ATI Radeon X800 GT: A Quality Mid-range Solution
by Josh Venning on September 28, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory Performance
While the latest patch enables HDR support on SM2.0 cards as well as SM3.0, despite claims to the contrary, HDR is not a feature of SM3.0 – we have done the testing here without HDR. Enabling HDR causes a serious performance hit on all cards. So, short of SLI setups or a 7800 series card, it's probably not worth using at the cost of higher resolutions.
Note that with Splinter Cell: CT, we see how the FPS of each of these mid-range cards only differ a tiny amount from each other, not nearly enough to cause a noticeable difference in gameplay. With games like this and Everquest 2, saving an extra $40 on a graphics card that performs this well seems like a good deal.
While the latest patch enables HDR support on SM2.0 cards as well as SM3.0, despite claims to the contrary, HDR is not a feature of SM3.0 – we have done the testing here without HDR. Enabling HDR causes a serious performance hit on all cards. So, short of SLI setups or a 7800 series card, it's probably not worth using at the cost of higher resolutions.
Here, we see again a case where the X800 GT outperforms the 6600 GT across the board, but only slightly. This is another very graphically demanding game, but as it is mostly stealthy and slow gameplay, a really high framerate isn't quite necessary. Most would find the game playable on the X800 GT in every instance except for 1600x1200 with AA enabled.
Note that with Splinter Cell: CT, we see how the FPS of each of these mid-range cards only differ a tiny amount from each other, not nearly enough to cause a noticeable difference in gameplay. With games like this and Everquest 2, saving an extra $40 on a graphics card that performs this well seems like a good deal.
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! :)