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
IKeelU - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Wow, now I feel even better about my 8800GTS 320MB purchase.LionD - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
This article scores Radeon X1950Pro approximately 1.5 times lower than iXBT. Why is it so?OCedHrt - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Are these drivers newer than 7.6?DerekWilson - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
these drivers are beta 7.7erwos - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I was really hoping that AMD would pull a rabbit out of the hat and release something competitive (read: faster) with the 8600GTS. Clearly, they didn't.Now I've got to decide between an 8600GTS and an 8800GTS for my new build. I like the PureVideo features in the 8600GTS, but I'm not sure I'll really need them if I've got a Q6600. Then again, I'm not sure I'll really need the full gaming performance of the 8800GTS either. Bleh.
Maybe I'll just stick with an 8600GTS for now, and upgrade to the inevitable 8900GTS.
autoboy - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Since we all know these cards suck for games, please make the UVD article really complete. I know you are going to be doing CPU tests, and you are going to test them with core2duos, but I beg you to test these systems for what they are made for, allowing crappy systems to play HD video. Try testing these cards with a sempron @ 1.6Ghz. You could also try finding the lowest possible cpu speed while HD video still plays smoothly by adjusting the multiplier. That could be pretty interesting and help people out who don't overbuild their HTPCs.Also, please try to run HQV benchmarks for both DVD and HD DVD for all the cards. We all know the 2600XT will get good scores, but the 2400pro will most likely be the best card for HTPC use (because nobody will ever play games with these crappy cards) and reviewers ussually don't review the low end models for HQV scores. Many times they don't score the same as their big brothers. If you can't get a 2400pro, you could underclock a 2400XT.
kilkennycat - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
A terrific suggestion. Since it is now very obvious that all of the current sub-$200 DX10 cards from both nVidia and AMD/ATi are really targeted for HTPCs and the "casual" gamer -- the bulk of the PC add-on market. Not all of Anandtech's readers are bleeding-edge gaming "enthusiasts".(Derek, I hope you take note of this little thread)
Frumious1 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I almost agree... just don't listen to that BS about a Sempron CPU! Seriously, are you people running 1.6 GHz Sempron chips with $100 GPUs? I doubt that any single core can handle H.264, even with a good GPU helping out (though it would be somewhat interesting to see if I'm wrong). Considering X2 3600+ chips start at a whopping $63 and the 3800+ is only $5 more, so I think that would be a far better choice. Those are the somewhat lower power 65nm chips as well, and the dual cores means you might actually be able to manage video encoding on your HTPC.What, you don't encode video with your HTPC!? I've got an E6600 in mine, because Windows MCE 2005 sucks up about ~3.5GB per hour of high-quality analog video. I can turn those clips into 700MB DivX video with no discernable quality loss, or I can even go to 350MB per hour and still have nearly the same quality. Doing so on a single core Sempron, though? Don't make me laugh! You'd end up spending five hours to encode a thirty minute show. If you record more than two hours of video per day, you could never catch up!
autoboy - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I am perfectly happy with my sempron 1.6Ghz. I have no problem with OTA HD mpeg2, and I can play any downloaded file I've found. It just keeps chugging along at 1.1V using less than 20W at full load, allowing me to put my HTPC in a nearly enclosed space, and run the fans at a low 500rpm. I can't upgrade to dual core on a Socket 754 board, and I'm not about to upgrade an entire system when this little gem of a $50 graphics card will allow me to run the one thing my cpu can't handle, HD-DVDs.Also, why would I want to re-encode my TV shows when 500Gig harddrives are only $100? For the rare times I do encode, I use my dual core office PC or my gaming rig, or I could just start it at night and come back tomorrow. I've never been in a big hurry to re-encode old episodes of America's Got Talent.
Also, you are wrong about the sempron handlig h.264. Mine can handle downloaded 720p content already, and a chinese site has already confirmed that the UVD can easily run on a Sempron 1.6 with lots of cpu to spare.
lumbergeek - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
There you go. Personally, I want to see next week's review of UVD vs. Purevideo. I seriously hope that they include 2400s and 2600s in the review along with 8600s and 8500s. THAT sort of information is what will form the basis for my decision on my next Vid Card. My C2D isn't a gaming machine, but a HTPC. If the 2400 series is as good at video as the 2600, then silent wins - big time.