HD 2600 & GeForce 8600: Where's the Mid-Range?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
This is a great article, one that had to be written. As Ive been reading the forums, Ive noticed alot of newer people coming in with alot of questions regaurding the "new" DX10 cards, but like alot of us, they dont have a ton of cash to spend. Some are downright newb, and dont really know what to expect. This statement here
We thought there would be more DX10 content available at this point of the year but this is not so. All games going forward next year will most likely be DX10, so these should be able to play games like the next The Sims or children's educational programs, but in no way will they be able to handle graphically intense titles.
Click to expand...
helps. People have to realize that "DX10" as we WILL come to know it just doesnt exist, and the midrange cards that are out couldnt play them anyways. Many here have tried to discourage many potential buyers, all of them wanting the "new" DX10 cards in their price range, problem is, there really isnt any. OK, not good solid useable cards. We refer them to last generations uppermid-lowerhighend cards (1900pro-1900xt-7950 etc) because actually, they outperform most of these "midrange DX10" cards, and are priced better, that and there being no real DX10 games out makes for a confusing time. Articles like this will help clear a little of this up, thx for the read
 
Almost every day I post on the forum advising someone not to buy one of these cards simply because they are DX10 and cheaper than their high-end brothers. Just a couple of days ago was the guy bragging about getting a new 8600 to "future proof" his system. These people are going to sadly disappointed if they plan to do any gaming with these cards when DX10 becomes mainstream. These cards simply won't do it.
I doubt even the high end DX10 cards will be all that hot when DX10 does finally become mainstream. I would only buy one of the highend cards (8800-2900) right now simply because they are the fastest current solution for DX9, not DX10. Right now there is no reason to buy a card based on whether or not it will run DX10!
Thanks for the article, maybe more people will get the inside scoop on this pitifully poor excuse for a video card(s)
I was out a local shops and retail stores last weekend checking prices, and these things are just flying off the shelf left and right at $200-$300! People. Stop! You are simply tossing money in the garbage.
 
You can never get good performance cheap, what do you want, a miracle?

2600xt does well for its price range. And soon the 2600xt gemini will come out to meet the 8600gts in mid range.
 
The title is a good name. I was waiting for the article.
However, I did notice the 8600GTS beat the 1950Pro sometimes. This surprised me.
Jay is right, the x1950XT / 7950 GT is the current mid-range (since real DX10 doesn't exist yet anyway)
I'm still hoping for a 2600XTX and a 8600GTX with double the streams and pipes. But buy then, I'll be upgrading my midrange card to a true DX10 card anyway.
 
I really like that article and I am looking forward to the PureVideo and AVIVO one. I would love to build an HTPC soon and my x1950Pro is not avivo capable. Kudos on the article, it was a good read.
 


Looks like this once again confirms that the answer is no.

It looks like nVidia took a page out of ATi's X1600 playbook, and AMD didn't learn from Ati's blunder with the X1600.

The thing is I'm not sure whether the same pressure will be on for either company to come out with something better like the rumoured/half-confirmed GF8800GS/HD2900Pro models if there isn't the kind of clear leader must-have card like there was with the GF7600GT. There's nothing to push the other company to make something like an X1800GTO/X1900GT. I'm sure that eventually they will both make a 65nm or 55nm refresh to replace the GTS-320 sales point because it would be cheaper to produce; but without anything pushing them forward and the only competition being who can clear the factory of their old stock of X1950s and GF7950s first, I'm not optimistic about there being attractive mid-range cards that come in under $200. The GTS-320 is the clear value winner of the new crop, and the cast offs from last generation are the overall value winners, so we're kind of adrift in a sea of mediocrity.

Now more than ever it'd be nice to have some competition for the mid-range. I thought it'd be bad because the others would take profits away from ATi/AMD and nV which they need to develop the hig-end, but if this is their way to defend the mid-range, they deserve someone like S3 coming in and stealing their lunch. Too bad that's more of a wish than a reality.
 


I'm curious, why is it surprising that the 8600GTS would be able to beat the 1950Pro in some benchmarks? I don't really know a lot about graphics cards other than what I read, but it seems to me like a newer, more expensive card should be able to beat an older card MOST of the time.
 



Very good points. A lot of people don't know and are not informed consumers. I think this happens every generation when a new gen video card is released with some new gizmo thingamabob and everyone wants it or thinks they have to have it. Look at Tom's current VGA charts. The X800 and the 6800 cards still perform well.
 

This is the point of the article. The new mid-range cards are weaker than mid-range cards of previous generations.
So, the 1950Pro is a previous generation low 'high end' card when the 8600GTS is a new generation middle class card.
The 1950Pro has 36 shaders and a 256bit bus while the 8600GTS has 32 shaders and a 128bit bus. There are some other factors, but this is the basic idea.
Normally the new mid-range cards outperform the previous high-end cards.
This year things are different.
 
Good article. It echos my thoughts since the 8400/8500/8600's came out. Where's the 8700??

That's what we really need - something with ~64 stream processors, 256bit memory interface, 512mb memory (or even 320mb.. or even 256mb, as long as the interface is 256bit), ~12-16 ROPS, etc. That's the card that should be priced just under the 8800 320mb GTS. The 8600 can take a price drop for it's level of performance.

I'm pretty disappointed in nVidia (and ATI both) for this round of cards. I'll stick with my 7900GS until prices of 8800's come way down or they come out with something more interesting than the low end cards they have out now.
 
All hope is not lost. ATI/AMD has a 2800 version coming out later this year. It should be the real mid-range we have all been missing. I am not sure what the Green camp has in store except for a refresh of G80. It will be next year until G90 is due out. R700 is also slated for some time soon. Not sure on the exact when but this should help move R600 into a better price point as well as X1950 variants.

This past year and a half has been strange compared to the last few. I mean look back at Voodoo 3. There were 3 cards to suit three price points and not a ton of difference between Voodoo 3 3000 and 3500. Even Ti 4200 4400 and 4600 were not so different either. I question why engineering, PR, and marketing don't get together more often to give a strong showing for their greatest fans. Granted, 2400 and 2600 as well as 8400/8500/8600 should do well with OEMs and make some money for the companies with volume, but what about US... the people that tell other people what to buy? If we don't have something worthwhile for ourselves, what can we tell the people with $$$ to spend and need a new card? Hmmm... (**Scratches head)

Perhaps it would make sense for these two companies to build the high end followed by a midrange and below. The extreme segment (for those with unlimited means) can have the latest and greatest followed by cards for those that want good quality and performance at a lower price. Then they can announce value and entry level cards with the mid-range. All 4 segments would have been happy instead of only having 3 of the 4 and angering the segment that cares the most.

Well... time will tell. We can only hope that these companies will remember launches of 9700 and 9500 together and then 9800 and 9600. Ahhhh.... those were the days.
 
"We can only hope that these companies will remember launches of 9700 and 9500 together and then 9800 and 9600. Ahhhh.... those were the days."

I remember that time...Those were the days when socket A had been around for years, and a good Barton stepping could be had for $60.00. Overclocking was a hobby that CPU vendors discouraged instead of selling specific steppings to Dell for a special 'overclocked PC'...*sigh*

My first video card was a VOODOO 5500. 4 GPU's on one titanic pcb. I had to open up case and set a floor fan blowing on it to prevent the computer from crashing during Unreal Tournament LAN parties. Now THAT was a video card...or at least an example of ambitious engineering.
 
Again there is the suggestion here that since the 2400 is no good for gaming it should be used for HTPC. But ALL published HQV testing proves otherwise. The crippled shaders prevent it from doing any video postprocessing, like noise reduction.

The 2400 is completely INAPPROPRIATE for HTPC use. Sadly, there are no 2600 product bundles (2600pro with HDMI dongle) for HTPC either.

So HTPCs are stuck with noisy, hot 2600XTs that are overkill for HTPC and useless for gaming.
 


Yeah it just sucks for people having to wait for that (or like me having to wait for more new mobility parts to appear, announced about 2 months ago, lets get some more product variety out there guys).

Granted, 2400 and 2600 as well as 8400/8500/8600 should do well with OEMs and make some money for the companies with volume, but what about US... the people that tell other people what to buy? If we don't have something worthwhile for ourselves, what can we tell the people with $$$ to spend and need a new card? Hmmm... (**Scratches head)
Click to expand...

This is exactly it, the OEMs love it, and they are of course cheaper to make than the equivalent cards, and often the cards they are replacing. And then these cards are backed up by the results of the #1 OEM marketing tool 3Dmark (where the new cards look awesome). This is definitely not an enthusiast card like the GF4200, R9500, R9600, GF6600/X700, GF7600 all of which made you feel like it was a worthy part for a mid-range gamer.
Sure I have recommended the GF8600GTS, but that's for people living in countries that do not have the X1950Pro/GF7900GS/X1950XT priced similarly. For most people in N.Am. there is little to no value in a GF8600GTS compared to a cheaper X1950/GF7900. And then I just feel bad for the people in other countries with no options.

All 4 segments would have been happy instead of only having 3 of the 4 and angering the segment that cares the most.
Click to expand...

And ain't that the truth, the biggest sweet spot market is the this mid-range segment that pay a bit of a premium over the low end, and sells in quantities that rival or exceed the low end. So the majority of both companies profits lie in this area, it's surprising that both would've brought parts like this to market that could easily have been destroyed by the competition if it had continued on a 'as good as the previous gen's high end' while they had not. Luck for each separately that the other company didn't bring out the part we all want or else they would be in serious trouble.

Well... time will tell. We can only hope that these companies will remember launches of 9700 and 9500 together and then 9800 and 9600. Ahhhh.... those were the days.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the R9500Pro reminds me of the GTS-320 a bit, in that nV is selling a crippled hig end part to satisfy the upper mid-range. I'm surprised that nV hasn't worked harder to replace it, in the same fashion ATi did, with something that's cheaper to make and fills a similar gap. Seems to me their margins would be much better with a 65nm part @ 400+ million transistors, rather than cripplign their 700million (including NVIO) transistor part.

And really the performance gap between the GF8600GTS and the GF8600GTS, wow, it's bigger than the one that was between XGI and ATi/nV. :lol:
 


Not AVIVO capable? You have got to be kidding, as I know of *no* X1K-series card that lacks AVIVO support (while there are few X1K-series cards that support video-in, that has nothing to do with AVIVO, or even HD/video-out for that matter, as even the X1650 Pro in AGP supports that).

One thing I am doing nowadays, due to the PSU issues that still plague both the X1950-based cards (and the GeForce 76xx/78xx/79xx series, for that matter) is recommending last generation's midrange cards (ATI's X1650 Pro and XT, especially in AGP, in particular). Cards like the X1950 Pro and XT (and their nV counterparts) often require much beefier PSUs due to their current demands. The X1650 Pro (and X1650XT, especially in AGP trim) have the following to recommend it, especially if you are replacing an ATI R3xx/RV3xx-series card described in the review:

1. It requires no more power than the card it will replace. (Yes, they do require a four-pin PATA-style Molex; however, so did most of the R3xx/RV3xx cards). The X1650 Pro from ATI (typical of the breed), despite it's outsize 512 MB of onboard GDDR2, only requires a 350W PSU (same as the AIW 9700 Pro it replaced (which only had 128 MB of GDDR)).

2. No real compatibility woes. Again, compared to even X1950 Pro and the GeForce 7-series, there are far fewer hardware-compatibility issues between the X1650 Pro/XT and older motherboards (this is primarily due to the friendlier PSU requirements). On the *software* side, if you are replacing an ATI R3xx or later GPU, you don't even have driver replacement to concern you, as thanks to the unified driver architecture, it's simply a matter of re-detection. (This applies equally to Windows XP or Windows Vista.)

3. Value pricing. The X1650 Pro, in the 512 MB AGP configuration, has an SRP of $209, and is typically priced under $200, even retail. (I bought mine retail and paid $174, including tax.)

 


Also, the actual pricing that normally defines the midrange is seriously skewed. The X1950 Pro and XT (along with the GeForce 79xx series) that defined last generation's high end are *still* largely around $300USD. Worse, they are just as power-hungry as their newer counterparts (making them a bad choice for midrange computer duty, and a *worse* choice for an HTPC). What is in the pricing midrange today (around $200-250USD)? The refreshes of these cards (ATI's X1650 Pro and XT, and the GeForce 76xx and 78xx series, especially in AGP), often with outsize 512 MB GDDR2 RAM configurations (which are far more usable today than they were when they originally debuted).

Some of ATI's AIBs (notably HIS, but also Diamond Multimedia and VisionTek) are taking notice and are even releasing the X1950 Pro and X1950XT in 512 MB AGP trim; however, unlike the X1650Pro, the X1950-series GPU is far more of a power pig than that of the X1650, even overclocked.
 


Actually you can get an X1950Pro for under $150 (even under $120), GF7900GS for the same, GF7950GT for under $200, and X1950Xt for under $200 (under $150 after rebate)

So the GF8600GTS launched into a black hole of price/performance at above these cards that hasn't improved really, and also didn't change for the equally weak HD2600 (which instead is priced to target the GF7600GT/X1650Pro/XT).

When the X1600Pro and GF7600GT were launched, they were cheaper than the GF6800GT and X800XT so their relative performance wasn't as big an issue. The X1600Pro has to contend with the GF6800GS, but the GF7600GT was clear.

Now there's little chance of arguing price/performance benefits of a GF8600GTS versus those lower priced cards above.

Outside the US it's a much different picture, but anyone with access to NewEgg, Pricewatch, etc. has little reason to spend more money for less performance.
 
A 1950pro for $300? I can drive 15 minutes to nearly any local shop and pick up and ATI X1950Pro for $170-$219. The very same stores are selling the 8600 cards for $199 to $329! And people were buying them! I was out checking prices just last Saturday as I was hoping to find a X1950pro for less than $150 to toss in my rig and run crossfire for the heck of it, but none quite that cheap yet at the local stores. Microcenter had them on sale for $149 a few weeks back- should have grabbed one then.
 

I got my X1950 XT for less than $190 HERE:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102067

I can assure you the X1950XT will blow any 8600 or 2600 out of the water in terms of FPS.
Also, the 1950 uses one pin PCI plug. So yes, it also uses more power. (but still a lot less than the 8800GTX for exampe)
As for a AGP X1950XT ?? I can't see it working. Even if the card works, too many other bottlenecks
I'm personally waiting for 8800GTX SLI unEarthly performance in one low energy card.

 


console fans, please go back to your crap and poor quality hardware, crap online service, and games that cost more. oh dont cry that a 7600gt beats a 360 on prey

anyways i reserve judgement till i see these things run crysis, all these dx10 patched games are crap sure some look a lot better then their dx9 counterparts, but theres no performance benefit wich is a major part of dx10

ape, the mid range cards need to be good and theres no other option for bs, even if they release low-high end cards that dosnt mean anything, the x1650s and 7600gts were gd, and amd did pull their heads from their asses to replace the x16 even if it was late, lets hope they realize this bs isnt going to go down, but again lik i said, i reserve judgement till native dx10 games come out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom