Published on 14th August 2007 by
Originally Posted by antiHeroVery good read there!
I am actually looking into buying one of these cards but now i have to consider otherwise. Is it really so that a last gen. card gives you a better value for money then the current gens? And whats about the 512mb models of both cards?
Originally Posted by xionGreat read, yet dissapointing these midrange cards still fall behind my aged and cheaper x1950pro, no wonder people (read: Technophobes) get confused with nomenclature and prices when upgrading...
on a tangent... anyone have an opinion weather it'd be worth lumping another in for crossfire considering they're so cheap?
Originally Posted by Seraphim WorksAh, it's a refreshing change when 1680x1050 is used in reviews, makes comparisons for me that little more tangible. Especially when I can see my x1950pro still holding up alright.
I would have thought that a 256bit memory interface would have made it onto cards like the 2600 et al by now as well, why are AMD and Nvidia still dragging the cards down with 128bit?
Originally Posted by AmonContrastingly, there was no mention of fan noise.
Originally Posted by AmonAh thanks, Tim. I must've missed it when reading lightly =/
Originally Posted by jeff_vs...
Will these ATI/AMD internal audio controllers override the audio of the Auzentech, or work in conjunction with it? I have never seen a setup in windows that allows 2 audio controllers to be used at once.
I like the idea of having one audio controller that does Dolby Live or DTS Connect, but I don't want to compromise on performance just to get a card that has an HDMI hole with SPDIF from an external source. The HD video comparison favoured the 2600XT over the 8600GT, but the GTS is not shown. Would I expect marginaly better performance, but still worse than the 2600XT?
Originally Posted by arcanesI guess for a 22inch 1680x1050 monitor, you need a high end card to play at playable frame rates. a shame :(
About the whole "Deep Color" thing HDMi 1.3 can pass through. it's just a marketing trick. HD DVD/Blu-ray DOESN'T support "Deep Color" and never will.the specifications of both formats just doesn't include the option to support a higher color format, so you will have to find another way to play your HD movies in "Deep Color". that, by itself, makes the whole HDMI 1.3 feature "deep color" useless. and say you have got a format that supports "Deep Color". well it will help you to know that today, nothing is done in "Deep Color"(expect for special uses), so there will be nothing to play in the superior "Deep Color" format.
to the companies for misleading everyone.
Originally Posted by Tim SWe had a discussion about this before the article was published and we've got both TVs and an HD DVD set top box player that support Deep Colour in house. We're waiting for software and, fwiw, every studio we've spoken to has said that Deep Colour is on the roadmap.
Originally Posted by korhojoaokay: so simple question:
someone who plays not-so-new games, and just wants something that will play video smoothly, what should this person get?
games in question: cs:s, wow and currently has a x550 which struggles with both. would the x1950 pro or any of these newer ones be better?
Originally Posted by Da Dego
If your soundcard has two or more SPDIF outputs that can be used simultaneously, you might have a winner there with the NVidia board.
Originally Posted by Da DegoDeep colour blah blah blah. It's scientifically believed that the human eye tops out at around 10 bits per channel, and that's pretty much the north bound of a very colour sensitive person. Figure that men see colour worse than women to begin with, then factor in that ~8% of men are colour blind to some degree anyway and you leave me wondering...why do we care? :)
"Truecolor" (24b+alpha) is statistically more than what about 90% of this forum can actually differentiate...which makes me really wonder why you think studios would work hard to bring "deep colour" in as anything more than a phantom marketing ploy, since not just the majority but surely all but a select sliver of the audience couldn't tell anyhow.
The Radeon HD 2600 XT GDDR4, on the other hand performs worse than the GeForce 8600 GT in four of the five titles we’ve tested with anti-aliasing, but fares a lot better against the 8600 GT when you disable anti-aliasing. On that front, the HD 2600 XT GDDR4 looks to have taken a leaf out of the Radeon HD 2900 XT’s book and seems to solidify the fact that there is something seriously wrong with AMD's anti-aliasing performance on its HD 2000-series of products.
Originally Posted by Da Dego
Would people be interested in this? Because I'd be happy to do one.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
29th August 2014
© Copyright bit-tech