Holiday 2006 Shopping Guide: GPUs
by Jarred Walton on December 13, 2006 5:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Entry Level GPUs
The next step up from the budget GPUs is going to be the Entry Level category, with prices ranging from $75-$125. You will also see more expensive versions of the Ultra Budget graphics cards, either due to extra features, factory overclocking, or even the manufacturer's name. We're going to focus primarily on the new GPUs that become available with the increased budget, rather than continuing to mention slightly faster clocked versions of the Ultra Budget offerings.
At the lower end of this price range, ATI has the X1300 XT, which is simply a renamed version of the X1600 Pro. Right now the X1600 Pro (128bit version) is slightly cheaper, but that will likely change in the future. Driver optimizations since the launch of the X1600 Pro have improved performance quite a bit, but in reality the card isn't a whole lot faster than the GeForce 6600 GT cards, which are really quite outdated these days. Certain titles will prefer ATI hardware, but in terms of value in we would definitely take the cheaper 7300 GT cards over the X1600 Pro/X1300 XT.
The X1600 XT is better, with clock speeds that are quite a bit higher - the X1650 Pro is practically the same, coming with a negligible 10/20 MHz increase on the GPU/memory - but despite the more impressive sounding specifications the X1600 XT is really only slightly faster than the GeForce 7600 GS. At the top of the price spectrum, the least expensive GeForce 7600 GT cards are definitely the best way to go. Prices currently start at about $130, but you can find $20 mail-in rebates on the EVGA cards that drop the final price down to $110. Even without the rebate, we would still recommend spending the extra money to get a 7600 GT over any of the other cards at the top of this price bracket - at least if graphics performance is important to you.
The AGP market continues to be relatively unimpressive, with prices that are typically $20 more than the equivalent PCI-E graphics cards - at least where cards are available on both platforms, which isn't all that common. GeForce 7600 GS cards might be worth a thought at the top end, along with the X1600 Pro and X1300 Pro ATI models. Perhaps because demand for AGP cards is really starting to diminish, there are currently a lot of mail-in rebates available that might make some of the AGP cards worth considering as a final upgrade. Keep in mind that everything short of a 7600 GT is usually going to be slower than something like a GeForce 6800 GT/GS card (or X800 Pro), so if you already have such a card it might not be worth upgrading to anything faster.
As we did with the Ultra Budget GPUs, here is a quick breakdown of the features and specifications of the various Entry Level GPUs we've mentioned. Again, we have sorted the table roughly in order of increasing performance. When you consider the clock speeds of the 7600 GS, it really is surprising that the much higher clocked X1600 XT isn't able to outperform it by a large margin - which is of course why ATI went back to the drawing board and created the X1650 XT, but more on that when we get to the Midrange GPUs on the next page.
The next step up from the budget GPUs is going to be the Entry Level category, with prices ranging from $75-$125. You will also see more expensive versions of the Ultra Budget graphics cards, either due to extra features, factory overclocking, or even the manufacturer's name. We're going to focus primarily on the new GPUs that become available with the increased budget, rather than continuing to mention slightly faster clocked versions of the Ultra Budget offerings.
At the lower end of this price range, ATI has the X1300 XT, which is simply a renamed version of the X1600 Pro. Right now the X1600 Pro (128bit version) is slightly cheaper, but that will likely change in the future. Driver optimizations since the launch of the X1600 Pro have improved performance quite a bit, but in reality the card isn't a whole lot faster than the GeForce 6600 GT cards, which are really quite outdated these days. Certain titles will prefer ATI hardware, but in terms of value in we would definitely take the cheaper 7300 GT cards over the X1600 Pro/X1300 XT.
The X1600 XT is better, with clock speeds that are quite a bit higher - the X1650 Pro is practically the same, coming with a negligible 10/20 MHz increase on the GPU/memory - but despite the more impressive sounding specifications the X1600 XT is really only slightly faster than the GeForce 7600 GS. At the top of the price spectrum, the least expensive GeForce 7600 GT cards are definitely the best way to go. Prices currently start at about $130, but you can find $20 mail-in rebates on the EVGA cards that drop the final price down to $110. Even without the rebate, we would still recommend spending the extra money to get a 7600 GT over any of the other cards at the top of this price bracket - at least if graphics performance is important to you.
The AGP market continues to be relatively unimpressive, with prices that are typically $20 more than the equivalent PCI-E graphics cards - at least where cards are available on both platforms, which isn't all that common. GeForce 7600 GS cards might be worth a thought at the top end, along with the X1600 Pro and X1300 Pro ATI models. Perhaps because demand for AGP cards is really starting to diminish, there are currently a lot of mail-in rebates available that might make some of the AGP cards worth considering as a final upgrade. Keep in mind that everything short of a 7600 GT is usually going to be slower than something like a GeForce 6800 GT/GS card (or X800 Pro), so if you already have such a card it might not be worth upgrading to anything faster.
As we did with the Ultra Budget GPUs, here is a quick breakdown of the features and specifications of the various Entry Level GPUs we've mentioned. Again, we have sorted the table roughly in order of increasing performance. When you consider the clock speeds of the 7600 GS, it really is surprising that the much higher clocked X1600 XT isn't able to outperform it by a large margin - which is of course why ATI went back to the drawing board and created the X1650 XT, but more on that when we get to the Midrange GPUs on the next page.
| Entry Level GPUs | |||||||
| GPU | Pixel Shaders |
Vertex Shaders |
ROPs | Core Speed |
RAM Speed |
Memory Interface |
Price |
| X1300 XT | 12 | 5 | 4 | 500 | 800 | 128bit | $108 |
| X1600 Pro | 12 | 5 | 4 | 500 | 800 | 128bit | $91 |
| 6600 GT | 8 | 3 | 4 | 500 | 1000 | 128bit | $85* |
| X1600 XT | 12 | 5 | 4 | 590 | 1380 | 128bit | $119 |
| X1650 Pro | 12 | 5 | 4 | 600 | 1400 | 128bit | $105 |
| 7600 GS | 12 | 5 | 8 | 400 | 700 | 128bit | $109 |
| 7600 GT | 12 | 5 | 8 | 560 | 1400 | 128bit | $135 |
* - Prices for these parts are prone to fluctuation, as these are discontinued products.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
justly - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
I apoligize for straying from the video topic, but I really get annoyed at the all to often trash talk about VIA and SiS chipsets.I understand that this is a GPU article so I can see Anandtech not recommending SiS or VIA integrated graphics based on their lack luster video capabilities. My question (or maybe I should call it a complaint) is how can Anandtech claim SiS and VIA boards are not stable or reliable? The last reviw (that I can remember) of a SiS based board was over a year ago, even then I dont think it was a production board. Coverage of VIA based boards isn't much better but at least Anandtech does give VIA some budget coverage.
I can fully understand if Anandtech doesn't want to recommend VIA or SiS to their enthusiast crowd due to poor overclocking, or being "a bit more quirky" as your article states.
I'm not going to read all the way through old articles just to try and figure out what these stability and reliability issues mighy be (mainly because most of the articles are so old that a BIOS update could easily have made any stability issues invalid). Well I lied a little, I did briefly look through the VIA board articles within the last year and found no stability issues at stock settings. In fact, the only stability issues I saw mentioned in an article happened when "we tried to exceed the SPD settings of our DDR memory modules" but the next line reads "We did not experience these same issues with our DDR2 memory modules" (and that article is 1 week shy of 9 months old).
I hope Anandtech decides to either stop repeating these claims of unstable, unreliable and quirky boards based on VIA & SiS or start reviewing these boards and show its readers why they deserve these remarks.
Then again if the only thing we as readers get from reviews of these chipsets/boards is complaints about how budget boards are not able to overclock, or the lack of a tweakable BIOS in a sub $60 board then blame the board not the chipset as most people are already aware that budget boards are like this reguardless of what chipset they use.
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
I know of at least one attempted SiS board review in the past year that was canned because our reviewer could not get the board to function properly (after several BIOS updates and two boards, IIRC). Motherboards (and chipsets) are such an integral part of any computer that I would never skimp in that area. Then again, maybe I'm just too demanding of my computers?If you read user reviews of VIA/SiS boards you typically see a pattern that indicates the boards are overall "less reliable" - periodic instabilities and far higher failure rates. Some people report no problems and love the low prices, while others try to do a bit more with their systems and encounter difficulties.
If you just want to use a computer for office tasks, just about any system will be fine... but then again, if you're doing office work and your computer crashes, you probably won't be too happy. Anyone planning on running a higher-spec GPU should avoid cheaper motherboards IMO, as running a $300+ GPU in a <$75 board is just asking for problems. (For the same reason, I recommend $75+ PSUs for anyone running a CPU+GPU that cost more than $400 combined.)
Basically, I just can't recommend a questionable motherboard that saves a person $10-$20. The fact that the companies aren't out there promoting their products says something. If they're not proud enough of their work to try hard to get reviews at reputable sites, perhaps it's because they know their boards won't pass muster.
I actually had a company representative complain to me once about my stress tests being "unrealistic". He asked, "How many people actually try to run Folding@Home and a bunch of gaming benchmarks in sequence?" Basically, the system would crash if I used my script to benchmark games at various resolutions without rebooting in between each run. It's true that a lot of people might never stress a system to that level, but when I've looked at dozens of computers that handle that workload without problems, a system that crashes/locks in the same situation is clearly not as "stable or reliable" as competing solutions. All things being equal, I would recommend a different PC at the same price.
That's basically how I see the VIA/SiS situation. $10 is about 100 miles of driving, a trip to most restaurants, a two hour movie.... It's not worth the risk just to save $10. If it is, maybe a new computer isn't what you really need; a used PC would probably be just as good and likely a lot cheaper (and possibly faster as well).
justly - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
I agree with most of what you say, no one wants a system that crashs.One thing I do notice though, is that most of your arguments can be atributed to low priced boards, yet the comments I find annoying are the generalizations about chipsets. Do you actually believe a $50 nvidia based board is significantly more stable or reliable than any other chipset? and if you do, couldn't this just be a side effect of being a more popular chipset thus less work programming a bios? I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but going by your comments about motherboard pricing, if I found a $100 SiS based board it should be more stable and reliable than a $50 nvidia board.
You also want me to read "user reviews"? this doesn't sound like a good way to judge reliability to me. Most user reviews are either in enthusiast fourms like the ones you have here, these usually only rewiew overclocking abilities, or on retail sites like Newegg, and to be honest most of the bad reviews I see there look more like PEBKAC.
You really haven't cleared up why VIA or SiS chipsets should be considered unreliable or unstable, although your dislike of budget boards is quite evedent.
I'm not trying to deny you your opinion, I'm just asking that you refrain from singling out specific chipsets if what you are really having a problem with is all budget boards, if there actually is a chipset specific problem please try to get a review published indicating what the problem is.
BTW if the board that wouldn't function, and had the review canned was a production board I feel sorry for the person that bought it without a proper warning from a review site that knew it was flawed (you don't want to know what I think of the review site that would let this happen).
Knowing what to expect from a product can help a budget builder as much as it can help an overclocker.
Sunrise089 - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
I tend to view guids like these through the eyes of my own system, and having a 7900GT at 500/1500, there is little reason to upgrade if I'm going to continue to play games at 1280x1024. However, 22" (widescreen) LCDs have also become a lot cheaper, and with my poor eyes, the 1650x1050 or so resolution will probably work pretty well. That leads me to the great situation I'm apparently in - it looks like my card will fetch around $200 if I sell it, and I have the option of either a perhaps slightly faster X1950pro for $199, basically making it a free change but only slightly faster, or a X1950XT 256meg for only $249. That's a lot of additional card for only $50, and pretty tempting. I cannot see why the $249 part doesn't get the nod for your pick over the 7950GT though.JarredWalton - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
Despite the fact that they are separated by quite a few cards in the table, the X1950 XT 256MB and the 7950 GT give relatively similar performance. The XT is probably 10-15% faster depending on game, but that's not really enough to mean the difference between one resolution and another in my opinion. You also get 512MB of RAM with the 7950GT, and it tends to overclock better than the XT resulting in performance that is basically equal.However, you're right that it is still worth considering, and so I added it to the final table. This is particularly true for people that don't like NVIDIA hardware for whatever reason - just as the 7950GT is worth considering for people that don't like ATI's drivers. Honestly, I'm still unhappy with ATI's drivers overall; they NEED TO DITCH .NET! What's next, writing low level drivers in C# or Jaba (that's big, fat, slow Java for the uninformed)? I know the .NET stuff is just for the UI, but it still blows, and I get about a 45 second delay after Windows loads while the ATI driver starts up. If I weren't running CrossFire, I might not have as many issues with ATI's drivers, though.
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
As a side note, Neverwinter Nights 2 appears to require/use .NET 2.0, and for those who have played the game that probably explains a lot of the performance issues. I'm not sure if CrossFire/SLI support is working yet, but I do know that my CrossFire X1900 XT config can't handle running with antialiasing, and/or water reflections/refractions at resolutions above 1280x1024. Seems decent without the AA and water stuff at 1920x1200 with the latest drivers and patch, though.PrinceGaz - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
Something seems to be missing from this part of the last paragraph on page 8.JarredWalton - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
Weird speech recognition there, I guess. I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be "they are" instead of "fair so"... but I can't honestly remember if that's what I said or not. LOLgerf - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
On the second page, were should be "where."BTW, good article. Laptop integrated's good enough for me though (ex-gamer).
Noya - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - link
Chart of best values jumps from about $100 w/rebate to $200+, while a highly overclockable 7900gs can be had for $145 after rebate (about $35 over a 7600GT).