Which would be better value?

jrodga2k5 · 14 Sep 2007 at 15:44

lol the 2600xt in crossfire is NO WHERE NEAR the performance of an 8800GTS and that is the truth. I dont care what anyone says, I do own them also and they are so far off its unreal as I have had the 8800GTS 320MB myself which I had to sell for my holiday. The fact is as soon as you put on AA the cards are crippled in more complex and the latest titles. Sure they run pretty well on their own and in crossfire(when its supported) but the 8800GTS 320MB itself has a lot more oomph and horsepower. Any scenario you can think of to put the cards against each other the 8800GTS 320 will no doubt win by a very healthy margin.
To say the 2600xt is on a par with the 8800GTS is clearly nonsence so dont listen to anything about that.
I would also hope the 2900pro runs faster than 2x2600xt's and I expect that it should.

jrodga2k5 · 14 Sep 2007 at 15:49

gareth170 said:
in bioshock at 1680x1050 i get over 35fps. on 1 card
in FEAR at 1680 x 1050 4 x aa, 16 x af, i got over 40fps
in Medal of Honor Airborne at 1680x1050 i get 47fps av , on 1 card

Dont trust your result in Bioshock one bit im afraid to say mate. The game on High settings is terrible as the 256MB of ram is way to limited for it at the 128bit bus. I have it and running at 1280x1024 the game isnt exactly smooth and the toms hardware results for that game seem fairly accurate for the resolution they have it at. I lowered to 1024x768 just to get more stable frame rates for an altogether better experience

gareth170 · 14 Sep 2007 at 15:56

jrodga2k5 said:
Dont trust your result in Bioshock one bit im afraid to say mate. The game on High settings is terrible as the 256MB of ram is way to limited for it at the 128bit bus. I have it and running at 1280x1024 the game isnt exactly smooth and the toms hardware results for that game seem fairly accurate for the resolution they have it at

remember different systems,. i don't really care if u believe or not. i know im telling the truth...

as for 256mb, the 2xxx series can share system memory... my video memory total is 2gb

jrodga2k5 · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:02

gareth170 said:
remember different systems,. i don't really care if u believe or not. i know im telling the truth...

as for 256mb, the 2xxx series can share system memory... my video memory total is 2gb

Nah the whole turbo cache stuff doesnt really work well anyways so I wouldnt bother counting that.

Anyways you can claim 35fps at high settings @ 1680x1050 in Bioshock but I know that aint possible on one HD2600XT but hey whatever.

I'm just selling my 2nd card now since there seems to be no point in having both at the moment anyways. Gonna wait it out a bit and probably go back to the 8800 or see what the 2900pro/8700gts have to offer

gareth170 · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:08

jrodga2k5 said:
Anyways you can claim 35fps at high settings @ 1680x1050 in Bioshock but I know that aint possible on one HD2600XT but hey whatever.

so u saying im lieing? lol you don't use my system, u even haven't seen it so u can't really say.... u can only say about yours really...

if someone gets higher results, so what.... u can't say that person wrong just because he/she got a better result than others..

it's same with 2900xt/and other cards some people are getting better results than other people

jrodga2k5 · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:23

gareth170 said:
so u saying im lieing? lol you don't use my system, u even haven't seen it so u can't really say.... u can only say about yours really...

Dont want to say you are lying but those Bioshock results seem fairly unrealistic from my own experience with the game and also the benchmarks around the net. I know not to trust them most of the time but you are reporting figures that dont come close to any of them as yours are way out in front. :rolleyes:

And I am aware different PC's get different results but its not like your PC is so far in front of mines that this would be the case in Bioshock im afraid

willhub · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:29

No one should ever trust those Toms Hardware benchmarks, they are totally wrong from my experience.

gareth170 · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:31

jrodga2k5 said:
Dont want to say you are lying but those Bioshock results seem fairly unrealistic from my own experience with the game and also the benchmarks around the net. I know not to trust them most of the time but you are reporting figures that dont come close to any of them as yours are way out in front. And I am aware different PC's get different results but its not like your PC is so far in front of mines that this would be the case in Bioshock im afraid

my point is u can't say im wrong / or lieing because u haven't see it running on my system with your own eyes...

u see what im getting at?

gareth170 · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:37

willhub said:
No one should ever trust those Toms Hardware benchmarks, they are totally wrong from my experience.

i don't trust any benchmark sites.

but every system is different. one system may performance better and another system may performance poorly.. thats just how it is...

willhub · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:40

gareth170 said:
i don't trust any benchmark sites.

but every system is different. one system may performance better and another system may performance poorly.. thats just how it is...

Yea I suppose so, but those toms hardware benchmarks are like totally way out compared to most others, I take most benchmarks with a pinch of salt now.

Greebo · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:50

willhub said:
Yea I suppose so, but those toms hardware benchmarks are like totally way out compared to most others, I take most benchmarks with a pinch of salt now.

Maybe so and they should only be used to compare cards eg if one card is 20% faster than another, it probably is.

But my point is that a 2600xt can not do high quality (aa, af) at 1600 x 1200 and needs to be run at 1280 x 1024 or even 1024 x 768 in some games.

I have not seen a review or website that contradicts that eg guru3d, xbit labs etc. unless somebody can correct me?

And if it is true then why the hell are all of us buying 8800 cards? Have I just forked out three times as much money as I should have to get playable framerates at 1600 x 1200 or 1600 x 1050?

willhub · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:53

Greebo said:
Maybe so and they should only be used to compare cards eg if one card is 20% faster than another, it probably is.

But my point is that a 2600xt can not do high quality (aa, af) at 1600 x 1200 and needs to be run at 1280 x 1024 or even 1024 x 768 in some games.

I have not seen a review or website that contradicts that eg guru3d, xbit labs etc. unless somebody can correct me?

And if it is true then why the hell are all of us buying 8800 cards? Have I just forked out three times as much money as I should have to get playable framerates at 1600 x 1200 or 1600 x 1050?

I seen in an earlier post you posted benchmarks at 1680x1050 in Bioshock and F.E.A.R, were these benchmarks done with your system? If so, something is very wrong tbh.

Has any of your m8's got a 2600XT or something?

Greebo · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:57

willhub said:
I seen in an earlier post you posted benchmarks at 1680x1050 in Bioshock and F.E.A.R, were these benchmarks done with your system? If so, something is very wrong tbh.

Has any of your m8's got a 2600XT or something?

Yes they were done on my system. Not quite sure what you mean by "very wrong" Are they much lower than they should be with a 8800 GTS? EDIT: Just realised you meant the ones I posted from Toms Hardware for a 2600xt. I thought I had posted my results with my GTS.

I'm not having a go at the 2600 xt but when I was looking for an upgraded graphics card and asking on this forum, not once did anybody say get a 2600xt and save a packet of money, it will run 30 -60 fps in every game at 1600 x 1050. If they had I would have bought a 2600xt.

What has changed?

uv · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:58

gareth170 said:
u trust benchmark sites?? i don't...

in bioshock at 1680x1050 i get over 35fps. on 1 card
in FEAR at 1680 x 1050 4 x aa, 16 x af, i got over 40fps
in Medal of Honor Airborne at 1680x1050 i get 47fps av , on 1 card

Christ wth processor do you have? Those fps seem a *touch* excessive for a X2600xt - like, comparable with my X1950pro-turbo.
The x2600xt is meant to get ~25fps at 1600x1200 in CoD2, a fairly old game now, and that's with a C2D QX6800!

gareth170 · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:58

Greebo said:
Maybe so and they should only be used to compare cards eg if one card is 20% faster than another, it probably is.

But my point is that a 2600xt can not do high quality (aa, af) at 1600 x 1200 and needs to be run at 1280 x 1024 or even 1024 x 768 in some games.

I have not seen a review or website that contradicts that eg guru3d, xbit labs etc. unless somebody can correct me?

And if it is true then why the hell are all of us buying 8800 cards? Have I just forked out three times as much money as I should have to get playable framerates at 1600 x 1200 or 1600 x 1050?

i agree AA slows down the 2600xt a lot but AF doesn't...

i never play with AA, to be honest i can't see the differents...

willhub · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:59

Greebo said:
Yes they were done on my system. Not quite sure what you mean by "very wrong" Are they much lower than they should be with a 8800 GTS?

I'm not having a go at the 2600 xt but when I was looking for an upgraded graphics card and asking on this forum, not once did anybody say get a 2600xt and save a packet of money, it will run 30 -60 fps in every game at 1600 x 1050. If they had I would have bought a 2600xt.

What has changed?

"Bioshock, no aa, no af, 1600 x 1200 av 22 fps, min 11 fps Hardly smooth or playable?

Though at 1024 x 768 it gets 29 av and 23 min which I suppose you could just get by with.

FEAR: 1600 x 1200 4 x aa, 8 x af 16 av, 5 min - no chance"

You average should be around 40-60 at that res in Bioshock.

F.E.A.R, your average should also be higher, like 30-50?

gareth170 · 14 Sep 2007 at 17:02

uvmain said:
Christ wth processor do you have? Those fps seem a *touch* excessive for a X2600xt - like, comparable with my X1950pro-turbo.
The x2600xt is meant to get ~25fps at 1600x1200 in CoD2, a fairly old game now, and that's with a C2D QX6800!

amd 6000+

who said the x2600xt must only get 25fps at 1600x1200 in CoD2...so if someone gets 29fps or 30fps that isn't allowed?

this is getting silly.. if im getting a better results than other people , so what... it doesn't mean im wrong/or lieing...

if someone gets a better results than me, i would say thats great, i wouldn't say that person is wrong/or lieing...

willhub · 14 Sep 2007 at 17:30

It seems like now and again on the forums, we get some people that have similar specs to other people, but there performance is through the roof compared to other people, so I can understand how you can get these results, I mean a guy on here with a GTS clocks to 710/2.2 and an E6400 clocked to 3.6Ghz gets near GTX results and his performance is awsome yet people with comparable rigs to him have a lot lower results, it's like you find the occasional golden nougat

queamin · 14 Sep 2007 at 17:31

willhub said:
It seems like now and again on the forums, we get some people that have similar specs to other people, but there performance is through the roof compared to other people, so I can understand how you can get these results, I mean a guy on here with a GTS clocks to 710/2.2 and an E6400 clocked to 3.6Ghz gets near GTX results and his performance is awsome yet people with comparable rigs to him have a lot lower results, it's like you find the occasional golden nougat

Was he playing in 4 bit colour

willhub · 14 Sep 2007 at 17:33

queamin said:
Was he playing in 4 bit colour

Is that even possible lol?