Review: AMD Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT - saviours or sinners - Graphics - HEXUS.net

Thoughts, awards, HEXUS.right2reply, further reading

Congratulations on getting this far, folks.

We began with some architectural facts and figures showing both the Radeon HD 2600 XT and 2400 XT models in a decent comparative light against their NVIDIA counterparts, especially with price factored in.

There were no surprises on our pictorial tour of the two SKUs headlining each class. Various-clocked PROs fill out the rest of the RV610/630 line-up and all are differentiated on clock speeds rather than further architecture chops, just as one would expect.

The hardware designers may now be sitting back, content that their DX10-supporting mid-range 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 mid-range and low-end parts.

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

Performance is so poor that the card is often outclassed by a Radeon X1650 XT - and totally caned by a similarly-priced, albeit DX9, Radeon X1950 Pro.

With time so limited, we were left still needing to investigate DX10 performance, so, for AMD's sake, let's hope the RV630 can pull its socks up by the time that testing is carried out.

We've rightfully - and repeatedly - lamented the lacklustre performance of NVIDIA's GeForce 8500/8600 cards, yet in comparison to the HD 2600, they seem fast. Only the HD 2400 XT's in our low-end look demonstrated any kind of real promise.

AMD's woes are further compounded by additional driver-related problems that plague high-def playback via UVD *.

I could, and maybe should, write another thousand words on why the Radeon HD 2000 series isn't quite ready for public consumption. But I'm going to save myself the bother - and you the headache.

How? By stating that AMD needs to have its drivers in full working order before rolling out new SKUs. And that could never be more true of products such as the Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT that can, potentially, make or break the company's graphics arm.

Our p(review) was released on time, as per AMD's NDA date, yet, we feel, many of the minor issues we encountered could have been solved with earlier sampling.

This is not a vitriolic fanboy tirade against AMD. Rather, it's objective fact. Care to disagree? You're more than welcome to in the HEXUS.community.

Bottom line? There's a heap of promise in the Radeon HD 2400/2600 series. But that promise is concealed - and severely compromised - by the lacklustre performance and instability caused by the test drivers.

We're thoroughly dismayed that we have to say this but we have no choice but to await a better-performing set before passing final judgement.

* Update - 29/06/07: However, as you will see from the update on the previous page we've now managed to get UVD working correctly with PowerDVD.

Awards?

We'd normally use this section to confer awards based upon the benchmark data and conclusion above. However, due to non-optimised drivers and poor Avivo HD performance, we need to reserve judgement until retail cards pass through the labs.

HEXUS Right2Reply

At HEXUS.net, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any of AMD's representatives choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.

HEXUS related reading

HEXUS Forums :: 19 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!

Posted by Queelis - Thu 28 Jun 2007 08:38

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?

Posted by kalniel - Thu 28 Jun 2007 09:00

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

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

Posted by blw37 - Thu 28 Jun 2007 11:11

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.:)

Posted by Steve - Thu 28 Jun 2007 11:21

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

Posted by PD HEXUS - Thu 28 Jun 2007 11:46

hi blw37,

blw37
If I read the review correctly…

i'm afraid you weren't…

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

SEE NEWER »

Review: AMD Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT - saviours or sinners

Thoughts, awards, HEXUS.right2reply, further reading

Awards?

HEXUS Right2Reply

HEXUS related reading

Related Reading

HEXUS Forums :: 19 Comments

Login with Forum Account

MY HEXUS

EVENTS

INDUSTRY PRESS RELEASES

User Name
Password