Sigh. I've gotten ignorant. Is X300...

[RussSchultz]

As capable as a 9700 in the shader capabilities (not necessarily speed)?

Or is it some renamed/rebadged 9200 equivalent?

 

[digitalwanderer]

I didn't think it was, I thought the X300 was a POS....but I haven't kept up with any of the mid-low end stuff this round either.

 

[CyFactor]

As capable as a 9700 in the shader capabilities (not necessarily speed)?

Or is it some renamed/rebadged 9200 equivalent?

X300 is DX9. Comparable AGP card is the Radeon 9600. 9200 is only DX 8.1. So, the answer is "yes".

 

[RussSchultz]

Ok, Dell has some swanky new laptops with X300's. wanted to know what was in them, if I decided to order one.

 

[jvd]

the dells with the x300s in them are nice , good performance from it for the price. My cousin got one a few days ago actually . He upgraded from his old clunker (486 haha)

 

[Dave Baumann]

All your questions answered!

 

[Pete]

X300 is a 9600SE, IIRC. So, DX9, but don't expect much.

 

[RandPC]

X300=Radeon 9600
X300SE = Radeon 9600SE

Same boards, just PCI-E rather then AGP.

 

[Tahir2]

X300 does not offer comparable speeds to the original 9600 at all. It would be closer to the 9600SE.

X300SE is even slower.

EDIT: I am wrong on this one...

 

[swaaye]

Technically, since it's RV370 or something, it's MORE capable than a R300 (9700), but it's a TON slower in performance. Think like 25% of a 9700.

R350/RV350+ added faster antialiasing I believe. The RV3x0 series lacks hardware heirachical Z though. Then there's also SM2.0b I believe which is sorta of questionable importance in the grand scheme of things.

The differences are pretty insignificant though.

 

[mczak]

X300 does not offer comparable speeds to the original 9600 at all. It would be closer to the 9600SE.

X300SE is even slower.

Umm, no. Normal X300 is exactly the same speed as a 9600 non-pro. X300SE is the same as 9600SE. There ARE a confusing number of cards out there though, some MIGHT have different clocks.

Technically, since it's RV370 or something, it's MORE capable than a R300 (9700), but it's a TON slower in performance. Think like 25% of a 9700.

More like 40% (half the number of pixel/vertex pipes, same clock, somewhat less than half the memory bandwidth, no hierarchical-z but with better brilinear tricks to get some more performance).

Then there's also SM2.0b I believe which is sorta of questionable importance in the grand scheme of things.

Despite the name, I don't think X300 and X600 support SM 2.0b. Not 100% sure though.
Remember: 9600 (rv350 130nm, rv360 130nm low-k), X300 (rv370 110nm) and X600 (rv380 130nm low-k) are all basically the same chip. The latter two are PCI-E, and the clock speed might be different, but clocked the same they perform all the same. You can add the 9550 too, it is clocked lower though usually.

 

[OpenGL guy]

X300 does not offer comparable speeds to the original 9600 at all. It would be closer to the 9600SE.

Is that so?

Radeon X300        128MB ATI RV370 1300 1300 6.4 DX9.0 
All-In-Wonder 9600 128MB ATI RV350 1300 1300 6.4 DX9.0

 

[Dave Baumann]

X300 does not offer comparable speeds to the original 9600 at all. It would be closer to the 9600SE.

What are you basing that on? Top line specifications would suggest the 9600 (non-PRO) to be exactly the same as X300 (non-SE/LE).

 

[Tahir2]

Brainfart on my part, I based that on the Xpress 200 motherboard rather than apples to apples. You may all laugh at me.

Ignore me... btw Dave you seem to have changed your, erm, sig.

 

[Tweaker]

<strike>"...but ATI don't have SM3.0!"</strike>

any details?

 

[swaaye]

9600XT is still slower than a 9700. X300/9600SE would just not be on the same level at all.

9700PRO @ 325/310, 9700 @ 270/270, 9600XT @ 500/300. Basically with a 9700 you get a LOT more RAM bandwidth, and greater RAM granularity I believe in the memory controller (4x64bit chunks instead of 2x). Also I think that the R300 GPU is just more efficient than the RV series.

 

[Pete]

X300 is a 9600SE, IIRC. So, DX9, but don't expect much.

Sorry, sorry. Let's see if my memory can fail me again. X300 is a 110nm PCIe 9600, whereas X600 is a 130nm low-k 9600?

Yes, I stubbornly refuse to click Dave's link.

 

[kemosabe]

If I recall correctly, low-k was only implemented on the RV360 (9600XT) and now RV380 (X600XT) variants. But let's face it, this particular RV350/360/370/380 core is enough to give anyone fits.

 

[kemosabe]

<strike>"...but ATI don't have SM3.0!"</strike>

any details?

(Allow me) Yes.

 

[CyFactor]

Technically, since it's RV370 or something, it's MORE capable than a R300 (9700), but it's a TON slower in performance. Think like 25% of a 9700.

R350/RV350+ added faster antialiasing I believe. The RV3x0 series lacks hardware heirachical Z though. Then there's also SM2.0b I believe which is sorta of questionable importance in the grand scheme of things.

The differences are pretty insignificant though.

He asked about shader capabilities between X300 and 9700. The answer is still "yes". Just half the number of pipelines.