Asus 2600XT and 2600Pro - ATI mid range performance
Game Benchmarks - Quake 4 and C&C 3
Published: 17th August 2007 | Source: Asus | Price: |
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)
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.
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.
Most Recent Comments
The first thing I thought was, Ouch...
That's a nice review kemp, and i'm pretty surprised by it.
That's a nice review kemp, and i'm pretty surprised by it.
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
Surprised at the performance?
|
poor AMD lolThey 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.
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.
When the words Bad, Shame and Awful are in a review it cant be good.
Lol ok gonna have to read this review just for kicks now :P
thats depressing tbh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='markkleb'
When the words Bad, Shame and Awful are in a review it cant be good.
|
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.
The fact that the 2600 comes in AGP is a HUGE advantage that Nvidia is simply overlooking.
Honestly? I'd prefer an older DX9 card over the 2600 series
CSS Valid
Tell us what you think. ATI not done enough on this gen or are we overstating the case?