X1950 or HD2600?

Paul_Canning · 11 Oct 2007 at 22:41

what gives? the prices are roughly the same, yet isnt the HD2600 a better card then the 1950?

im looking to build a budget rig soon, for playing TF2 and HG:L, which is the better card to go for? and what RAM size?

help me understand this one please peeps!

ta

badbob · 11 Oct 2007 at 22:43

I don't think it is, 1950 is a faster previous gen card. But the 2600 has HD video acceleration, uses less power and chucks out less heat.

The 2600 is suitable for a HTPC.

Paul_Canning · 11 Oct 2007 at 22:54

HTPC?

So for my gaming, the X1950 is a better option?

J.D · 12 Oct 2007 at 01:49

Yes. The x1950 is better for gaming in DX9

.

Margaret · 12 Oct 2007 at 02:43

X1950 is far better.

gareth170 · 12 Oct 2007 at 11:49

Paul_Canning said:
what gives? the prices are roughly the same, yet isnt the HD2600 a better card then the 1950?

im looking to build a budget rig soon, for playing TF2 and HG:L, which is the better card to go for? and what RAM size?

help me understand this one please peeps!

ta

depends what u use your pc for... the 2600 does media better then the 1950 but the 1950 does dx9 games better then the 2600 but im not say the 1950 and 2600 are so far apart in dx9 gaming, new drivers have speeded up the 2600 a lot, i don't know if they have on the 1950

psychas · 12 Oct 2007 at 12:02

hd2900pro tbh save bit more cash

gareth170 · 12 Oct 2007 at 12:18

psychas said:
hd2900pro tbh save bit more cash

but they are nearly at the end of the line so he'll need to find the money pretty quickie

Paul_Canning · 12 Oct 2007 at 12:41

am i also right in thinking then that getting the 2600 for dx10 is pretty worthless?

im sticking with XP unless Vista + a dx10 card proves to be mind blowing.

gareth170 · 12 Oct 2007 at 13:41

Paul_Canning said:
am i also right in thinking then that getting the 2600 for dx10 is pretty worthless?

im sticking with XP unless Vista + a dx10 card proves to be mind blowing.

2600 + dx10 isn't bad at all, the new drivers helped them a lot..

theres not many games that uses the full features of dx10.... crysis will be the big test i guess...

psychas · 12 Oct 2007 at 14:34

hd2600 useless at its own it cant handle dx10 maybe to of them but not one get hd2900 pro or wait for 2850 pro

gareth170 · 12 Oct 2007 at 15:08

theres just to give u an idea of a 2600 performance in dx10... everything max, 1650x1050, single card....

2007-10-12 14:53:23 - Bioshock
Frames: 6814 - Time: 243037ms - Avg: 30.037 - Min: 21 - Max: 49

it isn't too bad...

J.D · 13 Oct 2007 at 14:31

Paul_Canning said:
am i also right in thinking then that getting the 2600 for dx10 is pretty worthless?

im sticking with XP unless Vista + a dx10 card proves to be mind blowing.

It's not worthless but it's not mind blowing either. As Gareth has said. The 2600XT isn't too far behind the x1950 in gaming but as far as I know it's still behind.

If your staying with XP then I'd stay with the x1950. I've got a 2900 and I'm only using XP with no intentions of using Vista yet. Also the newer drivers I feel are concentrating on Vista DX10 performances mainly but that doesn't mean there are no new XP gains for x1000 series cards.

My gaming was fine on XP with my X1900 card and I only changed on Monday past

.

phatboy · 18 Oct 2007 at 12:54

gareth170 said:
theres just to give u an idea of a 2600 performance in dx10... everything max, 1650x1050, single card....

2007-10-12 14:53:23 - Bioshock
Frames: 6814 - Time: 243037ms - Avg: 30.037 - Min: 21 - Max: 49

it isn't too bad...

That aint bad atall....my 1950 is only just beating that in DX9 mode on my system....i am still so tempted by 2 of these cards

gareth170 · 18 Oct 2007 at 13:49

phatboy said:
That aint bad atall....my 1950 is only just beating that in DX9 mode on my system....i am still so tempted by 2 of these cards

well since 7.10 drivers been released bioshock as crossfire now which gives it a nice boost, 60+ fps..

if u do get 2 of theses cards u may need to clock your cpu to 2.80 or 3ghz. because i had a x2 3800 at 2000mhz and i was cpu limited so i clocked it to 2400mhz but still was holding it back but not to much , so i clocked it to 2800mhz and the cards ran faster..

phatboy · 18 Oct 2007 at 18:17

fair play....i think i can do that, it boots at 2.65ghz so i reckon it should hit 2.8, i just havent had time to mess around with the pc for ages

MumboJumbo · 18 Oct 2007 at 18:22

psychas said:
hd2900pro tbh save bit more cash

I wouldn't listern to anything he says as he pritty much bones his 2900xt as we found out on other threads. As according to him his 2900xt "pwns" every other card in existance. Even though the GTX and ultra have time and time again proved otherwize. Infact even the GTS is a good rival to it and the new ones will likely be better. No im not a fan boy of the greens as someone tryed to point out then relised i am just pointing out the facts that nvida clearly have the winning design and tbh if ati are just going to overclock the 2900s and sell them with higher clock speeds and smaller dies they probably will keep lossing.

gareth170 said:
2600 + dx10 isn't bad at all, the new drivers helped them a lot..

theres not many games that uses the full features of dx10.... crysis will be the big test i guess...

True it has boosted its performance but the 1950 is hands down better for gaming as the card is just not powerful enough for proper dx10 features. If your basing it on bioshock then that doesn't count as it was pritty much just water features. Crysis will kill that card.

gareth170 · 18 Oct 2007 at 19:09

8igdave said:
True it has boosted its performance but the 1950 is hands down better for gaming as the card is just not powerful enough for proper dx10 features. If your basing it on bioshock then that doesn't count as it was pritty much just water features. Crysis will kill that card.

but as phatboy said his 1950 only just beating that in DX9 mode. if i did it in dx9 it meant beat it...

gareth170 said:
gareth170 said:

theres just to give u an idea of a 2600 performance in dx10... everything max, 1650x1050, single card....

2007-10-12 14:53:23 - Bioshock
Frames: 6814 - Time: 243037ms - Avg: 30.037 - Min: 21 - Max: 49

it isn't too bad...

Click to expand...

phatboy said:

That aint bad atall....my 1950 is only just beating that in DX9 mode on my system....i am still so tempted by 2 of these cards

Click to expand...

MumboJumbo · 18 Oct 2007 at 19:41

was that with latest drivers on 1950? also what are the cost differences on the cards he used?

gareth170 · 18 Oct 2007 at 19:58

8igdave said:
was that with latest drivers on 1950? also what are the cost differences on the cards he used?

not sure what drivers he used..... i was using 7.10...

the 2600xt is cheaper then the 1950pro....

2600xt £61
1950pro £70

im not saying its perfect/best. but for the money it is very good..... maybe next month or two, i will upgrade to the rv670, but for now the 2 2600xt plays all my very well, also Unreal Tournament 3 Demo gets 65-70+fps at max settings, 1650x1050...