On release the 2600 XT cost too much, given its performance. Newer models cost around $100, but they're equipped with slower memory. How do they perform?
Unknown because you did not do any tests!
I presumed the whole article was to see how these cards did compared to the cards with the faster memory.
Would it not make sense to test these cards against one of those?
This was a "slow" 2600XT vs 8600GT.
There was no attempt to address this question.
And no, you can't reuse old benches since the system is different, the drivers are different, among other factors.
It was nice to see how well these cards did for the price vs the 8600GT. However, I would really like to know what I would get if I bought a less crippled 2600XT.
I was more concerned with seeing if the 2600XT was a good buy, rather than concentrating on the difference a 10% memory clockspeed difference makes.
All of the 2600 XT's I can find under $130 have 700 MHz memory. The 800 MHz models - as well as the GDDR4 models - are priced too high to matter, because they're butting heads with the X1950 PRO which will kill them. Because of this, the 800 MHz models are irrelevant as far as a purchase option.
Having said all that, If I had one lying around the lab I would have included benches for it, but I didn't consider it a priority. If this article has a large response though, I'll try to do a follow up article about the DDR2 8600 GTs, and I'll include both 8600 GTs as well as the different flavors of 2600 XTs (even the GDDR4 version) out there if I can get my hands on em.
On a side note, I just scoured Newegg for 2600XTs with 800 MHz memory... I didn't find a single one. All 700 MHz memory.
The only exceptions are the GDDR4 versions (which are all above $130), and an overclocked version by HIS that according to the specs listsed, has 960 MHz DDR2 (also above $130).
I don't think anyone's manufacturing 2600 XT's with 800 MHz memory anymore...
Message edited by Cleeve on 09-13-2007 at 04:56:10 PM
I know its not really the point of the article but while you seen to be taking requests i would have liked to see a 7600GT and a X1650XT in there for comparison
Mactronix
Snyper, if you think it's sensible to sweepingly judge the validity of solid testing and reasonable conclusions because of an insignificant (and, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant) resolution misprint that has absolutely no bearing on test results... well, you be my guest.
Sorry folks, I meant to say 1440x900. Time to chuck the article in the garbage!
Message edited by Cleeve on 09-13-2007 at 06:59:30 PM
Again - sorry
It was an unfortunate misuse of terms - perhaps boardering on standard BS techniques - that I was constructively pointing out.
I suppose that not knowing monitor resolutions may be considered irrelevant in some circles - but this is supposed to be a technical hardware review. There are people out there that will read an article like this and adopt the information as fact and propagate the errors
Sorry Cleeve, I was Just trying to help for future articles
i would have liked to see a 7600GT and a X1650XT in there for comparison
Eisen6faust 
j/k.