Final Words

To give a brief summary of performance, we have the ASUS EN7800 GT Top Silent as the obvious leader followed by the Gigabyte 7600 GT in second place. Depending on the game, the next best card in terms of performance is either one of the Gigabyte, MSI, EVGA, and ASUS 7600 GS cards or either of the ASUS and Gigabyte X1600 XT offerings/ The factory-overclocked Gigabyte 7600 GS scores slightly better than the rest of these, making it the overall third fastest silent card. The next step down would be the ASUS EN6600 GT Silencer, followed by the Gigabyte and Albatron factory-overclocked 7300 GTs. Depending on the game and settings, the HIS and Gigabyte X1600 Pro might do a little better or worse than the reference-clocked MSI NX7300 GT (better generally in Splinter Cell Chaos Theory and Rise of Legends, and worse in most of the other games). Then at the low end you have the HIS and Gigabyte X1300 Pro followed by the Gigabyte 7300 GS. Again in Splinter Cell and Rise of Legends, the Gigabyte X1300 performs slightly better than the Sparkle 7300 GS Ultra 2, and in most of the other games the Sparkle 7300 GS performs the worst.

In terms of Overclocking, the MSI 7300 GT and the Gigabyte X1300 stood out with high core and memory overclocks (135MHz core clock increase in the MSI 7300 GT, and 160MHz core and 55MHz memory clock increase for the Gigabyte X1300) resulting in large performance increases in Oblivion and Battlefield 2 for these cards. The Gigabyte 7600 GS, in spite of already having a 50MHz core overclock, managed to go up nearly 100MHz on the core clock which was an impressive feat for this card. The Albatron 7300 GT is another factory-overclocked card that got a particularly high core and memory overclock: 102MHz higher in the core and 84MHz in the memory clock. The Gigabyte X1600 Pro got a decent 80MHz increase in the core clock and the HIS version of the same card got an even better 97MHz increase in the core. These were some of the examples that stood out when overclocking these silent GPUs.

Some people might have strong feelings about ATI or NVIDIA hardware and drivers, but we feel they are close enough - especially in single GPU solutions - that you can safely go with whatever card offers the most performance at your chosen price point. Both ATI and NVIDIA have certain strengths and weaknesses depending on things like which game and/or settings are concerned, and both have parts to suit most any gamer's needs. In this review, however, we've seen that prices tend to favor NVIDIA cards, particularly with the Gigabyte 7600 GS. This card is simply put a better value than any of the ATI parts. The X1600 Pro is about $15 less, but it can't compete with the Gigabyte 7600 GS, especially considering the card's factory-overclock.

Dealing with such a large number of cards in a roundup of this type can be a bit of a headache, and it's easy to lose track of which cards are which when testing them all. However, after lots of testing, it's interesting to notice how certain cards begin to stand out in a positive or negative way. Not surprisingly, the ASUS EN7800 GT Top Silent stood out at the beginning because of its high level of performance compared to the other cards. The Sparkle 7300 GS Ultra 2 stood out as being one of the slowest and one of the more frustrating cards to test. With the exception of the issues in Battlefield 2, it performed just as would be expected for a card of this type, but we wouldn't recommend the 7300 GS solutions overall. Gigabyte impressed us initially with the sheer number of silent cards they contributed for this article, but they also impressed us later with the quality of their cards and their normal and overclocked performance.

The Gigabyte 7300 GT and Albatron 7300 GT did well in performance testing, but how good these cards actually are depends a lot on the price. Given that the Gigabyte 7600 GS is about $110 it doesn't make much sense to spend only about $10 less for the 7300 GT card. Whether the 7600 GS is a great bargain or the 7300 GT cards cost too much, the conclusion is that paying the extra $10 for the Gigabyte 7600 GS card is the best choice. We would also rule out buying any of the other 7600 GS cards in this review, given the fact that the Gigabyte 7600 GS comes factory clocked higher than any of the others, and is cheaper by anywhere from about $5 to $20. If you don't mind spending about $170, the Gigabyte 7600 GT isn't a bad choice for a silent graphics solution, as it is the second fastest GPU tested and it is actually readily available.

If you only want to spend about $70 on a silent graphics card, the MSI NX7300 GT is a good choice, especially if you plan on doing any overclocking. We recommend this card over the Gigabyte X1300 Pro, which is about the same price but doesn't perform quite as well in most games. For those that don't really play many games or just want a really cheap silent video card, the Gigabyte X1300 is the cheapest card in this group at $52 and will offer basic graphics functionality without making a sound. It's going to be two to four times faster than most integrated graphics solutions, but it will still have trouble running any of the more recent games (like Battlefield 2) at anything but the lowest graphics settings. Without concrete pricing information on many of the other cards, these are our recommendations. None of the tested cards are bad, but given the competition between ATI and NVIDIA as well as the various card manufacturers, it's not surprising that a few of the offerings stand out as being better than others.

We keep coming back to a single card that strikes the best balance of price and performance. Coming in as the third fastest silent GPU overall and with a price of only $110, we are pleased to award the Gigabyte 7600 GS our Gold Editors Choice Award for Silent GPUs. With a factory overclock of the 7600 GS core and a price lower than competing solutions, there is much to like with the Gigabyte card. It is also a single-slot solution unlike some of the other Gigabyte offerings, making it a card that can work well in HTPCs as well as SFF computers. Our only request now would be for someone to figure out a way to offer a similar price/performance ratio with a faster GPU, though perhaps we're simply being greedy. The Gigabyte card does just about everything right within it's price range, and for that they are to be commended.

If pure performance (and current availability) is the more important factor, only one card fits the bill. It is with this in mind that we bestow our Gold Editors Choice Award upon the Gigabyte 7600 GT. With a comfortable performance boost that comes with the 55% higher cost over the Gigabyte 7600 GS, we can absolutely recommend the 7600 GT for gamers who are happy with midrange performance and need a quiet card. At a cost on par with actively cooled parts of the same class, we feel comfortable recommending the Gigabyte 7600 GT over other 7600 GTs as well.



All of these cards offer acceptable performance for non-gaming tasks, and most will at least handle some moderate gaming. More importantly, this is all done while remaining completely silent. Looking at the power and heat results of the various cards, we are interested in seeing what the future holds for silent GPUs. It is doubtful that anyone will create a passively cooled 7900 GTX, 7950 GX, X1900, or other high-end card in the short term. However, Intel has raised the bar on expectations for performance per Watt. If a general purpose CPU can offer a 40% improvement over its predecessor (Pentium D) while consuming 40% less power on average, why can't a GPU revolution accomplish the same thing? Maximum performance may continue to require at least some form of active cooling, but hopefully ATI and NVIDIA can further refine their designs to be more power friendly in the future. With Windows Vista increasing the demands placed on GPUs, the desire to reduce GPU noise levels is only likely to increase.

Power & Heat
Comments Locked

49 Comments

View All Comments

  • yyrkoon - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    If its silly, why even bother replying . . . No need to go out of your way to be a jerk.
  • nullpointerus - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link

    Jerks don't take the time to apologize. As for why I apologized, I felt badly for responding in kind. I was belittling people who felt the need to belittle the site without taking the trouble to think their arguments through. Apparently that put some kind of chip on your shoulder such that you felt the need to attack me after I'd already apologized.
  • DerekWilson - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link

    maybe we can take a different angle as the standard reasoning has been rolled out already ...

    if we decide to test with a system that "matches" the graphics card, we are making a decision about what is reasonable for either a specific level of performance or price point. By making such a decision, we limit ourselves -- for instance, in this review we may have chosen a system to match a 7600 GS. But maybe it's too under powered for a 7600 GT, or perhaps its too overpriced for a 7300 GS.

    we absolutely can't test every card with every processor and every memory configuration on every chipset for every review.

    en lieu of choosing one system that is supposed to be a "one size fits all", we can remove the system from consideration by choosing the highest end configuration possible.

    when a graphics card peforms better in our system, we know it is capable of better performance in any system. this is true in almost every case.

    this does put a burden on the reader to understand the limitations of his or her own system -- i.e., will the fact that the 7600 GT performs higher than 7600 GS expose a CPU limitation on the system the reader is building/upgrading.

    this question can be answered in a couple ways.

    with game tests, if you can borrow a high end graphics card and see where the cpu limitation falls at something like 800x600 without aa and af, you'll know where the upper limit on framerate is based on the CPU. thus a decision can be made about the best fit for a card.

    if you can't borrow a higher end card, you can turn all the graphics settings down as far as possible and run at 640x480 or lower if possible (does anything aside from the chronicles of riddick still support 320x240?). this isn't ideal, but even on a low end card you can get a pretty good idea of whether or not there will be a cpu limitation entering into the mix.

    when you know what the cpu limit of your system is, pick the resolution you want to run, and find a card that gives you a number just over this limit. this card is the ideal fit for your system at your resolution. it will deliver the performance your cpu will ask for.

    I know its complicated, but its much better than the can of worms we'd open if we went in another direction.

    In GPU reviews meant to demonstrate the capabilities of a graphics card, we will not add unnecessary bottlenecks to the system.
  • nullpointerus - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link

    You need a form letter, or something. Maybe you could put up a short page entitled Why We Test this Way and link to it on the front page of each article.
  • nullpointerus - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    Hmm...that last paragraph came out a little too harsh. I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone. I still think the points are valid, though.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    If you look at the performance difference between an E6400 stock and 3.0 GHz OC in our http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=28...">PC Club system review, you will see that it makes virtually no difference in performance even with a 7900 GT. All of these GPUs are the bottleneck in gaming, but we use a higher-end (relatively speaking) CPU just to make sure.
  • imaheadcase - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    I disagree 800x600 is great for sniping, i play on a 9700 Pro and normally switch between 800x600 and 1024x768 and like 800x600 better on large maps. It brings the objects "bigger" to me and lets me get better accuracy.

    Even if i had a 7900GT i would prob not go higher than 1024x768. Don't know why people play at higher rez, makes everything so tiny. Squinting to play a game is annoying and distracting from gameplay :D
  • Josh7289 - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    People who have larger monitors have to use higher resolutions to keep things from getting too large, and to make good use of all that real estate, especially when it's an LCD (native resolution).

    For example, a 17" CRT is best run at 1024 x 768 for games, while a 21" or so LCD is best run at 1600 x 1200 or 1680 x 1050, depending on its native resolution.
  • Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    What do you mean with 'too large'?
    In games it's not like in Windows where objects get smaller if you increase the resolution.
  • DerekWilson - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link

    this is correct (except with user interfaces for some reason -- and there the exception is warcraft 3). thanks Olaf.

    lower resolution will give you much less accuracy -- larger pixels in the same screen area decrease detail.

    the extreme example is if you have a 4x3 grid and you need to snipe someone -- his head has to be in the center of one of the 12 blocks you have to aim through to even be able to hit him. The smaller these blocks are, the more pixels fit into the head, the more capable you will be of sniping.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now