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

  • drinkmorejava - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    But how does the 6600gt compare in SCCT with SM3.0 on. It's not an unbiased test if you're not using the cards to the best of their abilities. SM3 was built to give a performance boost that would encourage people to by cards with it, no sense in leaving this out.
  • lifeguard1999 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Why?
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Remember the 6800 Strength lies in situations where AA & AF are applied. it's overall pixel fillrate is only 3.9GPixel compare to the 6600 GT 4.0GPixel, if not memory bandwidth limited, there is potential for 6600 GT to outperform 6800 Vanilla. Vertex Shader power doesn't matter also all that much as the amount 6600 GT has seems to be sufficient. Pixle Shader fillrate is one of the most important indicators of performance when comparing across the same architecture.
  • Cybercat - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    I was wondering about this myself. I've seen a number of benchmarks from other sources showing the 6800 to be the better performer. I hope Josh used a genuine NV41/42 6800 rather than just taking a NV45 and cutting it down.
  • Kagjes - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    hmm, could someone plz tell me what's the overclocking like with 6800s? is it worth buying at all?
  • DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    they have different strengths
  • jkostans - Sunday, September 25, 2005 - link

    I just built a computer for a buddy a X800 GT 256MB card plus a A64 3500+ in it. The 3500+ overclocked to 2.63GHz prime95 stable, and the video card was running solid at 580Mhz Core 595Mhz Memory and looped 3dmark tests all night without a single problem. Probably the best bang for the buck system I've built so far. Performance wise better than the 3800+ and X800 XL system I built prior to it (stock speeds) and a lot cheaper.
  • Thatguy97 - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link

    dont see how the x800 gt was a quality mid range solution as the x800 xl and x800 were much better cards

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now