|
Albatron GeForce 8600 GT 256MB
Introduction
The 8600-series, as well as the 8500s, are cut-down versions of NVIDIA's best video cards. They use the same DX10 architectural approach, having unified stream processors instead of dedicated pixel and vertex shading units, full support of HDR effects, and really for the first time ever, good video acceleration hardware. Currently, there's no hardware that's comparable, outside of NVIDIA's other new mainstream cards. ATI is lagging behind, though they're promising to deliver some serious competition in an amount of time that can reasonably be counted in days. The 8600 GT performance is a little under par with the 7900 GS and the X1950 PRO, which can currently be bought for about the same price. This puts the card in a tight spot. History tells us that when a new generation of video cards is launched, that the cards in the current mid-range need to outperform their older enthusiast hardware competitors, and that's just not the case here. That forces the 8600 GT to use its feature set as the ace-in-the-hole. This area is a lot more important than it used to be, though. Silent cooling, HDMI or at least HDCP compliance, good overclocking, even a well-chosen game tossed in can tip the scales in favor of the series, because the features the 8-series video cards all bring to the table are stellar. Where the card wins hands-down over the previous generation is power consumption. As stated, while the previous generation of hardware can and does outperform this mainstream hardware, it does so with more heat, more transistors, and a lot more power drawn. The 8600 GT tops out at 43 watts under a full load, something like 1/3 of what the older cards need. Today we have for review an Albatron 8600 GT from Albatron. This is a standard (as opposed to overclocked) version of NVIDIA's 8600 GT. Will it please the hordes of eager gamers looking for an affordable card? We shall see. Note: We are currently testing competing midrange cards, and will be posting their results and how they compare to the Albatron 8600 GT soon. Currently, the closest card we can compare to is the 8800 GTS.
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: The Card, Bundle & Test Setup Page 3: Testing - Half-Life 2: Episode 1 Page 4: Testing - F.E.A.R. Page 5: Testing - The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Page 6: Testing - Company of Heroes Page 7: Testing - Prey Page 8: Testing - Need For Speed: Most Wanted Page 9: Testing - Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory Page 10: Testing - 3DMark '06 Page 11: Performance Summary & Overclocking Page 12: Conclusion 
Related Reviews Video Cards September 23, 2009
Video Cards June 25, 2009
Video Cards June 8, 2009
Video Cards April 6, 2009
Add Comment
7 User Comments 1 - Posted by
aireiq
on May 25, 2007 - 9:37 am Quick question: In the ATI Radeon article, you said that you wouldn't be using SC:CT for benchmarking anymore. "Unfortunately, we found that Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory's copy-protection scheme, StarForce, was tampering with our CrossFire results, so we'll be following up with those numbers in our video quality article. Suffice to say, it is because of StarForce that we will no longer be using SCCT as a benchmark." But you used it in the Albatron review. Did you mean you would skip it only for certain cards? 2 - Posted by
Brian
on May 25, 2007 - 11:23 am It could be because the testing for this review was done before the 2900 review. It could also be because the benchmark has problems with Crossfire, which wasn't tested in this review. I don't think it is skipped for certain cards... just dual-cards since it wouldn't be a good basis for comparison. I'm sure Max will see this and clear it up for you.
3 - Posted by
Max Slowik
on May 25, 2007 - 1:40 pm Brian's first assumption was right: I benched this card before we decided to drop SCCT, when I was benching the HD 2900 XTs. But given the hard launch and nature of the HD 2000 release, we ran that article first. StarForce is a huge pain in the groin. Not only does it tamper with drivers (I have to assume, given how bizarre the test bench reacted after running it for the first time after installing the ATI drivers, (installing it doesn't seem to have an effect until it's actually run) but also some research by others) it doesn't work with Windows x64, MCE (I think) and Vista. So here's a good game that's unplayable by a sizable and growing percentage of users. We're going to be adding the next Unreal Tournament game for SM 3.0, and generally moving towards Vista as an equally important platform for benchmarking. I'm not sure yet, but I think we're also going to add S.T.A.L.K.E.R. plus whatever DX10 games (that support benchmarking) come out. Since I'm full-time for TTL, we've got the luxury of playing around with the hardware benchmarking format, although we're really still transitioning. While I've got you here, what are some things you'd like to see in a video card review? I mean, I have a list of things to consider, but is there something in particular you want more or less of? 4 - Posted by
aireiq
on May 27, 2007 - 12:27 pm Thank you both for the information. I'm not what you would call a computer hardware enthusiast, but I find the stuff interesting. I think it would be nice to see more direct comparison type articles. Bang/buck at price range X sorts of things that might help me decide which video cards to buy, or perhaps a little more information on why VidCard Y's Z feature makes is interesting/cool/worth the money. You guys tend to mention these sorts of things in your articles, but I, for one, would like a little more detail. As for the video card benchmarking stuff, I like the brief blurbs on the games, but when reading this article and the Radeon article in proximity I got a little confused because the blurbs were the same in both. Anyway, thanks for asking. I'm looking forward to seeing some the new benchmarking format as it evolves. 5 - Posted by
Kurtis
on May 28, 2007 - 12:00 pm That's because the games are tested the same so we copy/paste parts of the review that apply to other reviews (such as the majority of the "Test Setup" page until our test rigs change, and the "Testing - X Game" pages as you mentioned). There would be no point in re-wording those sections just for the sake of it.
6 - Posted by
Max Slowik
on May 29, 2007 - 12:22 am Remind me again, why do we have the blurbs? It spaces the page out right, or something? Maybe if we did a "test setup" run-down on each game, like: DirectX 9 Shader Model 2.0 Version 1.0h some revision FRAPS + Opening sequence Low Detail: Texture size medium, font size extra extra large High Detail: Some anti-aliasing up in tha hizzy Et cetera, foo we'd have a more informative header. 7 - Posted by
Kurtis
on May 29, 2007 - 12:40 am Well, the game IMAGES are in there to take up space next to the 300x250 ad-slot and to look pretty. The blurbs are there to tell the reader how each game was tested and any special notes about that game. Add Comment To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields. |
Recent Articles Editorials August 27, 2009
Editorials August 18, 2009
Editorials March 3, 2009
Editorials February 12, 2009
Recent News Tom's Hardware Nov. 6, 2009 - 4:45 pm
Boing Boing Nov. 3, 2009 - 8:22 pm
Destructoid Nov. 3, 2009 - 7:14 pm
Fidgit Nov. 3, 2009 - 6:57 pm
Gizmodo Nov. 2, 2009 - 11:58 pm
Rock Paper Shotgun Oct. 30, 2009 - 7:12 pm
Fidgit Oct. 27, 2009 - 11:10 pm
|
|||||||||||||||
