POST A COMMENT

48 Comments

Back to Article

  • Cerb - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    WAIT.

    So what is the x1300 performs better and costs less? I can get a 6200 for $50 or so, and will be able to do this with the 7300 in a few months (maybe sooner). Current buyers pay early adoption fees. It is, and always has been, this way.

    Also, other reviews are showing it competitive with the x1300...
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    X1300 killed it with no problem.

    X1300 Pro would have even rise the difference.

    Maybe the 7300GS is the slowest of all the 7300 models?

    “Now that we've talked about the card, let's look at the performance. We've included a few other budget cards for comparison to get an idea of how the 7800 GS fits into the market”

    Typo.
    Reply
  • A554SS1N - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    "Maybe the 7300GS is the slowest of all the 7300 models? "

    Yeah, it is - GS is the same as vanilla, so 7300GS is supposed to fight X1300 vanilla not the pro - add to that the fact that this EVGA card may have slower memory than the reference, and it makes the 7300GS look bad, when it shouldn't. If it had the reference memory speeds, I'd expected a big leap in performance. At the speeds in this review, it is definately poor.
    Reply
  • A554SS1N - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    Is it possible to force card to use only it's own memory? I mean, if it were to have 128mb for example (I know this has 256mb), which is usually Ok, would it help performance if it was just set to use it's own memory (without the latencies of going out to system RAM) - and is it possible to manually set this? Reply
  • A554SS1N - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    I noticed that the memory speed given in the review was 350Mhz (700Mhz effective) rather than the reference 405Mhz (810Mhz effective), and the previous comment made about the EVGA card only being 533Mhz seems to back up the reason why the performance figures are lower than expected compared to other reviews I have seen - I mean, the card doesn;t really perform a great deal faster than the 6200TC for some strange reason, yet I've seen otehr reviews where a 7300GS is alot faster than the 6500 (which is in turn quite a bit faster than 6200TC), and equal with X1300...

    So the question is:- Is this partiuclar EVGA card a cheaper version with much lower memory than reference, and thus cards going at proper reference memory frequencies will be much more competetive. It's just that, with these performance figures, I wouldn't choose this card at all for a budget system, whereas something on par or better than X1300, which I was expecting, would have just about been Ok.
    Reply
  • A554SS1N - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    Update:

    From what I've found, the card with the cooler design on EVGA's site that is in Anandtech's review is the 533Mhz one (256mb). The other 256mb card is 650Mhz effective. Only the 128mb HDTV version has 810Mhz DDR2 http://www.evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=128-P...">Link

    So, yeah, of course the card tested will be alot slower!!!! Can Anandtech include a full speed card in their review please! :)
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    Yes, that's why led me to beleive it's the model that I posted the link of, was the cooler design. I would like Anandtech's confirmation on this though. Reply
  • Rampage - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link

    i agree this is an unfair review.

    and IMO, it read sloppy from the get go.. this isnt what I expect from Anandtech.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link


    What model of eVGA 7300 GS did you test, could you please give the model number.

    Because it looks like you tested with this one:

    http://evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=256-P2-N4...">http://evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=256-P2-N4...

    Which has memory clocked at a pathetic 533MHZ, it's not a wonder that the X1300 defeat it so easily.

    You are aware that the reference 128MB 7300GS has memory clocked at ~800MHZ/810MHZ which would easily help even the odds, given that on budget cards >128MB doesn't seem to do much if at all for performance.

    Reply
  • DigitalDivine - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    this review left a hole... for instance... the specification of the x1300...

    is it the hyper memory version or not?
    if it isn't then the review isn't quite fair.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    I think Anandtech dropped the ball a little on being specific on which models was tested with the cards, and exactly what clockspeed it was, you could at least have it very nicely explain on the Test Setup page, and not have us to look for it in the article for ease sake.

    I did see the clockspeed in the article itself but would prefer a list in the Test Setup page.
    Reply
  • maxstr - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    I would like to see comparison between the 7300 and the 6800. Is it an upgrade? Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link


    No. It is not, this card get beaten by the Geforce 6600, let alone the 6800 Series. IF your looking at an upgrade to the 6800 go to a 7800 so you will actually see a performance improvement.
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    "The 7300 GS also has 3 vertex and 4 pixel pipelines, the same as the 6200, but our EVGA 7300 GS has a larger memory size of 256 MB verses 16-64 MB of the 6200TC"

    Does this mean this card has 256 MB of on-board memory, or is that the amount of system memory it can use? Please explain.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    This Geforce 7300 GS Series is currently limited to 128MB or 256MB of memory, and through TC can be marketed as a 256MB or 512MB card thru TurboCache using system memory.

    The Geforce 6200 TC Series was limited to 16MB, 32MB, 64MB of actual memory and could be marketed as a 128MB or 256MB card through TruboCache using system memory.
    Reply
  • yacoub - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    I'll never understand all the talk about low to mid range cards for budget tight people and then you test it with a friggin' FX-55. lol Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Eliminate all other variables, other then 1 single conponent so you can see the effect said 1 conponent has on performance rather then try to deduce the effect the processor has in addition to the video card. It a very logical scientific approach. Reply
  • yacoub - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    garbage and it's tiring seeing this misconception continually foisted in the article comments at this site.

    on its own, it's utterly irrelevant data to those who might actually purchase such a card. it would be useful as an ADDITION to an actual test with a modern mid-range system which would provide the MOST USEFUL numbers to folks looking at what GPU to buy to spruce up their S754 / S939 3000+-3200+ / P4 2.8GHz-3.2GHz system.

    People who already have their system and just want to upgrade the GPU need to know one thing: What GPU will help them get the most fps improvement in the games they play on THEIR system - a midrange system - before diminishing returns kicks in and the price-to-performance-gained ratio drops off (ie, buying an X1900XTX for $550 might not gain them many more fps than buying a $250 7800GT simply because their cpu is limiting them once they own a card above a 7800GT. Thus, the important thing for them to see is how each GPU performs on a midrange system playing the games they play at their resolutions (likely 1024x).

    How the card does on a cpu-unlimited system only tells part of the story and not the most important part at that.
    Reply
  • yacoub - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    to continue the point: if I have a midrange system, and i want to know which GPU to pick up to get the most out of the gpu upgrade, the data most important to me is how each GPU out there will perform in my midrange system. if, to continue the previous example, i find out that going above a 7800GT isn't going to gain me a significant improvement in fps, yet obviously the price goes up, I then know the 7800GT is the card to buy to get the most out of my current system as far as GPU is concerned.

    Clearly being a GPU review we're concerned with how the GPU performs. That's fine, but then in your conclusion you can only recommend which card is best for an FX-55 system. If the only part I want to upgrade on a mid-range system is the GPU, this article would be perfect for information for me - IF it actually used a mid-range system in the tests. Then I could see how this card fills into the ranks of GPUs out there as I seek to find the one that offers the most bang-for-the-buck (fps-for-the-dollar).

    i hope this is comprehensible for everyone. in the past some folks here simply don't get it and only care to see dick measuring contests for individual pieces of hardware and never a useful review for the consumer who would actually use a given piece of hardware.

    again, it's a nice review for what it is (a hardware dick measurement, aka no-limitations benchmark), but it's not all that helpful for folks in the real world.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    This isn't a CPU scaling analysis to provide useful data to you to see how this GPU would effect different processor that I think can be done in another article, that would provide the useful infromation you seek. I don't think the article is garbage, the method is sound. The information your asking for would be another article entirely.


    Reply
  • 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
  • agent2099 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Fanless heatsinks should be the standard for these budget cards. Reply
  • Egglick - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    The 7300 is supposed to have all the same video features that the 7800 series has, so it should perform in the same way that a 7800 would to a X1900.

    The 7300GS is certainly a decent card for the price, but the X1300 is a better card. ATI has better video playback quality right now, and many of the X1300's are available with fanless heatsinks. Add to that that the X1300 has slightly better gaming performance and is available for the same price, and it's a no brainer.
    Reply
  • Patrese - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    The X300 is on the top of the chart on the Quake 4 graphic ate 1024x768 High Quality... it is a mistake, isn't it?
    BTW, could you post a picture of the card? It's kinda useless, but still I'd like to see it! :)
    Reply
  • Josh Venning - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Thanks for pointing out the mistake, we're fixing it now. We've also added a picture, as per your request. :-) Reply
  • peldor - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    The memory on the X1300 is also listed as 500GHz. I need me some of that! Reply
  • kalaap - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Why did you guyz take down the ASUS RD580 review? Reply
  • cpeter38 - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    That has been HUGELY frustrating for me - both times they have taken it down WHILE I WAS READING IT!!!

    For a while, I thought I was having some weird computer issues - I actually rebooted twice. GRRRR!!!
    Reply
  • brownba - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Why test an low-end $80 video card that utilizies system ram in a high-end system with 1GB of ram? Reply
  • Googer - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Why test an low-end $80 video card that utilizies system ram in a high-end system with 1GB of ram?


    Because that is the same test system used for all benchmarks. If you changed it then the results would not be compairable to what a faster graphics card would do. The idea is to keep all variables the same except for the one that you are working on, it's all fundimental to the scientific method.

    http://www.answers.com/scientific+method&r=67">http://www.answers.com/scientific+method&r=67
    http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Appendix...">http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Appendix...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    Reply
  • artifex - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    I think it should have been tested both ways: once for the database entry, where the testbed needs to be the same, but also once in a system budget gamers actually have.

    By not also testing on a lower end platform, you miss the opportunity to discover that maybe system bottlenecks make it so that all of these cards seem to have identical performance.

    Reply
  • mindless1 - Monday, February 27, 2006 - link

    not in this case, we can presume with a fair bit of certainty that a low-end modern CPU (especially at the time these cards will ship in systems) would easily be more than enough to make the video card the primary bottleneck by far. Keey in mind that even an Athlon XP2000 can manage to go over 800x600 in the tested games with the right video card. Reply
  • bwmccann - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    100% agree with this. There is no one in there right mind who would spend that kind of money on a CPU then go for a low end video card.

    Brian
    Reply
  • plewis00 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Someone always asks something like this every time a review is posted and the answer is usually the same: that it eliminates unwanted variables in testing. Same thing goes with disabling the sound. Anyway, I personally would rather have as pure figures as possible than ones which may be affected by a CPU or RAM bottleneck, maybe that's just me. Reply
  • bwmccann - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    If that is the case then include a realistic CPU with the review. Go with one from AMD and Intel to see the comparision of the CPUs.

    Brian
    Reply
  • brownba - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    I know that's the common response,
    but it's so unrealistic.
    you wouldn't stick this card in a system with that FX55.
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    I 100% agree except for the fact that you're wrong. Nobody would pair a FX-55 with a 7300, but plenty of people would pair an overclocked Opteron 144 at FX-55 speeds with a 7300 if they wanted a fast PC but didn't play games. Reply
  • rayo123 - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    Well of course someone would, many would, not everyone buys computers just to play the latest games. Given the recommended hardware for the upcoming Vista, I imagine more and more people are going to be pairing something like a 7300 with a high-end CPU. Reply
  • rqle - Monday, February 20, 2006 - link

    base on the graph x1300 > 7300GS, and can be found at a lower price.

    i think its better to play BF and other games at 80+ FPS with a similar price x800GTO without HDR, then with this card at 20+ FPS with its 3.0.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now