ON CNET: New Seinfeld-Gates ad is superb
CNET Networks Entertainment:
GameSpot
GameFAQs
SportsGamer
MP3.com
TV.com
Metacritic

[UPDATE: Added new release information and benchmark results for the Radeon HD 2600 and HD 2400 series cards.]

AMD may have released its new DirectX 10-compatible ATI Radeon months after the Windows Vista launch, but the delay hasn't affected PC enthusiasts because most of the highly anticipated DirectX 10 games, such as Crysis and BioShock, aren't going to arrive until the second half of the year. Yes, we've seen DirectX 10 versions of Lost Planet and Company of Heroes, but we can't expect modified DirectX 9 games to compete against new games developed for DirectX 10. Subtle shadowing changes and extra rocks on the ground aren't going to help Microsoft sell more copies of Vista.

Those holding off on DirectX 10 Windows Vista upgrades in anticipation of upcoming DirectX 10 games can choose from two brands of video cards. Nvidia's DX10-compatible GeForce 8 series has been available since the end of last year. AMD released the first member of its ATI Radeon HD 2000 GPU lineup, the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, this past May. The midrange Radeon HD 2600 and the entry-level Radeon HD 2400 cards arrive in early July. All the Radeon HD 2000 series cards feature full DirectX 10 compatibility, image quality enhancements, and hardware-accelerated high-definition video support.

Radeon HD 2900 XTRadeon HD 2600 XTRadeon HD 2600 ProRadeon HD 2400 XTRadeon HD 2400 Pro
Price:$399$149 (GDDR4), $119 (GDDR3)$89 – 99$75 – 85$50 – 55
Stream Processing Units:3201201204040
Clock Speed:740MHz800MHz600MHz700MHz525MHz
Memory:512MB (GDDR3)256MB (GDDR4, GDDR3)256MB (GDDR3, DDR2)256MB (GDDR3)128 – 256MB (DDR2)
Memory Interface:512-bit128-bit128-bit64-bit64-bit
Memory Speed:825MHz800MHz (GDDR3), 1100MHz (GDDR4)400 – 500MHz700 – 800MHz400 – 500MHz
Transistors:700 million390 million390 million180 million180 million

The Radeon HD 2600 and Radeon HD 2400 cards will be available in the usual Pro and XT variants, but there will be only a single XT card at the HD 2900 level at launch. The XT cards generally have faster core and memory clock speeds than the Pro versions. The model numbers indicate relative GPU strength. For example, the Radeon HD 2900 has 320 stream processing units, while the Radeon HD 2600 and Radeon HD 2400 have 120 and 40 stream processing units, respectively. On-board memory will range from 256MB for the 2400, 256MB for the 2600, and up to 512MB for the 2900. Board manufacturers will likely offer more memory options as the GPU line matures. Several manufacturers are also working on special Radeon HD 2600 XT "Gemini" cards that will have two 2600 XT GPUs on a single card. ATI hasn't announced a launch date for the dual-GPU "Gemini" board yet, but the company has stated that the suggested pricing will be in the $189-249 range.

The Radeon HD 2000 GPU is ATI's first unified shader architecture for the desktop, but it's actually a second-generation design. ATI's first unified shader was the "Xenos" GPU built for the Xbox 360. Older, nonunified shader designs had separate hardware shaders dedicated to pixel or vertex processing. This made GPUs inefficient, because games never maintain the same pixel-to-vertex workload ratio to always match the pixel-to-vertex shader ratios on the hardware. The unified shader architecture gives the GPU more flexibility by allowing all the shaders to process pixel, vertex, and now, with DirectX 10, geometry work. Nvidia also switched over from traditional shaders to the unified shader approach in its current GeForce 8 GPU.

Tech Demo
Heavy from Team Fortress 2 demonstrates the new range of facial animations made possible by the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT.
Watch It »

ATI created a new Ruby "Whiteout" tech demo to show off what the Radeon HD 2900 XT can do. In the new demo, the Ruby model has 200,000 triangles, and the entire video averages more than 1 million triangles per frame. In comparison, the Ruby from the Radeon X1000 series demo, "The Assassin," only has 80,000 triangles, and the demo averages just over 500,000 triangles per frame. The new Ruby also has 128 facial animation targets compared to four for the older models, which allows for more realistic facial expressions.

The Radeon HD 2900 XT will also feature the return of the voucher. Each card will come with a code for Valve's Half-Life 2: The Black Box, which includes Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Portal, and Team Fortress 2. It'll be a great value if the game ships on time. Several years ago, ATI partnered with Valve to include vouchers for the original Half-Life 2 with high-end Radeon 9000 series cards, but some consumers ended up waiting years to cash in because of development delays.

804 Comments

  • Waseemreddler

    Posted Sep 26, 2007 3:13 am PT

    situation looks grave , may be the change of plan is needed, i played games when it was the maximum requirment 500Mhz 128MB ram and 8MB Video Card , but age is gone , minds are changed ............. wt the hell is this?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • SeanWithBigBall

    Posted Sep 14, 2007 1:03 pm PT

    The new iMac's from Apple have these cards in them. The 20-inch 2.0GHz model has an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory. The 20-inch 2.4GHz model, 24-inch 2.4GHz model, and the 24-inch 2.8GHz model have an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory.

    They all have the Intel Core 2 Duo in them! So take that you Mac haters whom don't understand us.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • cameron06

    Posted Sep 7, 2007 11:43 pm PT

    just barely though really you'd wanna get 2 of them just so you have abit of head room, also crysis is a game wich would depend more on the memory of the video card the 640MB verson of the GTS will do much better then a 512MB 2900XT , the GTX also runs alot better with all the filters turned up, unlike the 2900XT wich will begin to shutter after the resolutions go up but the GTX just get faster and faster when you turn the reso up higher and higher because of how much memory it has

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • DaDude253

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 5:29 am PT

    Would Lost Planet on the PC be able to run with a ATI HD 2400 XT?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • swedish-marine

    Posted Aug 4, 2007 12:37 pm PT

    VfighterX - the problem handeling Crysis or any modern game isn't really the GPu, it's about only the CPU that judges it - especially in World in Conflict. Myself I have a Sapphire HD 2900 XT since a time and I'm satisfied with it, even if I still have a old AMD 64 3700+ CPU for a few more days it's still impressive to see how much you'll get for the price - not only does the card look fantastic, it comes with great budled games even if they aren't launched yet (distr. via Steam) and performs way better than the 8800GTS 640mb which was the real target for this HD2900XT to take out - every resolution works better on the faster bandwith of the HD2900XT. Yes, the card consumes alot of power, but having a new, more expensive and solid PSU is better than having a good and more power effecient card along with a trashy aged PSU since about all NEW PSUs will handle this card like nothing. I'm going to pair these up by the start of next year along with the new Phenom processors for AM2+ (AMD Athlon 64 X4) to really be able to kick everything up - but for now I've just ordered a Crossfire-ready AM2 mobo, ATI Crossfire Certified RAM by OCZ (CL4) and a AMD Athlon X2 6000+ to have a platform to build on. I can't see what people like with nVIdia that causes them to dislike ATi - if it wasn't for ATi you would probably have to pay doubled the price for that 8800GTS 640mb for example. The 8800GTS I've installed for a friend wasn't in any real quality at all, very plastic and small and stupid when it came to solutions for the power connectors so that they wouldn't be in the way - and the card also costed more, performed lackier and game with two $5-games while the HD2900XT was really heavy, big but wasn't too big either due to the smart design, had a fantastic sense of quality and came with a bundles arsenal of $70+ in games. I'd recommend the HD2900XT for everyone - the 8800GTS 640mb is a bad deal and the 8800GTX is only a trophy for nVidia which they never want to sell - they've not reduced the price since launch, more or less, and that's not a good sign.

    The card also has the best possible Multi-GPU solution now when Crossfire has became far more scalable than nVidias SLi while these cards really shine with their fantastic looking coolers.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • VfighterX

    Posted Jul 20, 2007 12:25 pm PT

    I wonder how fast these cards would run Crysis.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • LouieV13

    Posted Jul 18, 2007 8:39 am PT

    My HD 2900XT crossfire setup PWNS

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • ahmedkandil

    Posted Jul 16, 2007 10:17 pm PT

    and for the love of god people STOP SAYING THAT HD2900XT DOES NOT BEAT THE 8800GTX!!!! THE 2900XT WAS REALESED TO COMPARE TO THE 8800GTS (and in about half the cases, it BEATS the superclocked 8800gts) the HD2900XTX is supposed to compete with the 8800GTX (not sure what ati has to say to the ultra)

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • ahmedkandil

    Posted Jul 16, 2007 10:10 pm PT

    screw the HD2900XT....HD2900XTX FTW!!!!

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • dtfann003

    Posted Jul 13, 2007 9:52 pm PT

    I like nvidia over ATI. What I dont like is.... Why the Hell would any one pay over 170 bucks for a video that will in just in weeks will end up 100 bucks?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 1 users agree
  • PSP360Gamr83

    Posted Jul 6, 2007 10:51 pm PT

    Benchmarks are crap on the 2900 XT for a card that sucks up 550W of power... crazy

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 1 users agree
  • Godofbattles

    Posted Jul 3, 2007 2:36 pm PT

    Go for Nvidia Only

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 3 users agree
  • bladekkk

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 7:54 pm PT

    the 2900xt 1 gig is out now on newegg for just like 60 more thasn the 512
    im thinking since i just got my 512 3 days ago i will refund and place new order
    i will do this at the same time and use 1 day shipping so when i send my card back my new one will be here the same day.
    these cards kick ass
    especially for the price
    image quality is unbelievable
    you need to see it in motion not just some screenies or benchies
    btw screw benchies,gamneplay is where its at

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 2 users agree
  • CaribouLou5

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 6:09 pm PT

    What happened to the 1024 mb Radeon HD 2900 XTX? It was supposed to wipe the floor with the GTX. Maybe ATi is saving that one for last...

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • KingSigy

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 12:20 pm PT

    These Radeon HD's sure look to be killers. I'll definitely opt for the HD 2900 XT, then I can keep it in my case for a good 3 years before updating.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 1 users agree
  • tranquilo_

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 11:37 am PT

    When I bought the nvidia FX5900 I wanted the best and it ended up having its problems, so from then on I buy the best performance/price ratio there is (medium level). I bought the 6600GT and it is still a nice card (enough for me to play CSS, COD2, etc), sure its getting dated, I will wait and see who has the upper hand in the performance/price ratio with DX10 games. For now I am opting for the 8600GTS OC or the Radeon HD 2600XT.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 1 users agree
  • TrixteH

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 8:20 am PT

    If you have the money and are an enthusiast and want the best there is, at the end of the day....why have a burger (HD2900) when you can have a steak (nvidia 8800 ultra). lol

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 8 users agree
  • foe666

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 7:34 am PT

    I care! I need to get 100000 fps on cave story and ragnarok online!

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 2 users agree
  • itzmec

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 7:30 am PT

    who cares! there's nothing to play......

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 2 users agree
  • foe666

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 7:26 am PT

    Screw Vista. XP FTW!!

    And I definitely won't decide on new cards until some DX10 games actually come out >_>

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 4 of 4 users agree
  • uberjannie

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 6:49 am PT

    I agree with brono.
    I wont fluke out with 100 quid extra if its only 5-10% better performance with that card. Id rather just overclock the card that costs 100 quid less..

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 2 users agree
  • brono

    Posted Jul 2, 2007 4:32 am PT

    sorry to say this .but you must be all rich people i admit that nvidia cards are best that ati. but ati can conpite widh nvidia for almost alf price so ati its the winner for all gamers that arent like you all rich people.
    first ting that i see in hardware its the price\ performance relation so if i find a good hardware for the lowest price for me its the best choice so i prefere ati .i do admit nvidia normali its better but only for rich people that dose not have anything to do only spend money for fun

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 4 of 6 users agree
  • Lord-Shock

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 8:54 pm PT

    Sorry but if ATI is trying to defeat to NVIDIA with those video cards then they need to get back to the laboratory to plan it again

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 2 users agree
  • SaliSB

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 8:44 pm PT

    whether AMD made the right move or not by releasing a "midranged" card compared to nvidia's stuff, idk, what i do know is that i would by the hd2900xt

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 2 users agree
  • mrdazy

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 8:36 pm PT

    No. It is actually true. Being a computer reseller/repairer/builder, I have access to information that is not "casually" available to the average reader (company newsletters/emails, resellers magazines, corporate standings reviews, etc), and it is a well known fact that "keeping in the game" is far more important to AMD/ATI right now (obviously) than making benchmark scores. Bad move? Perhaps in the minds of ppl only looking at quarterly market gains, synthetic benchmarks . If you have "been computing" for longer than a few years, then you know full well that Top Product is never top for long. In the long run they (and we, as consumers) can only benefit from Direct development communication and coordination between a GPU and CPU manufacturer. Only *mildly* off topic.... :-D
    http://www.crn.com/hardware/200001783
    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2152458,00.asp

    Final jab: Think NATIVE multi core! AMD has it!

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 6 users agree
  • whizzedOUTwoz

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 7:26 pm PT

    Midrange my ass, that was what they came up with and stamped a mid range price on it, im sorry it just dosent float with me, i guess we will see what ATI can come up with in a years time, yet they need to catchup as it seems they are atleast 1 full cycle behind already. Its looking like the AMD/ATI merger was a bad move as Intel and NVIDIA are dominating the market in both areas.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 2 users agree
  • mrdazy

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 4:14 pm PT

    Their new card was INTENTIONALLY meant to be a midrange, its not what they "can" produce, it's what they DID produce. Financially they are still recovering from the merger, so this card is just to "keep them in the market" whilst they restructure the development departments, marketing, etc. Admittedly, ATIs cards have not allways been the top mark, but well enough to keep in the running. But AMDs chip architecture development has always been far more progressive and forward thinking. I have no doubts that AMD/ATI has a very bright future ahead worth watching.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 4 of 5 users agree
  • TrixteH

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 4:03 pm PT

    I find it highley amusing that ATI release there flagship dx10 card some 6 months later than Nvidia and still can only produce the power of nvidias mid range card.....

    I would love to have seen the results if they had benchmarked the HD2900 crossfire against the 8800 Ultra SLI......ATI/AMD would get pwned 4 sure.

    I read this discussion board laughing with tears in my eyes at some of the comments made by ATI fanboys sticking by there cards its hilarious...but how long can you keep it up for lol

    Intel and Nivida are now without doubt the brands of choice for enthusiasts alike.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 7 users agree
  • -spAce

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 3:51 pm PT

    There is no DX10 3D card available that I would buy. They all spend too much electrons. Why in the **** do they spend so much power in idle mode. Dosent look good in electricity bills and dosent do good for the nature.

    The whole DX10 is a failure.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 8 users agree
  • ticktocktick201

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 2:49 pm PT

    yes it is

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 1 users agree
  • gamer100g

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 2:48 pm PT

    Are they getting better performance in vista?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • Shehzad15

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 10:36 am PT

    Is this graphics card more powerful than the xbox 360 and ps3?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 0 of 0 users agree
  • whizzedOUTwoz

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 3:47 am PT

    I just purchased an MSI 8800 Ultra which was factory overclocked and its the fastest frekking card ever, im well chuffed with the performance even in the only handful of DX10 games, which still beat the ATIs.

    And why would ATI release only a mid range card?, I thought the idea was to beat or atleast get close to your rival in benchmarks, to me it makes no sense, you are giving out the wrong impression as NVIDIA will have even more sway for consumers. It just makes the gap look even bigger.

    And im sure ATI/AMD would be saying this is only our mid range card.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 5 users agree
  • Poeticinsomniac

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 3:00 am PT

    Why do so many people have a problem understanding the simple fact that the HD2900xt is ati's MID-RANGE dx10 card. The HD2900 has a price tag of $380 that comes with the Half life 2 orange box voucher which is something like $50-80 of software.

    The 8800gtx is something like $500, the GTX ultra is $700+. Also the gts and gtx cards have an additional 128-256mbs of memory. The HD2900 was meant to compete with the 640gts card. Yet in numerous tests it comes in close to the gtx or surpasseses it in performance. There are almost no DX10 games available to accurately compare performance between the cards, but in terms of price, the HD2900 is better. As well as a hell of a lot more inovative then the 8800. It isn't the slaughter over nvidia most were expecting, but it's impressive considering it's only their midrange card and it competes with nvidias high end hardware for half the price.

    SP33doh saying that the 8800 is the best dx9 card out is stupid. Plain and simple, stupid. It would be pretty sad if the next gen card couldnt outpreform the previos generation of hardware. With the 1950xt costing around $200 now it is the best dx9 card available, mine can still run every dx9 game out on ultra settings in 1600x1200 and most in 2048x1536. It's not just the video card...the rest of your system has to have good hardware as well.

    Why the hell should AMD/ATI rush hardware that isn't needed. With no DX10 games around there isn't any need there, and considering the quad cores are being optimized for 64bit vista (they're working with microsoft to do so) why should they rush those when everyone running a 64bit rig is still using xp, or 32bit vista. There isn't going to be anymore 32bit software, or operating system/support come 2008, and since nvidia and intel are focusing on 32bit interface, i suspect they're going to be screwed once that happens.

    So why must every fanboy crawl out of the woodwork to boast about the fact they spend $1500-2000 every 6months to get the latest and greatest video cards and cpu's to use software on a 5 year old operating system while running their monitor resolution at 1280x1024. Up the resolution, get a 64bit OS to go with your 64bit hardware and then run some tests and see who fares best.

    BTW...until nvida came out with the 8800 line....they were getting their teeth kicked in since ATI came out with the x850. Just like AMD was destroying intel since t he release of the 939 socket up until the conroe came out. But intel and nvidia are just pumping out new shiny crap that no one needs, because they don't even use the software it was intended for, because they know once the software upgrade is made they'll once again be screwed.....much like the people spending $1500 on GTX ultra's to play Warcraft or Half life 2 in 1280x1024 so they can say they get 300 FPS. Bravo

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 17 of 19 users agree
  • bladekkk

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 2:13 am PT

    i just bought a 2900xt,i had a x1900xt that had a warranty that was up in 4 days i sent it back to the retailer and they refunded me full price which was 389 so i bought a x2900xt for 377,
    it kicks butt big time
    i have never winter nights 2 running at full settings with 4aa running with another 4aa from the filter and all other 3d settings at max
    i get great framrates with little drops
    but the visual experience is where this card shines
    i had no idea a game could look this damn good
    like a movie
    from lush scenery to great lighting effects,even the ground looks terrific compared to what i had on my x1900xt
    my only regret is i could not get the 1 gig version as they do not have it yet
    i recommend the x2900xt fully
    no i am not a fanboy either

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 3 users agree
  • beckoflight

    Posted Jul 1, 2007 12:53 am PT

    Good point Sefveron ... & another thing Ati whould have realesed 1gb ddr 3,4 version but the provider wasn't up for the job... practicaly the 1gb Radeon does exist & its being tested as we speak .... & its much more longer than the XT(http://www.price.ro/forum/printthread.php?t=25395) & sure much more powerfull than GTX & XT + when i meant the 1950 XTX is the best DX9 card ..i was refearing at last generations cards that only support DX9 !!! & PLS .. PLS no more fanboyism .... i just want to see the real DX10 test .... till now i'mm ore atracted to the crossfire 2900 XT its much cheaper & better ( maybe its better than 2 GTX's in sli who knows just w8 & think clear not fanboyism )... i think now it all depends on drivers & Ati's teams are working hard to make them perfect so its just a matter of time !

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 4 of 5 users agree
  • Sefveron

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 11:37 pm PT

    People keep going on about how the HD2900xt is getting its assed kicked by the 8800gtx but if they spent 5 minutes to research a little they would see that the 2900xt is about the same price as the 640mb 8800gts and performs a fair decent amount better, also the 2900xtx was delayed due to memory bandwidth problems , and if Nvidia fan boys want to poke fun at that i recall that the 8800gtx's had capacitor problems which were just fixed in time for the launch

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 4 users agree
  • mikley28

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 11:00 pm PT

    how about comparing the hd2900 xt Crossfire to the GF 8800 GTX SLI instead of the GTS SLI.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 3 users agree
  • MADCAT_Mishka

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 10:14 pm PT

    all this proves is that Crossfire is better than SLI...

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 4 users agree
  • bang1101

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 10:14 pm PT

    I'd rather they do a screen shot compairison then scoreing, if you can run something at medium settings and have it look like its running on high is where I'm interested. so far thats where ATI has surpassed Nvidia

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 3 users agree
  • phoenixan_akrau

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 10:09 pm PT

    I at least prefer ATI for the lower cost.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 3 users agree
  • Heil68

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 9:50 pm PT

    Nice

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 1 users agree
  • sokunthy

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 9:39 pm PT

    Nvidia will aways stay on top.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 9 users agree
  • escapee88

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 9:16 pm PT

    Damn, amd/ati sux right now, they delayed the release of their card by how many months? and it's still getting its ass kicked by the 8800gtx?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 3 of 7 users agree
  • solatron

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 8:52 pm PT

    S3 Trio rules lol

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 1 users agree
  • Jmaster3265

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 8:03 pm PT

    Now the question is which is better Nvidia or Radeon?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 1 users agree
  • mr_killer_man

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 7:59 pm PT

    So is the xt 2900 the best?

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 2 of 3 users agree
  • B4mB00

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 6:40 pm PT

    They should separate the Crossfire vs single card setups. The way they have it set up makes it seem as if ATI wins every round when in reality, they lose nearly every bench. GS should also do a price/performance comparison, because at least then ATI could save its skin.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 4 users agree
  • SteveTwo

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 6:16 pm PT

    My x850XTPE is still chugging along, barely. I think it's impressive it continues to get the job done. This is the year for me to upgrade though. I think I'm going to wait for the single card dual-2600 they mentioned to be released and start planning a system around that. Maybe get one of the full AGP/PCI-E combo boards and start working my way to a new system.

    • Login to rate this comment
    • 1 of 2 users agree

advertisement
Click Here

ATI Radeon HD 2000 Series Hands-On

Find out about ATI's DirectX 10 Radeon HD 2000 series video card lineup.

Tags