[reboot]

from this thread if

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=532558
(if you are curious)

1950 pro 512 gddr3
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16814131055

or

2600 XT 256 gddr4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127305

or

2600 XT 512 gddr4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127303

or

2600XT 512 gddr3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102703



http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/...600xt_remixed/

[PhysX]

either will be fine i guess, should be able to run med-high on 1280x800.

[reboot]

well supposedly theres a 2600XT thats bad, and one thats as good as the 1950pro maybe better...Im trying to find out which is which. they dont list the ram clock of the gddr3s which makes me think theya re the 700mhz card which sucks. but I really know squat about ati, so im asking

[Douken]

I would go for 1950PRO

[reboot]

thats what i was thinking originaly... but then the whole issue of these 2600XT came up and I just want to be sure that one isn't a better value then the 1950pro

[deathman20]

Either pro or wait to the newer cards that are coming out next month which will be similarly priced but faster.

[reboot]

thx for the replys

[aeromerc]

They have a fanless 512MB DDR3 RX2600XT that runs HL2 and Stalker: SoC at full settings with anti-aliasing. I'd have to agree it's pretty bad. But NVidia has a 8600 fanless that's supposed to run at a higher clock so in hindsight I probably would have gotten that one. Anyways, you cant go wrong with a noiseless VC. Just my 2c.

-edit: Although the ginormous heatpipe assemblage on either the 2600 or 8600 fanless VC will hinder Xfire on most mobo's.

[Alacritan]

Originally Posted by deathman20

Either pro or wait to the newer cards that are coming out next month which will be similarly priced but faster.

There aren't any budget cards coming out at the end of November. Nothing at all under $200. MSRP for the next generation cards starts at $220-250, so that means a street (online) price of $200+ at the "low end". The real next gen budget cards aren't going to come out until 2008. The cards coming out next month WILL be more expensive than any 2600XT, 8600GTS or X1950 Pro (even the 512MB versions).

The problem with the 2600XT, even the GDDR4 based variants, is that the memory interface is only 128-bit. So having 512MB of memory is worthless because the cards cannot handle the high resolutions or the large textures that would make use of anything beyond 256MB. While the 2600XT GDDR4 beats an 8600GT by about 10-15%, it costs as much as an 8600GTS, which it's only on par with. It's really not a very good value, just like the 8600GT and GTS.

If you want a card RIGHT NOW, and it has to be under $200, get an X1950 Pro 512MB. It's consistently 20% more powerful than both the 2600 and 8600 cards despite using an older architecture and GDDR3 simply because it uses a 256-bit interface, which makes playing at 1600x1200 as possibility. The 2600 and 8600 cannot do that because their 128-bit interface bottlenecks their performance.

Someone might say "Well, the X1950 Pro is only DX9.", but if you've seen the benchmarks of the 2600XT and 8600GTS, you know that you don't get playable framerates in DX10 with either of those cards, effectively making them DX9 cards as well.

The best option is to save up another $50-75 and wait a month. ATi is supposed to have a $200 card (RV670 based) that will beat the 2900XT (RV600). It's direct competitor, Nvidia's G92 based 8800GT, is clocking in at 90% of the performance of an 8800GTX in 3DMark06. As a result, Nvidia is actually adding shader units to the 8800GTS (from 112 to 128 like the GTX has) and is no longer producing the 320MB version, leaving only the 640MB version remaining, so that the 8800GTS isn't less powerful than the less expensive 8800GT, which should also be around $200. Sucks for anyone who just bought a GTS or GTX, but it's good for anyone buying a card in the $200 range in the next month.

[iD10t]

If you haven't seen it already Anandtech did a write-up on some of those cards here.

Only downside is no mention of the memory specs and they were using the demo.

[reboot]

Originally Posted by iD10t

If you haven't seen it already Anandtech did a write-up on some of those cards here.

Only downside is no mention of the memory specs and they were using the demo.

thats what sparked the questions in the first place

they rated the 2600XT above the 1950pro, lol

[reboot]

Originally Posted by Alacritan

There aren't any budget cards coming out at the end of November. Nothing at all under $200. MSRP for the next generation cards starts at $220-250, so that means a street (online) price of $200+ at the "low end". The real next gen budget cards aren't going to come out until 2008. The cards coming out next month WILL be more expensive than any 2600XT, 8600GTS or X1950 Pro (even the 512MB versions).

The problem with the 2600XT, even the GDDR4 based variants, is that the memory interface is only 128-bit. So having 512MB of memory is worthless because the cards cannot handle the high resolutions or the large textures that would make use of anything beyond 256MB. While the 2600XT GDDR4 beats an 8600GT by about 10-15%, it costs as much as an 8600GTS, which it's only on par with. It's really not a very good value, just like the 8600GT and GTS.

If you want a card RIGHT NOW, and it has to be under $200, get an X1950 Pro 512MB. It's consistently 20% more powerful than both the 2600 and 8600 cards despite using an older architecture and GDDR3 simply because it uses a 256-bit interface, which makes playing at 1600x1200 as possibility. The 2600 and 8600 cannot do that because their 128-bit interface bottlenecks their performance.

Someone might say "Well, the X1950 Pro is only DX9.", but if you've seen the benchmarks of the 2600XT and 8600GTS, you know that you don't get playable framerates in DX10 with either of those cards, effectively making them DX9 cards as well.

The best option is to save up another $50-75 and wait a month. ATi is supposed to have a $200 card (RV670 based) that will beat the 2900XT (RV600). It's direct competitor, Nvidia's G92 based 8800GT, is clocking in at 90% of the performance of an 8800GTX in 3DMark06. As a result, Nvidia is actually adding shader units to the 8800GTS (from 112 to 128 like the GTX has) and is no longer producing the 320MB version, leaving only the 640MB version remaining, so that the 8800GTS isn't less powerful than the less expensive 8800GT, which should also be around $200. Sucks for anyone who just bought a GTS or GTX, but it's good for anyone buying a card in the $200 range in the next month.

thanks for the detailed reply!

[iD10t]

Originally Posted by reboot

thats what sparked the questions in the first place

they rated the 2600XT above the 1950pro, lol

Yeah, that is really wierd. Especially since most every test done by Toms has the 2600 as being a ways off from the 1950's performance.

Makes one wonder if some shenanigans are afoot in ATI's driver set for the 2x00 cards or if they are just really, really good at what UT does.

[Alacritan]

I suppose it's possible that the 2600XT closes the gap a bit if UT3 uses an insane number of shaders due to the fact that it's based on a unified shader architecture and the X1950 Pro isn't. However, in every single other game benchmarked, the X1950 Pro has a definite 20% advantage over the 2600XT.

However, I'd withhold judgement until other sites publish their UT3 benchmarks comparing the two cards. Anandtech is the same site that was filled with praise for the 8600 series, despite the fact that they're only marginally more powerful than the cards they replaced and that their sole new feature, DX10 support, is utterly worthless, are two glaring flaws in my eyes.

[White_Pawn]

x1950pro 512mb rapes most budget cards. The 2600XT is a pretty terrible card as well.

x1950pro 512mb > 7950gt > 7900gt > 7900gs > 8600GTS > 8600GT > 2600XT

I'm not sure about ONLY UT3, but generally speaking, that's the order.

[Shell]

Originally Posted by White_Pawn

x1950pro 512mb > 7950gt > 7900gt > 7900gs > 8600GTS > 8600GT > 2600XT

The 2600XT falls right inbetween the 8600GTS and GT across the board.

Still no +1Up for the 8600 or 2600, they both suck. :P

[msmolt]

Why ATI? As im tired of wating for a ATI patch everytime a new demo comes out. And Nvidia right on the spot every time

[Shell]

Originally Posted by msmolt

Why ATI? As im tired of wating for a ATI patch everytime a new demo comes out. And Nvidia right on the spot every time

I don't believe SLI users would agree with that statement...

Waiting for a patch? what patch? Last I checked UT3 runs great on ATi hardware, even with somewhat old drivers.

[msmolt]

yeah the first time Don't see anywhere SLI was mentioned. X1950XT is the best card under 8800

[Alacritan]

Originally Posted by msmolt

Why ATI? As im tired of wating for a ATI patch everytime a new demo comes out. And Nvidia right on the spot every time

I think you're grossly exaggerating the situation. In case you've forgotten, Nvidia has to release new drivers any time there's a major title released unless it's part of the "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" program. That's how driver optimization works. The game comes out, Nvidia and ATi then release updated drivers to improve performance in said games.