on a refresh - just like the x800GTO and GTO^2, the X1900GT and X1950pro/gt, all of which were great competitors at their price point.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: thilan29


Seriously...what the heck is ATI thinking. They could have made a killing had they made a decent $200-300 card. Golden opportunity wasted for sure.

QFT. ATI/AMD dropped the ball here big time. They had a golden opportunity to be the undisputed performance champion in the mid range, and they blew it.

The 2600XT is only a few % away from a 1650XT in some cases. Thats pathetic.

Although some improvements will come with drivers, I think there are some hardwired limitations in place to 'keep costs down'.

Perhaps ATI's midrange Revision 2 will offer something more compelling?

 

[coolpurplefan]

My X1650 XT beats the HD2600 XT in BF2 with 4xAA. Hehehe, that's all I needed to know.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: ShreddedWheat
If ATI and NV both went to a 256 bit bus would that make a tremendous difference? I would have expected both the 2600xt and 8600GTS to be at least on part with 1950pro?

I wonder how this is affecting Microsoft along with other software companies that decided to go with Vista only games? hehe

I have a feeling that the refresh will definately be faster than 6 months if they plan on selling any cards in the mid range to gamers (minus oem sales).

Also this would have been a perfect time for a company like say for example "Matrox" etc...to have been able to come in and make a comeback if they were interested in the gaming market (midrange only of course).

My 2 cents.....

No that wouldn't have worked because the cards here are simply too weak. They are more shader power/texturing power/render back end limited.

The only thing good about these cards is their low cost of production. 256Bit on the mainstream just drives up costs.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: thilan29
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Regs
Just like those guys who bought a 9600XT with HL2, while HL2 was delayed for at least 16 months.</end quote></div>

Hey I did that!!! Well, at least HL2 ran fairly well with the 9600XT when it did finally come out. Somehow I doubt DX10 games will run that well on these midrange cards.

Seriously...what the heck is ATI thinking. They could have made a killing had they made a decent $200-300 card. Golden opportunity wasted for sure.

Yes but by that time it probably would have been better to get a 6600 GT which would have given a much better experience then 9600 XT ever could.