![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
2600xt, when are these things coming out?
- Thread starter Glow
- Start date
They should be released somewhere between the end of June and the beginning of July. Also, have you checked the 8600 GTS ?
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMyNCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/geforce-8600/index.x?pg=1
NVIDIA launched it a while back and that's the card the 2600 XT will try to beat.
snaggletooth
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
i'm as interested as you are in the 2600XT... no news is good news?
i hope they don't try charging 250-300$CDN for the thing... for the price of certain 'uber' models of the 8600 (which is way less than uber, of course) i could pick up an 8800GTS320
i hope they don't try charging 250-300$CDN for the thing... for the price of certain 'uber' models of the 8600 (which is way less than uber, of course) i could pick up an 8800GTS320
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
Imo, it is better to get a high end last generation card like the X1950XT or 7950GT for the price of the GF 8600 or HD 2600 now because there is still no DirectX 10 games available yet and according to the early DirectX10 demo benchmarks, even the GF 8800 and HD 2900 series is not very capable of handling a DirectX 10 games yet. I would still wait for the second gen DirectX 10 cards to come out, by the time there would be enough DirectX 10 games available and Vista support would also be better then.
they will be out in a few weeks . I think it was 6 weeks from the hd 2900 launch.
these are 65nm so they should be extremely cool running , perhaps even cooler than the 8600 and hte performance should be at least as good . Heres hoping
By the looks of things, pretty soon according sapphire
http://www.sapphiretech.com/ca/products/browseproducts.php?pcat=3
cheers
SHREK
http://www.sapphiretech.com/ca/products/browseproducts.php?pcat=3
cheers
SHREK
brasscorpion
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 95
They will perform worse...just like the 2900xt. There is no change in design from the 2900XT and the 2600XT even with all its bandwidth will be held in check by its limited number of ROP's and Texture units.
The 2900Xt has 105Ghz/sec bandwidth and the 8800GTS only 64Ghz/sec. The 8800GTS performed better than the 2900XT. So it is not all about a bandwidth competition which it seems ATI wanted it to be or hoped it would be.
Even at 800Mhz core clock and 120 shader processors it will be slower.
Well I have no doubt that it will perform worse than a 8800gts thats why I'm asking about the 8600GTS it's main competitor.
Those numbers are based on a beta driver, ontill an offical driver is out. Finally judgement should be a wait and see... And also 2600 is going up against 8600 series and not the 8800 series, it is like putting a destroyer to fight a battleship. "...mobile suits should fight against mobile suits..." quote from MS Igloo.
brasscorpion
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 95
GLOW
I don't think GeCube makes an 8600 since their exclusive ATI...so before you attempt to correct me...how about looking at your own post first.
Also I assumed you meant the 2600XT compared to the 8600GTS and continued to answer your question in my first sentence. They (or it) will perform worse...
Then I tried to provide evidence (you did say educated guess) using the 2900XT vs the 8800GTS as an example...but you totally missed the connection.
I also assumed (big mistake there) that you read the specs on the GeCube sight...because if you did, you would have recognized in my last sentence that I refered to the 2600XT's core clock of 800Mhz and a 120 stream processor. Then I proceeded to tell you a second time that "it will be slower".
Sorry I confuse the issue.
Brass
I don't think GeCube makes an 8600 since their exclusive ATI...so before you attempt to correct me...how about looking at your own post first.
Also I assumed you meant the 2600XT compared to the 8600GTS and continued to answer your question in my first sentence. They (or it) will perform worse...
Then I tried to provide evidence (you did say educated guess) using the 2900XT vs the 8800GTS as an example...but you totally missed the connection.
I also assumed (big mistake there) that you read the specs on the GeCube sight...because if you did, you would have recognized in my last sentence that I refered to the 2600XT's core clock of 800Mhz and a 120 stream processor. Then I proceeded to tell you a second time that "it will be slower".
Sorry I confuse the issue.
Brass
Did you not look at benches? 8800gts doesn't perform better than the 2900xt. It's neck and neck. In higher resolutions 2900xt has a slight edge while needing more power and runs hotter.
Yes memory bandwidth isn't everything. It's the combination of texturing, peak fillrate bandwidth, shaders, etc...
Glow, if you need to get a new card now and wanted something mid-range, I would get a X1950XT or 7950GT instead. The "DX10" cards out now will be replaced by new models by the time real DX10 programs and games start coming out in force.
brasscorpion
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 95
Sorry should have said, "purchasing the 2900Xt makes absolutely no sense" compared to what you can get in a 8800GTS.
Far as I know 2600xt is 4/8 with 128bit memory bus and has 120 stream processors.
Supposedly clocked @ 800/1100. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
With that specs peak fillrate of 6400 Mtexels/s memory bandwidth of 35.2 GB/sec.
I'm thinking it will perform very similar current 1950pro or slightly slower and will walk away from pro when games use more shaders.
Supposedly clocked @ 800/1100. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
With that specs peak fillrate of 6400 Mtexels/s memory bandwidth of 35.2 GB/sec.
I'm thinking it will perform very similar current 1950pro or slightly slower and will walk away from pro when games use more shaders.
That's your opinion and we've heard it many times already.
8600gts is a pretty powerful card but it's limited by memory bandwidth while 2600xt is more of a balanced card with more shaders. If GTS had 256 bit memory bus it would be performing more like 1900xt than a superclocked 7600gt.
I'm thinking they will perform very similar but I think 2600 might have edge because of 120 stream processors vs 32 on 8600gts.
brasscorpion
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 95
It might...but I still say that we can't think this way based on ATI's last offering. That is why I tried to use the examples...although it was confusing.
Going back to the example...that we have to compare.
If we look at the 2900XT offering it had 320 stream processors compared to the 8800GTS's 128.
The 2900Xt has a stock core MHZ at 743...the 8800GTS only 500Mhz
Here this may be easier...so you can see what I am talking about.
2900XT vs 8800GTS...spec comparison
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=475&card2=518
2600XT vs 8600GTS
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=512&card2=520
It is all right there...the 2600XT brings over the same bad issues...a SHADER CLOCK that is slower and less ROP's and Texture Units.
No matter how fast the clocks...or GDDR4 memory...the card is handicapped and in this case of the 2600XT and the 8600GTS the bandwidth is the same...which may even make the 2900XT compete worse against the 8600GTS.
I am looking for a new DX10 card for my dad's system and I am waiting for this one to come out...and hoping it beats the 8600GTS...but I just don't have confidence that it will.
Brass
It's not about shader clocks with Radeon 2900xt. It really is about 16/16 card vs 24/32 card. Current games take up very little shaders if any. Shaders don't direct the way games perform today. It's all about rops and bandwidth and higher resolutions with AA and AF.
Well I'm not so sure about that shader comment. In this thread scroll down to the picture comparison of the 7950gt vs. the 8600gts. The 8600gts blows it away
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1194093
That game came out in 2006 and is a dx9 game. How can 8600GTS give you better IQ other than AA or AF.
I'm downloading the demo and trying it out. I'll make my own conclusions.
When I did research I found this. That guy showed "next gen on" for GTS and not for 7950GT. I don't know what that guy is smoking but here are the results.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8600gts_15.html#sect2
"The results of GeForce 8600 GTS are not very high, and if we consider average fps rate, then our hero will not stand out against the background of the previous-generation solutions such as Radeon X1950 Pro and GeForce 7900 GS. However, we would still like to point out that the newcomer demonstrated better minimal fps rate having outperformed even Radeon X1950 XT."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8600gts_15.html#sect2
"The results of GeForce 8600 GTS are not very high, and if we consider average fps rate, then our hero will not stand out against the background of the previous-generation solutions such as Radeon X1950 Pro and GeForce 7900 GS. However, we would still like to point out that the newcomer demonstrated better minimal fps rate having outperformed even Radeon X1950 XT."
Current games take up very little shaders if any ? What are you talking about ? The games where the 8800's shine the most, are exactly the shader heavy ones, such as Oblivion or STALKER. So I don't see your point. Shaders will be used more and more, especially with DX10 and the 8800's look far more prepared for that.
And as was mentioned in this thread, memory bandwidth means very little and the HD 2900 XT proved that, otherwise it wouldn't be competing with the GTS, but rather the GTX.
On topic:
Looking at the specs, the HD 2600 XT should be beating the 8600 GTS, by a large margin, but given the efficiency with which the workload is distributed to the R600 stream processors which we saw in the HD 2900 XT benchmarks), I don't think the 120 SPs of the 2600 XT, will be much better than the 32 SPs of the 8600 GTS. It will probably be faster overall, given the fact that it has higher clock frequencies. We'll see...
Don't you think fillrate, CPU and memory bandwidth have much to do with that as well?
Perhaps I might have worded wrong. Up until now games are directed by how much more bandwidth a card has and what cpu to feed. If this wasn't true a 8600gts would cream a 7900gtx or even 7900gs. Don't you think?
Of course it does. But a game like Oblivion is pretty much GPU bound. So, while having a powerful CPU helps alot, the game will still be bound by what the GPU can do, especially when using the highest possible in-game settings.
Marvelous said:
Well, that already happens in some cases, especially the shader intensive games, where the 8600 GTS is very close to a high-end card of previous generation, but it's still crippled somewhat, mainly by the memory bus width.
And going by the same line of reasoning, that would imply that a HD 2900 XT, coupled with a Quad C2D, would totally crush a 8800 GTX in the same system, simply because it has far more memory bandwidth. But that's been proven otherwise.
In today's games, the trend you mentioned, doesn't seem to apply as well as a couple of years back and it seems the further use of programmable shaders is the future. However a card should still be prepared for multi-texture operations, because shaders still use or access textures. In that departement, G80 is far more prepared. Not only it has the shader power to keep up, but also has a quite large multi-textured fill rate, which is exactly where R600 fails.
2900xt has less fillrate than 8800gts. So it wouldn't crush a 8800gtx. Memory bandwidth doesn't always give you more performance unless of course you have fillrate that matches the memory bandwidth. 2900xt is not a balanced card. Maybe next generation when it has more ROPS.
1800xt runs close to 1900xt on oblivion even though that card has 16 pixel shaders compared to Radeon 1900xt that has 48. When I say fillrate. It has much to do with texturing as well.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=730&model2=727&chart=296
brasscorpion
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 95
I think I have stated that like three times already. I hope I don't have to go back and quote myself. The 2900XT is crippled by the lack of ROP's and Texture units...thus it has all the bandwidth in the world but CAN'T UTILIZE IT ALL because it can't fill (low fillrate) fast enough.
If ATI would have added in more ROP's and Texture units to feed the STREAM PROCESSORS the higher clock rate with the fact that it is a 80nm chip which equals HIGHER CLOCK potential...it would have competed with the 8800GTX. But it didn't.
We will have the same issue when comparing the 2600XT vs the 8600GTS. The 2600XT gets crushed in fill rate and all that bandwidth wont matter. It will be a close race but for shader intensive games...the 8600GTS will win the race.
Lastly: you cannot compare the new 8800 and HD2000 series of cards to the older TECH cards. The bandwidth and all the goodies won't add up because of the new UNIFIED ARCHITECTURE. New cards use all of their potential because they adapt to whatever game they are running.
That is why the 8600GTS comes so close to the 7950GT and 1950Pro. The new card maximize their internals and really require less ROP's and Texture units to equal the performance of earlier TECH cards. New tech is just more efficient.
Anyway we have 1 month 06/30 till the 2600XT's are released and then we can start this debate all over again once the reviews come out.
BRASS
Xer0_P0INT_Xer0
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 126
Considering its specs, it certainly crushes even the GTX, not only in shader power, but in memory bandwidth aswell, but here at [H], we've learned (or at least I did), that paper specs rarely mean anything.
But did you read what I typed ? You basically counter-replied to me, with the exact same thing
Silus said:
R600 fails in multi-texture fill rate, which even in shader intensive games, is necessary, since shaders still store or access textures. So we're saying exactly the same thing, in other words: R600 is not balanced and that's why it doesn't do so well as G80.
And IMHO, it's not only that. It's my guess that there's some serious efficiency problem with R600, in the way it distributes its workload to all its stream processors.
the 2400/2600 are clearly being marketed as HTPC cards for HD playback so don't expect to be gaming on them (just like you wouldn't buy the 8500/8600 for gaming -- they suck at it).
http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=622&pageid=629 - 2400/2600 UVD HD Technology (the purevideo hd equiv) -- this is the selling pt on these cards.
http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=622&pageid=629 - 2400/2600 UVD HD Technology (the purevideo hd equiv) -- this is the selling pt on these cards.
martinmsj
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,581
What do you mean "nuff said" If referring to the ratings how you assume the 2600 is bad? How do you expect ratings when the card isn't even out yet?
Willsonman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,195
I'm not so sure that the 8600 is so bad for gaming. For 1280X1024 it would scream. For me the HD playback with HDMI is a big selling point. Not to mention being able to drive a nice HUGE TV. Seriously, Despite my crossfire motherboard the 8600 is looking nice but I really want HDMI and to be able to use my video card for something other than to game... like folding. I'm tired of all the debates. If you cannot use it what is the point of buying it?