Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7300GT vs X800XL

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 12, 2006 3:35:34 AM

Ive seen benchmarks that a OCed 7300GT can beat x800xl with a reasonable margin.

I can get a 256mb 7300GT for a $100 canadian.
and X800XL for $130 canadian. Which one should i go for.

I know 7600Gt is the best choice but these are the only choices that im gon have.

Thanks.

More about : 7300gt x800xl

a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2006 5:32:02 AM

Quote:
Ive seen benchmarks that a OCed 7300GT can beat x800xl with a reasonable margin.



Link Please. The X800XL is way better than the 7300GT and almost up to 7600GT performance. It can be seen pitted against the 7600GT in these charts, holding it's own in some games. http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index.html
July 12, 2006 6:08:00 AM

Well heres something to consider: The x800xl will give you better perfomance in FPS, but does NOT support the latest pixel shader technology, whereas the 7300 DOES.

Another thing, you say a 7300 oc'd can hold its own against a x800xl, but can it hold its own against a x800xl oc'd? One thing to consider is that there is a direct correlation of circut heat to product lifespan. IE: the hotter something gets the less life expectancy it has. Not looking directly at the product's avg heat dissapation I'd say that the x800xl stock would function longer than the 7300 oc'd.

Is the x1600 series available to you at all? That might provide the best compromise, the combination of the pixel shader support (for eye-candy) and FPS to keep the game play smooth.

BTW what other hardware do you have in the box you plan to put these in? What games are you going to use? That should help in determining the solution for you as well.
Related resources
July 12, 2006 4:54:10 PM

I find that real hard to believe. Please supply the benches...
July 12, 2006 5:10:19 PM

Are you saying the 8 pixel pipeline, 128-bit 7300GT beats the 16 pixel pipeline, 256-bit X800XL ?
July 12, 2006 5:41:20 PM

x1600 > x800xl?

FPS wise... isn't x800xl better? I was under the ... understanding that x1600 was for video editing and design... but not so much of an FPS...er

Am I incorrect?
July 12, 2006 5:49:28 PM

Quote:
x1600 > x800xl?

FPS wise... isn't x800xl better? I was under the ... understanding that x1600 was for video editing and design... but not so much of an FPS...er

Am I incorrect?


The X800XL is better. The X1600 is basically a 9800 pro with HDR and SM3.0.
July 12, 2006 6:00:20 PM

Quote:
Are you saying the 8 pixel pipeline, 128-bit 7300GT beats the 16 pixel pipeline, 256-bit X800XL ?


Not at all, what I said was that the x800xl will give better FPS, but doesn't support the latest pixelshader, and thats all I said. I didn't give an indication as to what was better, I leave that up to him. The one alternative i provided was the x1600. My father has one and is quite satisfied with it, he plays BF2 WoW and other games with mid-hi range quality settings and at a playable 30 fps.

In my opinion the x1600 may be the best alternative, Better FPS than the 7300, and better shader support than the x800xl (though not quite as good FPS wise)
July 12, 2006 6:03:25 PM

Quote:
x1600 > x800xl?

FPS wise... isn't x800xl better? I was under the ... understanding that x1600 was for video editing and design... but not so much of an FPS...er

Am I incorrect?


The X800XL is better. The X1600 is basically a 9800 pro with HDR and SM3.0.

Once again in fps, yes the x800xl is better, but with hdr and SM3.0 ingame image quality has a noticeable difference, I think its fair to consider both in the descision of which is 'better'.

And sure the x1600 is basically the same as a 9800 pro /sarcasm/ it only has:
3x as many pipelines
higher core clock & memory clock speeds
the HDR and SM3.0 you mentioned
pci-e instead of agp interface
(and unless you consider the recent se revisions of the 9800) the x1600 has open gl 2.0 support which the 9800's do not...
but -cough- they are really really close -cough-
:lol: 
July 12, 2006 6:25:02 PM

Quote:

Once again in fps, yes the x800xl is better, but with hdr and SM3.0 ingame image quality has a noticeable difference, I think its fair to consider both in the descision of which is 'better'.


Yeah and with those features enabled in a game on a 7300, you will be able to enjoy the superior image quality since it'll be a really slow slideshow of a game 8O
July 12, 2006 6:30:56 PM

Quote:
Ive seen benchmarks that a OCed 7300GT can beat x800xl with a reasonable margin.

I can get a 256mb 7300GT for a $100 canadian.
and X800XL for $130 canadian. Which one should i go for.

I know 7600Gt is the best choice but these are the only choices that im gon have.

Thanks.

There is always a third option, wait til the DX10 cards, in a month Microsoft's x3000 GPU is comming in both a onboard and card versions. Late September to early October Nvidia's DX10 card with SM4.0 lunches. Ati's R600 is set to release in Noverber at 80nm and the faster 65nm version in December.

The DX10 cards higher performance should place the low end GPU's equal to the X800 versions.
July 12, 2006 6:33:12 PM

Quote:
Well heres something to consider:
BTW what other hardware do you have in the box you plan to put these in? What games are you going to use? That should help in determining the solution for you as well.


I putting in with...
a 939 shuttle with 275 psu
1gb ram
amd 3k+
Im only going to play Counter Strike 1.6 which isnt a SERIOUS gpu demanding game.

I tried to look for that benchmarks but i couldnt find it cuz ironically, i formatted my comp today before i read it.

When i find it ill definately post.
oc'ed 7300gt outperformed x800xl in 7 tests out of 10.

I was thinking about $130 x800xl becasue it is cheaper + better than x1600.
July 12, 2006 6:37:03 PM

Quote:
Ive seen benchmarks that a OCed 7300GT can beat x800xl with a reasonable margin.

I can get a 256mb 7300GT for a $100 canadian.
and X800XL for $130 canadian. Which one should i go for.

I know 7600Gt is the best choice but these are the only choices that im gon have.

Thanks.

what abou ta 7600GS?
i think it could beat the x800xl with sm3, dunno for sure
do you know how much does it cost?
July 12, 2006 6:39:02 PM

Well, I'm sure I'm gonna get a bunch of flaming replies, BUT.....

The 7300GT even when OC'd uses far less power than the x800xl.
The was recently a review of it off a dailytech link from anandtech.

As far as gaming goes, both cards do very well in most any game if you are willing to turn down the eye candy.

However,

You can buy a 7600gs for $130 Canadian, and overclock that to 7600GT stock levels all while using only 55 watts. So, I'd go with a third option as well. Better yet, the x1800xl's are coming down in price fast.
July 12, 2006 6:42:26 PM

Quote:
Ive seen benchmarks that a OCed 7300GT can beat x800xl with a reasonable margin.

I can get a 256mb 7300GT for a $100 canadian.
and X800XL for $130 canadian. Which one should i go for.

I know 7600Gt is the best choice but these are the only choices that im gon have.

Thanks.

what abou ta 7600GS?
i think it could beat the x800xl with sm3, dunno for sure
do you know how much does it cost?

The benchmarks that i read WITH that oced 7300GT compared it with 7600gs also and came out a lil shorter than the x800xl.

I dont really want to oc my gfx card since ill be getting a shuttle. which produces a lot of heat.

my budget for video card is around 130-150. canadian
July 12, 2006 6:52:52 PM

I'm still waiting to hear the words, "We unlocked the other quad on the 7300GT" before I'd consider buying one. It's the same 7600 core as the rest of 'em. Wish they figured it out by now.
July 12, 2006 6:56:20 PM

cannnntttt finddddd 8O

i dun even remember how i got the site.
and what i looked for to get into that site.

but there was.. i know it....
July 12, 2006 7:00:13 PM

Quote:

The benchmarks that i read WITH that oced 7300GT compared it with 7600gs also and came out a lil shorter than the x800xl.

I dont really want to oc my gfx card since ill be getting a shuttle. which produces a lot of heat.


Hmm.. is it me or you have your answer right there?!
I'mean that if you can get an 7300GT OC'ed to the point it's beating an X800XL, well my friend heat can't be your main concern or else go with the X800XL.
July 12, 2006 7:16:56 PM

Quote:
x1600 > x800xl?

FPS wise... isn't x800xl better? I was under the ... understanding that x1600 was for video editing and design... but not so much of an FPS...er

Am I incorrect?


The X800XL is better. The X1600 is basically a 9800 pro with HDR and SM3.0.

Once again in fps, yes the x800xl is better, but with hdr and SM3.0 ingame image quality has a noticeable difference, I think its fair to consider both in the descision of which is 'better'.

And sure the x1600 is basically the same as a 9800 pro /sarcasm/ it only has:
3x as many pipelines
higher core clock & memory clock speeds
the HDR and SM3.0 you mentioned
pci-e instead of agp interface
(and unless you consider the recent se revisions of the 9800) the x1600 has open gl 2.0 support which the 9800's do not...
but -cough- they are really really close -cough-
:lol:  3x as many pipes? WTF?! They both have 8 pipes, and perform about the same. The x1600 can't take full advantage of the newer features in gaming while maintaing decent frames. Basically meaning that going from a 9800 pro to x1600 wouldn't be much of an upgrade. So, asa far as pipes and perfromance goes, they're pretty much the same.
July 12, 2006 7:18:25 PM

Quote:
cannnntttt finddddd 8O

i dun even remember how i got the site.
and what i looked for to get into that site.

but there was.. i know it....

well, but let's consider that a 7300GT overclocked beats a X800XL, but you said that you dont want to overclock your card.... if i was to overclock the card, then i'd get a 7600GS and overclock it to a 7600GT, instead of getting a 7300GT overclocked to a 7600GS........

edit: or get the X800XL. as you said you'll play counter strike you wont need SM3 anyway.
July 12, 2006 7:25:24 PM

uh........ i have a 6600, which in specs is pretty close to a 9800 and i can play splinter cell with sm3 at decent frame rates. OKay, splinter cell does not require a lot of fps to be playable, but i can play with sm3.

So, in my opinion, statements like:

"The __(put midrange video card here)__ can't take full advantage of the newer features in gaming while maintaing decent frames"

are totally incorrect
July 12, 2006 7:30:48 PM

Oops! My bad. The x1600 has 12 pipes. Still not 3x though. :oops: 
July 12, 2006 7:34:44 PM

Quote:
uh........ i have a 6600, which in specs is pretty close to a 9800 and i can play splinter cell with sm3 at decent frame rates. OKay, splinter cell does not require a lot of fps to be playable, but i can play with sm3.

So, in my opinion, statements like:

"The __(put midrange video card here)__ can't take full advantage of the newer features in gaming while maintaing decent frames"

are totally incorrect


Not TOTALLY incorrect. Like you said, it depends on whch games your playing, also add on HDR with SM3.0 with newer games, and they're not so playable.
July 12, 2006 7:37:46 PM

oh yeah, my bad.
splinter cell uses hdr on sm3, what i was trying to say.
a c 173 U Graphics card
July 12, 2006 8:10:00 PM

While I agree that the x1600 doesn't have 3x the pipes, it is an upgrade. First, the x1600 does have more pipes, just not 3x as much. If it had 3x, it would be a 24pixel pipeline card, which ofcourse its not. Lets look at a "standard" x1600pro. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681... I pulled this from the main page of the video card section at newegg. The specs list it as: 12 pixelpipelines, but with a 128bit memory interface.
There are several things going for this card. First, you can find them new, unlike 9800pros. Second, it supports newer things, like OpenGL2.0, and SM3. (whether you can use it or not, thats a different thread...) It also supports AVIVO (or whatever that thing is called) Last, because these are still being made, they are cheaper then new 9800pros. This one is new, ~$106 counting shipping. (oh, lets not forget that the x1600pro I showed also has 512MBs of memory, goodluck finding a 9800pro with that much)
The VGA tables on this site don't list any common benchies between the 9800pro and the x1600pro, so a quick link showing which one is faster is out. I get the feeling that the more memory, pixel pipelines, and faster memory clocks, make up for the lower memory interface. There might be times the 9800pro is faster, but the x1600pro probably wins out overall.
July 12, 2006 8:28:16 PM

might want to think about source engine games(hl2, cs:s) and buying a x800xl
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2006 9:51:21 PM

Quote:
well, but let's consider that a 7300GT overclocked beats a X800XL

Terrible assumption as it's just not gonna happen. It would take Overclocked SLI 7300GT's. He made a mistake or it was two in SLI, which costs way more money and would be a dumb investment over a single 7600GT.

7600GT vs. 2 overclocked 7300GT's.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=568
July 13, 2006 3:04:16 AM

Well Dude, Your Mostly Right And Do Have A Point, But Realize This........
Heat Dissipation May Have Something To Do With Lifespan (And Yes It Does) But It Wont Matter, Because Even If The Card Dies In Two Years By That Time It Will Be Too Old To Run Anything Decently Anyway And Will Be Near Worthless Who Cares (Unless Your 40+ And Dont Play Games And Then Why Would You Overclock Anywayse?)

So My Point: Go Ahead And Overclock It Like Your Heart Desires If Its Dead In Two Years, Its Not Gonna Be Worth Much (Or Anything) Anyway
!