Radeon 2400/2600 Mediocre performance

S

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,706
Initial reviews of the newly released Radeon 2400 and 2600 are disapointing to say the least.

It lags behind the 8600 series in almost every test specially when using AA. There is a huge performance gap between the 2900 and the newly released cards.

The only thing that saves them is that you can get HD-DVD - bluray decoding for cheap.
 
Yep seems like AMD did better than Nvidia with the middle/low range. Better in sucking that is.
 
I'd rate them higher as a mid-range card simply for their lower price and better performance in HTPC. Otherwise, yeah both the 8600 and 2600 series are pretty dissapointing. The 8800GTS 320MB is really this year's killer mid-priced card, which performs at the levels of a high-end card.
 
The 8800GTS 320MB cannot, in under any circumstances, be considered as a middle range card, It just costs too much. Middle range is in my books around 200-250€ , in those deparments both ATI and Nvidia fail to deliver big time.
 
ex0du5 said:
I'd rate them higher as a mid-range card simply for their lower price and better performance in HTPC. Otherwise, yeah both the 8600 and 2600 series are pretty dissapointing. The 8800GTS 320MB is really this year's killer mid-priced card, which performs at the levels of a high-end card.
Click to expand...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/675-5/dossier-radeon-hd-2600-2400.html

Look at the video section. The NV cards use less CPU to decode H264, the ATI uses less for VC1.

But it is H264 that is normally the real CPU eater and the more important one IMO.

Call HTPC a draw, though maybe you can find a cheaper ATI card for it after the dust settles.
 
It's not a draw, as ATi provides audio out over HDMI....that's a pretty big advantage if you're using a good HDMI compatible receiver.
 
I'm not very happy about this at all..
Seems like we have reached a slowing point for good videocards. DX10 cards should have been binned until they came out with more than 2-3 good cards for it.
 
ROFL, both solutions are terrible replacements for mid-range market.

8600 and 2600 are both disappointments from the 7600 and X1650 that they are replacing.

DX10 support is a complete joke on these cards, as they will lack the power to handle any of the upcoming DX10 titles in DX10 renderpath.
 
ex0du5 said:
Huh....the 8800GTS 320MB is $300 USD.....thats lower than 250€.
Click to expand...

The cheapest 8800GTS 320MB I can find in my country costs 274€ which is about 361,05$. So it has still some distance to the middle range in my books.

FYI all computer parts cost more in EU than in US.
 
ex0du5 said:
It's not a draw, as ATi provides audio out over HDMI....that's a pretty big advantage if you're using a good HDMI compatible receiver.
Click to expand...

Care to tell me which % of people that advantage applies too? Speak the majority...not the minority as a majority.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Care to tell me which % of people that advantage applies too? Speak the majority...not the minority as a majority.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know, us gamers are not the majority. Integrated video is aimed at the basic desktop user. The 8500/8600 and 2400/2600 are aimed more towards HTPC users, or all around users. Do you seriously think serious PC gamers are more than 5% of the market? (if even that)

Don't get me wrong, I've never owned an ATi product, as I hate their drivers. However, for what their card does, it is priced perfectly, and will outsell the 8600 series in the OEM market. Companies like Dell and HP will look at the card, notice it's gaming performance is not far off the 8600, that it produces less heat, and that it doesn't require additional power or a PCI-E connector, and they will choose the 2400/2600 series.

ATi has clearly lost the performance battle in the early DX10 cards, but these new offerings are far from failure.
 
ex0du5 said:
Just to let you know, us gamers are not the majority. Integrated video is aimed at the basic desktop user. The 8500/8600 and 2400/2600 are aimed more towards HTPC users, or all around users. Do you seriously think serious PC gamers are more than 5% of the market? (if even that)

Don't get me wrong, I've never owned an ATi product, as I hate their drivers. However, for what their card does, it is priced perfectly, and will outsell the 8600 series in the OEM market. Companies like Dell and HP will look at the card, notice it's gaming performance is not far off the 8600, that it produces less heat, and that it doesn't require additional power or a PCI-E connector, and they will choose the 2400/2600 series.
Click to expand...

Well that is your opinion. Mine differs. Top end cards do more than sell in small numbers to enthusiasts. They capture mindshare. Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention will know that NV is kicking to toast out of ATI cards all over the place and even the clueless will want NV cards. Go to Dell/HP right now and see what they offer. You will have distinctly difficult time even finding an ATI card. Is it because all ATI cards in the last generation suck? NO. It is because when ATI lost the high end, they lost mindshare.

The smallest chunk of the market are the real enthusiasts who will buy what is on top. Now Nvidia.

The next slightly bigger chunk, is those who care enough to get graphics cards, but don't research extensively. They will likely still want NV because while they may not know the details, they still know NV is on top and that is what they want.

The biggest chunk is integrated so irrelevant.

ATI will sell it's wares at fire sale prices to hang on for this generation and hope to catch up in the next. At least I hope that is what they are doing and not planning to play second fiddle forever while waiting for the fusion project to kick in.
 
jeez with all of the bashing going on I think i will skip this year models and see about the future models since everything sucks!
 
Yeah wait another year for some better DX10 cards to come out as well as actual DX10 games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top