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
Leper Messiah - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Hm. ATi is really sucking recently. My 9800pro gets some better results than that thing...the performance should be much better than a 6600gt, I mean only 30MHz less clock, more vertex shaders, 256-bit memory bus, etc...drivers? I dunno.Kinda funny to the 6800nu getting last though.
yacoub - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
BS! I mean maybe if you purposely ignore the 6800GT and X800XL that sell for around $250, sure you could pretend there's a reason to be frustrated and stuck between getting a $400 power card or a 9800Pro, but the reality is quite different.
This card is clearly pointless and a year or two late at this price point. (And if it were released a year ago, you know it would have cost a lot more, meaning it would have been equally pointless then as well.)
yacoub - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Would anyone honestly spend $160 on a brand new GPU that can't even push beyond 20-30fps in most modern games? What the heck's the point?? Spend $80 more and get an X800XL and at least be able to PLAY the games instead of slideshow them.Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the fps listed in Anandtech tests the PEAK fps and not the average fps? If so that means there's a good chance everytime there's any real action on screen your fps are dipping down to the teens or single digits. Yeah, that's worth paying $160 for. @___@
jkostans - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
The X800GT is actually a very capable gaming card. I just built a system with one and it ran everything i threw at it very nicely. Not much of a difference between this system and the last one i built with an x800xl. Definately not a slideshow on any game (doom3, farcry, f.e.a.r, hl2, all ran smooth).wharris1 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
I realize that the release of the x1600/R530 won't be until December, but I was wondering what the chance of it being released in AGP form would be, and if so, how delayed that version would be. Are any of the next gen cards (7800/7600?, x1800/x1600) going to be released as AGP at any time. If not, I'll bite the bullet and get either a x800 XL or GTO; if they will have AGP versions of the newer cards, I'll probably wait until they come outcoldpower27 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
I am sorry I must have missed it where are the memory configurations of the cards you tested.Assuming you used the PCI-E versions of all cards due to motherboard choice.
X800 Vanilla = 128MB or 256MB???
X800 GT = 256MB???
6800 PCI-E = 325/300,600MHZ Effective & 256MB???
6600 GT this is obvious at least, 128MB.
OrSin - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Can we get a benchmark for non-FPS. And don't say EQ2 because thats pretty close to one in terms of play style. We all don't play FPS, can we get a RTS or even RPG in the benchmarks. I can understand now using them in all test, but for the mid and low range cards that what people are playing more then Doom 3.PrinceGaz - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Hear, hear. They should if necessary to save time dump one or two of the FPS games and replace them with an RTS, a driving game, and a flight/space-sim in order to provide true variety.jkostans - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
I think this is the first review I've seen where the the 6600GT was the better overall card. Every other review has them neck and neck in most games, with a few victories going to the x800gt and doom3 going to the 6600gt. This review seems a little off... but what do I know.coldpower27 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Hmm, they look fairly even to me still. Each has it's own stregths and weaknesses.