Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

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

  1. #1
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    14,269
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked
    829 times in 469 posts
    • Steve's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i3-350M 2.27GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GiB Crucial DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 320GB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD3000
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.10

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

    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.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  2. #2
    Efficiency freak Queelis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    849
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked
    78 times in 72 posts
    • Queelis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450 Tomahawk MAX
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 5 3600
      • Memory:
      • Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4 32 GB 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • Adata XPG SX8200 PRO 512 GB, Toshiba E300 3TB, WD Green 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GeForce 1060 ITX OC 3GB
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet PurePower 10 600W
      • Case:
      • be quiet! Silent Base 601
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell P2414H
      • Internet:
      • Gbit
    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?

  3. #3
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,215
    Thanks
    1,526
    Thanked
    2,938 times in 2,381 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps
    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.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Smile Quality of Drivers

    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.

  5. #5
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    14,269
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked
    829 times in 469 posts
    • Steve's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i3-350M 2.27GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GiB Crucial DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 320GB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD3000
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.10
    We used a Cat 7.7 beta. I don't see how that's not current.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    109
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    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?

  7. #7
    Who the $%£# told you you could eat my cookies?! Oobie-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,291
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked
    17 times in 16 posts
    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?
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  8. #8
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,329
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked
    344 times in 189 posts
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member sawyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sheffield University
    Posts
    3,658
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    22 times in 21 posts
    • sawyen's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Laptop motherboard
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 740QM
      • Memory:
      • 8192MB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 256GB SSD, 1TB WD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD Mobility HD 5870
      • PSU:
      • MSI stuff
      • Case:
      • N/A
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 64bit
      • Internet:
      • Virgin ADSL rubbish
    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..
    Last edited by sawyen; 28-06-2007 at 04:48 PM.
    Me want Ultrabook


  10. #10
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,329
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked
    344 times in 189 posts
    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.

  11. #11
    Lovely chap dangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    8,385
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked
    449 times in 331 posts
    • dangel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • See My Sig
      • CPU:
      • See My Sig
      • Memory:
      • See My Sig
      • Storage:
      • See My Sig
      • Graphics card(s):
      • See My Sig
      • PSU:
      • See My Sig
      • Case:
      • See My Sig
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • See My Sig
      • Internet:
      • 60mbit Sky LLU
    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..
    System 001: Maximus VII Formula, 4790k i7, RTX 2080ti FE (incoming), 16GIG Corsair Vengence DDR3 RAM CL9, Corsair HX1000, ROG SWIFT PG278Q , SSDs, Antec 1200 case, All watercooled. [main]
    System 002: A8 3850 APU, ASUS uATX FM1A75 MB, 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3, Corsair psu, OCZ Agility 3, 1TB F3, Dell 2001FP 20" LCD, £7's worth of 5.1 speakers (they rock) Windows 7 x64[wife/server]
    System 003: AsRock MB, APU, 8 GIG Corsair, Silverstone HTPC case, stock cooler, GT220 1gbDDR3, WD Green 3TB, Kingston 40gb SSD, MCE Remote, Panasonic 50" LCD (87BDX) via HDMI Windows 8.1.1 (32) [media centre]
    System 004: Asus UL50AT Intel Core 2 Duo,4GB, Intel Gen 2 80GB SSD, Win 8.1.1 x64 [no justification]
    System 005: HP Proliant N40L Microserver, 4x2TB drives, fan mod, Pico PSU mod, Win7 x86 [file server]
    System 006: Dell Optiplex 9010, i7, 8gb, 128gb Samsung 830 x 2 (boot and VM drive), 1TB WD HDD, ATI something, Windows 8.1.1 x64 RTM [work]


  12. #12
    Senior Member sawyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sheffield University
    Posts
    3,658
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    22 times in 21 posts
    • sawyen's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Laptop motherboard
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 740QM
      • Memory:
      • 8192MB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 256GB SSD, 1TB WD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD Mobility HD 5870
      • PSU:
      • MSI stuff
      • Case:
      • N/A
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 64bit
      • Internet:
      • Virgin ADSL rubbish
    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..
    Me want Ultrabook


  13. #13
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    34,414
    Thanks
    2,706
    Thanked
    2,816 times in 1,732 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1060
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by blw37 View Post
    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)
    Last edited by blw37; 29-06-2007 at 01:20 AM.

  15. #15
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,329
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked
    344 times in 189 posts
    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.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    20 times in 9 posts
    • Toobad's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z87-Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 4770K
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 8Gb Crucial Ballistix Sport
      • Storage:
      • 240GB + 120GB Sandisk Extreme SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus HD 7750 1Gb DDR5
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Straight Power 480W Gold
      • Case:
      • Fractal Designs Define R4
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 3007WFP-HC
      • Internet:
      • BT ADSL Max
    So the drivers automatically route the sound through the card! I wonder how many n00bs like myself would have RMAed their mobo citing a faulty sound chip?

    Oh, and the UVD doesn't actually work at all with Vista64 according to Beyond3D's review! People insane enough to want to pair a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating system must only represent a microscopic percentage of the card-buying market.

    Could you imagine this conversation in a car showroom - "The manufacture hasn't quite perfected the technique of connecting the wheels to the steering but if you just soldier on for now I'm sure the techies will come up with some kind of solution shortly. That will be £20k please and, of course, I saw you coming so I'll throw in some mats and mudflaps for free"
    Apparently, "Do whatever you like" should NOT be considered authorisation to build my uber rig!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •