Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD2400xt and HD2600xt Benchmarked

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 28, 2007 10:14:32 AM

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...

HD H.264 and VC-1 Benchmark:
http://www.clubic.com/article-75676-4-amd-ati-radeon-hd...
Sorry if its have been already posted but i haven't seen it yet.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 1:55:58 PM

Right click-page info-Translate page to english.
In internet explorer 7 anyway.
Mactronix
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 2:06:38 PM

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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 28, 2007 3:03:38 PM

now u can check them at anandtech
June 28, 2007 3:34:23 PM

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.
June 28, 2007 4:01:04 PM

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.
June 28, 2007 4:08:57 PM

Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?
June 28, 2007 4:25:51 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?


No, you are not :p 
June 28, 2007 4:50:39 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?

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.
June 28, 2007 4:51:46 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?


Dito.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 4:53:08 PM

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
June 28, 2007 4:54:10 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?


nope.
a b U Graphics card
June 28, 2007 5:22:44 PM

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:
June 28, 2007 5:52:30 PM

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.
June 28, 2007 5:58:12 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?


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.
June 29, 2007 2:37:30 AM

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.
June 29, 2007 3:22:59 AM

Quote:
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:
Both ATI and Nvidia are pretty disappointing in this segment. When did you become a moderator by the way? Congrats! :) 
June 29, 2007 3:50:02 AM

Quote:
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.


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

I hope ATI can get it right faster than last time.
June 29, 2007 4:49:39 AM

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.
June 29, 2007 4:52:38 AM

The 8800GTS 320MB is the only midrange card.
June 29, 2007 4:58:30 AM

Quote:
The 8800GTS 320MB is the only midrange card.


No, the X1950Pro is a GREAT low-midrange card, and the X1950XT also offers excellent performance for the price.
June 29, 2007 6:14:24 AM

Quote:
The 8800GTS 320MB is the only midrange card.


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.a...



SINGLE DIGIT FRAMERATES! 8O
June 29, 2007 6:47:27 AM

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.
June 29, 2007 7:12:48 AM

The 2600xt available at e buyer for 70quid, 10 cheaper than the 8600gt.

Damn good price.
June 29, 2007 7:15:27 AM

Quote:
The 2600xt available at e buyer for 70quid, 10 cheaper than the 8600gt.

Damn good price.


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

Quote:
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.


Agreed, the last gen mainstream/upper mainstream cards are way better than the current offerings from nVidia and ATI/AMD.
June 29, 2007 9:32:20 AM

I believe that we should wait till the 2600XT dual's appear because I've seen various tests with 2900XT's crossfired and the overall score increased by about 25/40%, now with 2 2600XT's on the same board we might see the same (or close to) increase, maybe. I know I would and may well so fork out the extra $40 if the performance is closer to 8800's and better then the 1950PRO's.

Radeon HD 2600 XT Gemini $189 - 249
Radeon HD 2600 XT GDDR4 $149
Radeon HD 2600 XT GDDR3 $129
Radeon HD 2600 Pro $89-99
Radeon HD 2400 XT $79-89
Radeon HD 2400 Pro $59-69 *taken from the guru3d review*
June 29, 2007 9:41:35 AM

2600XT 'duals'?! You mean in CF?
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 29, 2007 9:53:33 AM

I agree its def wait and see time as for for what?...wel i dont know really the gemini looks ok but we wont know untill we see it 2650 maybe it could be we have to wait ages before they make a card thats any good.
As has been said before im afraid that its going to be like going from the 850xt`s to the 1***`s.
Mactronix
June 29, 2007 10:23:31 AM

Quote:
2600XT 'duals'?! You mean in CF?

nope, I mean 2 2600XTs on the same board sharing the 1 pci-e lane, and its only $40 more then a normal 2600XT
Heres a link: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/7619/index.html

I somewhat doubt that 40$ price premium. Cards with 2 GPUs have a history of being expensive. Even though this is only a low-range chip, it will, most likely, cost closer to twice the 2600XT.
Just look at those dual 1950 or the dual 1650 and so on...
June 29, 2007 11:33:26 AM

the performance of the 2600xt for $149 is surprising how?
"If we take the results of this new Call of Juarez test together with those previous DX10 tests, it tells us that DX10 is still very much in its growing pains. Game developers are still finding ways to use the new features in ways that incur the least performance hit with the most visual payoff, and the graphics vendors are still working on improving drivers. It will be interesting to watch how performance changes over time in this test (and others).
Predicting whose cards will be the "DX10 champs" is almost impossible at this point. These tests also tell us that most of the midrange DX10 graphics cards just aren't going to give a satisfactory play experience on games that actually make good use of DX10. The $400-and-up cards are barely delivering playable frame rates on these early DX10 tests. Even with dramatic driver improvements, there's not much chance for the $200 cards to make DX10 games run very well without dropping detail levels or resolution."
DX10 SUCKS for now wait till 2nd gen dx10 cards come out.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 29, 2007 11:40:35 AM

I think the big pay of is going to be when the programmers start making extensive use of tessilation as the 2*** cards have a dedicated chip for it i think the performance increases could come from there.
Mactronix
June 29, 2007 12:28:43 PM

agreed but the thing is people are expecting i think too much from these 1st gen card for $400 up they are basically getting mid level performance frame rate so anything under $200 will suck big time.
June 29, 2007 12:42:50 PM

Quote:
I somewhat doubt that 40$ price premium. Cards with 2 GPUs have a history of being expensive. Even though this is only a low-range chip, it will, most likely, cost closer to twice the 2600XT.
Just look at those dual 1950 or the dual 1650 and so on...

Yeh when I saw I thought thats to good to be real so the $189-249 maybe just an estimated introductory price, or there might be variants eg 2600XT dual GDDR3 for $210 and/or the GDDR4 variant for $249 even at those prices you would have to be insane not to go the extra $40 and get an 8800gts.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 29, 2007 12:57:14 PM

Yeh when I saw I thought thats to good to be real so the $189-249 maybe just an estimated introductory price, or there might be variants eg 2600XT dual GDDR3 for $210 and/or the GDDR4 variant for $249 even at those prices you would have to be insane not to go the extra $40 and get an 8800gts.[/quote]

Im thinking that is just what they want us to be thinking and before we know it cards will be at $200 at the low end.
Unless you are sure that new coding of games and driver improvments can bring about a big change in performance i see ATI as a dead duck in the water as far as high end gaming goes.
At the min im quite happy with xp and dx9 neither company has done anything to perswade me that moving to dx10 (and vista) is worth it.
Heck there are no proper games out for it yet anyway
June 29, 2007 12:58:02 PM

Bleh... there's goes the hope of me going for the mainstream cards this time round. I checked out the benches on Anand, and I think I'll stick to my X1900XT for the time being. When Nvidia and AMD both offer crap as their mainstream lineout... I can't help but smell something fishy... :?
June 29, 2007 1:36:02 PM

Quote:
I somewhat doubt that 40$ price premium. Cards with 2 GPUs have a history of being expensive. Even though this is only a low-range chip, it will, most likely, cost closer to twice the 2600XT.
Just look at those dual 1950 or the dual 1650 and so on...

Yeh when I saw I thought thats to good to be real so the $189-249 maybe just an estimated introductory price, or there might be variants eg 2600XT dual GDDR3 for $210 and/or the GDDR4 variant for $249 even at those prices you would have to be insane not to go the extra $40 and get an 8800gts.

To be honest, i believe it will be even worse. I just took a look at the 1950 Pro. It´s offered for roughly 125€. The dual 1950 Pro costs 327€.
For that money i can buy 2 1950 Pros AND a crossfire mainboard (am2).

Looking at the other side, the 7950gx2 is a little more reasonable priced. It comes in at 280€, while a 7950 GT costs 190€. Seems fine, but it´s totally off since the gx2 is underclocked and will probably perform similar to a 7900GS SLI setup...

I think those SLI/crossfire single card solutions are mostly for people that are caught in the multi-card hype created by AMD and Nvidia.
June 29, 2007 1:50:03 PM

Why the 7950GX2 made actual sense when it was release, the X1950Pro Dual does not...

For one, the 7950GX2 offered those with only a single slot, performance much greater than any other single slot card could provide at the time it was released(and when the drivers worked)

Second, although the X1950Pro Dual offered better performance, we already had/have single slot cards that outperform it. It's just like SLi/Xfire, there is no point in combining two midrange cards together when a better single card can outperform it.

Most likely the same will be true for the 2600XT, with a price coming in closer to the 2900XT and 8800GTS while only providing perfomance <=(when drivers work) it won't be a good idea. Even especially so, when nvidia and ati release there 2900Pro and 8800GS variants.
June 29, 2007 2:05:31 PM

I am still waiting for a solid reason to replace my 1900 XT. I am not an Nvidia fan, so I guess I'll keep waiting. Maybe when the 2900 goes to 65nm.

However, the day I order an HDTV for my "media PC", I will throw in a 2400, for the HDMI. Low power draw, cool, quiet.... sounds like a HTPC card to me. :) 
June 29, 2007 2:46:18 PM

Quote:
For one, the 7950GX2 offered those with only a single slot, performance much greater than any other single slot card could provide at the time it was released(and when the drivers worked)

You´re right. At release it was probably the fasted card around.
I really don´t like nvidias approach though - just sticking two cards together. Two GPUs on one PCB seems like a much cleaner approach to me. If it´s cheaper to stick two PCBs together instead of placing all components on a single PCB i can live with it.
June 29, 2007 3:30:08 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one who's disappointed with the crap both companies are trying to pawn off as mid-range?


I consider them low-end DX10 capable cards to be honest.
June 29, 2007 3:35:39 PM

Look there is probably a reason why they ALL have certain things like 128bit BW for example.. we dont know what future dx10 apps will need msot, maybe, just maybe ATI and nvidia DO know and arent completly stupid as stated by a few guys in here.
June 29, 2007 3:58:49 PM

The funny thing is, right now i can get a x1800XT 512 for the same price as a 1950 pro or a preordered 2600XT.

The older the card gets, the faster it is.

Time to search the attic for those old vodoo cards... 8)
June 29, 2007 4:00:29 PM

I have a voodoo 5 ;) 
June 29, 2007 4:14:59 PM

And you have bought a 8800 GTX!?!?!? You crazy dog! 8O
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2007 6:01:49 PM

The thing that's attractive about an HD2600 gemini is the idea of better performance with low power consumption.

However I don't expect a 128bit 1/4 ROP card to be a good Xfire candiddate, it would've been better if they were shader light and Xfire would show a remarkable jump in performance. But I suspect we'll see about 25-50% boost when things work well, and that would basically just bring it up to X1950XT-256 performance, and so for the same or more money you'd get inconsistent performance and only save maybe 20-40W for power consumption.

Not sure that makes it a compelling buy.

It's still early, but I don't see anything challenging the X1950Pro/X1950XT for mid-price performance value before the new 65nm-256bit parts come out.
June 29, 2007 6:05:18 PM

I guess it depends on how they link them and whether it will be different/tehsame to the crossfire used with 2cards these days. I cant imagine it not having some big advantage over just 2cards, otherwise its quite pointless.

2x512mb gddr3/4 could be useful to some people though who use 3 or 4 big screens.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2007 6:46:51 PM

Quote:
Both ATI and Nvidia are pretty disappointing in this segment.


Yeah I think they are now very limited cards castrated to meet OEM power concerns. It think they will be perfect for people who are very casual gamers (which is an ever increasing segment of the 'gamer' community IMO, thanks to things like the DS, Wii, and Sims games.

I think these cards will seel a boat load to people who buy DELLs, eMachines, etc to 'game' but I think for most of us, this sucks. I am satisfied that the GF8600M GT and Mobile HD2600XT will be satisfactory for my needs (mostly 2D and video playback), but I was hoping for some magic to make a game like Crysis playable at 800x600 in DX10, but I doubt even the GF8700M will do that. Now I'm just interested in good fps in Oblivion with HDR and AF (don't care about AA personally compared to higher resolution and HQAF), and then UT3 at DX9 quality full speed.

I know my MRX700 is dead to these games (plays oblivion at cusotm res with 4XHQAF though) but I was hoping for a miracle especially on something like the HP HDX.

Quote:
When did you become a moderator by the way? Congrats! :) 


Just last night. Thanks.
June 29, 2007 6:53:46 PM

Continuing the off-topic talk, it seems Tom's was "hiring" this last week as more than a few people were made Moderators.
!