What DX10 cards lack in performance, they make up for in stunning DX9 credentials, at least at the high-end.
The midrange is another story - after a thorough examination of the other cards on offer at its price point, I'm less impressed than I originally was with Nvidia's 8600GT chips, given that it's outperformed by the ageing but still surprisingly spritely Radeon X1950 Pro.
And so we come to ATI's response: the HD2600XT. Given the impotent competition in the DX10-compatible midrange arena, surely it won't be hard to rack up a few marks? Apparently so.
For in terms of games and frames, the HD2600XT can't even match the lacklustre strokes of the 8600GT. How can this be? Performance never, ever gets worse with new generations of graphics hardware. This time, both NVIDIA and ATI have managed to buck the trend, and for once that really isn't a good thing.
Architecturally, the HD2600XT appears to be pretty much sound. One hundred and twenty stream processors, 256MB RAM, and stock core and memory speeds of 800/1100MHz at least hints of something juicy.
Sadly, the memory bus is a weedy 128-bit - the same as the 8600GT - and given that the less-than-stellar HD2900XT featured a 512-bit bus, one immediately feels the eyebrows dropping. Another key comparison point is the number of ROPs - 4x2, rather than the HD2900XT's 16x2. Small beans, you'll agree.
Somewhat curiously, the card doesn't require any powering beyond that from the PCI-E bus; no six-pin plug socket, not even a winky-wee Molex.
On the one hand, this is a good thing; less power consumption means a more efficient PC. On the other, it's a worry - 65nm production process aside, exactly how much clout can an unpowered card really muster?
And the answer, unsurprisingly, is not much. The HD2900XT has been launched at a near-identical price-point to the 8600GT. And did we mention that card's middling games performance?
ATI's new midrange offering can't match NVIDIA's effort in the framerate stakes. See the benchmarks over yonder, and weep. It can't even run Half Life 2 - a three year-old game, now - at better than 41FPS at 1680 x 1050, and it refused to fire up 3DMark 2006 on our test rig. An early driver issue, but the fact remains.
