More Mainstream DX10: AMD's 2400 and 2600 Series
by Derek Wilson on June 28, 2007 8:35 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test and Power
We will only be looking at DX9 performance under Windows XP today. This is still the platform of choice for gamers, and thus very important to examine. This doesn't mean we are ignoring DX10. We have a follow-up article on DX10 performance coming down the pipe next week. Here we'll take a look at how these cards stack up against the currently available DX10 games and demos.
We are also planning to look at UVD vs. PureVideo in a follow up article. Video decode is an important feature of these cards and we are interested in seeing how NVIDIA and AMD hardware stacks up against each other. Please stay tuned for this article as well.
For this series of tests, we used the following setup:
Performance Test Configuration:
As for power, the 65nm AMD hardware shows rather unimpressive results. At idle, both the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT draw less power than the 2600 XT and 2600 Pro respectively. Under load we see the AMD parts become more competitive in terms of low power. Not even 65nm can help push the 2600 XT past the 8600 GTS in terms of power draw though.
As for our game tests, first we'll take a look at how only the new AMD HD series parts stack up against NVIDIA's 8 series competitors. Following that we'll break down test by game and show performance verses previous and current generation hardware.
We will only be looking at DX9 performance under Windows XP today. This is still the platform of choice for gamers, and thus very important to examine. This doesn't mean we are ignoring DX10. We have a follow-up article on DX10 performance coming down the pipe next week. Here we'll take a look at how these cards stack up against the currently available DX10 games and demos.
We are also planning to look at UVD vs. PureVideo in a follow up article. Video decode is an important feature of these cards and we are interested in seeing how NVIDIA and AMD hardware stacks up against each other. Please stay tuned for this article as well.
For this series of tests, we used the following setup:
Performance Test Configuration:
| CPU: | Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4MB) |
| Motherboard: | ASUS P5W-DH |
| Chipset: | Intel 975X |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 8.2.0.1014 |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.7 160GB SATA |
| Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2) |
| Video Card: | Various |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 8.38.9.1-rc2 NVIDIA ForceWare 158.22 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1280 x 800 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
As for power, the 65nm AMD hardware shows rather unimpressive results. At idle, both the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT draw less power than the 2600 XT and 2600 Pro respectively. Under load we see the AMD parts become more competitive in terms of low power. Not even 65nm can help push the 2600 XT past the 8600 GTS in terms of power draw though.
As for our game tests, first we'll take a look at how only the new AMD HD series parts stack up against NVIDIA's 8 series competitors. Following that we'll break down test by game and show performance verses previous and current generation hardware.
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. :)