AMD HD 2400/2600 Benchmarks

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well I think the issue is that we need another core for the "performance mainstream" segment to help alleviate the cost issues somewhat.

I think that is what Nvidia is working on right now with G92 if the rumors are to be believed, it uses 65nm fabrication and is to slot in between 8600 GTS - 8800 GTS with 256Bit Memory Interface.

3 cores alone just doesn't seem to be enough anymore.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>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.</end quote></div>

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

Lol I wonder you say these thing because you want to annoy everyone or you really believe in what your saying ... if you do believe in what your saying is true then i pity you.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

and you guys wonder what would happen if AMD were out of the game entirely. Nvidia would have even less motivation to develop products that are truly better than last gen.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
and you guys wonder what would happen if AMD were out of the game entirely. Nvidia would have even less motivation to develop products that are truly better than last gen.

Yep. Plato said "Necessity is the mother of invention" and it still holds true all these centuries later. Competition creates a strong drive to innovate, and when the playing field is clear, you get products Like Windows ME

 

[Regs]

I don't see any innovation for the main stream. They just take away half of what they give the high end and cross their fingers hope it turns out to be ok. Of course they do simulations, but they must of been blinde this time.

They do nothing to improve performance while making a cheaper product, they introduce nothing new to the hardware, and they don't even use "cheats" or work-arounds to get around the fact it does not have the same horse power of the higher end cards. All they do is substract from the high end and slap a name on it.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Regs
I don't see any innovation for the main stream. They just take away half of what they give the high end and cross their fingers hope it turns out to be ok. Of course they do simulations, but they must of been blinde this time.

They do nothing to improve performance while making a cheaper product, they introduce nothing new to the hardware, and they don't even use "cheats" or work-arounds to get around the fact it does not have the same horse power of the higher end cards. All they do is substract from the high end and slap a name on it.

Well, in the case of AMD, all they needed to do is make the HD 2600 have 12 TMUs rather than 8 TMUs, as far as I'm concerned. The problem is, the HD 2600 is already a 390M transistor part, and I don't know how many transistors ATI can put into a mainstream part and keep it affordable.

 

[Wreckage]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Lol I wonder you say these thing because you want to annoy everyone or you really believe in what your saying ... if you do believe in what your saying is true then i pity you.</end quote></div>

I know you are down right now, because of these numbers. But I speak the truth. If you take out the HD2900. AMDs fastest card would be like in like 5th or 6th place. As it stands the HD2900 is in a shaky tie for 3rd.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Lol I wonder you say these thing because you want to annoy everyone or you really believe in what your saying ... if you do believe in what your saying is true then i pity you.

I know you are down right now, because of these numbers. But I speak the truth. If you take out the HD2900. AMDs fastest card would be like in like 5th or 6th place. As it stands the HD2900 is in a shaky tie for 3rd.

The HD2900XT is solidly in 3rd place above the 4th place 640meg 8800GTS and is gaining ground on the 2nd place 8800GTX.

 

[Sable]

Originally posted by: Creig

The HD2900XT is solidly in 3rd place above the 4th place 640meg 8800GTS and is gaining ground on the 2nd place 8800GTX.

As long as you don't apply any AA.

edit:

And at best it's kinda tying 3rd with the 8800GTS

edit2:

Fvck me this forum is BUST!!!!!!

 

[Matt2]

Anandtech's review shows the 2600XT is worse across the board than the 8600GTS except in R6:V where it is ahead by less than 1 fps and in Oblivion. In some cases it even loses to the 8600GT.

Big diappointment and another loss for AMD. I can't sway I'm surprised by the results since this is exactly the way it happened at the high end. They better price this thing $150 or less.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Sable
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Creig

The HD2900XT is solidly in 3rd place above the 4th place 640meg 8800GTS and is gaining ground on the 2nd place 8800GTX.</end quote></div>
As long as you don't apply any AA.

edit:

And at best it's kinda tying 3rd with the 8800GTS

edit2:

Fvck me this forum is BUST!!!!!!

Yep, if you ignore AA/AF, plus ignore that it costs more, plus ignore the benchmarks that even a GTS320 beats it in, plus ignore the heat, noise and power draw. Maybe you could say 3rd. But no one in their right mind would ignore all that. So 4th or even 5th judging by the recent Hardocp article.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sable
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Creig

The HD2900XT is solidly in 3rd place above the 4th place 640meg 8800GTS and is gaining ground on the 2nd place 8800GTX.</end quote></div>
As long as you don't apply any AA.

edit:

And at best it's kinda tying 3rd with the 8800GTS

edit2:

Fvck me this forum is BUST!!!!!! </end quote></div>

Yep, if you ignore AA/AF, plus ignore that it costs more, plus ignore the benchmarks that even a GTS320 beats it in, plus ignore the heat, noise and power draw. Maybe you could say 3rd. But no one in their right mind would ignore all that. So 4th or even 5th judging by the recent Hardocp article.

Do you ever stop referencing that HardOCP article, run on old (pre 7.5) drivers? Let's see some NEW reviews, with the 7.6 drivers, and see how many times the 8800GTS 320 beats the HD 2900XT. You should also take a look at Beyond3D's DX10 CoH performance - http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/28/8

You can get an HD 2900XT for $375 at newegg, and an 8800GTS typically costs around $350-360. That's not much cheaper.

 

[Creig]

It's fun trying to edit the tags every time so that they work properly, isn't it?


And yes, AA performance on the 2900 is subpar right now. Without AA the 2900 definitely leads the 8800GTS. Once AA is applied, performance drops down to slightly below 8800GTS level. If ATI software engineers can eliminate the AA performance hit, the 2900 will be unquestionably faster than the 8800GTS 640.

Has anyone ever done an article regarding the relationship between AA, resolution and screen size? I wonder if there's a table that could show this? ie:

19" 1600x1200 4AA equals 19" 2048x1536 noAA

It could be that running a high enough resolution could eliminate the need for AA.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Creig
It's fun trying to edit the tags every time so that they work properly, isn't it?


And yes, AA performance on the 2900 is subpar right now. Without AA the 2900 definitely leads the 8800GTS. Once AA is applied, performance drops down to slightly below 8800GTS level. If ATI software engineers can eliminate the AA performance hit, the 2900 will be unquestionably faster than the 8800GTS 640.

Has anyone ever done an article regarding the relationship between AA, resolution and screen size? I wonder if there's a table that could show this? ie:

19" 1600x1200 4AA equals 19" 2048x1536 noAA

It could be that running a high enough resolution could eliminate the need for AA.

I'm gonna order a 2900XT in the next couple of days so I hope the AA hit can be eliminated, but do we know for sure that it's not a hardware limitation?

I hope not because I went from a 1680x1050 LCD to a 1920x1200 LCD and I still see the need for AA. I guess I am one of the unlucky people who are sensitive to jaggies.

 

[Creig]

I don't think anyone knows for sure whether the AA hit is software based or hardware based. Given the minimal AA hit the previous generation cards had and the fact that the 2900 is still so new, I would guess it's software based. But there's no way to know for sure.

I'm tempted to pick up one for myself as well, but I have my heart set on getting a small (14hp - 20hp) used Kubota 4x4 diesel tractor to use on my property. There are SO many different projects I could use one on. So I may have to just limp along with my X1800XT until I have one bought and paid for.