# ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT



## W1zzard (Jun 19, 2007)

The HD 2600 XT is AMD's new midrange flagship card which is based on the RV630 GPU. This is the first time that a midrange card comes equipped with GDDR4 memory - 256 MB in our case. AMD's new card comes with features such as DirectX 10 support and full HD video acceleration by dedicated hardware called UVD. But is this enough to beat NVIDIA's new products?

*Show full review*


----------



## TXcharger (Jun 28, 2007)

thats odd how it is better than the 8600gts in almost every technical area, but cannot beat it out in game

very good review!


----------



## Grings (Jun 28, 2007)

wtf?, its got 390mill transistors (more than an x1950, and it uses more power too), what DID amd do to ati?????????


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Jun 28, 2007)

awesome review W1zz....  sounds like a good card, as long as its a little cheaper than the 8600gts.

It wierd, it gets the same 3dmark score as 2 x1800gtos in crossfire but in games it only does as well as one X1800gto...


----------



## anticlutch (Jun 28, 2007)

More disappointment from the red camp... let's hope the R700 cards aren't a flop


----------



## OnBoard (Jun 28, 2007)

Near useless card, can't use AA&AF, goes slower than a x1800gto and this is with SM2.0. Wonder what happens to performance when you enable AA&AF in SM3.0 or better yet SM4.0. 3dmark06 score looks quite perty, closes in near my card, but that is without antialiaising and anistropic of course. (and no, anyone should not play without those, if you buy a new GPU ) I'd bet that 128-bit memory bus width is to blame on the AA/AF performance, atleast my previous card (x800gto) and this don't have that problem, both with 256bit.

This is 149$ and x1950xt (no x1900xt available anymore) goes for:

SAPPHIRE 100186L Radeon X1950XT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 VIVO HDCP
    $179.99    ($149.99 after $30.00 Mail-In Rebate)

in newegg. Yeah you don't get DX10, but you get a lot faster GPU with the same price.

Oh and voltage reculators (and those smaller ones)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2600_XT/images/vregarea.jpg
seems to be missing some stuff still, wonder if it's for the 512MB version or something faster (like HD2900gto).

Something positive too, do like the cooler and power consumption, but missing extra powerplug kinda gives that away and also the performance 

------

Should this read 512MB? Isn't this car a 256MB model.

"Nothing important on the back of the card. You can see four empty spots for BGA memory, which would allow building an 1 GB version which is coming soon."


----------



## hat (Jun 28, 2007)

Disappointing...
It doesn't run 60C load, or even idle, like previously speculated. It also looks *very* good on paper, but the $26 more expensive 8600GTS beats it out for give or take a little to/from about 2 hours of overtime. Also, I can't believe the 7300GT beats it out in some tests!! 

Thank you for constantly enlightening us about these things, Wiz.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 28, 2007)

hat said:


> Disappointing...
> It doesn't run 60C load, or even idle, like previously speculated. It also looks *very* good on paper, but the $26 more expensive 8600GTS beats it out for give or take a little to/from about 2 hours of overtime. Also, I can't believe the 7300GT beats it out in some tests!!
> 
> Thank you for constantly enlightening us about these things, Wiz.



Blame it on drivers.... you could say that the X1950PRO now runs two times faster than before... 7.4, 7.5, 7.6  all had huge noticeable improvements. Now even though I'm happy AMD should really stop concentrating on making better drivers for the RV570... this makes a liable excuse that "Drivers suck". This thing has large potential but... AMD JUST SCREW THE R5xxx SERIES AND START MAKING QUALITY DRIVERS FOR THE R6xxx series....


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 28, 2007)

It doesnt look that good on paper. Besides its clocks and massive shader count, it really isnt that great. Its only 128 bit, its shaders are clocked at around half the speed of the 8600GTS's shaders and from what ive seen elsewhere, it only has 4 ROP's. (Even though this review says it has 4x2). But even still, 8 ROP's isnt that great if you asked me. The 2900XT has 24; this should have at least 12 or 16.

Also, isnt the 2900XT 512-bit, not 384?

Anyways, nice review Wiz, was waiting for one of these .


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 28, 2007)

fixed the specs table on the first page


----------



## Xaser04 (Jun 28, 2007)

Pinchy said:


> It doesnt look that good on paper. Besides its clocks and massive shader count, it really isnt that great. Its only 128 bit, its shaders are clocked at around half the speed of the 8600GTS's shaders and from what ive seen elsewhere, it only has 4 ROP's. (Even though this review says it has 4x2). But even still, 8 ROP's isnt that great if you asked me. The 2900XT has 24; this should have at least 12 or 16.
> 
> Also, isnt the 2900XT 512-bit, not 384?
> 
> Anyways, nice review Wiz, was waiting for one of these .



HD2900XT has 16 rops according to the table in the review (although it states 16x2)

I must admit this card does appear to be a dissapointment (with current drivers in current games)

Judging by its performance in some games it won't even beat a 8600GT (shame that isn't in the review) 

It like the HD2900XT also seems to be all over the place in terms of performance (in some games good in others poor (I mean in a couple tests a 7300GT beats it FFS))

Overall with its current drivers its a poor showing, now lets see if new drivers can improve anything. 

Also on a side note what happened to the 8800GTX performance in Stalker?!


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 28, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> fixed the specs table on the first page



Cheers . Does the 8500GT have 4 or 8 ROP's though; according to GPU review (where I get most of my info from )  its got 8.


----------



## rhythmeister (Jun 28, 2007)

When's the dual gpu version gonna be in the UK?!


----------



## regan1985 (Jun 28, 2007)

another dissapointment if you ask me, after waiting longer for ati to come out with a mid range card it still is below a nvidia card!!


----------



## rhythmeister (Jun 28, 2007)

Wait for proper drivers, bloomin heck the thing's not even out yet!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Isn't the overclock limited by the power the PCIe bus can give it?


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 28, 2007)

tkpenalty said:


> Blame it on drivers.... you could say that the X1950PRO now runs two times faster than before... 7.4, 7.5, 7.6  all had huge noticeable improvements. Now even though I'm happy AMD should really stop concentrating on making better drivers for the RV570... this makes a liable excuse that "Drivers suck". This thing has large potential but... AMD JUST SCREW THE R5xxx SERIES AND START MAKING QUALITY DRIVERS FOR THE R6xxx series....



Well, see, if AMD focused all their driver attention on the HD series, they would definitely make more money from the HD 2x00 community...but they'd lose the fan-base of everyone who owns a Radeon 9550-X1950XTX .


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 28, 2007)

I was amazed to see on a couple of tests that the 8600GTS beat the 2900XT at low res with no AA/AF!!

I think as some have said, as the drivers mature we will see improvements and I would think that it will become a serious competitior for the GTS that seems to me wins in most tests with higher res and AA/AF but it also seems that this will be a little cheaper so maybe more comparable to the 8600GT? Not quite sure at this price point why the 8600GT was not included maybe instead of the 8500GTwhich would more equate to the 2400. If thats the case I actually think it's competative and not to be sniffed at.

Also we must remember that there will be up to 5 models eventually and I am sure the 512MB GDDR4 version, whilst being more expensive will be more competative providing it's not vastly more costly than the 512MB version of the 8600GTS.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 28, 2007)

Wow Ati is really screwing up that card competes better with a gt not a gts.


----------



## ryboto (Jun 28, 2007)

So, if the Inq is correct, and these will be selling for $149, that's pretty amazing.  I'm confused about it's performance though.  I can tell based on the bandwidth it would be slower at higher resolutions, but in some tests it's close to an x1900XT in others the X1800GTO is better.  Wonder how it stacks up to my current X1950pro.  Obviously there are still huge driver issues, seeing as in one benchmark at least the HD2900 performed worse than the 2600XT...


----------



## TooFast (Jun 28, 2007)

give ati/amd a chance to get back on track! r700!!!


----------



## TXcharger (Jun 28, 2007)

wait for new drivers and atitool wasnt designed to o/c this card, also the external power connector would boost overclockability. but thats really good performance for a card without one


----------



## kwchang007 (Jun 28, 2007)

wow....when i read the specs....i was like this should open a can of woopass on the 8600gts.  totally the other way around.  hopefully ati decides to release a version with a 6 pin connector and up the shader speed (are they seriously half of nvidia's speed on the 8600 gts?)


----------



## Xaser04 (Jun 28, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> wow....when i read the specs....i was like this should open a can of woopass on the 8600gts.  totally the other way around.  hopefully ati decides to release a version with a 6 pin connector and up the shader speed (are they seriously half of nvidia's speed on the 8600 gts?)



Well the shader clock on the 2600xt is the core clock wheras the 8600's have a seperate shader domain clock running considerably quicker than the core clock (rops etc). It isn't quite twice as fast but its still alot quicker.


----------



## kwchang007 (Jun 28, 2007)

Xaser04 said:


> Well the shader clock on the 2600xt is the core clock wheras the 8600's have a seperate shader domain clock running considerably quicker than the core clock (rops etc). It isn't quite twice as fast but its still alot quicker.



got it now.  i remember seeing that nvidia's shaders aren't synced with clock speed, but i thought that ati's did the same thing (maybe ati needs to take a page from nvidia ).  and nvidia has what i consider a true unified architecture.  it has all scalers, not vectors (which


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 28, 2007)

The 8600GTS doesnt double the shader clock, but comes close.

8600GTS shader clock: 1450Mhz
2600XT shader clock: 800Mhz


----------



## nflesher87 (Jun 28, 2007)

I would just like to say that the reviews here on TPU are *The Best* anywhere, and that isn't just because I love TPU
they're the most organized, easy to read and navigate reviews around...not to mention the great review database and how easy it is to find just about any review out there
just wanted to say thanks to w1zzard and the TPU staff 
and great review of the 2600xt!


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 28, 2007)

Grings said:


> wtf?, its got 390mill transistors (more than an x1950, and it uses more power too), what DID amd do to ati?????????



I always said AMD buying ATi was a bad thing..


----------



## ryboto (Jun 28, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> I always said AMD buying ATi was a bad thing..



I don't get it...it had more transistors, and uses less power? how is that a bad thing?  And the ATi merger is a long term thing, the benefits of which aren't going to be seen right away.  The HD 2000 series is the last ati-engineered product we'll see, after this series is done, it'll be amd/ati products.  Amd is going to have its hands in embedded devices, set-top boxes, not to mention the computer market.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 28, 2007)

AMD had last min input on the 2000 series. The bad thing is paper spec clearly shows the 2600xt with a massive clock difference, but it performs like shit, at least the 256mb version. Best hope a 512MB version helps it out. If not, its yet more evidence proving my point ATi and nVidia have to make midrange cards 256bit now.


----------



## devguy (Jun 28, 2007)

"Drivers:  	NVIDIA: 94.24 (GeForce 8: 158.22)
ATI: Catalyst 7.5 (HD 2400 and HD 2600 with 8.38.9.1 RC2)"

Hey, do the Catalyst 7.6 drivers make much of a difference in these benchmarks?


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2007)

So when is ATi going to suprise us with the 2700 or 2800xt?  There is a big gap between $150 and $400!


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 28, 2007)

erocker said:


> So when is ATi going to suprise us with the 2700 or 2800xt?  There is a big gap between $150 and $400!



i'd speculate first we will see more gddr4 and 1 gb stuff then maybe some part that is based on disabled r600 pipelines, then some r600 refresh


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 28, 2007)

erocker said:


> So when is ATi going to suprise us with the 2700 or 2800xt?  There is a big gap between $150 and $400!



512MB GDDR4 version of the 2600XT......prob over $200, this aint the top spec 2600XT....well it's not supposed to be!  I wonder tho if in DX10 the speed of the shaders is more important than the quantity or if it might just be the other way round.....with of course a bug free DX10 finished game.


----------



## ktr (Jun 28, 2007)

http://www.sapphiretech.com/us/products/browseproducts.php?pcat=3

Look at the agp section! x2k series in that section.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 28, 2007)

excellent review w1z. this is a solid performing card for $150. if the gddr4 version is going to be very nice and most likely not too much more money.  people complained about the high price of graphics cards and both nvidia and ati answered with a nice set of solid cards for less than 200 bucks. and this i just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Kasparz (Jun 29, 2007)

devguy said:


> "Drivers:  	NVIDIA: 94.24 (GeForce 8: 158.22)
> ATI: Catalyst 7.5 (HD 2400 and HD 2600 with 8.38.9.1 RC2)"
> 
> Hey, do the Catalyst 7.6 drivers make much of a difference in these benchmarks?


Yes, it does.
TBH from first 8.36 drivers to 7.6 catalyst, HD2900XT performance increased by 20-30%. Yes, it was slower than GTS in time of release when most of reviews was done, but with 7.6 catalyst HD2900XT IS competitor to GTX. You will see same with HD2600/HD2400.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 29, 2007)

Kasparz said:


> Yes, it does.
> TBH from first 8.36 drivers to 7.6 catalyst, HD2900XT performance increased by 20-30%. Yes, it was slower than GTS in time of release when most of reviews was done, but with 7.6 catalyst HD2900XT IS competitor to GTX. You will see same with HD2600/HD2400.



Did you not notice in this review that the 8600GTS beat the 2900XT in a couple of benches at low res/low detail?  The 2900XT certainly IS a competitor to the GTX in some benches, saying that though, it still gets beaten by the 8800GTS 640MB in some benches, I think it's fair to say that the 2900XT is to the GTX what the 640MB GTS is to the 2900XT if you get my meaning.


----------



## Kasparz (Jun 29, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Did you not notice in this review that the 8600GTS beat the 2900XT in a couple of benches at low res/low detail?  The 2900XT certainly IS a competitor to the GTX in some benches, saying that though, it still gets beaten by the 8800GTS 640MB in some benches, I think it's fair to say that the 2900XT is to the GTX what the 640MB GTS is to the 2900XT if you get my meaning.



You are frigging nub? I mean...seriously guys, what kind of crap are you smoking lately? This TPU review with HD2900XT was done with 8.37 drivers! There was 8.36/8.37/8.38/7.4/7.4/7.6 not to mention 7.x betas, and each driver improved performance by ~5%. HD2900XT scores was simply copied into HD2600/HD2400 review. Sometimes its better to STFU instead of talking about what you really have no clue.


----------



## Grings (Jun 29, 2007)

wow, you really have a way of endearing yourself to tpu members dont you?, do you think thats the only review anyones read of 2900's? Sometimes its better to STFU instead of talking about _something when_ you really have no clue.


----------



## mullered07 (Jun 29, 2007)

well im glad ive got a 8600gts coming today (and im gonna oc the shit out of it ) based on this review, although it would of been nice to run the lost planet dx10 demo to see the dx10 performance. 

once again though top notch and in-depth review thanks W1zzard


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 29, 2007)

Kasparz said:


> You are frigging nub? I mean...seriously guys, what kind of crap are you smoking lately? This TPU review with HD2900XT was done with 8.37 drivers! There was 8.36/8.37/8.38/7.4/7.4/7.6 not to mention 7.x betas, and each driver improved performance by ~5%. HD2900XT scores was simply copied into HD2600/HD2400 review. Sometimes its better to STFU instead of talking about what you really have no clue.



you know what. just for you i'll rerun the 2900 xt benchmarks on 7.6


----------



## ryboto (Jun 29, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> you know what. just for you i'll rerun the 2900 xt benchmarks on 7.6



aww, now that's going to make him feel special, is that something we want to encourage?

But, kudos, I have yet to see benchmarks with 7.6's.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 29, 2007)

Kasparz said:


> You are frigging nub? I mean...seriously guys, what kind of crap are you smoking lately? This TPU review with HD2900XT was done with 8.37 drivers! There was 8.36/8.37/8.38/7.4/7.4/7.6 not to mention 7.x betas, and each driver improved performance by ~5%. HD2900XT scores was simply copied into HD2600/HD2400 review. Sometimes its better to STFU instead of talking about what you really have no clue.



Yawn........I wont react to that comment, do you really think that the ONLY reviews I read are the early ones with the initial driver set?  I will not do you the diservice of calling you a "nub"  I will simply say....read a little more before you you start throwing around statements, the 8800GTS does beat the 2900XT in SOME benchmarks with more upto date drivers, maybe not the driver set issued on Monday of this week but then again, it will have been an older set of Forceware also, NVidia are still managing to get more out of their drivers so as I said in an earlier post, the ATi cards will improve with driver maturity, I will not post the 2 reviews I have read that were all done in the last 3-4 weeks that show that the 2900XT is the master across the board, NEVER have denied that, but it does show that it gets beat in SOME benchmarks still by the 8800GTS 640MB, I'll let you look again, if you can show me a fair review (as opposed to a slective one if you get my meaning) from recently that has a number of benches/real world games and it shows that in every test at every detail level/resolution the 640MB GTS gets beaten, I will gladly  and proclaim my self the TPU "Nub" of the month.

Now to this composure thing,  if you really do want to get unpleasant, please do let me know, it's a kind of subject I specialise in so I am sure I can accomodate, otherwise, it's good to disagree with opinion, it's actually OK to disagree with facts because thats how we all learn things but if you cannot do this in a civilised manner then we can always play "who's the nub" as you so pleasantly put it.   I take critisism easily, insults I do not.


----------



## Kasparz (Jun 29, 2007)

First, check performance gain with 7.6 vs 7.5 catalyst.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1123/ati_catalyst_7_6_performance_analysis/index.html

Then read this review. This review was done with 7.5 catalyst.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/1
So lets start comparison HD2900XT vs 8800GTS 640MB.

3dmark05 - ATI won by large margin.
3dmark06 the same. Its not surprise than ATI is very powerfull in 3dmarks, but lets move to gaming.
HL2 Lost Coast - ATI won by large margin.
Prey - At 1280resolution it loses, but at bigger resolutions ATI is faster.
F.E.A.R - At average FPS ATI is much faster again.
COH - Again ATI is much faster.
Supreme commander - at 1280 resolution ATi is faster by 1 FPS, but at bigger resolution ATI loses. But gap is very small.

So add about 5% to every test, and you see that ATI IS better than GTS, and its competitor to GTX. Note that ATi have software voltage control, and actually thats big reason to get HD2900XT over GTS or GTX. ATi consumes more power, but if you have rig that sucks 600w from your wallet, extra 50w is nothing to worry about.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 29, 2007)

Kasparz said:


> First, check performance gain with 7.6 vs 7.5 catalyst.
> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1123/ati_catalyst_7_6_performance_analysis/index.html
> 
> Then read this review. This review was done with 7.5 catalyst.
> ...



OK, firstly, can I ask you to read again my last 2 posts carefully, you are talking here as though someone has said tha GTS is better than the XT....I think I said in my last post that the XT was the faster card for the sake of this post I will quote from my previous one to save you looking again............

"I will not post the 2 reviews I have read that were all done in the last 3-4 weeks that show that the 2900XT is the master across the board, NEVER have denied that"

So whats your point? If it is that you contest my statement, and I will quote it from my previous post.................

"that it gets beat in SOME benchmarks still by the 8800GTS 640MB"

Which I am guessing is your point, then your post agrees with me as one of your points is that the 2900XT loses at prey in one resolution.  I have not mentioned in ANY post the power consumption or heat so not sure why you are saying that, I did not even bother to mention the huge AA issues the card has had, because thats not what my sentance was about, I am not here to slag the 2900XT, I would hardly be saying it was the faster card if I was.....simple really.  Anyone else care to disagree with my thoughts? 

Now, we can all select reviews to support our arguments, hey let me show you how easy it is, take a look at this, this is a review from this week (Tuesday to be precise) with the new driver sets, I am the first to admit that the review also looked at the overclocking potential of the 2 cards and ran the tests at each cards max overclock (I could say that I didnt mention at stock or overclocked but that would not be fair), but hey, many of us in here do overclock so I post it for interest's sake only, I think you will find that the 8800GTS in this case beats the 2900 in more than just a couple but I stand by my origional statement which is that the 2900XT is the faster card across the board and is comparable with the GTX in some benches but it still does get beaten by the GTS in some also.

Now if you still think I am a "nub" for beleiving that, well I am either not sane, or you are either just ignoring facts or since I last looked I cannot read.

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1435&Itemid=91

Make sure you read the conclusion page also.  Anyway, Wiz has said that he will do an upto date test soon, one thing you know with wiz, his reviews are fair and unbiased so he is going to have some in there with lots of AA enabled 

If you like we can just agree to disagree and move on, unless of course you have some more insults you wanna throw?  Ohhh and by the way.....no need to apologise.


----------



## devguy (Jun 29, 2007)

wow. 


I was just simply asking if the catalyst 7.6 drivers made any difference for the hd 2600XT (maybe on the Hd 2400xt/pro too).  I had no intention of starting a flamewar between nvidia and ATI cards.

Forgive me.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 29, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Yawn........I wont react to that comment, do you really think that the ONLY reviews I read are the early ones with the initial driver set?  I will not do you the diservice of calling you a "nub"  I will simply say....read a little more before you you start throwing around statements, the 8800GTS does beat the 2900XT in SOME benchmarks with more upto date drivers, maybe not the driver set issued on Monday of this week but then again, it will have been an older set of Forceware also, NVidia are still managing to get more out of their drivers so as I said in an earlier post, the ATi cards will improve with driver maturity, I will not post the 2 reviews I have read that were all done in the last 3-4 weeks that show that the 2900XT is the master across the board, NEVER have denied that, but it does show that it gets beat in SOME benchmarks still by the 8800GTS 640MB, I'll let you look again, if you can show me a fair review (as opposed to a slective one if you get my meaning) from recently that has a number of benches/real world games and it shows that in every test at every detail level/resolution the 640MB GTS gets beaten, I will gladly  and proclaim my self the TPU "Nub" of the month.
> 
> Now to this composure thing,  if you really do want to get unpleasant, please do let me know, it's a kind of subject I specialise in so I am sure I can accomodate, otherwise, it's good to disagree with opinion, it's actually OK to disagree with facts because thats how we all learn things but if you cannot do this in a civilised manner then we can always play "who's the nub" as you so pleasantly put it.   I take critisism easily, insults I do not.




Hey Tatty stop polishing your MP-5/ M-16  put it back in the closet. Kasp for God sakes man don't piss him off hes trained to kill in about 40 ways. Tatty sit down and drink some tea , take a few deep breaths and forgive him for he knows not what he does or for that matter who hes doing it to.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 29, 2007)

devguy said:


> wow.
> 
> 
> I was just simply asking if the catalyst 7.6 drivers made any difference for the hd 2600XT (maybe on the Hd 2400xt/pro too).  I had no intention of starting a flamewar between nvidia and ATI cards.
> ...



Lol, nothing to forgive, yes 7.6 is better....well amongst the fog I think thats what he is saying.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 29, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Hey Tatty stop polishing your MP-5/ M-16  put it back in the closet. Kasp for God sakes man don't piss him off hes trained to kill in about 40 ways. Tatty sit down and drink some tea , take a few deep breaths and forgive him for he knows not what he does or for that matter who hes doing it to.



Lol, thanks for that but he has as much right to vouice his opinion as me, the difference is I dont insult or flame, but then I am the quiet sort


----------



## JC316 (Jul 3, 2007)

Wow, my prediction was spot on, the 8600 whooped it. And thats with stock settings compared to the 2600 OCed.

Great review W1z!


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 3, 2007)

JC316 said:


> Wow, my prediction was spot on, the 8600 whooped it. And thats with stock settings compared to the 2600 OCed.
> 
> Great review W1z!



lol... consider that the 8600GTS clocks to 800mhz at stock clocks with decent aftermarket cooling .

Consider that it clocks to 1Ghz with a small easy vmod


----------



## DOM (Jul 3, 2007)

One thing the 8600 gots is a 6-pin power connector which the 2600 doesnt so its limited on juice


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 14, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> you know what. just for you i'll rerun the 2900 xt benchmarks on 7.6



lol no rest for the weary.


----------



## ownage (Jul 23, 2007)

Lets face it. The new red cards all suck!
OMG, what do i have to buy then??


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 23, 2007)

Why do they suck?

Price wise they are a steal to the market.

and they don't do this
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=35196


----------



## ownage (Jul 23, 2007)

driver bug damulta, what about R600 drivers??
If i buy a new VGA it probably will be H2900XT, but still i dont think its that good.
Compared what nVidia has to offer, the R600 series lets us fanATIcs down.
These cards differ to much in games. sometimes they are really good, sometimes really bad.
Althought i think 2600XT isn't that bad for what it should be. I feel like most people are dissapointed in these budget cards. The price is really great.


----------



## Parad0x (Apr 14, 2009)

Anybody succeeded at overcoming the 857mhz gpu limit on these cards 2400/2600?


----------



## Flyordie (Apr 14, 2009)

I did... lol.  925Mhz 24/7 w/o vmod.  InfoTek builds their shit better.. which is why I buy from them.


----------

