2 2600xt ddr4 version in crossfire results

gareth170 · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:00

i've found out Fraps slows it down, because i tryed it with CSS it slowed it right down to 20fps.. so i think Fraps isn't good for benchmarking

Margaret · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:09

Fraps doesn't do anything to the frame rate unless you turn the recording on, otherwise it's just a FPS meter.

gareth170 · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:15

Jihad said:
Fraps doesn't do anything to the frame rate unless you turn the recording on, otherwise it's just a FPS meter.

wrong

Does Fraps have a performance impact on the game?

There is a small overhead associated with drawing the framerate on screen. This may vary depending on your system configuration, but should remain relatively minimal. The best way to measure it on your own system is to find a game that allows you to benchmark it and compare the results obtained with and without Fraps loaded.

When you are benchmarking the overlay is automatically disabled to provide the most accurate results.

see. it does...

Margaret · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:16

gareth170 said:
wrong

Then howcome with Fraps on and off I get the same performance in CSS stress test? :confused:

gareth170 · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:18

Jihad said:
Then howcome with Fraps on and off I get the same performance in CSS stress test?

Does Fraps have a performance impact on the game?

There is a small overhead associated with drawing the framerate on screen. This may vary depending on your system configuration, but should remain relatively minimal. The best way to measure it on your own system is to find a game that allows you to benchmark it and compare the results obtained with and without Fraps loaded.

When you are benchmarking the overlay is automatically disabled to provide the most accurate results.

lay-z-boy · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:18

gareth170 said:
wrong

see. it does...

It has 0.01fps difference between being on and off on my main two machines, something must be up.

Margaret · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:21

gareth170 said:
-

Well I'm not exactly wrong then.

gareth170 · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:27

hl2 2007-08-05 21-23-35-95
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2676, 61917, 5, 45, 43.219

see...

without fraps , it goes to 173fps

jaykay · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:44

There has to be something wrong i tested cod2 with the benchmarking and i had no performance issues.

gareth170 · 5 Aug 2007 at 21:51

its ok now... i forgot to reboot..

but it didn't ask to be rebooted so that why i just ran it.

anyway my fault..

im sorry..

gareth170 · 5 Aug 2007 at 22:06

anyway i rebenchmarked quake 4 and the results are the same as the first benchmarks for quake 4. so is the result good or bad for quake 4?

phi1 · 6 Aug 2007 at 09:28

I am considering this card! But im unsure if i should get the X1950 or the 2600XT! What would be a better card?

jrodga2k5 · 6 Aug 2007 at 09:51

phil14 said:
I am considering this card! But im unsure if i should get the X1950 or the 2600XT! What would be a better card?

Well the x1950pro is faster in the majority of cases but you can get an HD2600XT DDR3 brand new for £70 the x1950pro is slightly more expensive.

If it just purely for gaming I guess the x1950pro has the edge but the 2600XT is no slouch either. I've been suitably impressed with mines so far as long as you aint running AA at any level the cards can be very fast. They arent the finished article yet however as the drivers have yet to mature but that will come.

A plus point also to the 2600xt is the fact it doesnt require any external power unlike the x1950pro which can be fairly power hungry.

its your call but as I have said if its PURELY for gaming and you aint worrying about HD playback and stuff like that then the x1950pro would be the way to go

Scougar · 6 Aug 2007 at 09:55

I think the pro is only £76 on OCUK as well

Matthew

Margaret · 6 Aug 2007 at 10:33

phil14 said:
I am considering this card! But im unsure if i should get the X1950 or the 2600XT! What would be a better card?

Well, judging from other results I'd get the X1950, AA really takes a performance hit with the 2600.

J.D · 6 Aug 2007 at 10:46

Jihad said:
Well, judging from other results I'd get the X1950, AA really takes a performance hit with the 2600.

Yeah.

A top end card = Lots of AA and AF with HDR. High resolutions.

A mid-level card = Mess around with AA till it's playable, same with AF and with HDR. Resolution dependant on the eye candy settings (game dependant).

A low end card = No AA, No AF and No HDR. Lower resolutions.

The 2600 comes in at a mid level card but as Jihad has mentioned the performance hit for eye candy is less with the x19xx series.

Future driver releases could improve the x2900's performance hit but is it a gamble you are willing to take?.

phi1 · 6 Aug 2007 at 11:38

yeah i do game a bit, But, Iv been running a X1600PRO for ages and i thought the graphics were ok.. i play bf2, bf2142, css,half life, and a few others.. I will be running it on a 19inch wide screen.. Do you see much difference between the X1950 and the 2600XT?

gareth170 · 6 Aug 2007 at 12:13

phil14 said:
yeah i do game a bit, But, Iv been running a X1600PRO for ages and i thought the graphics were ok.. i play bf2, bf2142, css,half life, and a few others.. I will be running it on a 19inch wide screen.. Do you see much difference between the X1950 and the 2600XT?

i went from a 1600xt + x1650pro in crossfire to 1 2600xt and there was a big difference.

anyway do u mean u are considering getting 2 2600xt's or 1? if 1 then the 1950 would be faster but if 2 then the 2600xt would be faster..

the 2600 is great for media also..

Margaret · 6 Aug 2007 at 13:05

phil14 said:
yeah i do game a bit, But, Iv been running a X1600PRO for ages and i thought the graphics were ok.. i play bf2, bf2142, css,half life, and a few others.. I will be running it on a 19inch wide screen.. Do you see much difference between the X1950 and the 2600XT?

Well here's a benchie for BF2:

phi1 · 6 Aug 2007 at 13:49

Jihad said:
Well here's a benchie for BF2:

X1950PRO it is then!