Looking for the best mainstream videocard...
While Nvidia remains quite dominant in the high-end segment, a much larger battle has taken place to offer the best mainstream graphics product. Currently the two leading mainstream cards are the Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS and the ATI Radeon HD 2600XT, both of which are priced well under $200.
Today we will be comparing these two mid-range graphics cards head to head using a 512MB VisionTek Radeon HD 2600XT and a 256MB ASUS GeForce 8600 GTS. While neither product features overclocking out of the box, the Radeon has an obvious advantage in that it sports twice as much video memory. And while this may appear to be unfair, we have found that the average 512MB Radeon HD 2600XT graphics card retails for just $140, while the average price of a GeForce 8600 GTS sporting 256MB of memory is $160.
View: ATI Radeon HD 2600XT vs Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS @ TechSpot
While Nvidia remains quite dominant in the high-end segment, a much larger battle has taken place to offer the best mainstream graphics product. Currently the two leading mainstream cards are the Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS and the ATI Radeon HD 2600XT, both of which are priced well under $200.
Today we will be comparing these two mid-range graphics cards head to head using a 512MB VisionTek Radeon HD 2600XT and a 256MB ASUS GeForce 8600 GTS. While neither product features overclocking out of the box, the Radeon has an obvious advantage in that it sports twice as much video memory. And while this may appear to be unfair, we have found that the average 512MB Radeon HD 2600XT graphics card retails for just $140, while the average price of a GeForce 8600 GTS sporting 256MB of memory is $160.
View: ATI Radeon HD 2600XT vs Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS @ TechSpot
I'd say they're gaming cards.
I recently did an upgrade to a newer system. Was on a budget and built the following:
C2D E4400 | Gigabyte 965G-DS3 | Gigabyte 8600GTS Silent Pipe III | 2Gb Kingston Value Ram DDR2 667
Board, chip, ram, video card and case for all under $AUD1000.
I am getting decent frame rates from most games, definitely more than playable. BioShock was playable @ 1440x900 with most detail on.
Supreme Commander at the same resolution was definitely playable. Having said that, I didn't get into huge battles with massive amounts of units on screen. C&C3 seemed to run ok too.
I am not the biggest of gamers on PC, so this definitely suits my needs, and I like the fact that it's quiet, and needed no extra power connector.
Last edited by phunkymunky on 13 Sep 2007 - 01:51
It really depends on what game you're trying to play. Some games, like Civilization 4, are lean very lightly on the GPU. Others, like GRAW 2, can tax even a 8800GTX-SLI rig it to the max.
As far as video editing, that's not a GPU-dependent function (unless you're running some software that offloads work to the GPU). Video editing speed depends on how fast your overall computer system is (CPU, RAM, Hard Drive, FSB, etc.) If the Video Card can output to S-Video or whatever, it's suitable for video editing.
3D art development software (like 3DS-Max or AutoCAD) is not "video editing" and isn't generally suited for use with consumer-level cards, although you might be able to get by with one, depending on what exactly you want to do with it.
the .1 is software upgradable so buying the card now can't be bad..
the .1 is software upgradable so buying the card now can't be bad..
I havent researched it much but thought it was hardware based, in that case as you say isnt that bad, however im still pleased with my 1950XT
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.