Final Words

We here at AnandTech know what a headache it can be when shopping for a graphics card, or any computer part for that matter. For the majority of us who aren't able to go right out and pick up the most powerful card available for upwards of $400, finding the best option for your price range can be frustrating. Contrary to what some manufacturers might have you believe, even the most graphically demanding games out now are more than playable on most mid-priced cards, and since most computer gamers are able to afford these cards, it's nice to know that both ATI and NVIDIA continue to develop new parts for this price bracket.

In our tests, we've seen how ATI's Radeon X800 GT hangs in there with these other cards, and in some cases, even surpasses its slightly more-costly competitors. Performance-wise, the X800 GT has shown itself to be a solid competitor to the 6600 GT, and therefore, worthy of consideration when shopping for cards. To sum up what we saw in our performance tests, because of the differences between the pipelines on these cards, the settings in games often determined which card had the best framerates (with the exception of the X800 XT). Between the X800 GT and 6600 GT, it is nearly impossible to determine which is actually better, as each card likes its own combination of games and settings. While the X800 and 6800 did perform slightly better than the previous two, the framerates for all of the cards (sans the X800 XT) stayed fairly close together. This leads us to price comparisons.

At $160, either the X800 GT or the 6600 GT would be a smart alternative to the other two $200 cards given the performance results. Yes, you may get slightly better performance out of an X800 or 6800, but we don't feel that it's enough of a boost to warrant an extra $40. For those of you who absolutely must be able to play the higher resolutions with AA enabled, our advice is to save up and get the X800 XT for $325 (or better still, a 7800 GT for $350). However, given that with the right settings, many of these games are not only playable, but look quite nice on a X800 GT, we definitely recommend this card to the average gamer.

If you're still looking for options, ATI has another new release that may surpass the performance of even the 6800 and X800 at a lower price. We're talking about the X800 GTO. What's the big difference between the GT and the GTO? Simply put, the GTO has 12 pixel pipelines instead of 8, which increases pixel processing power. While it comes with lower core speeds, the net result is still more fillrate. Mathematically: 475 * 8 = 3800; 400 * 12 = 4800. That means a 26% performance increase. The only problem is that core and memory clock speeds on both the GT and GTO are not always the same, so make sure that you get the higher clocked models if you want top performance. The GTO is available already, starting at $190, which should at least put it ahead of the X800 and 6800 cards. The only fly in the ointment is the pending launch of the RV530 parts….

We think that the performance we'll be seeing from ATI's upcoming mid-range cards will be a good thing, and we are looking forward to getting our hands on them soon. While ATI seems to have had their share of bad luck lately, we are crossing our fingers and looking forward to what's in store for the near future. It's nice that they are helping us save some money with cards like the Radeon X800 GT, but here's hoping that they have something big for us soon, and that it lives up (or at least comes close) to our expectations.

Power Consumption
Comments Locked

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • bupkus - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    What would be a good minimum fps for UT2004?
  • tuteja1986 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    I saw the X800GTO selling at $280AUD which is cheap since 6600GT sell arround $250 - $300AUD in australia. Anyways I read the X800GTO review "http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review...">http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review... i thought X800GTO was great for its price in australia anyways. Anyways if i do upgrade in end of this year it would either X1600XT or 7600GT when ever they come out.
  • AtaStrumf - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Man, you guys sure take your time (probably all those useless 7800 GTX reviews took their toll). At least you could have included the X800 GTO (and 9800 Pro for reference - same spec old tech), but that said it is one of the better GPU reviews lately. Just one gripe. You shold have made it VERY CLEAR that 128 MB X800 GT is much slower frequency wise than the 256 MB one.

    I must say I'm more than a bit dissappointed in X800 GT. It sure looked better on paper. 6600 GT still seems to be the better card overall (1280x1024 no AA -- which is what the great majory uses)

    Here's hoping that the X1600 brings something better.
  • arturnow - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    ATi respond to GeForce 6600GT after one year. Congratulation !!!
  • CrystalBay - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    For $200 , FTW...
  • DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    we're waiting for one ... but you might end up looking in another direction before we get to it.
  • imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    "several titles coming out in the near future that will use the same engine. Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars"

    Of which are terrible examples, thats one way to not get on doom 3 side. lol

    Case in point download the multiplayer video of Quake 4...you will laugh so much you wonder if its still quake 2 engine. It does not even look changed from last quake
  • Pete - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    One note, I think you listed the effective rather than actual RAM speed for the 6600GT in the table on p.2.
  • DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    first, josh wrote this one (though jarred did some editing)

    second, I just fixed the problem -- you were correct.
  • Pete - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Josh! I meant Josh! :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now