Asus 2600XT and 2600Pro - ATI mid range performance

Synthetic Benchmarks - 3DMark

Article <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ufo1.com/ad/c.js"></script> Posted 07/08/07
Author: Matt Kemp
Source: Asus


Benchmarking - 3DMark

I used the popular gaming benchmarks made by Futuremark to bench all of the cards. I used 3DMark 03, 05 and 06. All benches were performed at stock speeds for this section. I ran all benchmarks from the stock settings as well as 1680 x 1050 (2 x AA).

3DMark 03

First we start with 3DMark03. This is a benchmark that relies heavily on DirectX 8 features. This will give an indication of how the card will run on games that rely on DX 8.

3dmark03

The 3DMark03 really shows up performance of the cards here both at high and low resolution.

3DMark05

I ran 3DMark05. This benchmark requires some more features of DirectX 9 and gets slightly more taxing on the cards.

3dmark05

Again 3DMark05 shows that the ATI cards are slower than their nVidia counterparts by a margin.

3DMark06

3DMark06 is the latest in the benchmarking tests from Futuremark. It has a lot of DirectX 9.0c features such as HDR and use of Shader model 3.0. This benchmark is very taxing for the cards and also includes quite a harsh CPU benchmark. Seeing as this was run with the exact same CPU this was not an issue.

3dmark06

Again 3DMark06 sees the ATI cards down on their luck scoring consistently lower than the nVidia equivalents.
«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next»

Most Recent Comments

17-08-2007, 15:42:31

FarFarAway
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?

17-08-2007, 17:22:49

MikeEnIke
The first thing I thought was, Ouch...

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

17-08-2007, 20:00:45

FarFarAway
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.
Surprised at the performance?

17-08-2007, 20:40:21

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

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.

20-08-2007, 16:28:58

FarFarAway
I agree

And it makes me a sad panda

http://upload.overclock3d.net/get.php?id=3601

20-08-2007, 16:55:54

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

20-08-2007, 16:57:38

Azreil_2
Lol ok gonna have to read this review just for kicks now :P

20-08-2007, 18:25:47

ionicle
thats depressing tbh

22-08-2007, 17:20:29

FarFarAway
Quote:
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

25-09-2007, 13:02:56

4evrnyt
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.

25-09-2007, 14:47:32

FarFarAway
Honestly? I'd prefer an older DX9 card over the 2600 series
Reply
x

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.