HD2400xt and HD2600xt Benchmarked

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

srgess

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
556
0
18,990
Its in french :D but i putted you the link direct to the fps chart comparaison just click "Page suivante" to see the other benchmark games. The 2600 is about egal to a 8600GT but lower than the GTS. They said the HD2600 is 149 Euro witch its about 200US ! Good thing is the HD encoder is better than the 8600 series by like 2% on the h.264 and 16% on the VC-1.

Game benchmark: http://www.clubic.com/article-75676-6-amd-ati-radeon-hd-2600-xt-hd-2400-xt.html

HD H.264 and VC-1 Benchmark:
http://www.clubic.com/article-75676-4-amd-ati-radeon-hd-2600-xt-hd-2400-xt.html
Sorry if its have been already posted but i haven't seen it yet.
 
mactronix

mactronix

Judicious
Sep 17, 2006
7,928
1
32,115
I was considering a 2600xt to put in my rig before i handed it over to the kids but as it struggles to beat the x1650xt that is in it,dont think i will bother.
Amd/Ati whichever way you want it had better pull there fingers out and quick going on this showing thier market share is gona slip.
Mactronix
 
bfellow

bfellow

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
779
0
18,980
According to the TGDaily article, the 2400 series be a "steal" at $50~$85. This is true. Your money would be stolen for even thinking of buying this for DX10 gaming.
 
IcY18

IcY18

Distinguished
May 1, 2006
1,277
0
19,280
Unfortunately the cards just plain suck, the 2600XT is worse than the 8600GTS, it seems if the 8600GTS were to come down(alot) in price it would actually be the card to buy.


I'm not sure what they'll retail for but with an 8600GT retailing on average about $130, i don't see the 2600XT being worth more than $150, in terms of DX10 components only, obviously a X1950XT or Pro would be the smarter choice.
 
Slobogob

Slobogob

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
1,431
0
19,280
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?
Click to expand...
No, you´re not. I simply refuse to see them as mid-range cards. It´s just a diversification of the low end.
It reminds me of the x1600 Pro/xt. They weren´t worth their money either.
 
mactronix

mactronix

Judicious
Sep 17, 2006
7,928
1
32,115
I would have prefered that they reduced the die size on the existing ones making them cheaper and less power hungry.
My feeling is that there is a market out there for one last throw of the dice on the agp bus,people looking to get say a 1950 but stuck with a generic 300/350 watt psu.
£100 ish for a card ok but card + psu and fitting it forget it.
I know of two or three people who are in this possition.
If the 2600 was any good it would be a great option but it sucks.
Cant see why nvidea are doing it either with 8900 suposted to be just around the corner.
Mactronix
 
TheGreatGrapeApe

TheGreatGrapeApe

Champion
Feb 18, 2003
20,043
0
50,960
These are OK for long term builds for people who have power/PSU issues, but for the price they suck big time, and the GF7900GS, X1950Pro and X1950XT just clobber them price/performance wise.

The thing is, like the FX5200, X300SE, and other craptacular solutions, these are still going to sell because the n00bz 'll see DX10 on the box and then buy these to play Crysis and UT3, and then come here and whine about not getting massive frame rates after having 'upgraded' from their GF7600GT/X1650. :roll:
 
SEALBoy

SEALBoy

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,303
0
19,290
Wow, this sucks. AMD/ATi still dominates the midrange, just not with these cards.

Since the card is seen losing to an X1650XT, I'll hazard a guess that drivers will improve performance, but not spectacularly. Looks a lot like the X1600 cards which sucked, but the X1650 revisions were cool. Hopefully the HD 2650 cards will be like that.
 
J

jjknoll

Distinguished
Sep 13, 2006
225
0
18,680
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?
Click to expand...

As others have stated- no you are not the only one. I just about crapped myself when I seen the benches on Anandtech. Wow, those are not mainstream offerings at all. This is a sad day for those who were waiting for something in the middle.
 
M

mgtech

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2007
160
0
18,680
I was one of those joes looking for an average dx10 card to go with my intel rig on July 22. Now I don't know what to do.
 
Heyyou27

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
These are OK for long term builds for people who have power/PSU issues, but for the price they suck big time, and the GF7900GS, X1950Pro and X1950XT just clobber them price/performance wise.

The thing is, like the FX5200, X300SE, and other craptacular solutions, these are still going to sell because the n00bz 'll see DX10 on the box and then buy these to play Crysis and UT3, and then come here and whine about not getting massive frame rates after having 'upgraded' from their GF7600GT/X1650. :roll:
Click to expand...
Both ATI and Nvidia are pretty disappointing in this segment. When did you become a moderator by the way? Congrats! :)
 
turboflame

turboflame

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2006
1,046
0
19,290
Wow, this sucks. AMD/ATi still dominates the midrange, just not with these cards.

Since the card is seen losing to an X1650XT, I'll hazard a guess that drivers will improve performance, but not spectacularly. Looks a lot like the X1600 cards which sucked, but the X1650 revisions were cool. Hopefully the HD 2650 cards will be like that.
Click to expand...

The X1650XT is the only X16XX series card that didn't suck.

I hope ATI can get it right faster than last time.
 
SEALBoy

SEALBoy

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,303
0
19,290
Not really true, the X1600 cards sucked ass, but both X1650 cards slightly outperformed their 7600 nVidia counterparts at the same price. You can't say the X1650Pro "sucked" because it offered good performance for the price.
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
The 8800GTS 320MB is the only midrange card.
Click to expand...

No, the X1950Pro is a GREAT low-midrange card, and the X1950XT also offers excellent performance for the price.

None offers DX10 though. :wink:

These latest cards from ATI/AMD are a total joke, what an embarassment! They can barely handle current DX9 games at playable framerates, imagine how they will struggle with DX10 games? This applies for the 8600 series too, because they are apparently even worse at DX10 than the 2600 cards.

Here's a sneak peak woth Company of Heroes DX10:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151677,00.asp

0,1425,i=180640,00.gif


SINGLE DIGIT FRAMERATES! 8O
 
SEALBoy

SEALBoy

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,303
0
19,290
DX10 is a non-issue with anything less than an 8800GTS 320MB. The X1950's (and 7900GS) are really the only sub-$200 choices to be considered.
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
The 2600xt available at e buyer for 70quid, 10 cheaper than the 8600gt.

Damn good price.
Click to expand...

The performance is crap, of course it's gonna be cheap.

DX10 is a non-issue with anything less than an 8800GTS 320MB. The X1950's (and 7900GS) are really the only sub-$200 choices to be considered.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the last gen mainstream/upper mainstream cards are way better than the current offerings from nVidia and ATI/AMD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom