More Mainstream DX10: AMD's 2400 and 2600 Series
by Derek Wilson on June 28, 2007 8:35 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings. The only game that shows AMD hardware leading NVIDIA is Rainbow Six: Vegas. Beyond that, our 4xAA tests show the mainstream Radeon HD lineup, which already lags in performance, scales even worse than NVIDIA. Not that we really expect most people with this level of hardware to enable 4xAA, but it's still a disappointment.
Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. We want to paint an accurate picture here, but it has become nearly impossible to speak negatively enough about the AMD Radeon HD 2000 Series without sounding comically absurd.
Even with day-before-launch price adjustments, there is just no question that, in the applications the majority of people will be running, AMD has created a series of products that are even more unimpressive than the already less than stellar 8600 lineup.
While we will certainly concede that video decode capability may be a saving grace in some applications, the majority of end users are not saving their money for a DX10 class video card in order to play movies on their PC. For those who really are interested in this, stay tuned for an article comparing UVD and PureVideo coming next week.
We also won't have data on the performance of these cards under DX10 until next week. Maybe DX10 could make a difference, but we still won't have the full picture. These first DX10 games are more like DX9 titles running on a different API. Of course, this is a valid way to use DX10, but we will probably see more intense and demanding uses of DX10 when developers start targeting the new features as a baseline.
All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA.
We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings. The only game that shows AMD hardware leading NVIDIA is Rainbow Six: Vegas. Beyond that, our 4xAA tests show the mainstream Radeon HD lineup, which already lags in performance, scales even worse than NVIDIA. Not that we really expect most people with this level of hardware to enable 4xAA, but it's still a disappointment.
Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. We want to paint an accurate picture here, but it has become nearly impossible to speak negatively enough about the AMD Radeon HD 2000 Series without sounding comically absurd.
Even with day-before-launch price adjustments, there is just no question that, in the applications the majority of people will be running, AMD has created a series of products that are even more unimpressive than the already less than stellar 8600 lineup.
While we will certainly concede that video decode capability may be a saving grace in some applications, the majority of end users are not saving their money for a DX10 class video card in order to play movies on their PC. For those who really are interested in this, stay tuned for an article comparing UVD and PureVideo coming next week.
We also won't have data on the performance of these cards under DX10 until next week. Maybe DX10 could make a difference, but we still won't have the full picture. These first DX10 games are more like DX9 titles running on a different API. Of course, this is a valid way to use DX10, but we will probably see more intense and demanding uses of DX10 when developers start targeting the new features as a baseline.
All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I agree that we need to know dx10 performance, which is why we're doing a followup.I would think it would be clear that, if I were buying a card now, I'd buy a card that performed well under dx9.
All the games I play are dx9, all the games I'll play over the next 6 months will have a dx9 codepath, and we don't have dx10 tests that really help indicate what performance will be like on games designed strictly around dx10.
We always recommend people buy hardware to suit their current needs, because these are the needs we can talk about through our testing better.
TA152H - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
OK, that recommendation part is a little scary. You should be balancing the two, because as you know, the future does come. DX9 will exist for the next six months, but there are already games using DX10 that look better than DX9. Plus, Vista surely loves DX10.But, we can agree to disagree on what's more important. I think this site's backward looking style is obvious, and while I fundamentally disagree with it, at least you guys are consistent in your love for dying technology. Then again, I still prefer Win 2K over XP, so I guess I'm guilty of it too, but in this case my primary concern would be DX10. It's better, noticeably so. But, the main thing is, you're judging something for what it's not made for. AMD's announcement made it very clear that DX10 was the main point, and HD visual effects. Yet you chose to test neither and condemn the hardware for legacy code. Read the announcement, and judge it on what's it's supposed to be for. Would you condemn a Toyota Celica because it's not as fast as a Porsche? Or a Corvette because it's got bad fuel economy? I doubt it, because that's not why they were made. Why condemn this part without testing it for what it was for? I didn't see DX9 mentioned anywhere in their announcement. Maybe that was a hint?
Chaotic42 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Yes, but how many people are going to purchase low-to-mid range cards to play games that aren't coming out for several months?poohbear - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
celica compared to a porsche?!?! dude that analogy is waayyyyyy off. How the hell is a toyata celica supposed to represent DX9 & a porsche DX10?!?! considering a porsche u can see instant results and enjoy it instantly, there's nothing out right now on a DX10 and i dont think even in 3 years the DX10 AP would ever encompass the differences between a celica and a porsche. get over yourself.KhoiFather - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Wow, what worthless cards! Like does ATI really think people are going to buy this crap? Maybe for a media box and that's about it but for us mid-range gamers, it's worthless! All this hype and wait for nothing I tell ya!Chadder007 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Yeah, WTF?? They are all sometimes WORSE than the X1650XT!!! What is going on? According to the specs it should be better, could it be driver issues still??tungtung - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I don't think driver alone will help much ... beside ATI has never really known to be able to magically put strong numbers out through driver updates.Personally I'd say the 2xxx line that AMD/ATI has just sunk to the deep abyss. First it was months late, and the performance was light years behind ... all the while the price is just well not right.
As much as I hate saying this ... it seems that we'll have to wait till Intel dips their giant feet into the graphic industry before nVidia and (especially) AMD/ATI woke up and think carefully about their next products (that is if they can bring a competitive product) ... especially in the mainstream and value market.
OrSin - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Very easy to guess what is happening here. Both camps are targeting the the high engame that switch to vista and cna afford the high end cards. And the OEM cards for deal so they push Vista again on people. Niether company want to lower their high sells by releasing a mid-level part. I just wonder if the cards are just more expensive to make for D10. I don't see a reason it would be, maybe I'm wrong.Until Vista is used by more gamer my guess is they will not release a mid range card.
Early adaptors of software is getting screwed.
DigitalFreak - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Agreed. I couldn't help laughing when I read the Final Words section. Kinda like "The Nvidia 86xx/85xx cards suck, and the ATI 26xx/24xx suck worse!"WTF happened this generation? The only cards worth their salt are the 88xx series. Nvidia dropped the ball with their low end stuff, and AMD.... well, AMD never really showed up for the game.
smitty3268 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
I think it's clear that with these low end cards, ATI and NVIDIA both came to the conclusion that they could either spend their transistor budget implementing the DX10 spec or adding performance, and they both went with DX10. Probably so they could be marketed as Vista compatible, or whatever. It's still a mystery why they didn't choose to make any midrange cards, as they tend to sell fairly well AFAIK. Perhaps these were meant to be midrange cards and ATI/NVIDIA were just shocked by how badly performance scaled downwards in their current designs, and were forced to reposition them as cheaper cards.