Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD2600xt vs. x1950pro with new 7.10 driver?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 13, 2007 1:48:35 AM

With the new 7.10 driver which card would be a better choice HD2600XT with DX10 or x1950pro 512MB with DX9?
Sorry if it's a stupid question.
October 13, 2007 2:18:58 AM

x1950pro still.
October 13, 2007 2:30:08 AM

Thanks
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 13, 2007 7:01:12 PM

The 2600XT is a lot closser to a 1950 pro than a lot of people think but its still basically the better card (1950 pro).
If you are running Vista and want DX10 then from what i have see at nominal resolutions the 8600gts seems to be the best of the so called midrange cards.Price point depends on where you live but i think it is generally more expensive.
Also the new drivers were released to suport the x2*** cards and the x1*** cards so the drivers on there own are not a reason to expect inprovement ,the last two seemed to concentrate more onthe 2*** series but the 7.10 seems quite equal across the board.
Mactronix
October 13, 2007 7:23:45 PM

2600xt is pretty close 1950pro in some games but it's a toss up in some other games.

In unreal 3 it performs nearly to 1950pro speeds but in COD4 it does not.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sect...

8600gts is the better card of the 2 and it constantly gets near 1950pro speeds or sometimes beat it with dx10 option for $122 after rebate at newegg which isn't bad.
October 14, 2007 7:10:56 AM

that chart is from july, n wasnt updated since then. so u souldnt be really following it.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2007 7:33:16 AM

The 8600GTS can beat the x1950 pro by reasonable margins now in some games.
October 14, 2007 9:53:10 AM

randomizer said:
The 8600GTS can beat the x1950 pro by reasonable margins now in some games.


It always did but the mass doesn't see anything beyond what you tell them. They see 1950 pro beating 8600gts by 3 fps and people bash on 8600gts. People keep point to the 128bit memory bus but you have to realize it's running @ 1000mhz or over and has 16 TMU compared to 1950pro 12 TMU. 8600gts shader are more efficient and more powerful as well.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMyNCw5LCxoZW5...

8600gts stomps 1950pro in MS Flight Simulator X by a mile.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2007 10:15:05 AM

And has better image quality too (apparently).
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2007 12:03:39 PM

If you hate the jaggies, the X1950 pro still easily outperforms the HD 2600XT when using FSAA.

These are the Cat 7.9's, but look at these results and read the summary below it. The 2600's tank with fsaa on. Go back and look at the 0xfsaa tests, and the 2600's do great. I doubt the cat 7.10's will bring it back on par with the others with fsaa.

4xaa http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=691&p=3
0xaa http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=691&p=2

October 14, 2007 12:34:52 PM

I don't think people have really been bashing the 8600GTS.

1) Lots of People confuse the 8600GT and GTS or are not careful when commenting.

2) The 8600GTS has taken a while to come down in price. It has tended to be more expensive than cards with similar performance such as the 7900GT, 1950pro, and a few others. As a result, those one very tight budgets go with what is cheaper but provides about the same performance.

3) However, the 8600GTS has finally started to come down to be as cheap is not cheaper. Add to this that is used far less power (Read Easier to Cool/Quiter for those who don't pay power bills) and you start to have a real winner in that price segment.
October 14, 2007 2:45:07 PM

I don't think that's true. I suggested to many people here when the prices have dropped to 1950pro levels and lot of other forums and some people really have their panties on backwards and think 1950pro is so much better but it's not the case. They are actually comparable cards speed wise. 1950pro edging out 8600gts when AA is enabled in some older games since it has 4 more rops and 25% memory bandwidth but when it's all done it's not much slower at all while pertaining better image quality.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244360-33-card-option...

Just look at the other thread in August. You can clearly see how ignorant some people are. They are both similarly priced yet only 3 people voted for 8600gts and I was one of the people who voted 8600gts. 8600gts has many advantages over 1950pro. Better HDCP support, lower power consumption, better AA and AF, dx 10 option. Most games yes the 1950pro edges out 8600gts by 2-5 fps in 80% of the games while 8600gts beats 1950 pro in other but in reality is that 2-5 fps going to make any drastic speed differences that you won't be playing at the same resolution or higher AA? Of course not. But hey don't let the ignorance hit you on the way out.
October 14, 2007 3:35:28 PM

zenmaster said:
I don't think people have really been bashing the 8600GTS.

1) Lots of People confuse the 8600GT and GTS or are not careful when commenting.

2) The 8600GTS has taken a while to come down in price. It has tended to be more expensive than cards with similar performance such as the 7900GT, 1950pro, and a few others. As a result, those one very tight budgets go with what is cheaper but provides about the same performance.

3) However, the 8600GTS has finally started to come down to be as cheap is not cheaper. Add to this that is used far less power (Read Easier to Cool/Quiter for those who don't pay power bills) and you start to have a real winner in that price segment.


I have the Superclocked Evga 8600GTS in my backup system and I'm running it at 1280 by 1024 and it runs every game I have on high so for those on a budget (I got mine for $155) it's a great card.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2007 5:02:40 PM

Drivers have helped even the 8600GTS to where it now truely trades blows with the X1950 pro. This wasn't the case at launch. People that bashed the card months ago rightfully did so to some degree as it was priced higher and performed worse than it does now.
October 14, 2007 5:32:31 PM

Wait and see how much 8800GT will be at the end of the month.
October 14, 2007 5:41:19 PM

Woah woah, you guys talk all about nvidia. What about ATI? Especially since the supposedly 80% increase in performance (Like 5fps to 9fps? lol) Well if it does bring a huge performance jump, the 2600XT may own the 8600GTS.
October 14, 2007 6:07:51 PM

Well, the 7.10 Driver has not really done much from what I have seen in most cases. In some games in which it was basically broken it may have seen big increases. Not in games in which it operated properly. They also increased XFire performance, but that is not what we are looking at here.
October 14, 2007 6:49:44 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Woah woah, you guys talk all about nvidia. What about ATI? Especially since the supposedly 80% increase in performance (Like 5fps to 9fps? lol) Well if it does bring a huge performance jump, the 2600XT may own the 8600GTS.


Supposedly 80% is right. It's only crossfire performance because crossfire didn't work for some games. Now ATI fixed it.

Other than that 7.10 drivers do nothing except maybe add 1 or 2 fps into the performance of top end cards.


San Pedro said:
Wait and see how much 8800GT will be at the end of the month.


Rumor has it it's still going to be around $249-299. I'm going to get that card eventually but I'm still satisfied for the most part since I only game 1440x900.
October 14, 2007 7:56:53 PM

pauldh said:
Drivers have helped even the 8600GTS to where it now truely trades blows with the X1950 pro. This wasn't the case at launch. People that bashed the card months ago rightfully did so to some degree as it was priced higher and performed worse than it does now.


That's not entirely true. Drivers were always good and performance was always there but it was still premature and drivers did improve some especially AA performance but not drastically. 8600gts was always very close to 1950pro performance but it got beat in many games when AA was added because 1950pro had 12 rops and 25% more memory bandwidth. These are just previews here when they were first released in April. The other thread was back in August when the price dropped to 1950pro levels as you can see by the other thread both cards were $140. Performance didn't improve that drastically between then and now. I've been recommending 8600gts since the price drop.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600...

In fear @ 1280x1024 it tied 1950pro at raw performance. When AA was added it got beat by 10fps at anandtech while at firingsquad it got beat by 6fps.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=5

In battlefield 2 it was only couple fps within 1950pro at raw speed no AA.

Again when AA was added it got beat by 1950 by more than 10fps but it's not the case today if you look at

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=6

In oblivion 8600gts beat 1950pro pretty good.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=7

In prey it's within 1950pro performance by couple fps.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=8

In rainbow six. It ties with 1950pro.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=4

In stalker 8600gts has the edge.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=5

In supreme commander it ties with 1950pro.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600...

In BF2142 it ties with 1950pro. If you looked at current benchmarks 8600gts wins.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600...

In COD2 it loses to 1950pro by 6fps again this is with AA enabled.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600...

Half Life 2. It ties with 1950pro

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600...

In quake 4 8600gts wins by few fps.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600...

In Farcry 8600gts wins by few fps.


Basically 1950pro wins by few fps in 70% of the game especially when AA is enabled while it either ties or gets beaten by 8600gts. Adding couple fps into mix doesn't change how the gamer plays the game. You will still play the same resolution just couple fps less. What people don't realize is that 8600gts Aniso filter is superior to 1950pro. Texture quality is much more pleasing to the eye than 1950pro. CSAA is superior to ATI's AA. Games like BF2 and Half Life 2 you can add 8xCSAA making the image quality far superior to anything 1950pro can draw on the screen.
October 14, 2007 8:29:37 PM

marvelous do you think it would be worth trading my 7900 gs for a 8600gts? I think I can do it for about the same price, or maybe $20-30 at most.

Also, I currently game at 1280X1024, and my 7900gs is plenty good. However, I just ordered a 21" LCD, so I guess 1680 X 1050 is where I'll be at... unless the lower res setting still looks decent on the 21".

Would the 8600gts be able to handle that kind of high res as well as my 7900?
October 14, 2007 8:35:59 PM

In otherwords, I understand that the 8600gts is a hair better than the 7900gs, but I'm curious if the 128bit bus shows greater degridation at higher res.

Edit:

Heh, never mind, I just noticed most of those benchmarks have high res benchmarks further down. Yay.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2007 8:38:50 PM

From the OP's question, the x1950pro would be better, but buy the 8600gts if it's at a resonable price. Or wait a few weeks and see what the 8800gt's are going to do, if you have the $ to spend on them.
October 14, 2007 8:41:24 PM

bardia said:
marvelous do you think it would be worth trading my 7900 gs for a 8600gts? I think I can do it for about the same price, or maybe $20-30 at most.

Also, I currently game at 1280X1024, and my 7900gs is plenty good. However, I just ordered a 21" LCD, so I guess 1680 X 1050 is where I'll be at... unless the lower res setting still looks decent on the 21".

Would the 8600gts be able to handle that kind of high res as well as my 7900?


I too am using a 7900GS until my 8800GTX OC arrives here on Wednesday, I scaled how much of a boost I'd get in comparison to other cards, and the 7900GS, at the time I checked, was on par with an 8600. Do i think it can handle higher resolution better? Perhaps, but I'd get something better than an 8600; that's for sure.
October 14, 2007 9:28:50 PM

bardia said:
marvelous do you think it would be worth trading my 7900 gs for a 8600gts? I think I can do it for about the same price, or maybe $20-30 at most.

Also, I currently game at 1280X1024, and my 7900gs is plenty good. However, I just ordered a 21" LCD, so I guess 1680 X 1050 is where I'll be at... unless the lower res setting still looks decent on the 21".

Would the 8600gts be able to handle that kind of high res as well as my 7900?


Nope I don't think it's worth it just to get 10% better performance. You should look into 8800gt when it comes out.
a b U Graphics card
October 15, 2007 3:00:51 AM

I hope the 8800gt pushes the prices of the older 8800's down, alot. I doubt my dream will come true though.
October 15, 2007 3:27:29 AM

Yeah... I'm just really surprised at our lost midrange. I'll probably get the 8600GTS if somebody ends up buying my 7900 for a similar price (what can I say, people REALLY hate the 8600's, and the 7900's are still selling really well), otherwise I hope that 8800GT's can be had on the cheap.

All in all I'm happy with my performance, but I haven't tried out my new monitor yet. I can't remember if I was remembering how much more it would cost me on future video cards when I bought the thing ;) 

October 15, 2007 10:24:46 PM

Thanks for all the great information. As for picking the 8600GTS or the x1950pro, the person who built my system said I have to get a ATI card don’t know if that’s true or not but I trust him. Also my gf is over in Taiwan looking for the x1950pro to see how much they are over there, and most of the x1950pro are on sale right now on newegg one for $137. I would get the 8600GTS, b/c it seems like everyone says, get it, but I was told that my system needs an ATI card. Hopefully the price over in Taiwan will be so low that I can get 2 x1950pro and crossfire them, which would mean I would also have to upgrade my PSU. Again thanks for all the help, just incase you think I could put an 8600GTS I have given my system specs below. Thanks again!!!

-PA1 MVP ATI Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire ECS ELITEGROUP extreme mobo
- Intel Pentium D Processor 940/3.20 MHz FSB
- 2G memory (667)
-RAIDMAX Scorpio ATX-868WUP Blue Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 420W Power Supply
- Windows XP

Oh one more question I was looking at ATItool and its said “Full support for all ATI and NVIDIA cards. Only X1950 Pro overclocking is not supported.”. Does Rivatuner support x1950pro’s, or did I just read it wrong? Here is the link were I got it from. http://www.techpowerup.com/atitool/
October 16, 2007 8:17:13 AM

Maybe your friend is more inclined to using ATI video cards but things have changed. Nvidia is the current leader.

Your raidmax power supply is not of quality. Depending on your 12 volt rail your system might get unstable. 1950pro eats more power over 8600gts. Just a thought.
October 16, 2007 8:48:36 AM

Raidmax RX380K 11amps
Raidmax RX420K 13amps
Raidmax RX-450KW 14amps
Raidmax RX-470XPW 15amps
Raidmax RX-520XP 18amps

Put a psu in your budget
October 16, 2007 8:07:39 PM

Thanks for the help. I have been looking at some 600W PSU, and most likely going to wait for the prices to go down on the cards. Might even wait and see about the ATI 2950, thanks for the again I would be making some bad choices without you guys. Thanks again.
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2007 9:42:23 PM

marvelous211 said:
That's not entirely true. Drivers were always good and performance was always there but it was still premature and drivers did improve some especially AA performance but not drastically. 8600gts was always very close to 1950pro performance but it got beat in many games when AA was added because 1950pro had 12 rops and 25% more memory bandwidth. These are just previews here when they were first released in April. The other thread was back in August when the price dropped to 1950pro levels as you can see by the other thread both cards were $140. Performance didn't improve that drastically between then and now. I've been recommending 8600gts since the price drop.

Not sure why the long messege in reply to what I wrote, but let me just clarify. Nothing I said was in response to you recommending the 8600GTS since the price drop, nor about any discussiion in August. I have recommended the 8600GTS to a few people also. Re-read what I wrote, and you'll see I was simply making the statement that at launch the 8600GTS was a disappointment. I say this because it did not outperform available pre-generation cards costing less. And given that performance did increase and prices dropped (exactley what I said) it's fine to recommend it now. But at launch it was a huge dissapointment compared to the 7600GT or 6600GT that managed to match the very best cards from the generation before it. That card and the 6600GT set a bar for the midrange that the 8600GTS failed misreably to compare to. Imagine the 7600GT coming out and not matching the X800 pro or GF6800GS, but costing way more.

Anyway, I should have quoted, but was just commenting as someone had mentioned people swapping their view of the 8600GTS, which is not only ok in my eyes, it's expected when prices drop and the card now competes in it's price range. That was the reason I posted. I now see you guys have had some heated discussions that still linger and you may have seen my comment as adding fuel to a smoldering fire. That was not my intentions at all as I have nothing against the 8600GTS now except that I feel it's about time we have a much better performing card than it , the X1950 pro, or 7900GS available. With the X1950XT supply drying up, there has been such a huge void in performance for those wanting more than a 8600GTS/X1950 pro, but not wanting to spend $250+ on the 320MB 8800GTS. Most people I build for don't want to spend over $200 on a video card, so I am looking forward to some better performance in this price range. Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit.

October 17, 2007 2:41:19 PM

It's new technology. it's not supposed to cost less and perform better. You have to wait until it matures or better fabs come and make the cards more cheaper.

It's been like this with geforce 7 series as well. Do you not remember 850xt dx9b was actually cheaper than 7600gt with dx9c? They perform similar and 850xt had an edge on some older games but time progressed they were on equal footing and now 850xt can't play some dx9c minimum games.
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 10:18:19 PM

marvelous211 said:
It's new technology. it's not supposed to cost less and perform better. You have to wait until it matures or better fabs come and make the cards more cheaper.

It's been like this with geforce 7 series as well. Do you not remember 850xt dx9b was actually cheaper than 7600gt with dx9c? They perform similar and 850xt had an edge on some older games but time progressed they were on equal footing and now 850xt can't play some dx9c minimum games.


I totally don't agree with that. The 7600GT was second generation Sm3.0 for NVidia and it matched or beat the NV top dog 6800U for way less money. It was pretty close to on par with the X850XT, maybe a bit behind. But it sure beat the X850 pro and 6800GS. A better comparison would be the 6600GT (GF6) which was new technology (first SM3.0) too and it not only crushed the FX series, it beat the then champion R9800XT. BUT, the 8600GTS isn't close to a X1950XTX or 7950GX2, matter of fact it is losing more often than not to the X1950 pro, making a huge list of previous generation cards that are faster than it. Big difference. Shoot go back another generation and look what the new technology midrange R9500 pro did to anything out before it. If we compare to the 9500 pro, 6600GT, and 7600GT, the 8600GTS and HD2600XT offered from what those other midgrange cards offered.

Can't you see the 8600GTS failed to do what the 7600GT and 6600GT did? It's pretty obvious to anyone who's been around for a while. It would have to beat a X1950XTX to match the 6600GT and at least challenge the X1900XTX and X1950XT to do what the 7600GT did. Of course, none of this means it's a bad card for $130-140 now, but at launch it was a bad deal and for many reasons looked at as a dissapointment losing to a readily available and cheaper previous gen upper-midrange card.





!