backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 54 comment(s) - last by StevoLincolnit.. on May 13 at 10:35 PM
AMD's ATI Radeon HD 2600 features 120 stream processors

AMD’s next-generation graphics products are right around the corner. The next generation ATI Radeon HD 2000-series includes a top to bottom DirectX 10 lineup consisting of the HD2900, HD2600 and HD2400-series. Although DailyTech unveiled benchmarks of AMD’s upcoming ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT last week, details of the mainstream and value HD 2600 and HD2400-series have remained scarce.

AMD’s next-generation ATI Radeon HD 2600, based on the RV630 core, features 120 stream processing units with three SIMDs and two texture units. There will be two ATI Radeon HD 2600 GPUs: a Pro and XT model with different clock speeds and memory requirements.

AMD and add-in board partners will offer a variety of ATI Radeon HD 2600-based graphics cards. The different models include variations with GDDR4, GDDR3 and DDR2 memory in 512MB or 256MB configurations with or without video input and output capabilities.

Catering towards value users is the ATI Radeon HD 2400 with its 40 stream processors. Two SIMDs and one texture unit join the 40 stream processors. AMD plans to offer the ATI Radeon HD 2400 in Pro and LE models with varying configurations. ATI Radeon HD 2400-based graphics cards will have 256MB or 128MB of video memory. Add-in board manufacturers are free to set the output configuration, including VGA, dual-link DVI, video input/output, HDMI and DMS-59 outputs on ATI Radeon HD 2400-based graphics cards.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Price will make the difference
By cheetah2k on 5/7/2007 1:54:01 AM , Rating: 5
With Nvidia ruling the roost in terms of speed with their high end video cards, AMD/Ati will have to make sure these babies are cost efficient against the competition - 8400 to 8600. From speculators out there, Nvidia's low end options arent much better than their DX9 equivalents (bar the H.264 coding & DX10 advantages) and this is where AMD need to perform.

Value for $ AMD, value for $.....




RE: Price will make the difference
By Metroid on 5/7/2007 2:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it depends of facts put on board. I do not want to buy something that is just good on synthetic benchmarks. I like Nvidia G8 but for now I prefer ATI 2X HD models, but all will depend of Price/Performance for me.

If ATI is launching something inferior than its competitor, I just want the price will be also inferior. They were talking about the 2900XT that may cost around at $350 to $450. I just think $400 is just higher than I was expecting around $300.


By James Holden on 5/7/2007 2:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if inferior is the right word there


RE: Price will make the difference
By thartist on 5/7/2007 3:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Knowing that nvidias 8600 and 8500 are a total deception and LET MANY GAMERS DOWN, AMD/ATI MUST take the chance and win that segment of the v-card market. I mean it's not very often that nVIDIA screws it up and exposes his neck.

If AMD/ATI doesn't make it here, i won't have my mainstream DX10 card. I may have to wait for the next gen, and most possibly it's not only me.


RE: Price will make the difference
By 3kliksphilip on 5/7/2007 3:48:23 PM , Rating: 1
...What's wrong with the 8600? From what I've heard it's roughly the same as the best from the previous generation, only with added dx10 support. Doesn't seem too bad, especially with lower power requirements etc.


RE: Price will make the difference
By Angelus897 on 5/7/2007 4:24:45 PM , Rating: 3
Uhh.. the 7900/7950 cards outperform the 8600 by a large margin. The x1950 products even more so. Also, the 8600 is more expensive than those.


RE: Price will make the difference
By Ard on 5/7/2007 4:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
A misperception that people feel is necessary to spread everywhere they go:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM...

Keep reading.


RE: Price will make the difference
By shabby on 5/7/2007 6:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes Kyle Bennet and his canned benchmarks...


RE: Price will make the difference
By jarman on 5/7/2007 10:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah yes Kyle Bennet and his canned benchmarks...


You must be one of those kids who were really upset when you didn't see your pretty little video card perform as well as you knew it would...


RE: Price will make the difference
By shabby on 5/8/2007 6:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, my x1900xtx performed pretty well.


RE: Price will make the difference
By Ard on 5/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Price will make the difference
By phusg on 5/8/2007 4:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
If you actually read some of the article you would see that he isn't basing his opinion solely on benchmarks,
quote:
Many people look at the specifications alone and make a pre-conceived notion about performance before even reading what the gameplay experience actually is. We have it in our heads that a 128-bit memory bus is slow and 32 streaming processors doesn’t sound like a lot when we are used to seeing 96 mentioned for the 8800 GTS and 128 for the 8800 GTX.

I'm still not convinced though, as I too was under the impression that the X1950 was still pretty competitive. Anyone have another comparison review that supports Kyle's conclusions?


By Mojo the Monkey on 5/10/2007 1:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think you get it. Look at the retail price of the 8600GTS, and the current retail price of the X1950XT (not pro). I saw some for ~170 at newegg and they are a leap ahead of the pro. Why dont take a look at how those 2 stack up.

Comparisons should be about cards of the same price.


By shady28 on 5/8/2007 9:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
The post here that notes the low performance of the 8500/8600 is dead on.

The high end of Nvidia's new series, the 8600GTS, is slower in the majority of benchmarks than the older x19xx series ATI cards as well as Nvidia's own 79xx series.

See here :

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975...

Note the 8600GTS, top of the line for Nvidia's new midrange models is soundly beaten in FEAR by the X1950Gt, 7900GS, X1950 Pro, 7950GT, X19000XT. The reason I use FEAR as an example is that it is one of the games it does best in.

There are some places where the 8600GTS does well, but keep in mind the price of the 8600GTS (note the S) - the cheapest one at newegg at this moment is $175 for a 256MB variant.

For that, you can buy a 7950GT 512MB that will - in most cases - smash the 8600GTS in current games.


Top end not in my budget.
By Mitch101 on 5/7/2007 9:07:29 AM , Rating: 5
I dont know about the rest of you but I generally buy in the sub $200.00 range. 100FPS means nothing to me because my LCD monitor is 60fps anyhow and if it does the games I want to play at 60FPS at the resolution I prefer to play in then getting a more expensive card wont do me any good than to waste more money.

I would like a card that does h.264 natively but I would love to see video encoding drivers that could possibly utilize the GPU more than the CPU when re-encoding video.

I love the idea of physics built in because to me its all going to come down to eye candy. I know all GPU's can do physics however there are many ways to improve on this.

Im not upgrading my monitor any time soon so eye candy at my monitors native resolution means more than some ungodly resolution or freakish 300FPS. Video cards come and go but monitors generally last me 4 or more years.

I like the idea of the audio being decoded on the card as well because of the possibility of watching some HD content on my pc. Generally I use my HDTV for that but I have a projector hooked to my PC so I dont live in fear of having a blank screen when H.264 content is played back through the PC because of DRM infections.

With that being said I could care less about the top end because no game company in thier right mind releases a game that will only play on the top end hardware. So it not like a paticular game will come out that I wont be able to play.

Heck my X850XT is still banging out decent frame rates but Its time for me to be DX10 even though most games for the next year will still be DX9 maybe even longer since the adoption rate of Vista is slow and DX10 is a Vista Exclusive.

Microsoft - Halo 2 is not a reason to upgrade to DX10. It was a lousy game. Even the developer admitted they didnt like it. Gears of War might be worthy of the DX10 move.




RE: Top end not in my budget.
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2007 9:26:18 AM , Rating: 1
1) Vista adoption rate has been relatively high.

2) Halo 2 isn't DX10 anyway. And Gears of War isn't even announced for PC yet.


RE: Top end not in my budget.
By Mitch101 on 5/7/2007 10:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
1) Vista's adoption rate has actually been very slow and problematic. Most places (Dell, HP, IBM) have forced the hands at Microsoft and have been re-selling XP because of the lack of driver support. It wont be until service pack 1 in august/sept that Vista starts moving forward.

2) Microsoft has said Halo 2 will be a DX10 title but it was such a lousy game for the X-Box its not like DX10 owners are getting a treat with it.

Gears of war would be a much more worthy title but we all know this isnt going to happen.


RE: Top end not in my budget.
By Angelus897 on 5/7/2007 4:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's a DX9 title, just Vista mandatory.


RE: Top end not in my budget.
By kalak on 5/7/2007 10:59:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Im not upgrading my monitor any time soon so eye candy at my monitors native resolution means more than some ungodly resolution or freakish 300FPS. Video cards come and go but monitors generally last me 4 or more years.


I agree. If a Video Card can give me 60 FPS at 1280x1024 with all the eye candies on (4X AA, Shadows, etc...), it worth my money !

quote:
no game company in thier right mind releases a game that will only play on the top end hardware


that's not true...
what about FEAR, FARCRY, QUAKE 4, ELDER SCROLLS IV ?

these games was (and some still are!) bare playable with cards in the sub $200.00 range.
I hear someone say that "- I play FEAR at 15 FPS and it's NOT a problem to me!" but is really WEIRD ! The fact is that a FPS like FEAR or QUAKE running at 15 FPS is a pain in the ass! ;-)


RE: Top end not in my budget.
By Angelus897 on 5/7/2007 4:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
My Athlon XP 2600+ & 7600GS runs Far Cry maxed out at 1680x1050, Quake 4 almost maxed out (not a 512mb card, so no ultra setting) at 1280x1024. Fear runs at 1024x768 with med-high settings.