 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
| Introduction and Retail Packages | ||||||
|
A lot of attention is paid to framerates when discussing graphics hardware, and rightfully so. Some argue that they are an outdated method for assessing a video card's performance, but when assessing a potential purchase, buyers need some way to determine why one card is superior to the other. We can talk about how a card "feels" during gameplay, but framerates quantify that performance. While framerates should not be your sole purpose for deciding on whether a particular graphics card is the right fit for your needs, they can be a useful tool for assessing the overall value of a product. Case in point, back when reviewing an ASUS EN8800GTX in December, the card churned through everything we threw at it and when we teamed it up in an SLI configuration we continued to see great performance with any game we tried. However, once we ran some benchmarks, we found that our CPU was a bottleneck with just one card installed, proving that the second card would have been a waste of money on a computer system of that kind, yielding next to no performance gains. This was a useful demonstration of how a particular component can affect the peformance of a graphics card, and without framerate measurements, this would not have been as evident to the reader. There are a number of arguments that can be levied for or against benchmarking hardware and assessing performance, and it's not our intent to debate the topic in this article. We bring this up as something to keep in mind, as we'll see a good example of how framerates can appear to paint one picture, but when coupled with other factors, they can be an excellent tool for assessing the overall value of a product. Today, we're going to take a look at three mainstream video cards. The first is the Sapphire HD 2400XT which is an ultra affordable videocard with some solid features. The next two models aim to deliver improved gaming performance while maintaining a respectable pricepoint that can appeal to a broad market, the Sapphire HD 2600Pro OC and the Sapphire HD 2600XT. We'll take a look at each model's feature set and performance to assess how each compares to its competition in the same class. At first the picture may seem conclusive, but as we break everything down at the end, you'll see how framerate came into play to paint a more complete performance picture.
Breaking down the retail packages, we find that all three cards are complemented with a similar collection of extras. For example, each model offers a DVI-to-HDMI adapter, a DVI-to-VGA adapter, a Component Video for HD displays and an S-Video Connector. Both the Sapphire HD 2600XT and 2600Pro OC included installation manuals, drivers CDs and case badges, while the HD 2400XT lacked a drivers CD and case badge but did include a requisite installation guide. Both HD 2600 models also came equipped with CrossFire bridge clips while one is not necessary for the HD 2400XT. As a whole, we found these mid-range to value-class graphics cards to come with a decent collection of necessary extras, however, those looking for bonus software will be disappointed. Ideally, a current copy of Power DVD or a decent game would be considered a bonus, but that wasn't in the cards with any of the three products. |
| Sapphire HD 2400 XT Specifications and Overview | ||||||
The Sapphire HD 2400XT is based on the 65nm RV610 core which comes clocked at 700MHz and is backed by a passive aluminum cooling solution. This makes the card an ideal candidate for situations where silence is a key motivator, such as a multimedia PC. The card is equipped with 40 Stream Processors, with support for Shader Model 4.0 and has a fill rate of 2800 Mtexels per second. The core is complemented by 256MB of GDDR3 clocked at 700MHz as well (1400DDR) with a 64-bit memory bus, delivering 11.2GB/s of memory bandwidth. This model sports a single VGA output and one DVI output and the DVI can be converted to HDMI via the adapter included in the retail bundle. Standard monitor resolution tops out at 2560x1600, which should be more than adequate in most situations, where as TV-Out peaks at 1024x768 analog and 1080i for digital signal. HDMI modes supported include 480p, 720p and 1080i. |
| Sapphire HD 2600Pro OC Specifications and Overview | ||||||
The Sapphire HD 2600Pro OC brings a bit more muscle to the table with an RV630 core. With over double the transistors of the HD 2400XT, the HD 2600Pro OC comes with 390 transistors and a clockspeed of 700MHz. This is the more aggressively tuned model, where as the standard HD 2600Pro is dialed in at 600MHz. With a 128-bit memory bus, the HD 2600Pro OC is backed with 256MB of GDDR3 clocked at 700MHz (1400MHz DDR) while non-OC models come set at 1000MHz DDR. This gives the HD 2600Pro OC an effective bandwidth of 22.4GB/s. With 120 Stream Processors, the 700MHz core gives the HD 2600Pro OC a fill rate of 5600 MTexels per second, double that of the HD 2400XT. Like the cheaper HD 2400XT, the HD 2600Pro OC supports HDMI 1.2 from 480p, 720p and 1080i and supports the same maximum resolutions of 1024x768 analog and 1080i digital. This model sports two DVI outputs with a TV-Out port nestled between them. |
| Sapphire HD 2600 XT Specifications and Overview | ||||||
The Sapphire HD 2600XT is the most powerful of the three models we're testing. The HD 2600XT is similar in many ways to the HD 2600Pro OC, although this model sports a longer PCB. The two 2600 models both share the same Stream Processors at 120 each and both offer Dual DVI, support for HDMI 1.2 and the same modes and maximum resolutions. The main difference between the two is clockspeeds and memory. The core of the HD 2600XT is clocked at 800MHz, giving it an Fill Rate of 6400 MTexels per second and increased shader / video processing performance. The XT also adds GDDR4 memory to the mix, clocked at a speedy 1100MHz (2200MHz DDR). This gives the HD 2600XT an effective memory bandwidth of 35.2GB/s. The cards also sports a 128-bit memory interface and comes with a slick single-slot cooler adorned with a flame like design, which is identical to AMD/ATI's reference model. |
| Performance Comparisons with 3DMark06 v1.1.0 | ||||||||||||
In overall performance, the fastest of the three Sapphire cards, the HD 2600XT, landed between the Geforce 8600GTS and and 8600GT. The HD 2600Pro OC trailed the Geforce 8600GT by almost 400 points while the HD 2400XT trailed the GeForce 8500GT model by a small margin.
When we break the results down to look at Shader Model 2.0 performance, the results were all in favor of the NVIDIA based GeForce 8600GTS, 8600GT and 8500GT. Each of the ATI card trailed significantly with respect to the two HD 2600 models, while the HD 2400XT fell 135 points to the GeForce 8500GT.
Switching over to Shader Model 3 performance, the ATI cards gained heavily compared to the SM2 test, posting leading scores with all three cards when compared to their closest competitors. The margins may not be as broad as the SM2 test, but we still saw 105 point lead with the HD 2600XT vs the GeForce 8600GTS while the HD 2600Pro OC topped the GeForce 8600GT by 140 points. The smallest margins were measured with the HD 2400XT, which lead the GeForce 8500GT by 86 points. |
| Performance Comparisons with Half Life 2: Lost Coast | ||||||
With the Half-Life 2: Lost Coast test, the results all favored the ATI based Sapphire cards when compared to the competing NVIDIA-based cards. The HD 2600XT and the 2600Pro OC both topped the GeForce 8600 GTS while the HD 2400XT fell in between the performance of the GeForce 8600GT and 8500GT. |
| Performance Comparisons with F.E.A.R. | ||||||
Ever since F.E.A.R. came out, it's been a team favorite for benchmarking because of its ability to tax the most powerful cards available. In this test, all three Sapphire cards struggled to compete with the GeForce models. The HD 2600XT wasn't able to match the 8600GT let alone the 8600GTS, while the HD 2600Pro OC was more on-par with the MSI NX8500GT. The Sapphire HD 2400XT was the worst performer demonstrating it wasn't up to a game of this calibre, with the settings we chose for testing. |
| Performance Comparisons with Prey | ||||||
With Prey, a personal favorite, the Sapphire models all trailed the GeForce models, but not quite as severely as we saw with F.E.A.R. In this test, we see the Sapphire HD 2600XT perform on the same level as the GeForce 8600GT while the HD 2600Pro OC was a step behind. Comparing the two budget models, the GeForce 8500GT was still the better performer, with the HD 2400XT trailing an average of 6FPS. |
| Performance Comparisons with Quake 4 | ||||||
In our Quake 4 tests, we saw more of the same, with all of the cards performing similarly to what we saw in Prey. Once again, the GeForce 8600GTS was the top performer with the HD 2600XT and 2600Pro OC performing around the level of the GeForce 8600GT. The Sapphire HD 2400XT dipped fairly low, proving even medium quality gaming at 1024x768 just isn't a realistic endeavor. |
| Overclocking with Quake 4 | ||||
Rounding out our testing, we tried our hand at some overclocking to see how each of these cards faired. Once the optimal settings were found, we ran our Quake 4 test again to show what performance gains could be uncovered.
Our overclocking attempts were limited to the two HD 2600 class cards as the HD 2400XT would not overclock. There was no Overdrive option in drivers and ATITOOL could not change any clockspeeds either, so we moved on. The HD 2600XT proved to overclock fairly well, adding 57Hz to the core and 79MHz to the memory. Sadly, this added a mere 2FPS across the board, yielding minimal returns for our effort. the HD 2600Pro OC, however, offered higher gains overall. Here we managed to add 130MHz to the core while the memory had 180MHz waiting to be discovered. The increase in clockspeeds resulted in an even 5FPS bonus at both resolutions. |
| Performance Summary & Conclusion | ||||||||||||
|
Performance Summary: The only test where the three Sapphire Radeon HD 2x00 cards outperformed their GeForce-based counterparts were with Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and 3DMark06 SM3 testing. The remainder of the test all favored the GeForce series cards. We saw the widest margins in F.E.A.R., where the Sapphire HD series cards struggled the most.
Sapphire HD 2600XT The Sapphire HD 2600XT is a solid value. It couldn't keep up with the GeForce 8600GTS in most tests, but that card costs about $155 compared to the Sapphire HD 2600XT which retails for $104. Now looking back at the performance results and comparing them to the GeForce 8600GT, which retails in the area of $115, and the Sapphire HD 2600XT starts to look like a good buy, beating out the GeForce 8600GT in all but F.E.A.R and offering HDMI with audio support. We also found the image quality superb and the card is a sleek single slot solution. The only concern we had was in regard to temperatures. In fact, this applies to all three Sapphire models, which were all fairly hot to the touch under load. We did not experience any heat related instability, however. That aside, the Sapphire HD 2600XT shaped up well for the price and only truly lacks in regards to its retail bundle, which again, was a bit lite with all three models reviewed.
Sapphire HD 2600 Pro OC The Sapphire HD 2600 Pro OC also performed well when you adjust your comparison based on price and features. Retailing for $86.99, this card tracked closely with the Sapphire HD 2600XT and overclocked high enough to compete with the GeForce 8600GT that is priced about $30 higher. This model also delivered excellent image quality and only requires a single slot with no external power requirements. Its overclocking performance was impressive and it is also significantly shorter than the HD 2600XT. After comparing performance and price, the Sapphire HD 2600Pro OC ends up in a similar situation as the HD 2600XT, competing nicely against other cards in its price group.
Sapphire HD 2400XT The Sapphire HD 2400XT was the lowest performer in virtually every test. While the competitive comparisons needed adjusting with the HD 2600 models, the HD 2400XT compares dead on with a GeForce 8500GT in price, with the Sapphire HD 2400XT retailing for $79.99 and the GeForce 8500GT we reviewed sells for $78. The 2400 XT's passive cooler was a nice touch which, coupled with the card's great image quality, makes the Sapphire HD 2400XT an excellent option for HTPC builds. As with the other two cards, however, heat really is a concern as the HD 2400XT was surprisingly hot to the touch after running some tests. If you're only a casual gamer and want a decent upgrade from an IGP, or want an inexpensive, passively cooled (silent) video card, the HD 2400XT should impress with its image quality and feature set, but for $16 more, you'll get a lot more performance out of the HD 2600Pro OC.
In summary, the Sapphire HD 2600Pro OC is the most well rounded of the three Radeon HD 2x00 series cards we tested in our opinion. This card offers significant performance advantages over the HD 2400XT for what we consider a small increase in cost. The HD 2600Pro OC often competed favorably with the GeForce 8600GT which costs quite a bit more, and the 2600Pro OC overclocked much better that the HD 2600XT or the HD 2400XT, which wouldn't overclock at all. Considering its overall performance and price as it relates to the competition, the Sapphire HD 2600Pro OC represents a solid value.
Discuss This Article and Share Your Thoughts With Others!
|
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
