# hd2600xt vs 8600gt



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

What do you guys think about a 2600xt or a 8600gt for my dell machine. I'm 99% certain power will not be a problem, had my friends x850xt running on my comp before (had this strange power dongle to connect to the video card)

Originally i was just going to buy a new computer but then i ended up buying a car 

I just need to be held over a little longer.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

Get this one it will beat a 7900gtx and has 512 mb ddr3 plus is dx10 and will destroy a 2600xt Plus it has a special enhanced bios to overclock higher than other 8600gts

http://www.clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=CA9602847


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

yea but thats a little more expensive, and the reason i picked the 8600gt was because it doesn't need a seperate power cable. I'm trying to keep things down to around $150 canadian and fully powered through the pcie slot


----------



## pt (Jul 27, 2007)

hd2600xt 256mb gddr3 ftw
mine beats a 86gts (at stock) after overclocking


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 27, 2007)

pt said:


> hd2600xt 256mb gddr3 ftw
> mine beats a 86gts (at stock) after overclocking



Your card beats mine after overclocking too. Probably has a lot to do with your CPU though.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

Its just i've seen a lot of reviews with the hd2600xt not performing so hot for games like farcry and the like. Scares me a bit


----------



## pt (Jul 27, 2007)

i can test it in bf2, c&c 3, and medieval 2 total war
wan't any of them?


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 27, 2007)

8600s don't do too well either, it's just a matter of opinion. Mine plays BF2 maxed with 2x AA and 16x AF and at 1280 res perfect, without any overclocking even. Oblivion is close to maxed out.. and it starts to show a sign of lagging @ 1280 resolution. I score about 9996 in 3dmark 05(PTs card scores like 12k), this leaves me wanting a better card.. but mine actually does it's job just fine..

It's just a matter of opinion.. I think the 2600XT outperforms the 8600GTs, so it's up to you. I'd probably be more tempted in getting a 7900GS or x1950GT, though they don't have directx 10.... these new 2600xt and 8600s prolly play shitty in dx10 anyhow... so get a real good dx9 card like the cards I just mentioned, they are cheap too.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

Yea but the problem with a 7900gs or a 1950pro is the amount of power that they consume. And yea on the up side i wont be running a res any higher than 1280x1024.

edit: pt if you could show me some bf2 that would be great


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 27, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> 8600s don't do too well either, it's just a matter of opinion. Mine plays BF2 maxed with 2x AA and 16x AF and at 1280 res perfect, without any overclocking even. Oblivion is close to maxed out.. and it starts to show a sign of lagging @ 1280 resolution. I score about 9996 in 3dmark 05(PTs card scores like 12k), this leaves me wanting a better card.. but mine actually does it's job just fine..
> 
> It's just a matter of opinion.. I think the 2600XT outperforms the 8600GTs, so it's up to you. I'd probably be more tempted in getting a 7900GS or x1950GT, though they don't have directx 10.... these new 2600xt and 8600s prolly play shitty in dx10 anyhow... so get a real good dx9 card like the cards I just mentioned, they are cheap too.



wops, I just thanked you but meant to quote you. oh well free thanks 

That's a damn nice 3dmark 05 score.. in fact it beats my x1950GT score by a decent margin (its been a while since I ran it but I think it scored an ~8800) though my x1950 can run Obliv maxxed @ 1280x1024 without a problem. I wonder whats up with that??


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 27, 2007)

I have posted this several times now. No point in going with the older cards
http://www.realworldbenchmarks.com/article.php?cat=&id=63&pagenumber=7


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 27, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> I have posted this several times now. No point in going with the older cards
> http://www.realworldbenchmarks.com/article.php?cat=&id=63&pagenumber=7



LOL. that compares the 8600 to a 7600! of course the 8600 is going to perform better jesh. whoever made that little comparison should be crucified.

lets start comparing 8800s to 7800s now too, I am curious which will perform better.

since I havent given my card opinion yet, I will. I wouldnt go with either of them if you plan on gaming. they wont be able to run any dx10 games when they come out and are at best an average DX9 card. go with the x1950, or if you like Nvidia the 7900. for the same price you could land yourself a nice x1950XT and blow the socks off that 8600


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

Yea but one of the reasons why i'm going with the newer cards is because they have a better performance to watt ratio. My dell only has a weakling power supply, though it should still be enough to run a 8600gt or a xhd2600xt. While i suppose i could get a 7600gt i would rather spend the extra $20 and get a little more performance.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 27, 2007)

try x1950 GT. they arent quite as power hungry and I got this one for $130. and when you get your new system im sure you could sell it because it will still have gaming value.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> 8600s don't do too well either, it's just a matter of opinion. Mine plays BF2 maxed with 2x AA and 16x AF and at 1280 res perfect, without any overclocking even. Oblivion is close to maxed out.. and it starts to show a sign of lagging @ 1280 resolution. I score about 9996 in 3dmark 05(PTs card scores like 12k), this leaves me wanting a better card.. but mine actually does it's job just fine..
> 
> It's just a matter of opinion.. I think the 2600XT outperforms the 8600GTs, so it's up to you. I'd probably be more tempted in getting a 7900GS or x1950GT, though they don't have directx 10.... these new 2600xt and 8600s prolly play shitty in dx10 anyhow... so get a real good dx9 card like the cards I just mentioned, they are cheap too.




The 512 cards do very well your laggs at higher resolutions because of the 256 mb of ram this has 512 mb of ddr 3 and It makes a giant diffrence. Look up the reviews on a evga 8600gts 512 mb ddr 3 it will beat all the 7900 cards and even the 1950pro and x1900xt cards hands down


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 27, 2007)

trt740 said:


> The 512 cards do very well your laggs at higher resolutions because of the 256 mb of ram this has 512 mb of ddr 3 and It makes a giant diffrence. Look up the reviews on a evga 8600gts 512 mb ddr 3 it will beat all the 7900 cards and even the 1950pro and x1900xt cards hands down



can you post a link? this I would like to see....512mb should never make  such a big difference


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

So far these are what i have found:

http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=342567 8600gt for $139CND

http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=349848 HD2600xt for $115CND

I looked at a x1950gt briefly but it really doesn't seem to be that great and actually costs a little more than those newer cards.


----------



## insider (Jul 27, 2007)

Benchmarks like 3DMark is largely misleading to how the cards perform in *actual gaming*. 

The 8600GT/S and X2600 maybe give higher 3DMark scores than the 7900GS/GTX and X1950GT/Pro cards, but in actual gaming performance you'll find for most part the 8600GT/X2600XT lags behind the older generation 7900/X1950 cards in curent DX9 games.


----------



## pt (Jul 27, 2007)

insider said:


> Benchmarks like 3DMark is largely misleading to how the cards perform in *actual gaming*.
> 
> The 8600GT/S and X2600 maybe give higher 3DMark scores than the 7900GS/GTX and X1950GT/Pro cards, but in actual gaming performance you'll find for most part the 8600GT/X2600XT lags behind the older generation 7900/X1950 cards in curent DX9 games.



true
my hd2600xt when you turn the aa on is pretty much like a x1800gto


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

Ninkobwi said:


> can you post a link? this I would like to see....512mb should never make  such a big difference




There are very few reviews on this card it is brand new but even my old MSI 8600gts was matching the 7900 series cards in performance and only losing to them at the higher resolutions. Here is one of the few I found but more will come but it's not against a 7900 gtx which I've owned aswell, but I can tell you these scores are on par withn them in this review ands would even go higher when oced http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=614&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=0 here is gainwards version aswell and in games like fear the memory makes a big difference. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1494&Itemid=40 the first one is a Evga 8600gts 256mb and the second is a Gainward 8600gts 512mb ddr3


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2007)

Well it still comes down to the same thing, what do you guys think i should get, bearing in mind the x1950pro or 7900gs would be pretty borderline in terms of power, and the x1950gt isn't that great.

So i guess it would be more between the hd2600xt, 8600gt or 7600gt i suppose


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

the if it's between them get the 2600xt it's better than the 8600gt or 7600gt but get a 512 mb version


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

insider said:


> Benchmarks like 3DMark is largely misleading to how the cards perform in *actual gaming*.
> 
> The 8600GT/S and X2600 maybe give higher 3DMark scores than the 7900GS/GTX and X1950GT/Pro cards, but in actual gaming performance you'll find for most part the 8600GT/X2600XT lags behind the older generation 7900/X1950 cards in curent DX9 games.



The benches I posted were gaming benches fear test, oblivion etc. It doesn't lag in those test with 512mb of ddr3. It did before because of a lack of ram. The 8600 gts 256 mb only lost at higher resolution and ram intesive games before.


----------



## hat (Jul 27, 2007)

It comes down to what you like best, ATi or nVIDIA. The 2600XT and 8600GT are similar performers.
Here's a review of the 2600xt: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33267


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

hat said:


> It comes down to what you like best, ATi or nVIDIA. The 2600XT and 8600GT are similar performers.
> Here's a review of the 2600xt: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33267



Austintown Fitch


----------



## hat (Jul 27, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Austintown Fitch



lol wtf? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Zomg j00 know where I skool at, haxX0R


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

hat said:


> lol wtf?
> Zomg j00 know where I skool at, haxX0R



bastards beat us in football I went to Walsh Jesuit  In Akron  many moons ago.


----------



## hat (Jul 27, 2007)

trt740 said:


> bastards beat us in football I went to Walsh Jesuit many moons ago.



lol I don't care about that 
I thought you went to school there, heh


----------



## trt740 (Jul 27, 2007)

hat said:


> lol I don't care about that
> I thought you went to school there, heh




Na my roomate in college Paul Besset did and Jeff Soulick.


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 27, 2007)

insider said:


> Benchmarks like 3DMark is largely misleading to how the cards perform in *actual gaming*.
> 
> The 8600GT/S and X2600 maybe give higher 3DMark scores than the 7900GS/GTX and X1950GT/Pro cards, but in actual gaming performance you'll find for most part the 8600GT/X2600XT lags behind the older generation 7900/X1950 cards in curent DX9 games.



You have a point.. but these cards do well in real world gaming also. 

They aren't as good as 7900s or x1900s... because of the simple fact that the ram bus width on the 7900/x1900 is 256bit compared to 2600/8600 128bit.


----------



## hat (Jul 27, 2007)

The 128-bit bus width is fine for 1280x1024.


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 27, 2007)

hat said:


> The 128-bit bus width is fine for 1280x1024.



Nope... It hampers performance, period, even at 1024 res.

I wish I would have at least gotten one of these.


----------



## pt (Jul 27, 2007)

gddr4 is useless in this card in my opinion since i didn't saw much perfomance increase


----------



## Fleekar (Jul 27, 2007)

What exactly is your "Crappy Dell" psu?
My friend's dimension 8000 something has a 350 watt psu from dell it currently runs:
160gb hd
300gb sata hd
1gb ddr2
2 dvd burners
P4 3.2 GHz HT
x1900 gt Rev. 2 << imo power hungry card

And it runs fine. Whats the spec on yours, I don't think any of the cards mentioned so far will kill it if its greater than or equa l to my buddy's


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 27, 2007)

magibeg said:


> Yea but the problem with a 7900gs or a 1950pro is the amount of power that they consume. And yea on the up side i wont be running a res any higher than 1280x1024.
> 
> edit: pt if you could show me some bf2 that would be great



:shadedshu

They dont use a lot of power dude... it would only add like 0.01c to ur power bill 

Point is, dell makes good PSUs (DONT KILL ME), they are true to their rating 100%. You ONLY need 300W from a Dell PSU to run that setup aformentioned. So yeah, anything like a Coolermaster Extreme 430W will run 100% rock solid stable. People these days are so ignorant :shadedshu

Bit bandwidth isnt the only problem about amd's offering, its got:
-Lower stream proccy clockspeed
-Lower amount of ROPs, BAD choice from AMD, it wouldnt have costed more. Instead of having 12 or 8 they chose 4!!!!

Thus bottlenecking what the stream processor's can do. If they had EIGHT ROPs instead of Four, they would have a monster GPU. Even three quads wouldnt hurt the price of it (and would effectively make it faster than a X1950PRO).


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 27, 2007)

8600s do have 8ROPs.

Oh and PT... how are you going to say GDDR4 wouldn't help a card that's being bottlenecked by it's memory?


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> You have a point.. but these cards do well in real world gaming also.
> 
> They aren't as good as 7900s or x1900s... because of the simple fact that the ram bus width on the 7900/x1900 is 256bit compared to 2600/8600 128bit.



Yes they are their ram is faster as is their core speed. they are just as fast or faster than the 7900 series with 512mb of ram.


----------



## hat (Jul 28, 2007)

clock speed aren't everything. What about pixel pipelines? What about the 256-bit memory bus?


----------



## pt (Jul 28, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> 8600s do have 8ROPs.
> 
> Oh and PT... how are you going to say GDDR4 wouldn't help a card that's being bottlenecked by it's memory?



doesn't help the hd2600xt line
at least not much to pay the huge price difference between them
mine beats any gddr4 hd2600xt i've seen so far


----------



## magibeg (Jul 28, 2007)

Fleekar said:


> What exactly is your "Crappy Dell" psu?
> My friend's dimension 8000 something has a 350 watt psu from dell it currently runs:
> 160gb hd
> 300gb sata hd
> ...



Well actually i also have a dimension 8400, and yea its a 350 watt. I'll be buying a card on monday and from what i can tell i think the hd2600xt has the lead right now in my books. Performance wise its pretty much the same as the 8600gt but i found a hd2600xt for $115CND.

However if your friends can run a x1900gt that could open a few more options up to me, though i doubt that i could beat the price of that 2600. This card is just to hold me over a little longer until i can buy a new computer. A few months ago i was going to get a new pc but then the braking system went on my car (bye bye brake fluid). Unfortunately this happened on the highway, so needless to say the money went for something else. This is more of a 6 month fix than anything else really. Want a bit more pep for fairly cheap (so i probably wont be doing much dx10 gaming on this system). Its just the new cards are cheap and seem to be performing well.


edit- yea i know the dell psu's are good, made by fortran i believe, however doesn't a card like a x1950pro require a special power cord to plug into it? i think theres adapters for it but i'm not sure where to find them. Or i could be completely wrong


----------



## hat (Jul 28, 2007)

A HD2900XT for $115CDN? Yes go for it. I beleive they come at 800/2200 right?? OC that bish!


----------



## magibeg (Jul 28, 2007)

Its the HD2600xt for $115, and i just found a Sapphire X1950PRO 256MB LITE PCI-E DDVI TV for $144 though i'ld also have to buy a pcie power adapter for my power supply.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2007)

1950pro 'LITE' - that lite has me wondering, i've heard that before and it can be anything from no extras in the box, the slower memory on the card.


----------



## hat (Jul 28, 2007)

Are you sure?? I just looked at like 5 different PCI-E video cards and they all came with a molex-to-PCI-E adaptor...

Seriously, I think a x1950PRO is a little too much for your PSU. I would still stick to pci-e video cards without the connector, like the 8600 or the 2600xt


----------



## hat (Jul 28, 2007)

I don't know what site you buy from, but Newegg lets you see what you get with the product you purchace, unless it's a CPU box or something. For instance with video cards, they let you see several views of the video card itself and then pics of the accessories it comes with.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 28, 2007)

Yea cant buy from newegg because i'm in canada, its just you americans that get to benifit from the great 'egg'. After reading a couple reviews the x1950pro usually pulls a max draw with a full system between 219 and 190 watts (depending on setup). So in theory i could potentially run it without issue, though i would be pushing it. I'll have to decide by monday.


----------



## hat (Jul 28, 2007)

I know most x19xx want 450W minimum, taking into account the rest of your system. Your CPU probably takes around 80W load


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

hat said:


> clock speed aren't everything. What about pixel pipelines? What about the 256-bit memory bus?


Well it's has shader processors and has 36 of them and they are faster and more advanced then pixel pipes. As for the ring bus, ram speed and core speed can make that up. Also so you know I'm a ATI fanboy but the truth is the truth I've owned a x1800 gto, 1800xt,x1900gt, x1900xt, 7900 gt, 7900gtx, 8600 gts 256, 8800 gts 320, 8800 gts 640, 8800 gtx 768. I'm here to tell you the 8600 gts is a very fast card. I know I've owned almost every card out due to my ebay buisness. The 8600 gt 256 is almost 35 percent faster than a 7600gt 256 and a 8600 gts 512mb is as fast or faster, than a 7900gtx, plus has dx10. I've had them both. My favorite card of all time was my x1900xt then my 8800 gtx then 8600gts in that order.


----------



## pt (Jul 28, 2007)

@trt
my hd2600xt has 120 shaders 
just not as fast as the gts ones


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

pt said:


> @trt
> my hd2600xt has 120 shaders
> just not as fast as the gts ones




Just as the 2900xt has three times the 8800 gtx but it's are faster and so is the gtx performance, so PT whats your point. They look better but are Slower performance wise? Don't get me wrong I really like the 2900xt very good card but a whole lot of wasted potential. If I had crossfire I would buy a 2900xt without question. The 2600xt 512mb is a good card but slower than a 8600 gts. if your going to buy a dx9 card buy a 7900 gto it can be oced to 7900gtx speeds and can be had on ebay for 140.00. The 7900 gs is junk the 7800 gtx 256 is good as is the 7900gt .  The x1900 pro is okay but the x1900xt is better for dx9.


----------



## pt (Jul 28, 2007)

"_just not as fast as the gts ones_"
that makes the difference as i stated above
and any 86gts costs 170€ minimum here 
so i think i got a great bang for the buck card  (100€)


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Just as the 2900xt has three times the 8800 gtx but it's are faster and so is the gtx performance, so PT whats your point. They look better but are Slower performance wise? Don't get me wrong I really like the 2900xt very good card but a whole lot of wasted potential. If I had crossfire I would buy a 2900xt without question. The 2600xt 512mb is a good card but slower than a 8600 gts. if your going to buy a dx9 card buy a 7900 gto it can be oced to 7900gtx speeds and can be had on ebay for 140.00. The 7900 gs is junk the 7800 gtx 256 is good as is the 7900gt .  The x1900 pro is okay but the x1900xt is better for dx9.



they are all good really


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

pt said:


> "_just not as fast as the gts ones_"
> that makes the difference as i stated above
> and any 86gts costs 170€ minimum here
> so i think i got a great bang for the buck card  (100€)




You know I think you do too because I've told you,  you do.


----------



## pt (Jul 28, 2007)

trt740 said:


> You know I think you do too because I've told you,  you do.



that confused med :S
i don't remenber you talking about the hd2600 when i got mine, on the ohter side i have a terrible memory and can barely remenber most things


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

pt said:


> that confused med :S
> i don't remenber you talking about the hd2600 when i got mine, on the ohter side i have a terrible memory and can barely remenber most things



E2160 and a 2600xt is a very good budget / bang for the buck system as is a e2160 / 8600gt or gts syetem. All are 25 + percent faster than the 7600gt series which was a very good budget card and the e2160 when oced right is faster than all the amd cpu's except maybe the 6000+ or 6400+ but the e2160 cost 95.00


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

pt said:


> that confused med :S
> i don't remenber you talking about the hd2600 when i got mine, on the ohter side i have a terrible memory and can barely remenber most things



Here is my old post


Quote:
Originally Posted by pt  
my best so far


nice score pt. Thats a nice card. You have a very smartly built bang for the buck system.


----------



## pt (Jul 28, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Here is my old post
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...



oh, that post 
lol 
i'm thinking of crossfiring 2 hd2600xt as soon as i get money for a new mobo and gfx


----------



## Fleekar (Jul 28, 2007)

Yup my friend's dell is an 8400 as well, so no worries about power issues with the above. Good luck!


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 28, 2007)

you also might try the 7900GS. similar in performance to the pro, albeit a bit slower. Also the x1900gt is supposed to be pretty decent. and I know that one is really cheap

Oh, and most all cards come with a PSU adapter for the extra power plug. just plug it in to your standard molex and vuala.

Edit: so what games are you wanting to play anyway?


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 28, 2007)

insider said:


> Benchmarks like 3DMark is largely misleading to how the cards perform in *actual gaming*.
> 
> The 8600GT/S and X2600 maybe give higher 3DMark scores than the 7900GS/GTX and X1950GT/Pro cards, but in actual gaming performance you'll find for most part the 8600GT/X2600XT lags behind the older generation 7900/X1950 cards in curent DX9 games.




id like to call bs..i out preform my buds and other freinds with these cards in pretty much all games we play


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 28, 2007)

> one tought son of a bitch



He is no survivorman!!!

Survivorman does not have a crew that follows him out if he gets hurt he's !@#%ed!!!!







Back to this thread.


pt said:


> doesn't help the hd2600xt line
> at least not much to pay the huge price difference between them
> mine beats any gddr4 hd2600xt i've seen so far




If I put two of them on water (Gddr4 ones) or just one of them. I bet I could out score you


----------



## insider (Jul 28, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> id like to call bs..*i out preform my buds and other freinds with these cards in pretty much all games we play*




The gaming benchmarks done by the likes of Anandtech show the above to be complete BS 

Only in certain games show the 8600GTS outperform the 7900GTX/X19xx and that's at low resolution *without* AA/AF, the majority of games the 8600GTS lags behind the two, when you then turn on AA/AF and increase the resolution the 8600GTS struggles bigtime.

As others have clearly pointed out, the huge memory bandwidth bottleneck on those cards means using DDR4 results in very little to absolutely zero gains, the bottleneck is always present due to the design of the card. 

This is evident when you start increasing the AA/AF details and resolution, there is simply insufficient memory bandwidth to handle high detail settings any higher than 1280*1024, the same problem applies to the X2600XT also, no coincidence there!


----------



## Pinchy (Jul 28, 2007)

hat said:


> I know most x19xx want 450W minimum, taking into account the rest of your system. Your CPU probably takes around 80W load



X800XT PE's have a 400W min, and I ran mine on a 200W .

That 350W Dell should be right for the x1900/x1950 GT/PRO cards.


----------



## Paradox (Jul 28, 2007)

hat said:


> What about pixel pipelines? What about the 256-bit memory bus?



pixel pipelines are a thing of the past.

Steam possessors are far better... once the drivers that can use them to there fullest...

Don't get a last generation card... it's pointless.. why upgrade if you put older hardware in?

My vote goes to the 2600XT.  It just has more potential... and does DX10 quite a bit better then 8600GT's.

Remeber, ATi never has had super raw power like nvidia, they make up for it in Shader execution.  I don't care how robust 32 Shader possessors are they can't out calculate 120 Stream possessors if they're used right.  
Also 65nm = Insane overclocking once it's possible...


----------



## hat (Jul 28, 2007)

Paradox... those cards reach thier limit pretty fast since they eat up all the PCI-E slot has to offer already.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 28, 2007)

Well i've weighed in all the options and i've officially gone for the $115 hd2600xt. It was the cheapest of the choices that i could find, wasn't very power hungry, and although it didn't get the best performance out of all the choices, its still going to be an improvement over my x800se (which is actually gradually dieing now). Thanks for all your inputs  


ships in 1-3 business days, i suspect it'll get here by around thursday or friday.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 28, 2007)

insider said:


> The gaming benchmarks done by the likes of Anandtech show the above to be complete BS
> 
> Only in certain games show the 8600GTS outperform the 7900GTX/X19xx and that's at low resolution *without* AA/AF, the majority of games the 8600GTS lags behind the two, when you then turn on AA/AF and increase the resolution the 8600GTS struggles bigtime.
> 
> ...



You will notice those are 256 mb 8600gts with more memory it's simply not the case a 8600gts 512 mb is what we are talking about not not a 256 mb. Thats why they are losing at higher resolution with more ram they won't. Your comparing the wrong card. When you compare a 512 mb 8600gts to a 512 mb 7900 series or 1900 series card the performance is neck and neck. Of course a 512 mb card is going to have better band with than a 256mb card.


----------



## insider (Jul 29, 2007)

trt740 said:


> You will notice those are 256 mb 8600gts with more memory it's simply not the case a 8600gts 512 mb is what we are talking about not not a 256 mb. Thats why they are losing at higher resolution with more ram they won't. Your comparing the wrong card. When you compare a 512 mb 8600gts to a 512 mb 7900 series or 1900 series card the performance is neck and neck. Of course a 512 mb card is going to have better band with than a 256mb card.



You obviously have problems understanding what a 128-bit memory bus bandwidth bottleneck is and how it affects the performance of all video cards. 

The 8600GTS was not memory capacity limited in those low resolution benches (1280*1024) but memory BANDWIDTH limited due to the 128-bit bus, 256MB is enough for AA/AF at low resolutions (which those benches was tested under) but the 128-bit interface is NOT enough for higher detail AA/AF at higher resolutions, doesn't matter if the card has 1GB of ram, the cards memory bus interface simply can't move the data fast enough.

Memory capacity has NOTHING to do with memory bandwidth.

On a pointless merry go around here when all benches from various sites show that this is the case with the 8600.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 29, 2007)

I would get either of the 2 cards to be honest but if I was to DX10 game............. ONLY with 512MB on them.

Overclock either like mad (and they both do) and with 512MB of ram on board you will run DX10 providing its at sensible resolutions, maybe only with medium settings but at the end of the day....you can have all your 7900's and your 1950 whateveryoulikes....they aint gonna be running DX10 now are thay?


----------



## trt740 (Jul 29, 2007)

insider said:


> You obviously have problems understanding what a 128-bit memory bus bandwidth bottleneck is and how it affects the performance of all video cards.
> 
> The 8600GTS was not memory capacity limited in those low resolution benches (1280*1024) but memory BANDWIDTH limited due to the 128-bit bus, 256MB is enough for AA/AF at low resolutions (which those benches was tested under) but the 128-bit interface is NOT enough for higher detail AA/AF at higher resolutions, doesn't matter if the card has 1GB of ram, the cards memory bus interface simply can't move the data fast enough.
> 
> ...



and none are benches with a card with a 8600gts 512mb which will increase  performance. Your crazy if you think 512 won't make performance difference.


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 29, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Yes they are their ram is faster as is their core speed. they are just as fast or faster than the 7900 series with 512mb of ram.


Having fast ram with a limiting bus width doesn't mean jack.

My old Nvidia card with DDR1(~900-1000mhz) and 256bit bus width gets probably as much bandwidth as this 8600GT with ~1700-1800mhz memory. 

The only reason this card beats my old 6800 is because of the fact that it has a better architecture on the core.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 29, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I would get either of the 2 cards to be honest but if I was to DX10 game............. ONLY with 512MB on them.
> 
> Overclock either like mad (and they both do) and with 512MB of ram on board you will run DX10 providing its at sensible resolutions, maybe only with medium settings but at the end of the day....you can have all your 7900's and your 1950 whateveryoulikes....they aint gonna be running DX10 now are thay?



Well spoken and true.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 29, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I would get either of the 2 cards to be honest but if I was to DX10 game............. ONLY with 512MB on them.
> 
> Overclock either like mad (and they both do) and with 512MB of ram on board you will run DX10 providing its at sensible resolutions, maybe only with medium settings but at the end of the day....you can have all your 7900's and your 1950 whateveryoulikes....they aint gonna be running DX10 now are thay?



have you even seen the requirements for DX10 games? It's very likely that they are going to smoke even the 8800 and 2900s, so throwing a 8600 at it probably wouldnt do much good anyway. plus, the guy said this card is just holding him over for a little while and is not a long term solution. how many DX10 games do you know coming out in the next 6 months? just 1? I thought so.

but the point is moot now. he has already purchased the card and for $115 I cant blame him really. thats one heck of a price..last year around this time that's what I payed for my x800. but saying that right now an 8600 would be a better buy than an x1950 or 7900 for the same price, that is absolutely absurd. its apparent which performs better on todays games and those are really the only ones you need to worry about.

Edit: and here are your benchmarks 
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=854&model2=725&chart=277

more edit: how is an 8600 supposed to run DX 10 games when it can barely run BF2 at 30 fps


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 29, 2007)

Isn't his processor going to create a bit of a bottleneck with either of those cards?


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 29, 2007)

processor should be okay. he said its just to hold him over a little while longer


----------



## magibeg (Jul 29, 2007)

Given the way that games seem to be now (shader intensive) it probably wouldn't be very likely that my cpu would bottleneck it too much. Sure i wont be getting 500million frames per second but all i need to do is stay above 40 and i'm quite happ. CPU bottleneck would affect benchmark results but for the most part the playability of the game wouldn't game much(a bottlenecked card will maybe be getting 50 frames per second instead of 80).


In any event i'm not trying to rise my computer back from the dead, just trying to keep it going until i get something a little nicer, probably springish.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 29, 2007)

magibeg: since you dont say what country you're from, its a good idea to mention months instead of seasons, it does vary around the world.

yeah its off topic, sue me.


----------



## DOM (Jul 29, 2007)

@Mussels his <50mi. from Toronto  lol


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 29, 2007)

Ninkobwi said:


> have you even seen the requirements for DX10 games? It's very likely that they are going to smoke even the 8800 and 2900s, so throwing a 8600 at it probably wouldnt do much good anyway. plus, the guy said this card is just holding him over for a little while and is not a long term solution. how many DX10 games do you know coming out in the next 6 months? just 1? I thought so.
> 
> but the point is moot now. he has already purchased the card and for $115 I cant blame him really. thats one heck of a price..last year around this time that's what I payed for my x800. but saying that right now an 8600 would be a better buy than an x1950 or 7900 for the same price, that is absolutely absurd. its apparent which performs better on todays games and those are really the only ones you need to worry about.
> 
> ...



OK firstly, there is a thread (news article) in these forums that dicusses the "misconception" that current mid to high end cards will struggle with DX 10, the article is written by John Cormack I think it was........ and all that we have to gauge the performance of their current DX10 cards is extremely "buggy" demo's and benches which is not a fair way to do so, so unless you are lucky enough to have a fully completed DX10 game and want to disagree with a guy in the business feel free, he states that mid ranged cards on a mid ranged system will play DX10 at "sensible" resolutions and detail settings, in any case, I think you will find that CPU power is going to be almost as important as GPU power in DX10 so we may well see a mid ranged card coupled with a high end CPU performing better than a mid-high end card with a low end/slow CPU.

Secondly, there are 9 DX10 titles earmarked (I say earmarked as they have release dates quoted by developers) for Q4 of 2007 , some of those to be fair are DX10 patches for recently released games but the idea is that DX10 card owners with Vista can be playing 9 games in DX10 by Christmas, this llist is as at 1 July, now obviously I cannot guarantee developers will get their games out in time so I can only go by what the developer is saying, these titles/patches include:

Crysis 
Shadowrun 
World in Conflict 
Alan Wake 
Flight Simulator X: Adrenaline 
Unreal Tournament 3 
Hellgate: London 
Age of Conan 
Company of Heroes, Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts 
Bioshock 
Eve Online 
Call of Juarez (Unconfirmed) 
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition 

A couple of those are unconfirmed which is why I say 9.

Lastly, if I may, you make reference to the fact that the 8600 can struggle to play BF2142, I am not denying that, but I still find it surprising that people are judging a DX10 cards performance on DX9 games, one thing is for sure, those DX9 cards aint gonna be getting any FPS in DX10 so in my opinion only, a DX9 card today is not an option.
I dont disagree with some of your comments, I just feel that you as well as most of us at times speculate too much and I dont feel that good advice can be given on speculation.


----------



## hat (Jul 29, 2007)

I would still buy a DX9 card.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 29, 2007)

hat said:


> I would still buy a DX9 card.



Lol, if thats the case why did you start a thread a few days ago because you were buying 2x 8500GT's for SLi???


----------



## bigboi86 (Jul 29, 2007)

Ninkobwi said:


> more edit: how is an 8600 supposed to run DX 10 games when it can barely run BF2 at 30 fps



I highly, highly disagree with that. My card plays bf2 with 2x AA and 16xAF @ 1280 res without overclocking lag free. If you seen a bench with BF2 lagging at 30fps then I'd have to see it for myself.

Bf2 is not really that hard of a game to process.


----------



## pt (Jul 29, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> If I put two of them on water (Gddr4 ones) or just one of them. I bet I could out score you



prob
but gddr4 seems useless since the gddr3 ones are overcloking like hell, and the bios has a bug that restricts the core to 857


----------



## BootlegZani (Sep 11, 2007)

I am thinking of getting an XFX GeForce 8600GT XXX Edition 620Mhz 256MB PCI Express card.  I just want to get some more performance out of my Dell Dimension 8400.  I also just need it to hold me over till I can build a new desktop since my main expense currently is the new laptop I am purchasing which is a Lenovo T61p.  Anyway I am pretty sure this card will work flawlessly in my system but I just wanted some second opinions.

Dimension 8400 Specs:
Pentium 4, 3.0 GHz with HT Enabled
2.5 GBs of DDR2 533 MHz (2 x 256 MB, 2 x 1 GB)
ATI Radeon x300 SE 128MB PCI-Express
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2
160 GB HDD @ 7200 RPM

Also I think this current price is a decent deal.
XFX GeForce 8600GT XXX Edition


----------



## Mussels (Sep 11, 2007)

BootlegZani said:


> Dimension 8400 Specs:
> Pentium 4, 3.0 GHz with HT Enabled
> 2.5 GBs of DDR2 533 MHz (2 x 256 MB, 2 x 1 GB)
> ATI Radeon x300 SE 128MB PCI-Express
> ...



 P4 3GHz - slow. mixed ram sizes, single channel - slow. 533MHz too, slow.

X300se... dear god. someone give this man a hug. 

the video card will be a ton better than what you have, but i'd look at cheaper ones and not just stock OC'd ones. i doubt you'd see a diff between an 8600GT and a GTS / overclocked card.


----------



## BootlegZani (Sep 11, 2007)

Mussels said:


> P4 3GHz - slow. mixed ram sizes, single channel - slow. 533MHz too, slow.
> 
> X300se... dear god. someone give this man a hug.
> 
> the video card will be a ton better than what you have, but i'd look at cheaper ones and not just stock OC'd ones. i doubt you'd see a diff between an 8600GT and a GTS / overclocked card.



Yeah but what about for the price also.


----------



## BootlegZani (Sep 11, 2007)

Also I just want a beefed up desktop to last me about 6 months till I can build a new one.


----------



## hercules71185 (Sep 20, 2007)

insider said:


> Benchmarks like 3DMark is largely misleading to how the cards perform in *actual gaming*.
> 
> The 8600GT/S and X2600 maybe give higher 3DMark scores than the 7900GS/GTX and X1950GT/Pro cards, but in actual gaming performance you'll find for most part the 8600GT/X2600XT lags behind the older generation 7900/X1950 cards in curent DX9 games.



what? I don't understand people ALWAYS say the 8600gt  is a  horrible gaming card I bought it a while back and have NO complaints at all. I max out all of my games from oblivion to fear to need for speed carbon. I've yet to see it stutter. I'm only using a brisbane 3600 too. I played the demo of bioshock in DX9 mode and ran perfectly. 
How much better are the 7900 cards compared?


----------



## BootlegZani (Sep 20, 2007)

hercules71185 said:


> what? I don't understand people ALWAYS say the 8600gt  is a  horrible gaming card I bought it a while back and have NO complaints at all. I max out all of my games from oblivion to fear to need for speed carbon. I've yet to see it stutter. I'm only using a brisbane 3600 too. I played the demo of bioshock in DX9 mode and ran perfectly.
> How much better are the 7900 cards compared?



I agree man.  I just got my 8600GT and it works flawlessly.  I keep hearing people say that the 8600GT is worse than the older cards specifically the 7000 series but I don't know since every game I've thrown at it works perfectly.  Maybe I will find out its flaws once Crysis and UT3 come out.


----------



## hercules71185 (Sep 20, 2007)

BootlegZani said:


> I agree man.  I just got my 8600GT and it works flawlessly.  I keep hearing people say that the 8600GT is worse than the older cards specifically the 7000 series but I don't know since every game I've thrown at it works perfectly.  Maybe I will find out its flaws once Crysis and UT3 come out.



I don't doubt new games like those will wreck the 8600 on max settings. at the end of the dx9, games were to easy to play and all the cards were slowly just devouring all of the games they could create with no problems.. Now that they have an entire new engine games will take much more to run. While the 8800ultra seems like more than enough now vs the games I'm pretty positive they will plumit faster than any other cards in history because EVERYTHING is going to require that and nobody likes making the minimum. Its always about overkill. We will see since no one can predict the future of any industry.


----------

