Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's 24 and 2600: Another disappointment.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 28, 2007 8:22:49 PM

Well, so much for AMD capitalizing on the low and mid-range markets that Nvidia has left wide open with its unimpressive 86's.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=1
June 29, 2007 8:03:54 PM

Come on, I can't possibly be the only one diappointed with the mid-range offerings from both AMD and Nvidia! Unfortunately for the consumer, these cards will be replacing ones that offer FAR better price/performance on store shelves as we speak. What's going on with video cards anyway? Nvidia and AMD have both released three disappointing cards in a row.

Nvidia
8800 Ultra: A weakly overclocked GTX that costs a fortune compared to a GTX.
8600GTS & GT: Two weak mid-range cards that get outperformed in a number of situations by previous-gen cards

AMD/ATI
HD2900XT: Great potential, amazing sounding tech, not so hot performance. Trades blows with the GTS 320 that costs 100-150 less. Plus, no UVD!
2400 & 2600: Even worse than the 8600 mentioned above. A number of better performing cards available at a much lower price point.

Is this a new trend? What is behind this sub-par performance from both camps?
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 122 À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 29, 2007 8:25:28 PM

Meh.

For now I'll just stick with my 9 month old X1900XT 512MB in my primary rig for gaming.

The next GPU I buy will be when I build a new HTPC. Since gaming is not going to be a priority on that machine, I'll probably just get the 8600GTS or it's replacement. Maybe I'll just get the 8600GT as long as it is HDCP ready.

Anywaste, it definitely seems mid-range DX10 cards are MIA. Too bad for those who can't afford to step up to the premium cards. Hopefully a hardware refresh will address some of the performance issues. But that won't be for some time.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 29, 2007 8:32:42 PM

Quote:
Well, so much for AMD capitalizing on the low and mid-range markets that Nvidia has left wide open with its unimpressive 86's.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=1


Well there are a few other threads about teh same thing, but the concensus is the HD2600 is just as much of a dissapointment as the GF8600, and they both remind people of the X1600 launch where everyone was left wanting something more (which spawned the X1800GTO and X1900GT). Expect something similar in a few months with an RV670 and nV quivalent (GF8800GS).

Basically for gamers, the mid-range is completely barren and left open for the left-over last generation cards like the GF7900GS/X1950Pro and X1900XT. And if you want more tha that, it's hard to argue against the GTS-320 for only a few bucks more.
June 29, 2007 8:56:57 PM

Quote:

Basically for gamers, the mid-range is completely barren and left open for the left-over last generation cards like the GF7900GS/X1950Pro and X1900XT. And if you want more tha that, it's hard to argue against the GTS-320 for only a few bucks more.


Well according to this from vrzone Nvidia is at least acknowledging the gap in the line up. The problem is I would have expected by November cards like the GTS320 would be priced lower as they would be ready to be replaced.

Quote:
We heard about an upcoming GPU from NVIDIA on 256-bit memory interface earlier this month and we thought it is the rumored 256-bit version of G84. Now we learned that it is actually the next generation G92, a 65nm performance part supporting PCI Express 2.0 and 256-bit memory interface. G92 performance lies between GeForce 8800 GTS and 8600 GTS so it is not the highest end GPU from the G9x series yet. There might be a G90 which we haven't heard about yet and NVIDIA gave clues that their next generation GPU will deliver close to 1 TFlops of performance in a recent analyst conference. G9x could support Double Precision FP too. Sampling will start in September and slated for launch in November timeframe.

Link

In the meantime it appears as though ATI and Nvidia are practically putting out a welcome mat for Intel's planned entry into mid-range discrete GPUs.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 29, 2007 9:04:57 PM

Intel won't be in the market until 2008 so no fear there. S3 and SIS would have a better chance of capitalizing, but I expect their parts to be at the same level of the GF8600 and HD2600.

As for the GTS-320 to go down in price, don't count on it, it makes little sense for nV to sell the GTS-320 for less money. remember the GTS-320 is a FULL sized G80 chip just crippled, so it's expensive per chip. So i makes much more sense for nV to just get rid of their GTS-320 stock by cutting supply just before the end, and then introducing the 65nm part into that space. That's what I'd do.
June 29, 2007 9:11:48 PM

If the 2600XT comes in at $110-ish like it's supposed to, it's not a dissapointment at all - for the price.
Compares alright against the 7600 GT and X1650 XT at that price I think. Even the 8600 GT isn't a bad card now that it's entered that price range.

The 8600 GTS is a bit of a dissapointment compared to the X1950 PROs and 7900 GSs. An 8600 Ultra would be nice.

The biggest dissapointment is the gap between the 2900 XT and 2600 XT... hopefully Ati will introduce a 2900 PRO or GT to fill that, too. And it's a safe bet thats in the cards...
June 29, 2007 9:43:50 PM

I agree that a 2900Pro or something similar would be very welcome, but honestly, their best bet would be to drop the price on their 2900XT's to be more competitive with the GTS 320. If they do go the Pro route, how exactly would they go about developing it? Cripple the XT in some regard? The performance on it is already too close to the 320 to justify the price gap, at least in my opinion. And I thought the 2600 was supposed to be ~$150? Could be old info...

As things stand right now, the GTS 320 is the way to go for a mid-range build, especially since processors and RAM can be had for such ridiculously low prices. This (somewhat) offsets the slightly-above-mid-range price point of the 320.

As far as HTPC goes, last generation cards are mostly quieter, less hot, and can be had for cheaper. I can't think of a reason to recommend any new-gen mid-range card for this purpose.

DX10 support on these cards is a moot point unless you plan on running games at 640X480, since the performance will likely be absolutely miserable. While this is partly speculation on my part, a quick look at currently available DX10 benchmarks on the GTX and XT leaves little doubt that this will be the case.
June 29, 2007 9:50:39 PM

Quote:
Intel won't be in the market until 2008 so no fear there. S3 and SIS would have a better chance of capitalizing, but I expect their parts to be at the same level of the GF8600 and HD2600.


I understand that Intel is a ways out but it would this is how both Nvidia and ATI planned their line ups long before now. I just hope they are not planning to leave out the mid-range next generation.

If they are trying to bring the business upmarket they are leaving the door open to competition while perhaps driving people away from pc gaming.
June 29, 2007 9:55:14 PM

Just for comparison:

The X1950Pro can be had as low as $107USD on newegg.
The X1650XT can be had as low as $85USD on newegg.
A 7950GT can be had as low as $160USD on newegg.

So if the 2600XT debuts at ~150-125 as I expect it to, it'll still be fairly hard to justify the extra dough.
June 29, 2007 9:57:48 PM

Who actually reads Maximum PC? Probably too many people honestly....

The HD2900XT is the much better card IMO, the Ultra was a total waste that brought absolutely nothing new to the table. At least the 2900 was innovative in several regards.

And I'm not bashing anything made by AMD/ATI, I'm just disappointed because I see it as somewhat of a wasted opportunity on their part. Big difference.
a c 114 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 29, 2007 10:00:29 PM

its weak, but the passive cooling will be nice for HTPC's

@ TheGreatGrapeApe - GRATS!!!! on mod :p 
June 29, 2007 10:01:05 PM

Anyone remember XGI, the guys formerly known as S3 (I think) who were going to try and give Nvidia and ATI a run for their money? I think the graphics game is harder than people think to get into.

I have to say, I'm building a new pc now, and it seems I happen to be buying at the wrong time. I mean, old DX9 cards perform well in old games and sell for cheap, new DX10 cards only do well in old games if they are higher end (eg GTS) and they seem to struggle with DX10 games. So the best thing for me to do is buy a second gen DX10 card, but I'm not waiting that long!

NVidia and ATI really need to bring their mid and low end up to meet their high end.
June 29, 2007 10:05:39 PM

Yes, I'd certainly say there as some significant barriers to entry in the mainstream GPU making realm. Intel has the best shot at market penetration due mainly to name recognition, but how their stuff will perform and what price points they will set is anyone's guess at this point.
June 29, 2007 10:17:57 PM

Given the state of the HD2600's drivers and price wise the XT is match against the high end 8600GT. I would say the XT does ok. The HD2600 pros are price wise matched against the low end 8600GT to high end 85000GT. The HD2600 pro does very well in this range. I would like to see something better performing than DX9 GPU's from ATI for around $250 but maybe Xmas 2900's are always a choice.
June 29, 2007 11:23:47 PM

same old story again and again and again
June 29, 2007 11:24:16 PM

and im still a newbie :!: :evil: 
June 29, 2007 11:29:56 PM

WTF are you guys talking about it can barely keep up with the 320 gts? Can't recal the site but that review was bull. Look at more reliable sources and what do you get? The 2900xt competing very much so against the gtx. wow you guys ( regards to the ones that posted to what I am talking about) are total Nvidia fanboys. Get a life.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/xfx-gf88...
June 29, 2007 11:31:30 PM

It's very doubtful that the 2900XT will overtake the 8800GTX, but its performance seems to get much better with each new driver released.
June 30, 2007 12:07:39 AM

It's called the price/performance curve. A 320 can be had for $270 with mail in rebates. The cheapest 2900XT is still $410. The XT performs better at default settings, but guess what happens with AA/AF enabled?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=8
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6
Yes, its slim margin disappears. And that's with the latest drivers. All for only an extra $140! And before you call me a fanboy, why don't you hang around the forums and make some observations? Or did you miss the part in this post when I said that the 8800Ultra is a turd and the 86 and 8400's fairly worthless?

Go get yourself informed.
June 30, 2007 12:10:56 AM

Yea, you would think that right now ~$200 would be the sweet spot for the midrange market. As I mentioned earlier, people are likely willing to spring a little extra for a good GPU with the current state of RAM/CPU pricing. Leaving a gap between ~150 and $400 just doesn't make much sense. We'll just have to wait and see what shakes out.
June 30, 2007 12:15:45 AM

"We want to paint an accurate picture here, but it has become nearly impossible to speak negatively enough about the AMD Radeon HD 2000 Series without sounding comically absurd."


Wow and people were complaing that the 8600's series were bad performers..... i mean even the 8600GT which can be bought for 100$ BEATS the 2600XT! thats just bad and turn the the AA and these cards perform even worse.....

like they said a good MIDrange DX10 card is MIA....
June 30, 2007 12:22:21 AM

Quote:
It's called the price/performance curve. A 320 can be had for $270 with mail in rebates. The cheapest 2900XT is still $410. The XT performs better at default settings, but guess what happens with AA/AF enabled?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=8
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6
Yes, its slim margin disappears. And that's with the latest drivers. All for only an extra $140! And before you call me a fanboy, why don't you hang around the forums and make some observations? Or did you miss the part in this post when I said that the 8800Ultra is a turd and the 86 and 8400's fairly worthless?

Go get yourself informed.


O come on! I respected Anandtech at one time but even the people in their own forums are talking crap on how their review sucked. And if you had any sense you could tell that too. Especially since 10 other sites don't give as bad as results. Give me a break.
June 30, 2007 12:24:38 AM

Post your other 10 sites then, I can't wait to see them.
June 30, 2007 12:40:07 AM

Here's one more:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM1MSwxLCxoZW5...

Go ahead and read that in its entirety.

Look, I'm not saying that the HD2900XT is a bad card, because it's not. It can, and does, outperform the 8800GTS's under a number of circumstances. However, it doesn't do so by a very large margin, and it doesn't do so consistently. So what justifies the extra 140? The HDMI dongle that most people likely won't use since the thing is considerably too hot and power hungry to stuff into an HTPC? There is quite a bit of agreement that the GTS 320 currently offers the best price performance. There is a reason for that.
June 30, 2007 12:46:53 AM

Does anyone else believe that for what its worth the 2600 series is a very efficient architecture, it only has 4ROPS, and 8 texture mapping units and yet 25/10% slower then the 8600gts which has 8ROP's and 16 texture mapping units.
June 30, 2007 12:51:53 AM

Quote:
Does anyone else believe that for what its worth the 2600 series is a very efficient architecture, it only has 4ROPS, and 8 texture mapping units and yet 25/10% slower then the 8600gts which has 8ROP's and 16 texture mapping units.


you mean INEFFICIENT, i mean the 2600XT draws alot more power then the the 8600GT and 8600GTS yet it performs WORSE than the 8600GT, then you might say well its only going for the 100$..... so is the 8600GT which as proven in a number of reviews i have read out performs the 2600XT.... most people wanna play with AA on i mean why does ATI have x24 AA
if their silly cards cant even run that THAT!
EVGA 8600GT 114$- 100$ after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 30, 2007 1:11:51 AM

I'll wait for the next generation of ATI video cards because AMD still have many problems to solve and didn't make any wow cards so that could convince me to buy a new one.
June 30, 2007 2:24:12 AM

Quote:
mean the 2600XT draws alot more power then the the 8600GT and 8600GTS

Wrong. Heres some links power consumption comparisons.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/powe...
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=426&type=expert&pi...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/radeon_hd_2600_perf...
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_...
and one that shows high power numbers: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=4
Quote:

so is the 8600GT which as proven in a number of reviews i have read out performs the 2600XT.... most people wanna play with AA on i mean why does ATI have x24 AA

Hmm looking at more reviews I see your point, then again with future catalyst driver releases we should see the performance numbers jump a bit like the 2900XT did.
June 30, 2007 4:01:33 AM

Ok, congrats, you managed to find something at least. However, this is only one game. Also, if you notice, at higher resolutions the game is unplayable on both cards. Now, if this is the only game you want to play, so be it, the 2900XT is the card for you. Try looking for a site that shows the 2900XT winning consistently in a wide variety of games. You won't find anything legitimate. The fact of the matter is, despite costing 140 more, the 2900XT fails to consistently beat the GTS 320 in anything more than a few games.
June 30, 2007 4:04:40 AM

Disregard
June 30, 2007 4:53:54 AM

Well the simple truth is that the 640MB version of the 8800GTS doesn't exactly wipe the floor with the 320MB version either. The HD 2900XT is set to compete with the 640MB version in price and performance, and whether or not it does this depends on what review you read.

Sapphire HD 2900XT. Seems pretty competitively price to me.
June 30, 2007 8:25:46 AM

Well, here's my take on this friggin' TITANIC... AMD/ATi will NOT be getting any of my money in the near future. They do not desire to win. How the F**K do you produce something worse than the competition for 2nd roll-out. OH WAIT... we'll sell more 8800's and 2900's this way. Must be the money.

And thats not to say NVidia is any less greedier... NOT ONE PENNY. Yay for NVidia they made a better POS and slapped you in the face with the 8600 series... AMD/Ati just slapped you in the face AGAIN!

In my more humble opinion, stick with the 79xx and 19xx series, there's nothing to see here folks, nothing to see, just move along.

f61
June 30, 2007 8:55:41 AM

Sorry but your message was lost in the un-understandable post besides "stick with X1900...... which if you ask me is quite silly, the 8600GTS performs near 7900GS which if you think about it the 7900GS should win every marking having the clock speed and 256Bit bus not to mention with better drivers the 32 shaders could in theory at atleast on DX10 out perform all previous series... we just need that game that does so well.
June 30, 2007 9:19:21 AM

Im kind of expectying future game companies to make their games to use the other things dx10 cards offer rather than bus width anyway. 128bit might not be such a compromise then.


I still think it deepends on what point of veiw your looking at it from. If you want to play a lot of games, yes 2600xt's are crap.

BUT.

if you want a graphics card to use Vista properly, to run your moniter or 2 at high resolutions properly, which doesnt cost a lot to buy or replace and draws very little power.

I cant think of any card better than the 2600xt.
June 30, 2007 9:42:42 AM

Hey dont slag this card off just yet, wait for some driver updates, cos ati always mess the drivers up on launch day.

I think this card will out peform th 8600gt and gts version givin time,
You should wait for the HD 2600 512MB GDDR 4 VERSION, or a bit longer for the gecube HD GeCube Gemini 3 dual 2600 XT thats gonna be an extra $40 but well worth it.
June 30, 2007 10:25:47 AM

It is certainly disappointing, I thought that the 2600 would do better than the 8600 but well it's just not happening. The mid end range card is very bad segment to be shopping right now. I'll be buying a new card in July and the 1950xt seems very very appealing. It's not as good a performer as the 8800 320 GTS but it cost around 150.00 less and will probably do good enough till I really need a DX10 card.
June 30, 2007 11:22:44 AM

I think they are just fine for what is offered for the price.I've had a taste of high performance video cards and so I'll stick with them.But a lot of people can't afford to pay 300-600 dollars for a video card.Does that mean they are not entitled to play DX10 games when they come out???Of course not.They'll just play the same games as the ones who can afford a high-end card,but with a serious lack of performance compared to what some are used to.No harm done and no shame to be felt.Simply put,some people can afford to buy high-end and some can't.So there has to be a card for the ones that have only a little money>

Dahak

AMD X2 5600+ @ 2.8ghz(stock)
M2N32-SLI DELUXE MB
2 GIGS DDR2 800 RAM
THERMALTAKE 850WATT PSU
7950 GX2 560/1450
ACER 22IN. LCD
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
80GIG/250gig SATA2 HD's
XP MCE
3DMARK05 14644
June 30, 2007 11:26:19 AM

Quote:
Does anyone else believe that for what its worth the 2600 series is a very efficient architecture, it only has 4ROPS, and 8 texture mapping units and yet 25/10% slower then the 8600gts which has 8ROP's and 16 texture mapping units.


you mean INEFFICIENT, i mean the 2600XT draws alot more power then the the 8600GT and 8600GTS yet it performs WORSE than the 8600GT, then you might say well its only going for the 100$..... so is the 8600GT which as proven in a number of reviews i have read out performs the 2600XT.... most people wanna play with AA on i mean why does ATI have x24 AA
if their silly cards cant even run that THAT!
EVGA 8600GT 114$- 100$ after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Not true at all. The Hd 2600 series outperforms the 8600 series in this review and costs less. I like the cheap prices. :D 

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6170621/index.html?tag=topslot;title;4&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot

I think performance price wise its better than the 8600 series. Also the dual hd 2600xt boards are set to be only slightly more expencive (around $200) so they will definately be worth a look (i want one!)
June 30, 2007 11:45:40 AM

dual prossessors worked wonders for CPU's. With core2duo etc.

Maybe its the next step in gpu's aswell 8O
June 30, 2007 12:07:59 PM

Almost certainly, however current implementation in both SLI and Crossfire is extremely crude - ugly hardware hacks.
June 30, 2007 2:40:56 PM

Some good points have been made all around. Black-heart, do you know when dual 2900s will be released? That's certainly an option for mid-range buyers. A crossfire setup would likely be a bit too expensive and power hungry for a low end buyer, but it is an option for a midrange buyer. ATI has released several dual GPU boards recently, so I can't imagine some vendor won't eventually produce on with the 26's GPU on it. I'd imagine it would be priced at ~250, which is still awful close to the GTS 320 though.

SealBoy, good find, I hadn't seen any 2900's that low, but looking at NewEgg today they seem to have lowered prices across the board. Sapphire is almost always the best priced of ATI vendors, I love them for it. Still, here's a 320 for 250 after MIR:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
so there's still a pretty darn big gap between the two.

Dual-core GPUs may certainly be in the future, but likely several years off. GPU tech hasn't advanced nearly as much as CPU tech, well, I guess in a way it has, but the advances certainly aren't elegant. CPUs are, by and large, powerful enough already. On the other hand, GPU manufacturers are under constant pressure from the game industry, which continually releases titles the push or even break the current performance envelope upon their release. As a result, GPU makers haven't adopted a lot of the refinements that keep our CPU's quiet, cool, and efficient. That's one reason I was so excited when I heard about the AMD/ATI merger, but now it looks like the excitement was a bit premature. Hopefully it'll bear fruit in the future.
June 30, 2007 3:54:17 PM

Quote:
I think they are just fine for what is offered for the price.I've had a taste of high performance video cards and so I'll stick with them.But a lot of people can't afford to pay 300-600 dollars for a video card.Does that mean they are not entitled to play DX10 games when they come out???Of course not.They'll just play the same games as the ones who can afford a high-end card,but with a serious lack of performance compared to what some are used to.No harm done and no shame to be felt.Simply put,some people can afford to buy high-end and some can't.So there has to be a card for the ones that have only a little money>

Dahak


Any DX10 game will look better and run smoother in DX9 on an X1950XT than in DX10 on an 8600.
June 30, 2007 4:13:37 PM

Quote:
I think they are just fine for what is offered for the price.I've had a taste of high performance video cards and so I'll stick with them.But a lot of people can't afford to pay 300-600 dollars for a video card.Does that mean they are not entitled to play DX10 games when they come out???Of course not.They'll just play the same games as the ones who can afford a high-end card,but with a serious lack of performance compared to what some are used to.No harm done and no shame to be felt.Simply put,some people can afford to buy high-end and some can't.So there has to be a card for the ones that have only a little money>

Dahak


Any DX10 game will look better and run smoother in DX9 on an X1950XT than in DX10 on an 8600.

Not fi the game makes sue of the new features of DX10 then it will look better with DX10. More realistic.

but hey if ya dont agree with me, check crysis in dx9/10 pics. Looks so much better with dx10.
June 30, 2007 5:03:40 PM

Quote:

Is this a new trend? What is behind this sub-par performance from both camps?


Part of the problem lies in drivers optimizations. As they come out with new drivers, performance will improve. That's beginning to happen already with the X2900 and the 8600. Give it time.

Also, there are supposed to be G92 parts between the 8600 and the 8800GTS by the end of the year. That would make the 8600 GTS overpriced now, even with driver optimizations.

What I cannot recommend is anyone getting an X1950 Pro or a 7900GT this year. It's better to wait for both mature drivers and high midrange parts. I think we'll see things a bit more back to normal this holiday season.

Me, I can't wait for an Nvidia hybrid SLI motherboard.

Quote:

In the meantime it appears as though ATI and Nvidia are practically putting out a welcome mat for Intel's planned entry into mid-range discrete GPUs.


I'll believe it when I see it, an Intel GPU that is actually worth anything. The only reason Intel's entering the discreet GPU market is to actually have something to compete against fusion down the line. If they can get a discreet GPU that people might want to buy, then they'll have something to add to their 8 core future CPUs.

Quote:

DX10 support on these cards is a moot point unless you plan on running games at 640X480, since the performance will likely be absolutely miserable. While this is partly speculation on my part, a quick look at currently available DX10 benchmarks on the GTX and XT leaves little doubt that this will be the case.


Bad initial performance could be a combination of immature drivers and badly implemented DX10 in patches and new games. I'll be curious to see how the first generation of DX10 hardware does in DX10 games a year from now. The worst case scenario is that AMD and Nvidia have a new "FX" series that defaults to DX9.

Quote:

I have to say, I'm building a new pc now, and it seems I happen to be buying at the wrong time. I mean, old DX9 cards perform well in old games and sell for cheap, new DX10 cards only do well in old games if they are higher end (eg GTS) and they seem to struggle with DX10 games. So the best thing for me to do is buy a second gen DX10 card, but I'm not waiting that long!

NVidia and ATI really need to bring their mid and low end up to meet their high end.


Do what I did, I built in February and got a 7600GS. The cheapest card that would give me high settings in Oblivion. That way, when I upgrade later this year, I won't have wasted too much money. It was better to get average performance now and save up the difference for good performance when the DX10 cards enter into their second generation, and/or the price of the 8800GTS drops.
June 30, 2007 5:08:21 PM

Quote:
Not fi the game makes sue of the new features of DX10 then it will look better with DX10. More realistic.

but hey if ya dont agree with me, check crysis in dx9/10 pics. Looks so much better with dx10.


You're missing my point. If you plan to play a DX10 game like, say, Crysis on an 8600 in DX10 mode, you'd have to turn the eye-candy off so much that it would, in fact, look better in DX9 on an X1950XT with some detail turned on.
June 30, 2007 5:29:32 PM

Quote:
Not fi the game makes sue of the new features of DX10 then it will look better with DX10. More realistic.

but hey if ya dont agree with me, check crysis in dx9/10 pics. Looks so much better with dx10.


You're missing my point. If you plan to play a DX10 game like, say, Crysis on an 8600 in DX10 mode, you'd have to turn the eye-candy off so much that it would, in fact, look better in DX9 on an X1950XT with some detail turned on.

I havent seen any proof of that, however I see where you are coming from.

It depends on the extent that you'd have to turn features off, which will probably vary with each game.
June 30, 2007 6:06:14 PM

Quote:
Sorry but your message was lost in the un-understandable post besides "stick with X1900...... which if you ask me is quite silly, the 8600GTS performs near 7900GS which if you think about it the 7900GS should win every marking having the clock speed and 256Bit bus not to mention with better drivers the 32 shaders could in theory at atleast on DX10 out perform all previous series... we just need that game that does so well.

Then again a 8600GTS costs me about 150€ while i can get a better or at leas equally performing 7900GS for 99€ or even a 1950 Pro for 120.... Even a 1800XT 512 is a good buy for 127€ right now and it is almost 2 generations behind. I´m going to buy something next month and i´m almost certain it won´t be any of those 8600GTS/2600XT low range cards.
!