HEXUS.net - reviews :: AMD Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT

[Steve]

The hardware designers may now be sitting back, content that their DX10-supporting midrange SKUs are at least as compelling as the competition's. We'd pretty much agree, and reckon that AMD's been eminently sensible in castrating its midrange and low-end parts.

But, and it's a big, big but, the current drivers aren't realising the kind of performance we'd expect from a knowledge of the Radeon HD 2600 XT's setup...

The saga continues in the HEXUS.review.

[Queelis]

I think AMD is more hurt not having decent drivers and showing such awful performance of their cards than waiting a week or two and sorting out the 'niggles' (those are some big niggles). I suppose Hexus will be doing a re-review with updated drivers, right?

[kalniel]

Well done Hexus on getting as much into the review as you did

Queelis, the review states they'll be doing full reviews of actual retail cards, which should come with proper drivers.

[blw37]

If I read the review correctly, you were using a long since (in terms of graphics boards) superceded version of the catalyst drivers. Extremetech got very different results using more recent drivers. I am not saying that the product is good or bad, just that it seems a bit harsh to complain about the quality of the drivers when you are not using the current ones.

[Steve]

We used a Cat 7.7 beta. I don't see how that's not current.

[PD HEXUS]

hi blw37,

Originally Posted by blw37

If I read the review correctly...

i'm afraid you weren't...

Originally Posted by blw37

...you were using a long since (in terms of graphics boards) superceded version of the catalyst drivers.

...it seems a bit harsh to complain about the quality of the drivers when you are not using the current ones.

as our article shows, we were using the correct drivers, specifically supplied by AMD sometime on Monday afternoon, for these new products.



cheers,

PD

[Johnny Bravo]

OOOO SNAP!

One a more serious, and relevant, note this seems to be the case these days - manufacturers kicking their hardware out the door long before the software/BIOS/firmware developers have had a chance to properly write the relevant code. A quick tour round say the motherboard sections of various forums will show you a bewildering number of people would are put of simply because they do not want to be continually upgrading their BIOSes just to get things to work! It's the same for graphics cards these days - HD output that advertised not actually supported by drivers, various settings grayed out simply because there isn't the code to run them.

When was the last time you saw a review for a new generation product that was, in affect, ready for an end user?

[Oobie-]

Good info on whats going down for them at the mo. I hope they have sorted the drivers for the 2900xt at least.

How come you use the catalyst 7.1 for the x1950 and x1650 cards?

[Tarinder]

Oobie,

This sounds like an excuse but it's more of a reason, I hope.

We received the cards on Sunday evening and were working on other reviews during that time. There was simply no time to test older cards with the newest drivers before publication this morning.

In an ideal world, yes, every card would have the newest/most-capable driver and comparisons would be a little more valid.

However, if anything, the older drivers are hindering the performance of those cards, so switching to anything newer would make the Radeon HD 2600 XT look paler in comparison.

The UVD issue is still being investigated with AMD, by the way.

[sawyen]

I think these cards will do very well.. well, just my opinion..

They're cheap, they have everything on it.. 3D performance is abit iffy, but 100% functional.. the UVD stuff will mature with time.. and throw that into the world of OEM, u've just won urself a large deal..

Now for ppl like Dell or HP to make a high def media PC, all they need is one 2400XT, and they have basically everything on it without even the need for a fan.. they'll probably market the 2600XT for higher end MCPC, but still it basically have everything in it that should be functional when drivers mature..

The 2600/2400 may not break any speed records on gaming, it does however made a solid follow-up step to make a graphic card into a complete multimedia card ala those legendary all-in-wonders..

[Tarinder]

Sawyen,

I agree, actually. The architecture is sound and the price is competitive. We're just a bit narked that drivers that should work, especially with UVD, don't perform as well as they expected.

Had AMD waited a week and ironed out any problems the conclusion would have been different. As it stands today, as far as we're concerned, it's unfulfilled potential. Still, it's more of a software issue; the hardware is good.

[dangel]

Potentially very good Media Center cards then - very low power/heat etc. To be fair my 8600GTS isn't exactly wonderful driver wise either right now - in fact, it's terrible (and i'm not using it for gaming at all).

Certainly, i'd be interested in trying a 2400XT for comparison - at these prices i may well be tempted..

[sawyen]

yea.. i agree its a shame the software is abit iffy now.. they should be alot more organised on this point alone..

But that aside, its a sound architecture with alot to offer.. if ppl want a gaming card there will be better alternatives, but at that price with almost every HD media capability thrown in.. those prices/feature are really difficult to beat..

I think OEM is where its going to shine.. give it another refresh on Catalyst.. and these will sprout up like mushrooms in OEMs everywhere..

[Zak33]

Whatever the game requirements, it's clear that Radeon HD 2600 XT performance is, frankly, horrible. It's comfortably bested by a Radeon X1650 XT and wilfully thrashed by a Radeon X1950 Pro - a card that comes in at the same price.

Made me laugh......luckily this AMD/ATI fanboih will wait for someone to sort the drivers

[blw37]

Originally Posted by blw37

If I read the review correctly, you were using a long since (in terms of graphics boards) superceded version of the catalyst drivers. Extremetech got very different results using more recent drivers. I am not saying that the product is good or bad, just that it seems a bit harsh to complain about the quality of the drivers when you are not using the current ones.

Sorry, my bad. I was reading the reference to Catalyst 7.1 as being for all of the ATI cards.

On an altogether different note, why the huge gaps between 8800/2900 and 8600/2600 parts? The next best alternatives to today's "top of line" cards seems to be yesterday's "performance mainstream" (X1950 pro and 7950GT easily outperform the newer cards in most tests and the 7900GS in many)

[Tarinder]

We've managed to get UVD working with PowerDVD, finally. A number of reg hacks had to be employed before it played ball.

Check out the updated results on page 11.