Budget Performance

For budget performance, we feel that 1024x768 is the proper target resolution. People spending near the $100 mark can't expect to acheive performance at high resolutions. But with current hardware, we can play games at moderate resolutions without loosing any features.

The X1300 is targeted at the budget market, but we focued on testing our X1300 Pro against slightly higher performing parts because of it's pricing. The X1300 does quite well versus the traditional low end 6200 TC and X300 parts, but can't really compete with the 6600 GT which is priced near the $149 MSRP of the X1300 Pro.

Under Doom 3 (and many OpenGL applications) NVIDIA holds a lead over ATI hardware. While it is understandable that the X1300 Pro isn't able to match preformance with NVIDIA's $150 6600 GT, the $250 MSRP X1600 XT laggs far behind as well. It is quite interesting to note that the X1600 closes that gap (and performs slightly better than the 6600 GT) when 4xAA and 8xAF are enabled at this resolution. But at such low res, the better bet is to increase the setting to 1280x1024 with no AA where the 6600 GT maintains about a 20% performance lead. Doom 3 is also a fairly low contrast game, meaning that jagged edges are already hard to see.

Budget Card Comparison  -  Doom 3

Budget Card Comparison  -  Chronicles of Riddick

Under Valve's Day of Defeat: Source, the latest resurrection of a past title by Valve (and also the first to feature HDR), The 6600 GT and X800 perform on par with what we would expect while the more expensive X1600 XT lags behind and the X1300 looks to perform where a budget card should. Enabling 4xAA and 8xAF on this game closes the gap between the 6600 GT and X1600 XT: they both run at about 48 fps under this setting, followed by the X800 at nearly a 43 fps average.

Budget Card Comparison  -  Day of Defeat

Far Cry provides a victory for the X1600 XT over the 6600 GT, but we still have the expensive X1300 Pro lagging it's closer cost competitor by a large margin.

Budget Card Comparison  -  Far Cry

Everquest II on very high quality mode shows the X1600 XT to lead this segment in performance. Current ~$100 parts are shown to perform horribly at this setting scoring single digit framerates. The X1300 Pro is definitely playable at very high quality at 1024x768 (which we would recommend over a lower quality setting at a higher resolution). Extreme quality still doesn't perform very well on any but the most expensive cards out there and really doesn't offer that much more interms of visual quality.

Budget Card Comparison  -  Everquest II

When testing Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, the new X1000 series of cards give a very good performance. This time around, the X800 and 6600 GT don't perform equally, and it looks as though the additions to the RV5xx architecture can make quite a difference depending on the game being played.

Budget Card Comparison  -  Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory

To see the continuing saga of the X1600 XT, we will take a look at midrange performace numbers at 1280x960.

Test Setup and Power Performance Mid-Range Performance


View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Hence, the non-existence of 7600 and 7200 (or whatever) cards from NVIDIA. But ATI needed to get SM3.0 into budget and mid-range cards - not because it's tremendously useful, but because they're losing the marketing campaign on that item. Reply
  • Phantronius - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Wheres the fucking Battlefield 2 numbers????? Reply
  • Dudeeeeeee - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    What about testing this card with games we actually play? Good game... Reply
  • KayKay - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    I read most of the r520 reviews this morning and I decided to read anandtech's review, since i trust yours over most others. I was rather disappointed with the layout and choice of tests.

    All around the web, the result i gathered was that the x1800xt was definitely better than the 7800gtx in a number of areas and if i had read anandtech's review first, would have been totally misled.

    I am an NVIDIA user probably for LIFE but this review didn't seem to do ATI justice
  • bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link


    I am an NVIDIA user probably for LIFE but this review didn't seem to do ATI justice
    Reviews aren't supposed to be favorable they're supposed to present facts so that WE the consumer can make informed purchase decisions. And right now, ATI doesn't present a good bang for the buck.
  • KayKay - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    the review wasn't structured in a way to present a fair comparison of the cards is all im saying. look no further than some of the other websites that reviewed todays launch Reply
  • bob661 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    It was easy for me. What are you looking for? The X1xxx's were compared to the 7xxx's. Are you looking for an ATI landslide or are you looking for a comparison? Reply
  • Chadder007 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    I was hoping that the X1600 would perform better, but for the price 6600GT and X800GTO >>>> X1600 parts. Sad. :( Reply
  • Griswold - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Probably the weakest review i've seen here at AT so far. The benches are more than just confusing. Some benches only show the XL, some only the XT and some both. Not good. Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Agreed. I'm not a stickler for perfect grammer, but the grammer & spelling quality of AT articles has gone down hill tremendously in the past year!

    Seems you guys have just been throwing stuff together at the last minute to try and make a deadline. Anand - you need to step in here and get these guys back on track. It's hurting both your and your sites reputations.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now