2400 XT & 2600 Pro Review
I don't think these will persuade me to start playing games on my new iMac if I bought one.
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/...rmance/?page=1
<snip>
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/...rmance/?page=1
<snip>
Comments
Overall, the new Radeon HD 2600 XT, 2600 Pro, and 2400 XT cards should make for quiet, low-power upgrades from any integrated graphics solution and offer a relatively low-cost of entry into the world of DirectX 10. These cards are obviously not geared to hardcore gamers, but at lower resolutions without high levels of AA and anisotropic filtering enabled they’ll be adequate for casual gaming. These cards are also well suited to HTPC applications where video playback performance and low-noise output are of the utmost importance.
The relevant parts of the review conclusion have been highlighted for your convenience.
Still, they are big improvements over the X1650 Pro I currently have in my gaming PC...
At least I can play CoD4 on my 360, but still....I was really looking forward to playing it on my new iMac.
An alternative theory would be that the 2600 Pro is cheaper and Apple wants people to move towards laptops for gaming, because they are evil and crazy.
I would really, really like the option to put a Geforce 8800 GTS in one of these, but now that the specs are confirmed I think I'm going to build a PC.
The relevant parts of the review conclusion have been highlighted for your convenience.
Unfortunately, Apple don't make use of any of the video processing capabilities of ATI or Nvidia GPUs, except in the AppleTV.
The card in the laptops is the 8600 mobile, which is probably lower on the performance charts than the desktop 8600GT, so it's possible that the 2600 Pro outperforms it. I haven't read a good review of the mobile part yet.
An alternative theory would be that the 2600 Pro is cheaper and Apple wants people to move towards laptops for gaming, because they are evil and crazy.
I would really, really like the option to put a Geforce 8800 GTS in one of these, but now that the specs are confirmed I think I'm going to build a PC.
and the games laptops start at $2000 but the base pro system has more ram but only a 128 mb video card you need to go $2400 to get a 256mb one.
I have an HD 2600 Pro in the mail. Seems it wasn't as great as I had hoped.
No way in hell that card is going to able to play games like Crysis and Call of Duty 4 at full details, which really sucks, IMO.
At least I can play CoD4 on my 360, but still....I was really looking forward to playing it on my new iMac.
Dont worry, most computers wont be able to play crysis at full settings on a 30 inch screen.
The relevant parts of the review conclusion have been highlighted for your convenience.
Still, they are big improvements over the X1650 Pro I currently have in my gaming PC...
From what I've read the 2400 and 2600 lines are inferior to the nvidia 8600 gpus. Am I missing something here? I still wonder why Apple didn't go with the nvidia gpus. I know that they didn't perform particularly well in testing at Macworld in the MBP, but they probably are better than the 2600.
From what I've read the 2400 and 2600 lines are inferior to the nvidia 8600 gpus. Am I missing something here? I still wonder why Apple didn't go with the nvidia gpus. I know that they didn't perform particularly well in testing at Macworld in the MBP, but they probably are better than the 2600.
they got the ati / amd gpu for less?
they got the ati / amd gpu for less?
Yeah, I guess that's it. Certainly those gpus are 'value' priced.
so are these new gpu's better or worse than the nvidia 8600m gt's in the MBP's?
Worse. Look at the link in my post above for details.(#10)
Worse. Look at the link in my post above for details.(#10)
I don't see in that article where it compares the Radeon to the mobile version of the 8600.
- Macbook Pro Nvidia 8600m GT --- max fillrate = 7600 MT/s
- 24" iMac (late 2006 model with optional 7600 GT mobile) --- max filrate = 6000 MT/s
- 2007 iMac with ATI HD 2600 PRO --- max fillrate = 4800 MT/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ocessing_Unitshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ocessing_Units
The comparison chart at Toms Hardware only has the HD 2600 XT (fillrate 6400 MT/s), which is a faster card than the HD 2600 PRO, but it is still slower than the 8600m GT.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=859&chart=318
Probably got a sweetheart deal from AMD/ATI also.
They have not been doing spectacularly of late and probably gave Apple a killer deal to say they landed a design win.
THese cards supposedly do handle HD video quite well though.
These cards supposedly do handle HD video quite well though.
Shame Apple doesn't use that functionality, isn't it?
and the games laptops start at $2000 but the base pro system has more ram but only a 128 mb video card you need to go $2400 to get a 256mb one.
DO NOT CALL THE MACBOOK PRO A GAMES LAPTOP!!!
The Macbook Pro and the iMac are not at all optimized for gaming. Gamers don't give a darn about 80% of the features of either of them, and they're only halfway decent at doing what gamers need. Same with the Mac Pro, really. Macs are only really designed for casual gaming, at best.
If gaming is your obsession and your reason for buying a new computer, then build your own PC and run Windows. That's the only real option for serious gaming.
And besides, you make it sound $2000 is an unrealistic price for a high-end laptop. Dell's XPS gaming laptops also start in that price range.
I'm sorry if this comes across as angry and mean, but I'm trying to do you a favor. Macs will not, in the foreseeable future, be a reasonable choice if you want a computer optimized for frames per second and 32x Anti-Aliasing with Max Shadows and OMG effects. Period.
The thing is only marginally more powerful than a X1600 XT.
For the guy wanting to run Crysis, heh heh, I think you will struggle running Company of Heroes. And im serious. Perhaps 15fps with max detail @ 1280x1024.
And for those who think Apple chose this card for 'heat' issues, let me tell you that the 8600GTS doesnt run any hotter than a 2600 Pro. While the Pro may be more power efficient, this is usally a moot point in desktops since you are not running on a battery