PCPerspective is one of the sites that has considered these products from a price / efficiency point of view, and their conclusions don't bode well for AMD.

The 2600 XT, that was supossed to be direct competition of nVidia's 8600 GT, is in fact around the price of an 8600 GTS (when, in most cases, the 8600 GT is already able to outperform it). The Radeon HD 2600 Pro was pitted, in theory, against the 8500 GT. You can find 8600 GT cards for about $100 though. The 2600 Pro doesn't stand much of a chance against the 8600 GT, in the same way that the 2600 XT couldn't beat the 8600 GTS. The Radeon HD 2400 XT is a budget card, and as such it will have to go head to head with the 8400 (once it's available for review).

If we consider the "power" factor, things look more or less the same. The numbers you will see around the web are very much like the ones from the 8600 cards, and those weren't exactly "power efficient". Maybe I overestimated what the 65nm parts (2600 and 2400 cards) would be able to do, maybe it's a yields problem that will get sorted out as the manufacturing process matures...

Until now, I would have recommended you to wait if you were into DX10 gaming, but as soon as "real" DX10 titles start to hit the shelves, the waiting will get anxious.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form