Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Finally Launches Low-Price DX10 Cards

Posted by Zonk on from the now-you-just-have-to-get-vista dept.

Steve Kerrison writes "The Radeon 'R600' HD 2900 XT was late coming, and so by extension are the lower cost parts derived from it. The Radeon HD 2400 and 2600s are now available, just the same, with pricing aimed at knocking mid-range GeForce 8 series cards off people's shopping lists. There's more to a graphics card than price; performance and driver functionality are key too. HEXUS had some fun and games testing the new Radeons: 'The hardware designers may now be sitting back, content that their DX10-supporting midrange SKUs are at least as compelling as the competition's. But, and it's a big, big but, the current drivers aren't realizing the kind of performance we'd expect from a knowledge of the Radeon HD 2600 XT's setup.'" A very useful article ... unfortunately spread across a dozen pages with no 'print view' available.

99 comments

  1. Jump right to the end... by chris098 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Usually when I read these reviews, the first page that I read is the conclusions. I typically don't have the attention span to read through the whole thing, so this lets me get the drift of the article without sucking up too much time.

    The link to the conclusion page: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9187&pa ge=12

    I found it humorous that the first line on that page is "Congratulations on getting this far, folks.".

    1. Re:Jump right to the end... by morcego · · Score: 1

      Did you get a confirmation from netcraft on that one ?

      --
      morcego
    2. Re:Jump right to the end... by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Did you use your "Jump to Conclusions" mat?

  2. So how bout that open source? by YojimboJango · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know that their drivers are crap, however what ever came of AMD's commitment to open sourcing their drivers?
    I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple hundred enthusiasts that could get these cards up to their maximum potential in a few weeks.

    1. Re:So how bout that open source? by Champ · · Score: 1

      Having been burned by ATI drivers in both Windows and Linux, I now buy *only* Nvidia, and will continue to do so until all their talk about drivers is backed by action. Hell, even Intel's crappy integrated graphics work better in xorg than ATI.

      This isn't an open-source rant either. I'd be happy with a free-as-in-beer proprietary driver that didn't suck.

      I want to see results. And then, and only then, will I let myself get suckered in again.

    2. Re:So how bout that open source? by LWATCDR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple hundred enthusiasts that could get these cards up to their maximum potential in a few weeks."
      Yea that is why GIMP is better than Photoshop and their are FOSS 3-D CAD software better then Soldworks and Autocad!
      Maybe but it is just possible that ATIs drivers where not written by idiots. Maybe it is that there hardware just isn't as good as nVidia or a heck of a lot harder to write for.
      I like FOSS as much as the next person but it really isn't magic.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:So how bout that open source? by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hell, even Intel's crappy integrated graphics work better in xorg than ATI.

      For very strange values of 'crappy'. Intel chips have opensource drivers, unlike those of ATI or NVidia, and most of them are already incorporated into official releases of Linux and Xorg. Intel's graphics chips may not be powerful enough for heavy gaming, but that should not be an issue for Linux users anyway. The Core 2 fiasco is a shame though.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:So how bout that open source? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I cannot say AMEN BROTHER! loud enough!

      I have been making postings on every forum in which I regularly participate regarding ATI's horrible customer satisfaction performance. I tell everyone I can about my replacing the video device in my Dell Laptop with an nVidia board. (Fortunately, many Dell laptops offer that kind of flexibility and there is no shortage of eBay sellers selling the parts I seek.) Chief complaints:

      * Linux drivers not keeping up with the rest in features and supported technologies (like AIGLX and X.org 7.2)
      * Linux driver hardware support falling off with NO legacy support
      * ATI misleading (telling lies in my opinion) the Linux-using public (recall the slashdot article about ATI answering questions?)

      I too don't mind so much about the Free-as-in-beer thing... OSS would be better, of course but what are you going to do? Well I had made my decision. I voted with my dollars and spent $150 to move away from ATI. I didn't spend the money, so much, to move to NVidia... if I felt like the Intel option would perform as well, I'd have gone with Intel just as easily. No, I spent my money to move away from ATI and I think that's an important distinction to make.

      So again, I urge anyone with an opinion (similar to my own) to tell ATI about it. Make them know there's a lot of unhappy ATI users out there and those numbers are decreasing for the wrong reason!

    5. Re:So how bout that open source? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe but it is just possible that ATIs drivers where not written by idiots.

      Obviously you don't have any [real] experience with any ATI drivers written any time during their lifetime because you would know that no, that is not possible. The people writing ATI's drivers are, in fact, idiots.

      There were problems with Windows drivers for the mach32 and mach64! I mean these aren't even 3d chips! and they don't have much 2d acceleration, either.

      The Free drivers for ati tend to be more stable than the commercial drivers, although they don't support as much hardware. but they DO support hardware ATI doesn't, because ATI doesn't support Rage video devices. That's right, if you have a rage chip, ATI has simply abandoned you. Keep in mind that this represents a HUGE number of laptops.

      If ATI would just give us the specs we (we the community, not we as in me and some other guy) wouldn't need them to open-source their drivers. Perhaps they're hoping to make themselves look less bad by releasing their drivers instead of specs and thus slowing down the OSS community :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:So how bout that open source? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intel's graphics chips may not be powerful enough for heavy gaming, but that should not be an issue for Linux users anyway.

      Right. Because I have a completely separate computer that I use to boot windows games. Oh wait...

      I see your point, but this is slashdot... not "Microsoft office user formum and portal system framework v3.0" (At least that's what I'd imagine they'd call it.)

      Point is we are largely technology enthusiasts... and there is nothing in intel integrated graphics to be enthusiastic about. Their drivers yes... but the chips themselves... hell no.

    7. Re:So how bout that open source? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Point is we are largely technology enthusiasts... and there is nothing in intel integrated graphics to be enthusiastic about. Their drivers yes... but the chips themselves... hell no.

      I'm sure there is a wide spectrum of technology enthusiasm here. Sheer computational power is not always the most desirable thing. Many people also care about factors like power consumption, small size, low price and low noise, in addition to open specs and source.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:So how bout that open source? by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      The Rage chip is in very few laptops any more- it's primarily seen in server motherboards today. Even then, the ES1000 is starting replacing the Rage in server boards. I have not seen any laptops in the past half-decade or more using the Rage chips. It's been Intel i810 IGP, 845/855 Extreme Graphics, or one of the GMA revisions; NVIDIA GeForce 6100/6150, or the ATi Xpress 200M/Radeon x12x0 if it wasn't a discrete card.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    9. Re:So how bout that open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, use the open source ATI drivers, and you avoid all the problems associated with closed source. The reverse engineering happens slow enough that the open source drivers won't support the latest cards, but AFAIK they are at least up to Radeon X850 by now. This is also why it is not a problem that ATI doesn't support legacy cards - if anything, open source is the perfect way to have full legacy hardware support in modern software.

    10. Re:So how bout that open source? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      Intel beat Nvidia/ATI to market with the new "unified shader architecture" hotness. Sure, the part itself isn't fast, but it sounds like some interesting things may be developing with Intel and their graphics parts.

    11. Re:So how bout that open source? by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      I've no idea what Linux performance was like pre-GMA X3000, but I'm more than happy with my Intel onboard GFX (G965 chipset). Sure, like the parent says they're useless for games but they have more than enough grunt to run Beryl and XScreensaver/RSS-GLX at 1680x1050. Low power usage, less heat and no noisy fans, and incredibly stable with the newer revs of drivers (the initial releases hard-locked my machine a couple of times when running OGL).

      I can see why you'd say they were crappy if you don't have a seperate machine for gaming though.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    12. Re:So how bout that open source? by dintech · · Score: 1

      Many people also care about factors like power consumption, small size, low price and low noise

      I'm not sure if you are buying a graphics card or a wife.

    13. Re:So how bout that open source? by node159 · · Score: 1

      Ha! Speak for yourself, the Windows ones are sheit. They are only marginally better than my memory which keeps forgetting no to by machines with intel graphics chip sets.

      --
      GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
    14. Re:So how bout that open source? by LWATCDR · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I have an ATI card in my notebook and it works fine with Linux using the FOSS drivers. A little slow but it works.
      I love how I get blasted for this when people don't even both to read my post. I said maybe the the FOSS community could write better drivers. But I doubt that they could in as the grandparent posted do it in just a few months with just the specs. Frankly I doubt that it would happen in year unless ATI/AMD helped. Notice that the Intel's FOSS video drives have a lot of code written by and paid for Intel. Nothing wrong with that but it takes more than just handing over what the registers and memory locations do to get a good FOSS driver. FOSS isn't magic and does not always produce the best software in any field. It has produced some great software and some of it is absolutely top notch. But for every Firefox there are thousands of projects stuck at V0.8.
      Gimp is very good but Photoshop is better.
      There is nothing in the FOSS market that can touch Solidworks or Autocad or even TurboCad which is not even close to Solidworks in power and ease of use.
      Like I said FOSS isn't magic.
      It however often amazing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:So how bout that open source? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I said maybe the the FOSS community could write better drivers. But I doubt that they could in as the grandparent posted do it in just a few months with just the specs.

      They don't have to do it that way, because there's an existing OSS driver, which supports some [older] cards. It's not starting from scratch with specifications. Of course, there is a non-negligible time to actually understand the specifications, figure out where they are wrong, et cetera.

      It would be better if the full driver sources were released. But it would have been even better if the specifications had been released from the beginning so that OSS drivers could have been developed then. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble both inside ATI and out; both active members of the OSS community and those who simply receive the fruits of their labors.

      FOSS isn't magic and does not always produce the best software in any field.

      I postulate that over sufficient time one of two things will always happen, barring overwhelming artificial opposition:

      1. An OSS replacement (or original program) will be developed for any given task, superior to all commercial products in at least the most important [necessary] respects, or
      2. Some excellent commercial product will become OSS and thus fulfill the need for an Open solution.

      Granted, the duration varies considerably. Arguably the "best" operating systems, when artificial considerations are removed (or in some cases even when they are not) are OSS and in fact are typically even Free Software!

      Gimp is very good but Photoshop is better.

      As for the relative superiority of Photoshop and The GIMP, naturally the latter is of more use to programmers than the former, while Photoshop is arguably easier to use. I would contend that Photoshop has not grown gracefully to accommodate the additional functionality that has been stuffed into it since about version 5 or 6 (opinions vary and some go back further than that, but I'm considering the optimal intersection of complexity and stability. In essentially all cases these two concepts are inversely related, but Adobe seems to have developed severe issues with it recently. I'm thinking primarily of Illustrator and InDesign, two products which I have recently had significant occasion to utilize. It was, to say the least, not a pleasant experience.

      There is nothing in the FOSS market that can touch Solidworks or Autocad or even TurboCad which is not even close to Solidworks in power and ease of use.

      This is very true, but this too is progressing. It was once true that there were in fact no good rendering packages available, but that's changed... it was also true that there were no good 3D modelers, which has likewise changed. In fact there were no vector graphics programs to speak of, but there's several now, including the now-OSS Xara Xtreme (just to present an example.)

      Like I said FOSS isn't magic. It however often amazing.

      Well, either nothing is magical, or everything is... FOSS used to amaze me, now I am mostly just thankful for the part of the human spirit that makes it possible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Other opinions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    PC Perpsective

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=4 26&pid=2

    Anyone find others?

  4. AMD VS. ATI by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was a little confused when I first read the headline, and the I saw the word Radeon and I remembered that AMD bought ATI. However, aren't they still using the ATI name when selling these cards? Wouldn't it be a little less confusing to say "ATI Finally Launches Low-Price DX10 Cards"? Anyway, if they have dropped the ATI name, I think it's a bad move. ATI had a pretty good reputation. Changing to a different name seems like a bold move.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:AMD VS. ATI by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ATI has a great reputation but AMD does too. However AMD has no negative reputation (ATI is thought to have poor production and overpriced)

    2. Re:AMD VS. ATI by Qwavel · · Score: 1


      I can tell you this much...

      I work about a block away from the main ATI offices (Leslie and 407 in Toronto), and I was surprised at how quickly all (physical) signs of ATI disappeared. ATI became AMD overnight.

    3. Re:AMD VS. ATI by Bob-taro · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think ATI/AMD should combine the two names and market the graphics cards under the name, "DAAMIT"

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    4. Re:AMD VS. ATI by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

      ATI has a good reputation at getting top-of-the-line ** review cards ** in working order.

      As for drivers and bundled software, it is ALL shite. Ask anybody who has bought an All-in-wonder (aka ViVo): I never had a fully-functioning software set (compared to what was advertised on the box) since the day I bought it in 2002. At some point in time, a feature works, then an update breaks it and makes another one work, rinse, repeat.

      And lately updates have started degrading the performance of my card during video capture because they rely on hardware features that did not exist back then... and many old features STILL don't work!

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  5. Truer words never spoken by Overzeetop · · Score: 0

    FTFA: "...AMD needs to have its drivers in full working order before rolling out new SKUs."

    Yes, but wouldn't that keep them from ever releasing any new hardware? I have yet to get an old 9800pro working with the latest drivers, and a new install of the drivers generally requires a fresh OS install (under win, of course) because of all the crap strewn about the system on uninstall. With ATI, you once chance, and one chance only. Lord help you if you have one of their capture devices installed as well. Better off playing the lottery - you're chances of winning are far higher.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Truer words never spoken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's true.

      Most of the time when I upgrade my 9600pro drivers it takes much longer than it should. I have to search for anything containing ati in a search string and manually delete the old drivers before I can install the new drivers.

    2. Re:Truer words never spoken by GreenEnvy22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Riiight... I've had the same XP install for 2 years now, and have upgraded the drivers dozens of times. First with my 9700 AIW, then X800 XL, now X1800 XL. No issues at all removing old drivers, or installing new ones. Including the capture drivers for the 9700 all in wonder.

    3. Re:Truer words never spoken by Darktyco · · Score: 1

      Actually there is a complicated but thorough process you can follow to completely remove ATI drivers from your system. No OS reinstall necessary.

    4. Re:Truer words never spoken by Xelios · · Score: 1

      Likewise, from a 9600 Pro to an X1800 XL AIW to the X1950 Pro. Never had any problems updating the drivers, though starting Windows with Last Known Good Configuration has completely gaffed them up every time.

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    5. Re:Truer words never spoken by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I usually try to get the graphics up first, so it's actually easier (i.e. - takes less of my personal in-chair time) to reinstall the OS, though it does blow the evening of getting anything done on the HTPC.

      My most recent install to a perfetly clean XP MCE went something like: downlaod drivers from AMD/ATI, start install exe, get message that .net(x) framework needs to be installed, installation continues, bluescreen on boot immediately following driver installation completion. ATI Uninstall/install .net after a LKG boot causes the installer to fail with an exception. Next time I clean-installed, I did .net first. ATI installer failed with an exception.

      And I paid money for this? Don't even get me started with the HDTV wonder. It is a well known problem (see AVSforums) that the install sequence must be perfect or the system barfs.

      I stand by my post - ATI drivers really do suck. Others have said they don't have problems with other cards. If it's card specific, ATI needs to realize the problem and provide non-monolithic installation packages. It still goes back to incompetent driver models.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  6. More Details, Analysis Here, HH Review by MojoKid · · Score: 2, Informative

    This HotHardware review goes into a bit more detail and other benchmarks as well - http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_ 2600_and_2400_Performance/

    FTA - "Throughout all of our in-game and synthetic testing the fastest of the three new mainstream Radeon HD 2000 series cards we tested in this article, the Radeon HD 2600 XT, performed about on par with or sometimes well behind a GeForce 8600 GT. The more affordable Radeon 2600 Pro came in a few percentage points behind the 2600 XT, and as expected the 2400 XT fell in behind the 2600 Pro.

    We also spent some time testing the AVIVO HD video engine in these new cards with a few SD and HD workloads, but weren't able to compile all of the data in time for launch. We will be updating this article in the next day or so, with the results from our AVIVO HD testing as well. "

    1. Re:More Details, Analysis Here, HH Review by Wicko · · Score: 1

      Nice find. Looks like we finally have some good news from that one too. Power consumption is much, much lower than the rest of the competition. Like the article mentioned, will be nice to see some mobile versions of these cards (with good drivers).

  7. Where is ATI? by cerelib · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is AMD planning on absorbing ATI or keeping it as a separate brand? People keep using "AMD" in place of "ATI". The products are called "ATI Radeon HD 2xxx". The ATI website is now green and AMD branded, but the ATI name is still used on the products. Has there been any word from AMD about the future of the ATI brand? Are they just in transition to absorbing ATI completely?

    1. Re:Where is ATI? by ceeam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why can't a company have several trademarks/brands? Oh, I see it in a shop: "I need a new PC. There are Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs. I'll take Intel please. Now there are video cards - nVidia and AMD. Since I bought Intel AMD won't work with it, right?".... Or something like that. Educating people is hard. Preventing confusion is easier.

    2. Re:Where is ATI? by cerelib · · Score: 1

      If you read my post again, I wasn't saying they should absorb ATI. I was just asking because it seems people are using AMD quite a bit to refer to ATI. I personally think they should keep the ATI brand.

  8. Guess I won't be buying one... by uarch · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... not after that review:

    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.
    1. Re:Guess I won't be buying one... by Xelios · · Score: 1

      Not yet anyway. It's old news by now that ATI's drivers are always behind the curve as far as product launches go, I wouldn't be surprised if Catalyst hasn't been optimized at all for the newest line of Radeons. I suspect performance of all the 2xxx cards will magically climb in the next few months as better drivers are released. To ATI's credit the drivers do end up working well, it just takes them a little longer to get there...

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    2. Re:Guess I won't be buying one... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      History repeats itself. The release $250 MSRP x1600 XT (a MUCH more cut-down card compared to the x1650 XT) only offered slightly better performance than the $150 6600 GT, and got lost among the plethora of better-performing 6800 GS / x800 GTO cards already plunging below $200.

      I found the x1600 reviews especially funny because reviewers blamed the poor performance on the 128-bit memory bus, and not on the anemic number of ROPs/TMUs compared to shader units. Once the 7600 GT was released with the same memory bandwidth and same shader power, but three times the TMUs (and %50 better performance), the truth of the x1600's shortcomings became clear: modern shader-heavy games use textures just as previous-generation games.

      Prior to that, the x700 Pro got toasted by the similarly-priced 9800 Pro and 6600 GT cards. ATI made the mistake here of dropping their x700 XT (a solid performance compatitor to the 6600 GT), and letting Nvidia gobble up the entire midrange market. They also didn't concentrate resources on their own AGP to PCIe bridge chip, foolishly leaving the 9800 Pro as the sole AGP card to compete against the 6600 GT AGP.

      I love how ATI always prices itself into a corner, never willing to break the price/performance barriers already set by Nvidia and their own previous products. I keep thinking ATI will "get it" with their next generation of cards, but they never do.

      Unfortunately for gamers everywhere, ATI hasn't "gotten it" since the 9600 series. Success goes to your head, and suddenly you think you're too good to break new ground.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  9. Mid Range DX10 Cards == Crap by gregski · · Score: 1

    Looking at those results i'm still glad I went with the relatively cheap and cheerful 7900gs, it may only be DX9 but hey I don't have vista, and by there time there are any decent games requiring it, this generation will be completely obsolete.

    8800gts and above are the only worth while DX10 cards imho.

    --
    I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Mid Range DX10 Cards == Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree. The only reason I even felt the need to upgrade from my X800Pro was because of feature-set. It didn't support SM3.0 and that seems to be a requirement is the latest games that are being released. So my choices were an X1950Pro and the 8600GTS. The 1950Pro was faster for most of the games I currently play, but the 8600GTS offered SM4.0 and DX10 capabilities.

      I chose the 8600 over the 1950 due to the feature set. My monitor only supports 1280x1024, so the 128-bit memory bus doesn't really have a chance to crap-out at higher resolutions. The games I've played it with are much faster than the X800Pro I had, and I can play the DX10 versions of games that are being released now.

      So, as in all cases, it depends on your needs and your current configuration. To label these cards as "==Crap" may apply to your situation, but not everyone.

  10. This is upsetting. by Wicko · · Score: 2, Informative

    AMD.ATI really needed to have some good news with these cards, but they blew it with the first impressions. I can only hope they can stay in the game be releasing some quality drivers to take advantage of these new cards. From the looks of it, 8600 hardware is peanuts compared to the 2600. With the expected prices, they should be killing the mid/low range DX10 market. This does not bode well. I look forward to reviews of retail cards, but my enthusiasm has dropped. Seems as if nVidia was almost counting on AMD.ATI to release shitty drivers and hiked up the price of low end DX10 as much as they could.

    1. Re:This is upsetting. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I won't be needing a DX10 graphics card for some time. Microsoft has really let down their strategic partners by not building compelling reasons to upgrade into Windows Vista. If the main reason to buy one of these cards is DX10, and DX10 is Vista-only, and there's no good reason for me to upgrade to Vista, why would I want one of these cards?

      It wasn't that long ago that I really coveted the latest computer technology - software and hardware. But today, I look only for the best technology that fits my current needs, since I'll be buying a new system within a couple of years anyway. I don't know if it's because I changed and am not as impressed by the latest and greatest, or because the whole machinery of software and hardware vendors who used to work together to give us reasons to upgrade have fallen down on the job. I look at the PS/3, iPhone, Vista, and I just don't get that reflex that makes me want to run out and buy them.

      I've been thinking back to when XP came out, because I've seen the comment around here that peoples' experience with Vista being a disappointment also happened when XP was released. I've decided that it wasn't the case. I bought XP the second month it was available, and except for one minor application, I was able to use all of my hardware and software the day I upgraded. I did NOT have the ugly experience of being pissed off at the OS for bothering me about what I can and cannot do nor did I have the sickening feeling that DRM gives me. I recall being really happy about the performance improvement and the quality of the drivers that were available less than 60 days after XP came out.

      So for the next year or so, I'm going to spend more time being productive with my Core2duo/X1950 system and less time upgrading to a new OS. I will re-assess the situation in '08.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:This is upsetting. by Wicko · · Score: 1

      It's not limited to just DX10. There is a large performance boost (among the 8800 series) over the last generation of cards, that might be necessary for the new games coming out, not limited to DX10 rendering. It's understandable that you aren't as interested in the new things coming around, I also have a lack of interest in the PS3, the iPhone, and Vista. Lucky for me, I was able to obtain a free copy of Vista Business through my school. I just feel that AMD.ATI really needs to kick it up a notch to keep in the business. I was hoping they would supply us with a reasonably priced DX10 card and completely outclass nVidia in the midrange market.

    3. Re:This is upsetting. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I understand, Wicko. I want AMD.ATI to succeed, too. It was the Athlon after all that forced Intel to come out with the Core2Duo, the best computer product of last year. I had high hopes when I heard that AMD bought ATI, and I want to see powerful, efficient graphics processors (and other kinds of "media" processors, including some breakthroughs in consumer sound circuitry for computers). My only point was that Vista and DX10 wasn't going to be driving my interest.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Karma to Burn by jshriverWVU · · Score: 2, Interesting
    While the hardware does sound like a good bang for your buck. Personally I don't care what card is supported via any version of DirectX. Especially since DX10 is Vista only.

    Let me know when there are good Linux drivers out closed or not, and MesaGL plays happily with it.

  12. AMD? Radeon? by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

    I might be off, but didnt ATI make Radeons? Thought AMD was strictly CPU.

    1. Re:AMD? Radeon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD bought ATI.

    2. Re:AMD? Radeon? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      AMD bought ATI a short time back. The products are still called "ATI Radeon blah blah", but if you go to www.ati.com, you'll notice that they're in the process of changing the company name on things from ATI to AMD.

  13. Hmmmm by geekoid · · Score: 1

    ",,,the current drivers aren't realizing the kind of performance we'd expect from a knowledge of the Radeon HD 2600 XT's"

    So there good then? Because I expected them to be like all the other ATI produced drivers....crappy.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. However by geekoid · · Score: 1

    There have been non ATI released Drivers for ATI card that were vastly superior to ATI's crap.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Good news! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Every Year there are fewer and fewer unhappy ATI users.

    Well, good news for nVidia.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    2. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He means that the unhappy ATI customers of last year are happy nVidia customers this year, thus the number of unhappy ATI customers has gone down.

  16. I'm curious about the 8600 series by Clockwurk · · Score: 1

    How fast are these cards? I know that Apple recently updated the MBPs and will probably follow up with imac updates also. Other than dx10 support, how does the 8600 compare with say the 7600s??

    1. Re:I'm curious about the 8600 series by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Apple updated the MacBook Pro by switching to nVidia. ATI's Mac drivers are almost as horrible as their Linux drivers.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  17. SKU You! by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, we are going to keep using SKU? This is an acronym worthy of being added to the everyday lexicon? It's not even a techie acronym, it's for marketing and accounting!

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    1. Re:SKU You! by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Funny

      I say let them use it. It's easier to spot an idiot when they're using their native tongue.

    2. Re:SKU You! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      It should be sentenced to Death by SKU-SKU. BTW, kudos for using 'acronym' in its correct meaning.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  18. OSS drivers ? by BESTouff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OSS drivers for Xorg ? No ? Not interested.

    1. Re:OSS drivers ? by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Little choice then if you want AMD CPU. And before Intel open-sourced their drivers I bet you did not use GUI at all, right?

      Not that I don't share your sentiment.

    2. Re:OSS drivers ? by enos · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this setup at all. Why the heck have Xorg drivers instead of straight Linux drivers? It seems that having a framebuffer-type layer that any GUI system could take advantage of would make a whole lot more sense than having the X server control everything. Does no one remember the XFree86 to Xorg switch and how everyone was whining to nVidia because they didn't have Xorg drivers ready right away? Besides, having video drivers depend on X cripples competing systems by forcing them to duplicate work and thus reduces effective Freedom(tm) to switch. This is like printing support used to mean your printer had to be supported by WordPerfect or whatever program you wanted to print from.

      --
      boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
    3. Re:OSS drivers ? by spirit+of+reason · · Score: 1

      Hey, isn't the xorg vesa driver OSS? ;-)

    4. Re:OSS drivers ? by stud9920 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except people who really need to get laid, nobody cares about the license used for their software.

    5. Re:OSS drivers ? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      DISCLAIMER: I am not a kernel/xorg/any_kind_of coder, so if I'm wrong, don't be suprised...

      But on the other hand, it should make it easier to put them on other OS's using XOrg - from Solaris, the BSD's, or just about anything else on XOrg, correct? Or at least I thought thats what part of the point of having something fairly modular like XOrg was...

    6. Re:OSS drivers ? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he doesn't fucking want to wait 10 months to have working 2D this time around, perhaps? Not that you'd comprehend anything I just said.

    7. Re:OSS drivers ? by anethema · · Score: 1

      OSS drivers for Xorg ? No ? Not interested. Yeah you and the other guy who cares about that will have a hell of a boycott goin!
      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  19. I've never had trouble with ATI drivers on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's all this belly aching about? I've never had trouble with ATI drivers on Linux. Not even a pixel out of place. The speed is also very good. Can you please give an example of the problems you are experiencing?

    I've had bad luck with my NVidia cards using the nvidia_96xx driver - not so stable with 3D desktop effects. So I guess for every disgruntled ATI owner, there's a disgruntled NVidia owner.

  20. No print preview? Not a problem... by macraig · · Score: 2, Informative

    A very useful article ... unfortunately spread across a dozen pages with no 'print view' available.


    This situation is exactly what the "Repagination" extension for Firefox was created to thwart: it collapses multiple linked pages into one. It's not perfect (page headers and such are replicated, too), but with Aardvark or RIP or similar extensions the result could be cleaned up for printing or archiving.
  21. I am cheap and behind in the times... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

    Any AGP version? I couldn't tell.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:I am cheap and behind in the times... by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      The word was that ATI/AMD was going to release AGP cards for the HD 2000 line, but I haven't heard any word of it in a couple of months.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    2. Re:I am cheap and behind in the times... by Emetophobe · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      AGP? AMD's realised that whilst PCIe makes the most implicit sense as the conduit of choice, there's still a huge AGP market that wants to leverage the benefits of a DX10 architecture that's also strong with respect to multimedia. That's why, the firm states, AGP-equipped models will be released by partners a short while after today's announcement. The cost may go up a touch, thanks to the need for a bridging chip, but it's a wise move designed for mass-market appeal.
    3. Re:I am cheap and behind in the times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using a PCI graphics card you insensitive clod.

    4. Re:I am cheap and behind in the times... by technopinion · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've got PCI? You lucky bastard, I'm still on a VESA card.

    5. Re:I am cheap and behind in the times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roll on the "back in my day" jokes....

  22. Re:A: NO! by Miseph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Q: Does replying to the first post just to make your completely separate comment appear higher up in the discussion make you cool?

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  23. ATIs lunch eaten by ATI? by guidryp · · Score: 1

    This looks like a complete architectural misfire. I mean ATI's own X1650XT (to say nothing of the 1950pro destroying it) is kicking the crap out of it. Is that an early 2006 midrange card?

    http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9187&pa ge=7

    1. Re:ATIs lunch eaten by ATI? by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      This looks like a complete architectural misfire. I mean ATI's own X1650XT (to say nothing of the 1950pro destroying it) is kicking the crap out of it. Is that an early 2006 midrange card?

      More like a marketing misfire. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with the X2xxx architecture. If you look at the X2900XT, it's performance is much better, and comparable to nVidia cards in the same price range. If you look at the X2400 and X2600 series cards, their performance sucks, but aren't that far behind the nVidia cards in the same price range.

      Rumor has it that the ATI drivers are pretty rough right now. Reviewers were supposedly given two sets of drivers, one set labeled "performance" and the others "stability". As the drivers get cleaned up performance should improve. Also, I find it interesting that most of the reviewers don't mention which drivers they're using. But I have noticed some discrepancies between different review sites. Some have the ATI and nVidia cards being roughly equal in performance, while others have ATI lagging far behind. I'm not saying that some sites are playing the shill by deliberately sandbagging, but it looks like performance isn't as bad as some sites have made it out to be.

      Where I think that the larger issue lies though is that entry level and low end cards are being passed off as midrange by nVidia and ATI. The break down by price point is as follows:

      $800+ nVidia 8800 Ultra
      $500+ nVidia 8800GTX
      $400 nVidia 8800GTS-640MB and ATI X2900XT
      $300 nVidia 8800GTS-320MB
      $130-$150 nVidia 8600 series and ATI X2600 series
      sub-$100 nVidia 8500 series and ATI X2400 series

      Now if you've been following video cards for any length of time, you'll see that there is a huge gaping hole in the $200-$220 range in this generation of cards. Typically this has been filled by true mid-range cards, the sort that enthusiast and gamers buy when they don't have tons of money to spend. But ATI and nVidia both seem to be ignoring that slice of the market at the moment. Unfortunately, that's where I shop. So if I want better performance than is available from the 8600/x2600 lines but don't want to shell out $300+, my best options are the ATI x1950XT or the nVidia 7950GT. Both are available from $180-$250, and both will be much, much faster than the 8600/x2600 cards. Unfortunately, neither runs DX10, either.

      At this point, the question becomes one of either buying the performance that you want or buying the compatibility with future games using DX10. If you want both, you'll have to shell out big bucks.

      For me, the worst part is that we're a good 6+ months after the release of the first DX10 parts, and all of the options suck. With previous generations there would be 5-7 models from each manufacturer to choose from by this point. I suspect the lack of options this time around has a lot to do with ATI's delayed product. With nVidia not facing any competition in the DX10 space, there has been no reason for them to release more models that better cover the market. Hopefully that will change now. Hopefully either ATI or nVidia will realize that there's some money to be made in having true midrange products. I'm just not sure how much longer I should wait.

  24. There is and there is. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    There is a framebuffer layer.
    Xorg supports the framebuffer driver (under Linux and other OSs)

    OTH X does cool stuff like accelerated scaling and blitting and 3d acceleration only because it has permission to map memory arbitrarily and interface with the video card at a low level.

    It would be very difficult to formally codify all such interfaces through a set of block and characeter devices with IOCTLs and shared memory areas -- these interfaces might even be variable between cards or change over time -- and it's actually not worth it since you're going to be using X anyway and no other app wants to directly control the framebuffer.

    I don't mean to sound down on it but the novelty and cleanliness of mapping the linear 2d framebuffer into a block device metaphor was appropriate 10 years ago.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  25. Stick with the DX9 cards for now by bogie · · Score: 1

    The DX10 out now are crap and a year from now won't be able to play any of the demanding DX10 games coming out. If your looking for a cheap but very fast card I recommend the X1950Pro http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16814102061 $112 after rebate including shipping. This will last you while without putting a huge hole in your pocket, plus if you end up running Vista at least the performance won't totally suck like it does if you try to use an Nvidia cards under Vista.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Stick with the DX9 cards for now by thebonafortuna · · Score: 1

      I was looking a good card in this price range, thank you for the suggestion and link.

    2. Re:Stick with the DX9 cards for now by Goffee71 · · Score: 0

      And for Britishers, http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html ?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=1 19303&_LOC=UK gets you an X1950Pro with 512Mb for £90, some pence and free delivery. I was looking forward to trying Hellgate/Bioshock with a DX-10 card but will stick with 9 until some sort of sense can be made of the new cards.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  26. Sweet, or not... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    It's great that these cards are out, but here's one thing that pisses me off. ATI's Cablecard-ready TV Tuner card is only Windows Vista compat. At that, only two of the six flavors of Vista work with it. That means that if you have XP, Linux, or any 4 of the other 6 flavors of Vista, you're SOL if you want to watch digital cable on your computer. Wake me up when we can make use of the hardware video decompressing on either XP or Linux. What I mean is, once we can use either Bluray or ATSC tv tuners.

  27. HD audio, or not by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    Integrated HD audio controller with multi-channel (5.1) AC3 support, enabling a plug-and-play cable-less audio solution

    What happened to 7 channel audio? I thought that was one of the critera for HD audio. I guess my family didn't make too big of a mistake when we bought a receiver that can "only" do 6.1 audio and not 7.1, even though the thing doesn't have HDMI inputs/outputs (that might have been a mistake), but fortunately our TV has 2 HDMI inputs and digital optical out.

    1. Re:HD audio, or not by IndieKid · · Score: 1

      I have a 5.1 receiver, and a HDTV with HDMI in and optical out. Unfortunately, the incoming sound over HDMI does not get routed through to the optical output by my TV.

      If the ATI/AMD cards only do standard 5.1 audio (Dolby Digital or DTS I guess) over HDMI, then the audio controller doesn't really add much. As nearly all motherboards in the last 3 years have an optical/coax output all you're really doing is saving a cable. Maybe there's some additional benefit I'm missing?

  28. Re:I've never had trouble with ATI drivers on Linu by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    So I guess for every disgruntled ATI owner, there's a disgruntled NVidia owner.
    By looking at the posts in this article, math doesn't seem to be backing you up on this assertion.
  29. Re:A: NO! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Q: This word is spelled the same and means the same thing in both English and Spanish. Its opposite also means "If" in Spanish.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  30. The history of poorly written ATI drivers is long by worldcitizen · · Score: 1

    The first ATI card I had was an original all-in-wonder. Nice specs at the time but when it came to drivers, they wouldn't work if you installed them to a folder different from the default. I had more patience in those days so I reported the problem to ATI, they fixed it in the following driver release and then a couple of months later the latest drivers broke again for the same reason. I realized how bad were the software engineering practices at ATI (no regression testing?, come on, it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is one of the most basic QA tasks) and then I decided not to buy ATI cards again. If I received a machine with ATI cards (e.g., "inherited" from someone else), I always used the driver in the OS and not the downloadable stuff from ATI's site. All until recently (I thought that after being acquired maybe they had improved and decided to try one card) but, from all I can see they still write horrendous software. I think I'll have to go back to not buying anything with ATI inside, until I read A LOT of good reviews on how their drivers have improved and are no longer a nest of bugs.

  31. Grass Greener Not, Carmack on DX10 by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 1

    ATI have crap drivers? So do nVidia!

    I've an ex-nVidia who came over to ATI. Why? Crap Drivers. There's one called the "nv4_disp Infinite Loop Bug" that's been around for years. It's across generations of nVidia hardware. The really bad thing is you can't talk to nVidia about it (and yeah, there have been petitions and web pages galore, all to no avail). nVidia don't accept user feedback, period.

    Anyway, got sick of the lockups so kissed nVidia goodbye and couldn't be happier. Now using a new ATI x1950 card now. Nice card, includes Shader 3.0 support, and the driver is rock stable on my system. Not a single lockup, bug, hang, glitch or anything. Heard criticism of ATI's drivers (from a buddy feeing ATI for nVidia!) which worried me, but took the gamble and couldn't be happier. At least you *can* make a support request to ATI. nVidia won't talk to you. That was a factor.

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=nv4_disp+%22infi nite+loop BTW the bug only affects certain configurations (nobody knows what), sporadic and sometimes it goes away and comes back. At its worst, your system will hang 4 times a day. Sadly, no, it hasn't been fixed!

    BTW on Shader 4.0 John "Doom n' Quake" Carmack says take your time: Shader 3.0 is great, but developers are only just getting around to that as it is. There's really no need for Shader 4.0, which only runs under Vista anyway. (oh Microsoft, will you ever learn?)

    Carmack's interview: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07. 0109.1737.15034.htm

  32. The full article, text version: by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

    Today sees the official launch of AMD's latest mid-range graphics cards. The Radeon HD 2600 and 2400 family aim to dethrone NVIDIA's GeForce 8600/8500/8400 by offering a greater feature-set, better performance and a lower comparative street price. It all seems too good to be true from a company that has made late introductions something of a mission statement of late. After all, its exceedingly late to market Radeon HD 2900 XT could only compete against NVIDIA's G80 by having a hacksaw taken to its original pricing. With all this in mind, let's now see if the DX10-compatible HD 2000-series can make AMD some decent money - it needs it.

    A word or two first about testing. AMD, in its infinite wisdom, provided HEXUS with Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT cards last Sunday night. The time between grabbing the hardware and publishing this review has been spent in pulling out what hair (collectively) we have left. Short-notice, poor drivers and re-testing of copious amounts of hardware together mean that this should be considered more of an architectural-look and a performance-preview than a comprehensive, non-time-dependent appraisal of AMD's mid-range graphics technology. Excuses out of the way! AMD Radeon HD 2600 and HD 2400 series in detail Today sees AMD fill out the mid-range and low-end with its DX10-supporting GPUs. Jumping straight into the proposed line-up with ye olde table, here's how they stack up against select NVIDIA SKUs.

    (Table- see here)

    That's a lot of numbers to digest, so let's reference them against some architectural discussion.

    (Image)

    The following discussion assumes a basic understanding of unified shading architecture. Should that not be the case, head on over to here to learn more. Thinking about it some, the Radeon HD 2600's architecture is, for all intents and purposes, a shrunken version of the Radeon HD 2900 XT - and in more ways than one. The obvious chops are to the stream-processors - which offer unified shading - down from 320 to 120. Unlike NVIDIA's boosted shader clocks, AMD's operate at core speed, which is 800MHz for both Radeon HD 2600 XT models. Simple maths tells us that 120 SPs, capable of 2 FLOPs per clock cycle, operating at 800MHz, push out 192 GFLOPs. That's true for vertex, pixel and geometry shading, of course, although each constituent shares its shading resource with the others. Radeon HD 2600 XT is endowed with only four ROPs and eight texture-filter (FP32) units. The programmable tesellator, which allows for almost 'free' geometry production and other useful gubbins, survives intact from R600 and that's good news. But the devil is in the details that you don't see on the above overview. The Radeon HD 2600 is based on a 65nm manufacturing process (65G+) and interfaces with its local memory via a 128-bit interface. The table shows that there will be three SKUs based on Radeon HD 2600 (RV630). The XT will be offered in variants with GDDR3 memory or GDDR4, with the latter operating at faster speeds and providing greater bandwidth. Other than the difference in DRAM used, the two XTs are architecturally identical. The GDDR4 model will carry a ~£20 price premium over its GDDR3 counterpart. Further differentiating the line is the Radeon HD 2600 PRO. This runs with a lower core speed - 600MHz - and slower (DDR2) memory. Again, variation in speed is the only difference. It still packs in 120 SPs, a 128-bit memory interface and a 256MiB framebuffer. Price is reduced accordingly, with retail examples reckoned to be available for around £60. Have an architecture that's cut down compared to the R600 brings down the transistor count to around 390M. Models in the Radeon HD 2600 series, obviously, are designed to compete with NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 range. A quick look at the comparative specs tells us that the HD 2600 should do well in titles where shading is called to the fore, thanks to its higher pure FLOP rate, but will suffer in scenarios

  33. well, almost by Miseph · · Score: 1

    "No" does mean the same thing in Spanish, but "sí" ("yes") and "si" ("if") are both pronounced and spelled differently (watch the accents). They do look and sound quite similar, however.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  34. Just wondering... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    Did not RTFFA (read the full f'n article), but I'm curious as to the size of these cards.

    It's hard to fathom until you actually hold it in your hands, much less install it in you case.

    I did not fully appreciate it until trying to install a 1900pro in my case to replace the X800pro.

    The 800 is a big card and has about 1/2" clearance from the hd's and cables in my case (Antec solution
    series full tower. 5 drive cage parallel to the case).
    Tried the 1900, and holy fsck this thing is huge! 9.5" and the last 2+" of the card is for the dual
    molex connectors and row of resistors.

    Even after moving HD's, it *STILL* was pressed into the cables of my raid...not good.

    So, while all the talk of die shrinks is wonderful, how about shrinking the damn cards, eh?

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)