I was more concerned with seeing if the 2600XT was a good buy, rather than concentrating on the difference a 10% memory clockspeed difference makes.
All of the 2600 XT's I can find under $130 have 700 MHz memory. The 800 MHz models - as well as the GDDR4 models - are priced too high to matter, because they're butting heads with the X1950 PRO which will kill them. Because of this, the 800 MHz models are irrelevant as far as a purchase option.
Having said all that, If I had one lying around the lab I would have included benches for it, but I didn't consider it a priority. If this article has a large response though, I'll try to do a follow up article about the DDR2 8600 GTs, and I'll include both 8600 GTs as well as the different flavors of 2600 XTs (even the GDDR4 version) out there if I can get my hands on em.
Snyper, if you think it's sensible to sweepingly judge the validity of solid testing and reasonable conclusions because of an insignificant (and, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant) resolution misprint that has absolutely no bearing on test results... well, you be my guest.
Sorry folks, I meant to say 1440x900. Time to chuck the article in the garbage!
Again - sorry
It was an unfortunate misuse of terms - perhaps boardering on standard BS techniques - that I was constructively pointing out.
I suppose that not knowing monitor resolutions may be considered irrelevant in some circles - but this is supposed to be a technical hardware review. There are people out there that will read an article like this and adopt the information as fact and propagate the errors
Sorry Cleeve, I was Just trying to help for future articles
It has nothing to do with you correcting. What is more important is that you try to question the entire article over a TYPO. If you think Cleeve is an idiot then say it. Otherwise, just let him know about the mistake and don't say the whole article is in doubt.
just to clarify - a standard technique that I use when scanning articles is to skip over a number of pages to the conclusions (to determine if something worth reading may be contained) and then go back into article. I Do this because there are a large number of articles which simply are rehashes with very little new content. I suspect that I am not abnormal in using this technique.
Most 20" monitors will be 1600x1200 or 1680X1050 widescreen with only a few at 1400x1050
Most 19" monitors are 1280x1024 or 1440x900 widescreen
I appreciate the effort involved in testing/reporting etc. and simply do not want to see the efforts wasted by a few simply corrected innaccurate statements
I'd consider it pretty irrelevant because neither the 1440x900 or 1400x1050 resolutions were used in any of the tests. This oddball resolution was only mentioned as a side comment about what monitors might be paired with video cards in this price category, in this case I was talking about a 19" widescreen 1440x900 and a 19" standard 1280x1024 which push a very similar amount of pixels. This tidbit really has no impact on the review whatsoever.
Is it a mistake? Sure! I'm human. I'll make the odd mistake, and if you point it out I'll happily take it to heart.
But suggesting that it throws doubt over the validity of the entire article... I mean, come on. It's an insignificant typo that has absolutely nothing to do with the testing and conclusions.
Of course I'm not going to respond happily to that kind of insinuation. All you had to do was point the mistake out, that's constructive. I don't think the exaggerated accusations were called for though.
Well I just bought a "regular" Sapphire 2600XT and I think this one has 700 mhz memory as well. It was much cheaper than the 8600GT though, and I bought it for bioshock.
Also may I ask why the 7.9 drivers were not used? Or was the article being made right before the release of those?
Now that you all have determined that I was way off base - can we move on to "relevant' discussion.
An articles that I would like to see - would be written from the point of view of a typical user. Lets pick for example - that big community playing world of warcraft - and try to determine what would be the best value hardware at different price points. All based on what monitor the end user would want to run. Since the monitor would be the determining factor for required video/computing power and there are fixed steps to required performance - I would think it very relevant
ie. if have a 19" you need x video card/cpu
and before I'm flamed for Wow example - it could be argued that it IS a popular title as the ongoing subscriptions would prove