Categories:

F.E.A.R.

03:28 - Monday 17 September 2007 by Don Woligroski
Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: the, radeon, 2600xt, remixed
Categories: Hardware

F.E.A.R.

Ad

At 1024x768, the 8600 GT dominates the 2600 XT in this title. The strange thing is that the minimum frame rates stay relatively close.

As resolution increases, the race becomes tighter, but the GeForce still enjoys a comfortable lead over the 2600 XT. While both cards are technically playable at 1600x1200 with an average frame rate over 35 and a minimum frame rate over 20, most users would probably prefer the smoother 1280x960 resolution.

With 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, the only playable combination is the 8600 GT, which musters passable performance at 1024x768. The 2600 XT can only manage a minimum frame rate of 12 fps at 1024x768, which isn’t something I’d consider playable.

While this is a solid victory for the 8600 GT, remember that the 2600 XT can muster a frame rate in the same neighborhood at 1600x1200 with no AA or AF enabled.


Talkback
mactronix 19/09/2007 10:02
Hide
-0+
mactronix
How much more performance inprovement would it be sensable to expect from the drivers and partner overclocking?
Would it say get to the point where it would be viable for those with 7600gt and x1650xt cards to change over to these new "midrange cards" ?
Mactronix
dev1se 11/10/2007 08:51
Hide
-0+
dev1se
Ive just upgraded from HD2600XT's (DDR4) in Crossfire mode and their performance as a single card solution were poor to say the least but very good in Crossfire (equal to that of HD2900XT/PRO on 3DMark06 - around 9,000-10,000 with 5000+ AMD)... but if you're upgrading from a 7600GT or X1650XT then I very much doubt there'll be much difference apart from the HD benefits. These cards are hugely limiting themselves with the 128-bit bus and it shows at high res's... maybe wait for the next wave of midrange cards to be released that could have 256-bit memory bus.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



  •
Submit my comment
Google Ads