X1300 PReview a little early ;)

Its been posted twice now in the R520 info thread. But I think it deserves its own thread.

I find it interesting, and I find its price point even more interesting. Looking at this, for a low end that's pretty damn good performance, on par with 6600 for the most part. Sadly the preview didnt go into much detail about other cool aspects of the core, but oh well.

It'll be interesting to see if some AIB, or ATi releases a 128MB version of this card and cuts cost back a little. Also, I think I would rather have the X1600 Pro 128MB at this price point if they stay in the same price point.
 
Intersting :cool:
I'm unsure why they stuck 256MB on the card seeing as it hasn't the the balls to use it :???:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skrying said:
Its been posted twice now in the R520 info thread. But I think it deserves its own thread.

I find it interesting, and I find its price point even more interesting. Looking at this, for a low end that's pretty damn good performance, on par with 6600 for the most part. Sadly the preview didnt go into much detail about other cool aspects of the core, but oh well.

It'll be interesting to see if some AIB, or ATi releases a 128MB version of this card and cuts cost back a little. Also, I think I would rather have the X1600 Pro 128MB at this price point if they stay in the same price point.
Click to expand...


the name is somewhat decieving to alot if you ask me. What its replacing, the lowly X300/X500 line, was basically a peice of junk made for no gaming what so ever but for users who simply needed a graphics card for internet/music maybe some small visual tasks. Just a general purpose card.

I think its quite decent for the lowest of the totem pole.
 
Surprising results for a low end card. I am sure the 256MB of memory will be useful in Vista.

It seems some playable results can be had--specifically at 1024x768. That seems to be the sweet spot. EDIT (error:The AA/AF hit is pretty low in some games. e.g. a mere 3fps hit in UT2004 at 1024x768! (53 to 50). For a low end card these are encouraging numbers./EDIT

UT2004#1Demo -- 53fps @ 1024x768 w/o AA/AF
UT2004#2Demo -- 50fps @ 1024x768 w/ AA/AF
Halo -- 58fps @ 1024x768
FarCry -- 64fps @ 1024x768
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (SM1.1) -- 29fps with 8xAF
Doom 3 -- 37fps @1024x768 High Quality with 8xAF

Obviously one could turn off some of the detail as well. e.g. in Doom 3 lower the quality down to Medium or even lower the resolution.

Anyhow, these low end cards rarely play games well, let alone fairly new games at 1024x768 with the features on high.

Solid effort by ATI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is strange that they've benched without the SM2.0 path turned on in SC:CT - some hardware sites seem to forget about game patches. :(

Looks like an interesting part, though.
 
On those SP:CT results, are the SM3.0 ones including the features that come along with enabling SM3.0, such as HDR parallex mapping etc? Or is that just simpy changing the path, because the results seem kinda confusing to me for all of the cards, be it Nv or ATi for that benchmark.

bigz said:
It is strange that they've benched without the SM2.0 path turned on in SC:CT - some hardware sites seem to forget about game patches. :(

Looks like an interesting part, though.
Click to expand...

What was the point though? There is a SM3.0 comparison, and the X1k cards can do it, and according to the conclusion of the article, they can do it well.
 
Well it seems like low performace hits WRT AA, AF & SM3.0. Comapared to the 6600 anyhow.
 
Acert93 said:
The AA/AF hit is pretty low in some games. e.g. a mere 3fps hit in UT2004 at 1024x768! (53 to 50). For a low end card these are encouraging numbers.

UT2004 -- 53fps @ 1024x768 w/o AA/AF
UT2004 -- 50fps @ 1024x768 w/ AA/AF
Click to expand...
Umm...but for different demos(AS-Convoy/ONS-Torlan), so not comparable. We'll just have to wait...
 
I think it's a great card especially for all the features you get.

SM3.0
i16/fp16 blending with AA
great AA quality
adaptive AA
great AF quality
AVIVO stuff

It has it all
 
Hmm, now these numbers I just figured are kinda shocking. When moving from SM1.1 to SM3.0, the X1300Pro takes a MUCH lower performance hit compared to the 6600GT. On average the X1300Pro takes a 5.46FPS hit when going from SM1.1 to SM3.0, the 6600GT on the other hand takes a 12.7FPS hit. More than double that of the X1300Pro. I'd say these numbers, plus the other average performance hits I've calculated really quick say that the claimed efficeny improvents are very real.
 
ERK said:
Umm...but for different demos(AS-Convoy/ONS-Torlan), so not comparable. We'll just have to wait...
Click to expand...
My bad, should have skimmed harder. Will correct.

tEd said:
I think it's a great card especially for all the features you get.

SM3.0
i16/fp16 blending with AA
great AA quality
adaptive AA
great AF quality
AVIVO stuff

It has it all
Click to expand...
Don't forget FP10 and 3Dc. They may seem minor now, but with the new consoles (specifically Xbox/PC platforming) those two features should get some serious play.
 
Very interesting. It's certainly quite impressive performance for an entry level card. Although I guess I was expecting more of the Pro. These numbers look very similar to the leaked 'LE' numbers from a while back.. Maybe they were always pro... hmm.

Interesting that the 6600 can't managed the higher resolutions/AA settings in 3dmark05... it seems to be running out of memory (128mb) when the x600 and x700 are fine (also 128mb).
I've noticed that the 128mb 6600 in my laptop seems to run out of memory much faster than my old 128mb 9500 too..

I'm worried the price is too high. If they do come out at $150us then they won't doo all that well.. Considering you can easily get a 6600GT or an x800 GT for the same sort of money, although neither is 256mb. Hopfully they will come down in price quickly.
 
I wish they would have compared it also to a X300 or a 6200, that way we could see the improvements from older generations to newer ones. I'm also very interested in how the 7200 and X300 compare to each other and this generation, these chips will hopefully start to chip away from integrated Intel marketshare.

I wonder if the X1300 was made with Vista in mind?
 
Possibly, with it coming with 256MB, I dont really see a real reason for this.

Also, as far as price goes.... its right in line. This is the normal high end part of the low end price, it will come down, they always do. If you go to Best Buy you can still find 6200s for as high as $170!

As for comparing these cards to older generation low end, yeah you could do that, but as this preview shows, the X1300 is more inbetween the 6600 and 6600GT. So I'd say old gen low end are going to be killed.
 
ZoinKs! said:
Why else would it debut with 256 MB?
Click to expand...
bigger is better ;)
Vista doesnt ship for some time.. I'd think a refresh with more memory would be more logical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
  • Sticky
Hello again
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
12K
homerdog
homerdog
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
A
ID@Xbox Summer Game Fest Demos [2021 June 15-21]
Replies
7
Views
2K
AzBat
A
S
Wolcen: Lords of Mayhem (Diablo style ARPG)
Replies
9
Views
2K
Seanspeed
S
Back
Top