x1900xt to 8600gts.... bad move?

[RussianSensation]

Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

 

[Ulfhednar]

As said over and over, the 8600GTS is a fancy paperweight compared to the X1900/X1950 Series cards currently available.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

Why shouldn't Xbit Labs show what the 8600 GTS can do at resolutions other video cards can use?

I imagine if Xbit Labs had used 1024x768 or 800x600 there would be no difference at all between the video cards!

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

Graphics cards are generally compared on features and price. Since there are no DX10 games out there and X1900XT's image quality is anything but lacking, considering 8600GTS costs $199-229, why shouldn't its performance be compared to cards in a similar price range? I don't buy a graphics card to "pimp" my rig out or for emotional satisfaction. I buy it based on performance for the $. If another card can play games at 1600x1200 at double the frames (i.e. X1900XT) why should I consider 8600GTS ?

If you recall Geforce 5600 which was quickly eclipsed by rev 2 and then by 5700Ultra. Perhaps 8600GTS will follow the same fate.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

Why shouldn't Xbit Labs show what the 8600 GTS can do at resolutions other video cards can use?

I imagine if Xbit Labs had used 1024x768 or 800x600 there would be no difference at all between the video cards!

I don't expect the use of 8x6 but 10x7 should have been used as it is designed for the mainstream martket, 16x12 and 19x12 should be ignored at that level it's obvious you need something like the 8800 GTS 320/640.

 

[tuteja1986]

Stupid move !!

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

Graphics cards are generally compared on features and price. Since there are no DX10 games out there and X1900XT's image quality is anything but lacking, considering 8600GTS costs $199-229, why shouldn't its performance be compared to cards in a similar price range? I don't buy a graphics card to "pimp" my rig out or for emotional satisfaction. I buy it based on performance for the $. If another card can play games at 1600x1200 at double the frames (i.e. X1900XT) why should I consider 8600GTS ?

If you recall Geforce 5600 which was quickly eclipsed by rev 2 and then by 5700Ultra. Perhaps 8600GTS will follow the same fate.

It should be compared to a card that has the same introduction MSRP, so the comparison is actually normalized. It doesn't matter if X1900 XT can beat this card regardless, this is a mainstream card, and it's designed to be cost effective, it's not realistic given it's transistor budget to expect it to beat the X1900 XT.

So it should be compared to the 7900 GS or X1950 Pro. A 7600 GT as well just to see how it compared to the first $199US unit of the Geforce 7 Series.

It's almost always the case where depreciated high end cards are better deals then new mainstream cards until the supplies right out of them because of the initial higher cost of the new mainstream variants.

 

[Passingout101]

shouldn't even be a question, the 8600 is crap!!

so, when does ATI bring out their offerings??

 

[nyker96]

this 8600 card definitely isn't impressive enough for the price they charge, I recommend go a little higher and get 8800 320mb version will give you like double performance at mere 50% more price tag, much better price/performance ratio than 8600 series.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

Graphics cards are generally compared on features and price. Since there are no DX10 games out there and X1900XT's image quality is anything but lacking, considering 8600GTS costs $199-229, why shouldn't its performance be compared to cards in a similar price range? I don't buy a graphics card to "pimp" my rig out or for emotional satisfaction. I buy it based on performance for the $. If another card can play games at 1600x1200 at double the frames (i.e. X1900XT) why should I consider 8600GTS ?

If you recall Geforce 5600 which was quickly eclipsed by rev 2 and then by 5700Ultra. Perhaps 8600GTS will follow the same fate.

It should be compared to a card that has the same introduction MSRP, so the comparison is actually normalized. It doesn't matter if X1900 XT can beat this card regardless, this is a mainstream card, and it's designed to be cost effective, it's not realistic given it's transistor budget to expect it to beat the X1900 XT.

So it should be compared to the 7900 GS or X1950 Pro. A 7600 GT as well just to see how it compared to the first $199US unit of the Geforce 7 Series.

It's almost always the case where depreciated high end cards are better deals then new mainstream cards until the supplies right out of them because of the initial higher cost of the new mainstream variants.

The 8600 gts was compared to the x1950 pro and 7900 gs but couldn't beat them. We have to remember that the geforce 8600 gts we are seeing in the reviews are factory overclocked. All of the factory overclocked geforce 8600 gts I have seen have been quite expensive for the performance they offer and certainly more expensive than the x1950 pro/7900 gs.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Update:

Xbitlabs review - 8600GTS loses in every single benchmark except Oblivion 1280x1024

It isn't even close. 8600GTS doesn't outperform X1950Pro, and gets absolutely pummeled by X1900XT.

They tested resolutions that 8600 GTS wasn't designed for like 16x12 and 19x12. It's expected 32 SP is much lower then expected with that low an amount of SP, not much can save it sort of games very favourable to this architecture.

Why shouldn't Xbit Labs show what the 8600 GTS can do at resolutions other video cards can use?

I imagine if Xbit Labs had used 1024x768 or 800x600 there would be no difference at all between the video cards!

I don't expect the use of 8x6 but 10x7 should have been used as it is designed for the mainstream martket, 16x12 and 19x12 should be ignored at that level it's obvious you need something like the 8800 GTS 320/640.

While I agree that the 8600gts is more suited for mainstream resolutions like 1280x1024, the review should also test the card in several higher resolutions so the reader can be better informed on the cards. I suppose the 320mb 8800gts wasn't intended for 1900x1200 gaming either, but if we didn't see the reviews at that res, we wouldn't know that it takes a major hit at those resolutions compared to the 640mb model.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

The next logical step up from a X1900XT should be nothing less than a 8800GTS 640.