ATI Radeon X800 GT: A Quality Mid-range Solution
by Josh Venning on September 28, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Everquest II Performance
Here now is a game where the X800 GT really shines. Granted, the framerates are all rather low (besides the X800 XT); however, EQ2 is an RPG and doesn't require 60+ FPS. We'd say that 30 FPS is what you should look for in EQ2 for a playable experience.
Keep in mind that Everquest 2 probably takes the win in our opinion as the most demanding game out right now in terms of graphics requirements. Also, there are different overall quality settings in the game options such as "ultra-high", "very-high", etc. and we ran these tests on the "very-high" setting. With the quality setting turned down a notch or two, the game runs very smoothly, and if EQ2 is your game of choice, you will likely be pleased by the performance that the X800 GT has to offer. You might also consider dropping to 1024x768 for EQ2 - provided that you're not using an LCD, that is.
Here now is a game where the X800 GT really shines. Granted, the framerates are all rather low (besides the X800 XT); however, EQ2 is an RPG and doesn't require 60+ FPS. We'd say that 30 FPS is what you should look for in EQ2 for a playable experience.
Keep in mind that Everquest 2 probably takes the win in our opinion as the most demanding game out right now in terms of graphics requirements. Also, there are different overall quality settings in the game options such as "ultra-high", "very-high", etc. and we ran these tests on the "very-high" setting. With the quality setting turned down a notch or two, the game runs very smoothly, and if EQ2 is your game of choice, you will likely be pleased by the performance that the X800 GT has to offer. You might also consider dropping to 1024x768 for EQ2 - provided that you're not using an LCD, that is.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
bupkus - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
What would be a good minimum fps for UT2004?tuteja1986 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
I saw the X800GTO selling at $280AUD which is cheap since 6600GT sell arround $250 - $300AUD in australia. Anyways I read the X800GTO review "http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review...">http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review... i thought X800GTO was great for its price in australia anyways. Anyways if i do upgrade in end of this year it would either X1600XT or 7600GT when ever they come out.AtaStrumf - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Man, you guys sure take your time (probably all those useless 7800 GTX reviews took their toll). At least you could have included the X800 GTO (and 9800 Pro for reference - same spec old tech), but that said it is one of the better GPU reviews lately. Just one gripe. You shold have made it VERY CLEAR that 128 MB X800 GT is much slower frequency wise than the 256 MB one.I must say I'm more than a bit dissappointed in X800 GT. It sure looked better on paper. 6600 GT still seems to be the better card overall (1280x1024 no AA -- which is what the great majory uses)
Here's hoping that the X1600 brings something better.
arturnow - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
ATi respond to GeForce 6600GT after one year. Congratulation !!!CrystalBay - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
For $200 , FTW...DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
we're waiting for one ... but you might end up looking in another direction before we get to it.imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
"several titles coming out in the near future that will use the same engine. Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars"Of which are terrible examples, thats one way to not get on doom 3 side. lol
Case in point download the multiplayer video of Quake 4...you will laugh so much you wonder if its still quake 2 engine. It does not even look changed from last quake
Pete - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
One note, I think you listed the effective rather than actual RAM speed for the 6600GT in the table on p.2.DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
first, josh wrote this one (though jarred did some editing)second, I just fixed the problem -- you were correct.
Pete - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Josh! I meant Josh! :)