ATI's Radeon 2600 XT Remixed

[muk]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/13/the_radeon_2600xt_remixed/index.html

On release the 2600 XT cost too much, given its performance. Newer models cost around $100, but they're equipped with slower memory. How do they perform?

 

[blashyrkh]

Slower

 

[zenmaster]

Unknown because you did not do any tests!
I presumed the whole article was to see how these cards did compared to the cards with the faster memory.

Would it not make sense to test these cards against one of those?
This was a "slow" 2600XT vs 8600GT.
There was no attempt to address this question.

And no, you can't reuse old benches since the system is different, the drivers are different, among other factors.

It was nice to see how well these cards did for the price vs the 8600GT. However, I would really like to know what I would get if I bought a less crippled 2600XT.

 

[cleeve]

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.

 

[prodystopian]

Agreed. I really wanted to see how they perform against the reference clock versions.

 

[prodystopian]

Cleeve beat me by a minute. I didn't realize the 800MHz models were all priced that high. Good to know.

 

[cleeve]

On a side note, I just scoured Newegg for 2600XTs with 800 MHz memory... I didn't find a single one. All 700 MHz memory.

The only exceptions are the GDDR4 versions (which are all above $130), and an overclocked version by HIS that according to the specs listsed, has 960 MHz DDR2 (also above $130).

I don't think anyone's manufacturing 2600 XT's with 800 MHz memory anymore...

 

[mactronix]

I know its not really the point of the article but while you seen to be taking requests i would have liked to see a 7600GT and a X1650XT in there for comparison
Mactronix

 

[cleeve]

I might include a 7600 GT I have around next time. I don't have any X1650 XTs though.

 

[Mugz]

After having been playing with the older DDR3 2600XT (from Sapphire), I don't really have much in the line of complaint...

...apart from no ATITool support...

...and no one knowing what to mod for volts...

...and a buncha other stuff...

...although it's a good card, I feel...

...could still be better.

 

[cleeve]

I suspect the Atitool guys will fix those concerns. I think the new beta allows for 2900 XT voltmodding...

 

[snyper]

I'm sorry to say:
using incorrect aspect ratios leads one to question the validity of othe entire article

To clarify:
1280x1024 is 5:4 not "(standard 4:3 ratio)"
1400x1050 is 4:3 not "(widescreen ratio)"

Mistakes like these throw a shadow of doubt over the writers technical knowledge and therefore the entire article

 

[cleeve]

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!

 

[snyper]

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

 

[lostandwandering]

I'm sorry to say:
using incorrect aspect ratios leads one to question the validity of othe entire article

To clarify:
1280x1024 is 5:4 not "(standard 4:3 ratio)"
1400x1050 is 4:3 not "(widescreen ratio)"

Mistakes like these throw a shadow of doubt over the writers technical knowledge and therefore the entire article

No offense, but those are strong words coming from a person that has 2 posts.

The newbies show no respect any more. j/k.

 

[snyper]

yes indeed - a newbies as you say - to this forum

?? perhaps more valid for it as I have a fresh viewpoint to present??

I do however find it strange that misinformation is somehow considered irrelevant

and that it is unacceptable to have someone attempt to correct obvious errors

How many posts are required before it is acceptable to be correct?

 

[prodystopian]

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.

 

[lostandwandering]

You didn't see the just kidding at the end of that post, did you?

I think Cleeve's point was not that the error was irrelevant, but the fact that it was negligible. Call me stupid, but I am more interested in the resolution of the monitor than the aspect ratio.

The only problem I had was with how you said what you did. Instead of questioning his tech knowledge, you could have simply asked if it was a typo (which it was) and Cleeve would have fixed it.

Anyway, don't take what I said personally. I realized after I posted it that it might ruffle your feathers a bit. My bad.

 

[snyper]

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

 

[cleeve]

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.

 

[snyper]

sigh - the human language is so fickle - it requires both parties to participate.

I will try once again.

I consider myself to be one of a great many (a typical reader)
I consider you to be one of few (the ones who take the time to provide information through your writings)

I have outlined my (and I suspect, many other's) reading techniques

I was guessing that your intent was to have as many people as possible "GET" your message

When a message is clouded - as I pointed out - it is not as well received as is could/should be.

This forum is probably read by a tiny minority of all those that might read the article and imho are not representative of the 'general public'

It would certainly be possible to make allowances for typos and human error and in this cut and paste world - so easy to paste the wrong info.

My point again?
just trying to help the writer perfect his trade
so that it provides the most benefit to those I'm guessing he/she is trying to contact - the general reader.

Accusations? Insinuations? Once again the human language has failed me - I thought I had presented FACTS
with a possible conclusion as to the consequences of misrepresentation

At no point did I claim your works were inaccurate as I myself have not gone to the effort of testing. I simply stated that I experienced doubt.

For example
when seeking advice about a sore knee
I will be less inclined to believe someone who is examining my elbow while asking where it hurts

now that is an exaggerations and a bad example but it DOES hopefully get my message across

I don't have a dog in this race so will ignore your attempts to inflame the intent of my posts.
Just trying to help for the future

 

[spuddyt]

sigh - the human language is so fickle - it requires both parties to participate.
I thought I had presented FACTS

u did, but they were irrelevant

 

[Jakc]

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?

Good article tho.

 

[snyper]

lol - thanks spuddyt

perfect example of a failing of communication


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

Since we are talking "value" cards for the masses

 

[shadowmaster625]

why would amd release a new part that cost more than the old one and does not perform as well? lol