2 2600xt ddr4 version in crossfire results

[gareth170]

in crossfire mode:

3DMark Score 7325 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 3054 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 3711 Marks
CPU Score 1667 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=2634074

i single card mode:

3DMark Score 4770 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 1742 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 2164 Marks
CPU Score 1686 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=2580585

as u can see its a big different with 2 cards...

i will do more tests tonight in games then ill post the results here...

 

[gareth170]

You can get a 2900XT for £8 more then two of these =/

i payed total £164... so no a extra £8 wouldn't of got me a 2900XT

 

[gareth170]

I paid 140 quid for a pair of OcUK 8600GT cards and in SLI they got over 9k, almost 1.5k more than the 2600XTs

but your MB is nvidia. mine isn't and i wasn't prepared to buy another MB..

and i bet yours is overclocked?

 

[gareth170]

Should've paid 16 quid extra for a GTS.

i don't like nvidia

 

[gareth170]

may i ask a question.

why buy 2 cards, when 1 card for say, £20 max more, would outperform them in every situation?

im not trying to have a dig at you or anything

1. its your saying that card is nvidia i wouldn't touch it

2. i bought my first 2600xt about 3-4 weeks ago i only did a limit to spend. i couldn't wait because my old cards was dieing...

 

[gareth170]

sorry to say this but its up to me which i buy and if i say i don't like nvidia thats my choice..

im posting the 2600xt crossfire results because some people was intrested.. it wasn't so people could say "u should have got another card or why buy 2 when 1 can be better"

im happy with what i got...

 

[gareth170]

well your money your choice, so i gotta respect that

but im sure you may regret it though in the future when the resale value of them is very low

i won't regret it because when i choose to sale them i will sale them with a system...

 

[gareth170]

The way some of you talk it's as if he bought the cards using your money...

thats the feeling i get also..

i don't mean u ergonomics

 

[gareth170]

Any idea what power they are drawing gareth? I would be interested to know, these cards don't have an external power connector or do they? I can't remember if the slot delivers 75w or 150w . If they are only drawing 150w total doesn't sound too shabby.

a pci-e slot delivers 75w.. the card doesn't have an external power connector .. so it'll be total 150w or less depending on load..

 

[gareth170]

Yup both the cards and the cpu were clocked. Hadnt noticed your on an AMD rig

well that why your score is higher..

 

[gareth170]

Hows the overlocking on the cards, in most reviews thye could only get the core to 850mhz and memory 2300mhz.???

i havent tryed overlocking it yet.

 

[gareth170]

That's if they both use 75w peak from the PCI-E slot, so 150w for two, if that's right, could be wrong and probably is.

http://shsc.info/PCIExpress

PCIe 16X slots are also able to supply more power to video cards, up to 75W per slot compared to only 40W for AGP. This is a logical move, considering the skyrocketing power requirements for latest-generation graphics accelerators: the GeForce 6800 Ultra, for instance, draws a massive 72W at full load. Unfortunately, high-end PCIe video card will still require a direct connection to the PSU in order to ensure a clean supply of power. This is done through a new type of connector, which should avoid having to run the video card on the same power cable as hard drives or other power-hungry devices.

 

[gareth170]

deleted

 

[gareth170]

CCS benchmark results:

single card mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

single card mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with no AA and 16x AF:

crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with no AA and 16x AF:

 

[gareth170]

Hmm bit odd, my 7900GTO got well over 130 odd with 4xAA/16xAF with all on High @ 1440x900, AA really takes a hit on them, what bit-interface are they?

128bit..

maybe its down to the drivers. because i've got the slow menu problem issue back in Lost Planet Extreme Condition

 

[gareth170]

ummmm. i've just tryed it in vista with the same settings. crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

much faster then xp.

 

[gareth170]

Next time don't forget to click apply when you set the AA and AF..

i did it again in xp the result was still 70fps.. so vista is faster for the one

 

[gareth170]

vista:
3DMark Score 7320 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 3161 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 3718 Marks
CPU Score 1589 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2643185http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=2643185
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 25.197 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 27.479 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 0.5 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 0.808 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 35.761 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 38.6 FPS


xp:
3DMark Score 7325 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 3054 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 3711 Marks
CPU Score 1667 Marks
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 23.894 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 27.007 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 0.525 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 0.846 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 36.063 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 38.147 FPS

vista is higher on the SM 2.0 and SM 3.0

 

[gareth170]

one thing, your 3Dmark links don't work, i think you need to use a compare url so we can check em out.

it can only do 1 compare url as a time?

try the link again...

 

[gareth170]

Go to your project details and choose the one you want to compare and then check the publish box and then update, a compare url will appear, use that as your link.

Edit, see you got it working, scrap what i said.

u see vista is higher on the SM 2.0 and SM 3.0, its only on the cpu that its abit down