More Mainstream DX10: AMD's 2400 and 2600 Series
by Derek Wilson on June 28, 2007 8:35 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Up Close and Personal: 8600 vs. 2600/2400
These graphs really do a terrific job of speaking for themselves. The only tests we performed where the AMD Radeon HD 2000 series could honestly keep up with their competitors from NVIDIA was under Rainbow Six: Vegas. The 2600 XT did give a good showing against the 8600 GTS under Oblivion and Prey as well, but that's about as much as we can say there.
The numbers were so disappointing that we actually went back and retested everything from the beginning a second time to make sure we didn't have something wrong. Especially impressive is how poorly the new cards perform under Battlefield 2 with and without 4xAA enabled.
These graphs really do a terrific job of speaking for themselves. The only tests we performed where the AMD Radeon HD 2000 series could honestly keep up with their competitors from NVIDIA was under Rainbow Six: Vegas. The 2600 XT did give a good showing against the 8600 GTS under Oblivion and Prey as well, but that's about as much as we can say there.
The numbers were so disappointing that we actually went back and retested everything from the beginning a second time to make sure we didn't have something wrong. Especially impressive is how poorly the new cards perform under Battlefield 2 with and without 4xAA enabled.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
Spoelie - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
think about the fact that the x1950xt has less transistors then a HD2600xt, and this is even more disappointingcoldpower27 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
There just wasn't much choice, 390 Million for a midrange part on ATi's side that performs worse then Nvidia's 289 Million part, is quite a sorry state of affairs.It's too bad this generation was so expensive on the feature front that barely any transistor budget was left for implementing performance and were left with hardware that only performs marginally faster if that then the previous generation products.
I am quite disappointed that ATi parts are currently slower despite having a larger transistor budget and higher core clock.
TA152H - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Maybe because they weren't designed for DX9 performance, to state the obvious. They are DX10 parts, and should be judged on how well they perform on that.Shintai - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
DX10 sucks on both 8600GT/S and 2600XT, unless playing at 5-8FPS is you.2900XT/8800GTS/X is needed for DX10. And better yet, SLI/CF or the next generation.
DX10 on these midrange nVidia and AMD GPUs is 100% useless.
And for what reason do you think they will perform magically better in DX10? 2900XT didnt over 8800. And there is no reason on why it should be better.
TA152H - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Another person that can't read.I didn't say it would perform better, or worse. We'll see how well it performs when they do the proper tests. Until then, stop the whining. Afterwards, if it sucks, I'll whine with you.
Shintai - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Just read some of the other sites that tested DX10.Le Québécois - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
From what I know, all DX10 games or applications out there right now were developed for DX9 and received DX10 feature as an after thought. For REAL DX10 we will have to wait for Crysis.titan7 - Saturday, June 30, 2007 - link
Company of Heroes was designed for d3d10 from the start. It's as much a real d3d10 game as crysis will be.coldpower27 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
There won't be any "REAL" DX10 for sometime to come, oit takes ages to develop native API games.swaaye - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I've seen Crysis on a 8800GTX. Don't expect to play it well on less, unless the game devs perform some serious miracles. And I wouldn't bet one that. :)