ATI Radeon X800 GT: A Quality Mid-range Solution
by Josh Venning on September 28, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
ixelion - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
I thinks its important to note if one is building a mid range gaming machine and loocking for the best bang foe the buk, then one would be better off with an AGP system with a 6800nu from a decent manucaturer.getting this card to 16 pipelines and at its default clock of 350Mhz (BFG) you get 5.6GPixel fillrate which I think supreseeds all of the cards in the article.
One should also consider that ATI is releasing some lower level cards using the higher end cores which *might* be good cards for pipelne unlocking provided they dont lock the pipes.
acx - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
6800 is performing better in EQ with 1600x1200 4XAA than 1280x1024 4XAA??JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Hmmm... looks like a typo. It looks like 21.6 instead of 11.6 would be more appropriate, given the other charts. Not like either is really good.DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
well ... actually ... it's not a typo ...we tested and retested ... but kept getting the same thing.
we can't explain it. sorry we glossed over it, but we are looking into. we should have mentioned it.
yacoub - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Hey, can you change the teaser line on the frontpage to read, "ATI's answer to a question nobody asked."? That would be much more humorous and accurate. As much as I love my ATi cards, I am really disappointed in them just throwing away all of their initiative this year with long product delays, paper launches, and putting out cards that don't meet the needs of the main gaming fanbase.sri2000 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
A bit OT, but from the 2nd to last page: "While 236 Watts might seem like a lot, keep in mind that with NVIDIA's 7800 series cards, we've seen power draws as high as 280 Watts..."I'm no expert, but if your looking at systems where the max draw is 280 watts, then what would be the point of having a PSU of more than 300 watts (as long as that 300wat PSU is of high quality).
Wouldn't getting 400/500/and even 600W power supplies just be a waste of money - a victim to manufacturers' bogus marketing?
Just askin'
Pythias - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Thing is cheap power supplies rated at 300 rarely hit 300w and if you look at the systems most of that draw is on the 12v rail. Also if you get a good power supply, rated higher than you need, its going to me more efficient handling smaller loads. Thats means lower energy bills.sri2000 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
One reason I brought it up is I saw reviews of the Antec Phantom PSUs at silentpcreview.com, and from what they say, it appears that the main difference between the two models (350W and 500W) is that the 350 is fanless, and the 500 has a fan which only kicks in when temperature/power draw warrants it.So I'm wondering how many of these high-watt PSUs are merely rated higher because they have more agressive cooling systems, and they're actually not of any better quality than their lower-rated siblings.
check out this link:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article28-page4.html">http://www.silentpcreview.com/article28-page4.html
I guess the reason companies like Dell use relatively low-wattage PSUs is because they're less expensive & higher power units just aren't needed - and they're quieter too.
kleinwl - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
That is incorrect. An overspec power supply will not be more efficent than a lower (but sufficent) psu. The best efficency is typically near full load. A half loaded psu will be much less efficent that a mostly loaded psu. Just look at the efficency curves and where they are rated at.bob661 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Where can I get these efficency curves?