Mid-Range Graphics
Here we are back at some cards worth discussing. Several of these cards will match the performance of more expensive "high-end" cards, offering fairly stellar performance for their current pricing.
Performance-wise, the 7600 GT falls in between the 6800 GS and the 7800 GT. This card replaces the very successful 6600 GT, and of all the other cards listed here, this is one of the few we can recommend with confidence. (You will see why later on.) For an even $153 after a $30 mail-in rebate, you can have the XFX GeForce 7600GT Extreme 256MB [RTPE: PV-T73G-UDE3]. You will find that the 6800 GS already does better than the X1600 XT, and since the 7600 GT is priced to about the same, we would highly suggest you go with this offering from NVIDIA.
If you're looking to save some money, you might be tempted to go with the 7600 GS instead. Clock speeds are significantly lower (400/800 vs. 560/1400), however, so the extra $50 is probably a reasonable investment for gaming. Still, the lower clock speeds do come with one advantage: noise levels. You can pick up the fanless EVGA GeForce 7600GS 256MB [RTPE: 256-P2-N549] for $120, with a $15 MIR.
Since the 7600 GT cards are able to perform slightly better than the 6800 GS at a lower cost, the answer is obviously to go with the 7600 GT. However, since the 7600 GT doesn't come in AGP format, the 6800 GS is a viable option for those without PCI-E boards. The single AGP card that is showing today is the eVGA GeForce 6800GS CO 256MB [RTPE: 256-A8-N397], on sale for about $230. However, do keep in mind that you can go with a 7800 GS for an additional $35. We would suggest the 7800 GS, but if you're looking to save a few bucks, this 6800 GS is a reasonable alternative. It really is up to you.
For AGP users, the 6600 GT still appears to be an adequate choice considering its price and performance, as you can't really get a card that performs better without also upping your budget quite a bit. However, for PCI-E users we would suggest a 7600 GT. Sure, you can pick up the Gigabyte GeForce 6600GT 128MB [RTPE: GV-NX66T128D-SP] for $120, but for an additional ~$35 for the 7600 GT we mentioned above, you get 50 to 75% more performance; we think it's well worth the cost.
While it costs a bit more than the 7600 GT, the X1800 GTO competes very well. Depending on the game you're running, the two cards trade place for being the fastest midrange card. We are only picking up two X1800 GT cards at present, but both are relatively easy to obtain. The Sapphire Radeon X1800 GTO 256MB [RTPE: 100155] gets the clear recommendation, coming in at an even $200 shipped (or a few dollars more for the retail version). You might be wondering if there's any specific game that clearly benefits from having an X1800 GTO instead of a 7600 GT. You may have heard of a certain game that goes by the name Oblivion, and in most areas we would say the X1800 GTO posts more consistent/faster results. Of course, if you plan on running multiple video cards, X1800 GTO is a relatively poor choice.
The X800GT/GTO cards are also decently priced. The PowerColor Radeon X800GTO 256MB VIVO [RTPE: X800GTO256MBDDR3] is near its lowest price to date, going for about $115 shipped. Not a bad offering at all for a reasonable performing mid-range card. With a bit of overclocking, you can even reach X800 XT performance levels. This is certainly a viable alternative to the 6600/7600 GT.
Just as we mentioned with the 6600 GT cards, we feel you'll get more for your money if you spend the few extra dollars and select the 7600 GT as your choice rather than the X1600. There are still a couple options you might consider, though. The AGP Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB [RTPE: 100148] is a reasonable budget/midrange AGP offering, going for about $115. Gigabyte also makes a couple silent (fanless) X1600 cards a few of you might be interested in. However, with performance generally lower than the 6600 GT, the X1600 offerings really aren't very attractive for gaming purposes. If you prefer ATI and AVIVO over NVIDIA and PureVideo, though, X1600 is still a good economical choice.
We won't even mention any X700 cards - they would make a better budget offering, but they currently continue to carry their midrange price. Considering the X1600 prices, X700 is basically done, and we're just seeing old inventory floating around.
Let's check out the last and final segment covering the low-end graphic card solutions.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
PMPopic - Saturday, June 3, 2006 - link
Hello all,Do any of these cards support either of the two new high definition standards(i.e. blue ray)? My understanding is that there are no cards or LCD monitors out now that support this do to the HDCP copy protection. When will we see cards and monitors that support this?
Trisped - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link
The guide was concise and well worded (as price guides usually are)Keep up the good work.
Sunrise089 - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
I didn't take the time to re-read the last few video guides, but I seem to remember them not being as good as this one. I agree with most of your picks, and I do appreciate you including every possible card. I only have two changes I would make.First of all, it's time to move the X800/X850s and the 6800s to mid-range, where they compete in terms of performance. Then move the 7900GTs and X1800XT/XL and X1900GTO to high-end, if you still want to have four sections. None of us reading this guide really considers the 6800GT high-end anymore, not the X1800XL Ultra-high-end. I know Anandtech readers are more hard-core than the general Best Buy shopper, but that's who is reading the article anyways.
Second, when you inevitably move the previous generation cards out of the high-end section, you need to directly compare them to the cards that cost the same amount of money. We all know that buying a $500 6800-Ultra is a terrible deal, heck even buying a 7800GTX is a terrible deal. Those cards were replaced by faster cards but didn't drop in price, so it's an easy call. The $160 X850XT is NOT an easy call. I am under the impression that while giving up SM3 support, it is probably faster overall than the current generation cards at the $160 price point, but I don't know for sure since it isn't normally included in reviews of modern games anymore, and the new cards don't normally get reviewed under the older games I can look up X850XT scores for. I think a direct comparison between last-gen and present-gen cards is warranted when the older cards have actually dropped considerably in price to match the prices of their current-gen performance equivalents.
AGAC - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
My system was upgraded about one and half year ago and it´s going to remain as it is since the video subsystem is not just about framerates. Thanks to DRM schemes of tomorrow, no video card of today can legaly playback HD content. So, it´s a waiting game for me.BTW, does anyone knows about those phony claims made by ATI regarding HDCP compliant video cards?
And I am not talking about HDMI on video cards. As far as I know, DVI can be HDCP compliant, so that is not much of a chalenge in terms of R&D.
JarredWalton - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
You need an HDCP chip on the card, and while it is possible, no one has done it yet with ATI chips (AFAIK). They are "HDCP compatible" but not "HDCP enabled". :|lafchiev - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
"Previous tests showed that NVIDIA's budget cards were slightly faster than ATI's budget cards, but mostly it's a non-issue. "I thought that X1300 was ever more powrfull than the 7300 or 6200 ones.
Let see in the Anand review from 20 february:
Battlefield2 performance 1024x768:
X1300:24.2 fps
NV7300GS: 18.2 fps
Half Life 2 performance 1024x768:
X1300:27.2 fps
NV7300GS: 23.8 fps
Quake 4 performance 1024x768:
X1300:30 fps
NV7300GS: 25.6 fps
Overall NV7300GS is MUCH less performant than X1300
and this changes everything in the budget cards comparison.
Hi
Ico
JarredWalton - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
I was thinking X300 vs. 6200 - I'll clarify that. X1300 is still pitifully slow for gaming (as is the 7300).tential2 - Sunday, May 28, 2006 - link
I am not sure but I cant seem to find any decent review on this website on the 7600GT and 6600GT. They are closely priced but as you said in the article the 6600T was a very popular card. As a result I am not sure whether to buy another 6600GT and try and go SLI or buy a 7600GT. Which gives more performance? I found a few benches but many of them showed SLI giving no performance benefits. I was wondering what the benefits of SLI 6600GT are over the 7600GT.JarredWalton - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
7600 GT is generally a bit faster than 6800 GS/GT, so if you have benches of 6600GT SLI vs. 6800 GT you can draw some conclusions. If it were me, I'd take 7600 GT over 6600 GT SLI in a heartbeat. Two cards is a high-end option only, IMO. Don't bother with SLI until you're at least looking at 7900 GT.tential2 - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
It still would be nice to have a review on it. Also on Crossfire since I have seen nothing on upgrading with crossfire. It would be nice to buy a x1600XT knowing I could buy a later ATI card at anytime and run crossfire. It seems that has been largely neglected by reviewers and just people in genreal. I'm not even sure if Crossfire supports different cards anymore actually.