Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anusha" data-source="post: 2065449" data-attributes="member: 828">That is the same with nVidia as well. In fact, people all over the world believe the driver department of ATI is better than nVidia. To be honest, it is the nVidia users who moaned when Vista performance was poor compared to XP's. ATI got it right from the beginning and there was only a small performance deficit in the first few months. Moving to Vista didn't worry me at all. (Should not deviate from the original topic, I suppose <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/D.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D" data-shortname=":D" />)Anyway, talking about the 2400XT, you are not supposed to install that card in a gaming rig. Not even the 2600XT. Those are for mediocre gaming, and more importantly for OEMs (who ask for hefty prices for their brand name than performance) and for HTPCs. They concentrated on video decoding performance and power consumption with those cards. That's exactly ATI's point in not giving the proper video decoding features in their flagship VGA at that time, the 2900XT. Their point was, if you are rich enough to buy a 2900XT, you should be rich enough to buy a highend CPU as well, which negates the reason for offloading the CPU from "software" video processing. (tbh, that's a stupid excuse!)</blockquote>

Top Bottom