More Mainstream DX10: AMD's 2400 and 2600 Series
by Derek Wilson on June 28, 2007 8:35 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings. The only game that shows AMD hardware leading NVIDIA is Rainbow Six: Vegas. Beyond that, our 4xAA tests show the mainstream Radeon HD lineup, which already lags in performance, scales even worse than NVIDIA. Not that we really expect most people with this level of hardware to enable 4xAA, but it's still a disappointment.
Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. 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.
Even with day-before-launch price adjustments, there is just no question that, in the applications the majority of people will be running, AMD has created a series of products that are even more unimpressive than the already less than stellar 8600 lineup.
While we will certainly concede that video decode capability may be a saving grace in some applications, the majority of end users are not saving their money for a DX10 class video card in order to play movies on their PC. For those who really are interested in this, stay tuned for an article comparing UVD and PureVideo coming next week.
We also won't have data on the performance of these cards under DX10 until next week. Maybe DX10 could make a difference, but we still won't have the full picture. These first DX10 games are more like DX9 titles running on a different API. Of course, this is a valid way to use DX10, but we will probably see more intense and demanding uses of DX10 when developers start targeting the new features as a baseline.
All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA.
We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings. The only game that shows AMD hardware leading NVIDIA is Rainbow Six: Vegas. Beyond that, our 4xAA tests show the mainstream Radeon HD lineup, which already lags in performance, scales even worse than NVIDIA. Not that we really expect most people with this level of hardware to enable 4xAA, but it's still a disappointment.
Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. 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.
Even with day-before-launch price adjustments, there is just no question that, in the applications the majority of people will be running, AMD has created a series of products that are even more unimpressive than the already less than stellar 8600 lineup.
While we will certainly concede that video decode capability may be a saving grace in some applications, the majority of end users are not saving their money for a DX10 class video card in order to play movies on their PC. For those who really are interested in this, stay tuned for an article comparing UVD and PureVideo coming next week.
We also won't have data on the performance of these cards under DX10 until next week. Maybe DX10 could make a difference, but we still won't have the full picture. These first DX10 games are more like DX9 titles running on a different API. Of course, this is a valid way to use DX10, but we will probably see more intense and demanding uses of DX10 when developers start targeting the new features as a baseline.
All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
Spoelie - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
think about the fact that the x1950xt has less transistors then a HD2600xt, and this is even more disappointingcoldpower27 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
There just wasn't much choice, 390 Million for a midrange part on ATi's side that performs worse then Nvidia's 289 Million part, is quite a sorry state of affairs.It's too bad this generation was so expensive on the feature front that barely any transistor budget was left for implementing performance and were left with hardware that only performs marginally faster if that then the previous generation products.
I am quite disappointed that ATi parts are currently slower despite having a larger transistor budget and higher core clock.
TA152H - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Maybe because they weren't designed for DX9 performance, to state the obvious. They are DX10 parts, and should be judged on how well they perform on that.Shintai - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
DX10 sucks on both 8600GT/S and 2600XT, unless playing at 5-8FPS is you.2900XT/8800GTS/X is needed for DX10. And better yet, SLI/CF or the next generation.
DX10 on these midrange nVidia and AMD GPUs is 100% useless.
And for what reason do you think they will perform magically better in DX10? 2900XT didnt over 8800. And there is no reason on why it should be better.
TA152H - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Another person that can't read.I didn't say it would perform better, or worse. We'll see how well it performs when they do the proper tests. Until then, stop the whining. Afterwards, if it sucks, I'll whine with you.
Shintai - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Just read some of the other sites that tested DX10.Le Québécois - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
From what I know, all DX10 games or applications out there right now were developed for DX9 and received DX10 feature as an after thought. For REAL DX10 we will have to wait for Crysis.titan7 - Saturday, June 30, 2007 - link
Company of Heroes was designed for d3d10 from the start. It's as much a real d3d10 game as crysis will be.coldpower27 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
There won't be any "REAL" DX10 for sometime to come, oit takes ages to develop native API games.swaaye - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I've seen Crysis on a 8800GTX. Don't expect to play it well on less, unless the game devs perform some serious miracles. And I wouldn't bet one that. :)