http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] orce_8600/

Is there hope for those looking for performance on the cheap? We take a look at the state of the graphics market in light of the release of ATI's latest cards.

This is a great article, one that had to be written. As Ive been reading the forums, Ive noticed alot of newer people coming in with alot of questions regaurding the "new" DX10 cards, but like alot of us, they dont have a ton of cash to spend. Some are downright newb, and dont really know what to expect. This statement here

helps. People have to realize that "DX10" as we WILL come to know it just doesnt exist, and the midrange cards that are out couldnt play them anyways. Many here have tried to discourage many potential buyers, all of them wanting the "new" DX10 cards in their price range, problem is, there really isnt any. OK, not good solid useable cards. We refer them to last generations uppermid-lowerhighend cards (1900pro-1900xt-7950 etc) because actually, they outperform most of these "midrange DX10" cards, and are priced better, that and there being no real DX10 games out makes for a confusing time. Articles like this will help clear a little of this up, thx for the read

Almost every day I post on the forum advising someone not to buy one of these cards simply because they are DX10 and cheaper than their high-end brothers. Just a couple of days ago was the guy bragging about getting a new 8600 to "future proof" his system. These people are going to sadly disappointed if they plan to do any gaming with these cards when DX10 becomes mainstream. These cards simply won't do it.
I doubt even the high end DX10 cards will be all that hot when DX10 does finally become mainstream. I would only buy one of the highend cards (8800-2900) right now simply because they are the fastest current solution for DX9, not DX10. Right now there is no reason to buy a card based on whether or not it will run DX10!
Thanks for the article, maybe more people will get the inside scoop on this pitifully poor excuse for a video card(s)
I was out a local shops and retail stores last weekend checking prices, and these things are just flying off the shelf left and right at $200-$300! People. Stop! You are simply tossing money in the garbage.

WHERE IS THE TEST SETUP????????????

You can never get good performance cheap, what do you want, a miracle?

2600xt does well for its price range. And soon the 2600xt gemini will come out to meet the 8600gts in mid range.

The title is a good name. I was waiting for the article.
However, I did notice the 8600GTS beat the 1950Pro sometimes. This surprised me.
Jay is right, the x1950XT / 7950 GT is the current mid-range (since real DX10 doesn't exist yet anyway)
I'm still hoping for a 2600XTX and a 8600GTX with double the streams and pipes. But buy then, I'll be upgrading my midrange card to a true DX10 card anyway.

I really like that article and I am looking forward to the PureVideo and AVIVO one. I would love to build an HTPC soon and my x1950Pro is not avivo capable. Kudos on the article, it was a good read.

As far as I could read it, the Xbox 360 won.

Looks like this once again confirms that the answer is no.

It looks like nVidia took a page out of ATi's X1600 playbook, and AMD didn't learn from Ati's blunder with the X1600.

The thing is I'm not sure whether the same pressure will be on for either company to come out with something better like the rumoured/half-confirmed GF8800GS/HD2900Pro models if there isn't the kind of clear leader must-have card like there was with the GF7600GT. There's nothing to push the other company to make something like an X1800GTO/X1900GT. I'm sure that eventually they will both make a 65nm or 55nm refresh to replace the GTS-320 sales point because it would be cheaper to produce; but without anything pushing them forward and the only competition being who can clear the factory of their old stock of X1950s and GF7950s first, I'm not optimistic about there being attractive mid-range cards that come in under $200. The GTS-320 is the clear value winner of the new crop, and the cast offs from last generation are the overall value winners, so we're kind of adrift in a sea of mediocrity.

Now more than ever it'd be nice to have some competition for the mid-range. I thought it'd be bad because the others would take profits away from ATi/AMD and nV which they need to develop the hig-end, but if this is their way to defend the mid-range, they deserve someone like S3 coming in and stealing their lunch. Too bad that's more of a wish than a reality.

Until you factor in having to buy 3-4 of them over the same time period.
It fell in to a burning ring of fire....

I'm curious, why is it surprising that the 8600GTS would be able to beat the 1950Pro in some benchmarks? I don't really know a lot about graphics cards other than what I read, but it seems to me like a newer, more expensive card should be able to beat an older card MOST of the time.

Very good points. A lot of people don't know and are not informed consumers. I think this happens every generation when a new gen video card is released with some new gizmo thingamabob and everyone wants it or thinks they have to have it. Look at Tom's current VGA charts. The X800 and the 6800 cards still perform well.

This is the point of the article. The new mid-range cards are weaker than mid-range cards of previous generations.
So, the 1950Pro is a previous generation low 'high end' card when the 8600GTS is a new generation middle class card.
The 1950Pro has 36 shaders and a 256bit bus while the 8600GTS has 32 shaders and a 128bit bus. There are some other factors, but this is the basic idea.
Normally the new mid-range cards outperform the previous high-end cards.
This year things are different.

Good article. It echos my thoughts since the 8400/8500/8600's came out. Where's the 8700??

That's what we really need - something with ~64 stream processors, 256bit memory interface, 512mb memory (or even 320mb.. or even 256mb, as long as the interface is 256bit), ~12-16 ROPS, etc. That's the card that should be priced just under the 8800 320mb GTS. The 8600 can take a price drop for it's level of performance.

I'm pretty disappointed in nVidia (and ATI both) for this round of cards. I'll stick with my 7900GS until prices of 8800's come way down or they come out with something more interesting than the low end cards they have out now.

All hope is not lost. ATI/AMD has a 2800 version coming out later this year. It should be the real mid-range we have all been missing. I am not sure what the Green camp has in store except for a refresh of G80. It will be next year until G90 is due out. R700 is also slated for some time soon. Not sure on the exact when but this should help move R600 into a better price point as well as X1950 variants.

This past year and a half has been strange compared to the last few. I mean look back at Voodoo 3. There were 3 cards to suit three price points and not a ton of difference between Voodoo 3 3000 and 3500. Even Ti 4200 4400 and 4600 were not so different either. I question why engineering, PR, and marketing don't get together more often to give a strong showing for their greatest fans. Granted, 2400 and 2600 as well as 8400/8500/8600 should do well with OEMs and make some money for the companies with volume, but what about US... the people that tell other people what to buy? If we don't have something worthwhile for ourselves, what can we tell the people with $$$ to spend and need a new card? Hmmm... (**Scratches head)

Perhaps it would make sense for these two companies to build the high end followed by a midrange and below. The extreme segment (for those with unlimited means) can have the latest and greatest followed by cards for those that want good quality and performance at a lower price. Then they can announce value and entry level cards with the mid-range. All 4 segments would have been happy instead of only having 3 of the 4 and angering the segment that cares the most.

Well... time will tell. We can only hope that these companies will remember launches of 9700 and 9500 together and then 9800 and 9600. Ahhhh.... those were the days.

"We can only hope that these companies will remember launches of 9700 and 9500 together and then 9800 and 9600. Ahhhh.... those were the days."

I remember that time...Those were the days when socket A had been around for years, and a good Barton stepping could be had for $60.00. Overclocking was a hobby that CPU vendors discouraged instead of selling specific steppings to Dell for a special 'overclocked PC'...*sigh*

My first video card was a VOODOO 5500. 4 GPU's on one titanic pcb. I had to open up case and set a floor fan blowing on it to prevent the computer from crashing during Unreal Tournament LAN parties. Now THAT was a video card...or at least an example of ambitious engineering.

Again there is the suggestion here that since the 2400 is no good for gaming it should be used for HTPC. But ALL published HQV testing proves otherwise. The crippled shaders prevent it from doing any video postprocessing, like noise reduction.

The 2400 is completely INAPPROPRIATE for HTPC use. Sadly, there are no 2600 product bundles (2600pro with HDMI dongle) for HTPC either.

So HTPCs are stuck with noisy, hot 2600XTs that are overkill for HTPC and useless for gaming.

Yeah it just sucks for people having to wait for that (or like me having to wait for more new mobility parts to appear, announced about 2 months ago, lets get some more product variety out there guys).

This is exactly it, the OEMs love it, and they are of course cheaper to make than the equivalent cards, and often the cards they are replacing. And then these cards are backed up by the results of the #1 OEM marketing tool 3Dmark (where the new cards look awesome). This is definitely not an enthusiast card like the GF4200, R9500, R9600, GF6600/X700, GF7600 all of which made you feel like it was a worthy part for a mid-range gamer.
Sure I have recommended the GF8600GTS, but that's for people living in countries that do not have the X1950Pro/GF7900GS/X1950XT priced similarly. For most people in N.Am. there is little to no value in a GF8600GTS compared to a cheaper X1950/GF7900. And then I just feel bad for the people in other countries with no options.

And ain't that the truth, the biggest sweet spot market is the this mid-range segment that pay a bit of a premium over the low end, and sells in quantities that rival or exceed the low end. So the majority of both companies profits lie in this area, it's surprising that both would've brought parts like this to market that could easily have been destroyed by the competition if it had continued on a 'as good as the previous gen's high end' while they had not. Luck for each separately that the other company didn't bring out the part we all want or else they would be in serious trouble.

Yeah, the R9500Pro reminds me of the GTS-320 a bit, in that nV is selling a crippled hig end part to satisfy the upper mid-range. I'm surprised that nV hasn't worked harder to replace it, in the same fashion ATi did, with something that's cheaper to make and fills a similar gap. Seems to me their margins would be much better with a 65nm part @ 400+ million transistors, rather than cripplign their 700million (including NVIO) transistor part.

And really the performance gap between the GF8600GTS and the GF8600GTS, wow, it's bigger than the one that was between XGI and ATi/nV.