Asus 2600XT and 2600Pro - ATI mid range performance

Game Benchmarks - Quake 4 and C&C 3

Quake 4

Quake 4 is a game built on the Doom 3 engine. This uses many DX 9.0c features and is a game that nVidia traditionally did well on being an OpenGL game. Once again I did three two minute runs on Quake 4 on each card and took the average of all my readings from these. I played a fast and furious part of the game that required both internal and external scenes.

Quake 4 was played at 1280 x 1024 with 2 x AA (Ultra settings)

quake 4 fps

It was obvious to me that the cards just couldn't cope with Quake 4 on "Ultra" settings. For fairness in the numbers I soldiered on. Lowering to "High" settings resulted in much better gameplay. Gaming was much more playable at "High" settings and if you're thinking of getting either card thats what you'll be playing it on.

Command & Conquer 3

C&C3 is the much awaited RTS from EA. Hugely popular and with some pretty nice visuals almost every modern PC should be able to play it. I tested a skirmish right at the end when I had a screen full of mechs to defeat the enemy.

C&C 3 was played at 1280 x 1024 with all maximum settings apart from the AA which was set to level 2 in-game.

cnc 3 benchies

Command and Conquer 3 was again a disappointing show for the 2600 cards. Slowing down to a quite crawling 9FPS on the Pro card, gameplay was severely affected. The XT played a little better, but still not smoothly as it should have done. This again left me a little cold as the engine is hardly challenging, especially at a low res like 1280 x 1024.
«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next»

Most Recent Comments

17-08-2007, 15:42:31

Take a look at the review here

Tell us what you think. ATI not done enough on this gen or are we overstating the case?Quote

17-08-2007, 17:22:49

The first thing I thought was, Ouch...

That's a nice review kemp, and i'm pretty surprised by it.Quote

17-08-2007, 20:00:45

Originally Posted by name='MikeEnIke'
The first thing I thought was, Ouch...

That's a nice review kemp, and i'm pretty surprised by it.
Surprised at the performance?Quote

17-08-2007, 20:40:21

Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
Surprised at the performance?
Yea surprised that it kinda sucks... a bit upset poor AMD lolQuote

20-08-2007, 05:50:36

Mr. Smith
They suck hard.

Shame really.

Edit: I'd just like to add this came as no supise considering this whole 2900 fiasco. This generation of gfx card ahs been a failure for AMD.Quote

20-08-2007, 16:28:58

I agree

And it makes me a sad panda

20-08-2007, 16:55:54

When the words Bad, Shame and Awful are in a review it cant be good.Quote

20-08-2007, 16:57:38

Lol ok gonna have to read this review just for kicks now :PQuote

20-08-2007, 18:25:47

thats depressing tbh Quote

22-08-2007, 17:20:29

Originally Posted by name='markkleb'
When the words Bad, Shame and Awful are in a review it cant be good.
lol and that's just in the conclusion Quote

25-09-2007, 13:02:56

No one is mentioning the fact that the 2600 is available in AGP and the 8600 is not. I dont use AGP but if you go to Valves system information page you will see that close to 40% of all the people using Valve still use a video card plugged into an AGP slot.

The fact that the 2600 comes in AGP is a HUGE advantage that Nvidia is simply overlooking.Quote

25-09-2007, 14:47:32

Honestly? I'd prefer an older DX9 card over the 2600 seriesQuote

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.