Introduction

Cards like the GeForce 7800 GTX and Radeon X1900 XT-X may be getting a lot of press lately, and while these cards are impressive to say the least, they don't represent what the majority of users are buying for their PC gaming systems. Gamers on a budget are always interested in advancements in the mid and lower price-range of graphics cards, and efficiency is generally more desirable to users than sheer power when looking for an upgrade. An example of this would be the popularity that we've seen of quality mid-range cards like the X800 GTO and 6800 GS, given their performance and reasonable price tags. Thankfully, NVIDIA has been continuing to make advancements on the budget side of things as well, and one such advancement is their recently released GeForce 7300 GS.

The 7300 GS is graphics card in the $100 or less price range, which offers a lot of the same features available in much more expensive parts for a fraction of the cost. This is a budget card, however, so it will see gaming performance similar to parts like NVIDIA's 6200 and ATI's X300. The 7300 GS that we have for this review is made by EVGA, a company with a good reputation for providing quality graphics hardware at competitive prices.

We've been looking at high end cards quite a bit lately, and it's easy to overlook some of the more humble graphics solutions available from ATI and NVIDIA as such powerful cards take center stage. Most PC users don't need the kind of performance that a card like the X1900 provides, and depending on the types of applications that different users are running, a far less powerful (and thus, inexpensive) card may be the wiser choice. Office computers and home theater systems might only require the most basic hardware acceleration, which is why this category of video cards exist.

Of course, for an avid gamer, a card like the 7300 GS might not cut it, but for those on a budget, this card is worth a look. Today, we take a look at EVGA's version of the 7300 GS and we will talk about the performance and features of this newest budget card from NVIDIA.

The Card
POST A COMMENT

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • yacoub - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    To paraphrase your post, "This isn't a CPU scaling analysis to provide useful data to you to see how this GPU would perform for an actual system that would use it."

    That's exactly what I'm saying too.
    Reply
  • Egglick - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    It seems that after every low/midrange videocard test, there's always a couple "simple" people crying about how the CPU used for testing was too fast.

    The point is to test the videocard, and the videocard alone. Adding other variables such as slow CPUs and memory bottlenecks only complicates things, and gives you a skewed view of how the videocard actually performs when there aren't other components affecting it's performance. This is a videocard test, not a full system test. Adding slower components to drag down the scores would give us incorrect results as to how the videocard performs. Obviously you haven't taken any science classes beyond basic highschool level.

    What you're asking for is a CPU scaling test (where it's known that the videocard isn't the only variable), and they much more involving and time consuming.
    Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    quote:

    It seems that after every low/midrange videocard test, there's always a couple "simple" people crying about how the CPU used for testing was too fast.


    My system is pretty highend yet I'm at least capable of understanding the pointlessness of this review for the folks who would actually buy this card, while you are clearly not able to do so.

    quote:

    The point is to test the videocard, and the videocard alone.


    Wow, how worthless is that for the buyers of this card.

    quote:

    Adding other variables such as slow CPUs and memory bottlenecks only complicates things, and gives you a skewed view of how the videocard actually performs when there aren't other components affecting it's performance.


    Again, worthless. adding a realistic CPU for the system this card would be in would give you an ACCURATE view of how the card ACTUALLY performs.

    quote:

    This is a videocard test, not a full system test. Adding slower components to drag down the scores would give us incorrect results as to how the videocard performs.


    I don't know about you, but I don't play games on a videocard, I play them on a complete computer, thus knowing how the card performs in a real world system of someone who would actually be interested in this card would make the MOST sense.

    quote:

    Obviously you haven't taken any science classes beyond basic highschool level.


    Obviously you can't comprehend simple logic and reasoning and resort to personal attacks, but at least some folks here are a bit more capable.

    quote:

    What you're asking for is a CPU scaling test


    No, what we're asking for is a useful test of this videocard in the type of system it'd actually go in. It's no more "time consuming or involving" than this test, really. Just put in a different CPU and you'd be 90% of the way there.

    Show me a gamer who buys an $800 CPU but a budget GPU and I'll show you the person who hasn't "taken any science classes beyond basic highschool level".
    Reply
  • peldor - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    A Sempron is easily capable of delivering faster framerates than these video cards, let alone a low-end Athlon 3000+. Maybe on a Celeron you're dropping low enough that the CPU is a bottleneck.

    On a mid-range card review, your point would be much more relevant. For these cards, not so much IMO.
    Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    They should mention that then, at least in the conclusion if not in the Test Setup page. Reply
  • oneils - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    No, we're just asking Anandtech to back up their conclusion:

    "While many gamers will find the card unappealing because of its limitations, it does have the ability to play games at lower quality settings and resolutions quite well, and for those who only dabble in gaming and don't feel like spending much money on an upgrade, this card might be a good choice."

    Really? A good choice? For who? FX-55 users? Or are mid-range cpu users included in this as well?


    Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    And if mid-range cpu users are included in their statment as well, how can they justify such a comment when they didn't actually test the card in a mid-range box - the very type of system this card would be put in?

    Don't expect a reply though, you're making too much sense. ;P
    Reply
  • mczak - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Sorry, but the performance numbers are completely useless if you don't mention if the cards in question have 32bit/64bit/128bit memory interfaces, the amount and clock speed of the memory (especially important for the TC cards). Those cards can easily differ by a factor of 2 if compared to themselves (i.e. card with the same name) just because of that alone. Reply
  • Questar - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    "The 7300 GS will most likely raise the bar for budget cards in the future."

    How can it raise the bar when it performs worse than, and costs more than an x1300?
    Reply
  • tedward - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Nvidia is claiming that this card will offer great video/DVD playback. I would think most people interested in this card would be non-gamers, with a HTPC box. Would be nice to see how it performs compared to the x1300 w/Avivo, and the 6150/430 chipset. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now