Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7300 GT vs 1600PRO vs 1650PRO

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 15, 2006 11:51:28 PM

Which is better? All pci express, all Asus only brand I can buy here :roll:

Edited:

a nvidia 7600GS is near budget also

Here go the prices I get them

7300Gt U$S 148.5
1600Pro U$S 169.5
7600Gs U$S 182.5
7600Gt U$S 284.7

More about : 7300 1600pro 1650pro

October 16, 2006 1:50:58 AM

Give a link, the title of the card only tells us the GPU...

You might want to get a X800GTO, I believe it's faster than all of those, and you can get one for about $85.
October 16, 2006 2:01:33 AM

X1650
Related resources
October 16, 2006 5:59:54 AM

Why? The only reason these cards exist is it gives OEMs like HP the ability to claim their "high-end" PCs have next generation support.

Its all about marketing to the uneducated masses in North America, and giving consumers in Asia an affordable product.

But who cares if you have Pixel Shader 3.0 support if your game runs at 17fps at 800x600 at medium settings?

Buy at the very least a 7600GS, better yet a 7600GT (the evga 7600GTS, which is a 7600GT with software SLI only are cheap) if you can spare a few more bucks.

Anything less than these cards is a waste of money on recent games. (Unless, of course, you live in a country where you only make $35 USD a month you really don't have much of a choice.)
October 16, 2006 6:03:06 AM

the x1650 is your best pick, as it is better then the x1600XT and thus better than 1600pro

Have fun ;) 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2006 6:05:24 AM

The X1650Pro is much faster than the GF7300GT, and is 10mhz core+memory faster than the X1600XT so is also well ahead of the X1600Pro too.

Depending on what you are doing also look for the GF7600GT as has been mentioned, but stay away from the GF7600GS as it'd be slower. Either the X1650 or GF7600GT IMO.
October 16, 2006 6:08:14 AM

Quote:
The X1650Pro is much faster than the GF7300GT, and is 10mhz core+memory faster than the X1600XT so is also well ahead of the X1600Pro too.

Depending on what you are doing also look for the GF7600GT as has been mentioned, but stay away from the GF7600GS as it'd be slower. Either the X1650 or GF7600GT IMO.


The X1650Pro is only better then the 7300 GT because its clocked higher. The X1650Pro has more shaders but the 7300 GT has twice as much textures. If u overclock the 7300 GT to the X1650Pro's speeds then it will be better.

The 7600 GS is an overclock 7300 GT, but its not as good as the 7600 GT in any way.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2006 6:21:37 AM

Quote:

The X1650Pro is only better then the 7300 GT because its clocked higher.


And Gold is worth more than Iron because it's rarer. What's your point? :roll:

Quote:
The X1650Pro has more shaders but the 7300 GT has twice as much textures.


And the last testure heavy game was what UT2K4?

Quote:
If u overclock the 7300 GT to the X1650Pro's speeds then it will be better.


And if you put a Jet engine in a Yugo it'll be faster than a Mustang 500GT. However the pixel shader debt can't be made up for by overclocking at all. Theoretical throughput is nothing compared to game performance, and for that the X1600Pro and X1650Pro beat the GF7300GT, despite the GF7300GT being better than the other 'true' GF7300s which truely suck.

Quote:
The 7600 GS is an overclock 7300 GT, but its not as good as the 7600 GT in any way.


I don't think anyone said it was, like I said the GS should be avoided, the only two worth considering are the X1650P (in his list) and the GF7600GT (not on his list).
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2006 6:28:18 AM

Or an x800GTO if he doesnt care about SM3 and HDR (also not on his list :)  )
October 16, 2006 6:37:54 AM

Quote:

The X1650Pro is only better then the 7300 GT because its clocked higher.


And Gold is worth more than Iron because it's rarer. What's your point? :roll:

Because if u overclock then it will be better. Its not fair to judge cards wich have different clock speeds. You comments arent very smart..


Quote:

The X1650Pro has more shaders but the 7300 GT has twice as much textures.


And the last testure heavy game was what UT2K4?

I dont think even you urself know what the hell that means.
Texture heavy? Without texture mapping there would be no game.


Quote:

If u overclock the 7300 GT to the X1650Pro's speeds then it will be better.


And if you put a Jet engine in a Yugo it'll be faster than a Mustang 500GT. However the pixel shader debt can't be made up for by overclocking at all. Theoretical throughput is nothing compared to game performance, and for that the X1600Pro and X1650Pro beat the GF7300GT, despite the GF7300GT being better than the other 'true' GF7300s which truely suck.


What? at the same clock speeds the 7300 GT is better.


Please listen to me, save each of us time.
October 16, 2006 6:50:40 AM

Quote:


Please listen to me, save each of us time.

Great, we have another turd to run off :roll:
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2006 6:54:43 AM

Quote:

The X1650Pro is only better then the 7300 GT because its clocked higher.


And Gold is worth more than Iron because it's rarer. What's your point? :roll:

Because if u overclock then it will be better. Its not fair to judge cards wich have different clock speeds. You comments arent very smart..

Look I can tripple quote, are you two just going to quote each others quotes over and over? Its not like the OP really knows or cares about what your saying.
October 16, 2006 7:14:23 AM

Quote:

The X1650Pro is only better then the 7300 GT because its clocked higher.


And Gold is worth more than Iron because it's rarer. What's your point? :roll:

Because if u overclock then it will be better. Its not fair to judge cards wich have different clock speeds. You comments arent very smart..
And you can't overclock the X1650Pro??? :roll:
October 16, 2006 7:49:02 AM

The only reason I mentioned the 7600GS is because I've used many of them, along with the 7300GT and 1600Pro. I haven't had a chance to use a 1650 yet. Sounds like it could be decent.

The 7600GS performs surprising well in many new games given its lack luster paper specs.

It was the only one of these 3 cheap cards that would play FEAR smooth at default settings. Not to mention it was also very smooth in Prey, Tomb Raider Legends and NFS Most Wanted with AA turned on. Which the others were not.

I wouldn't personally own one as the EVGA 7600GTS and XFX 7600GT are only a few dollars more, but to be fair, this was my experience.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2006 8:29:36 AM

Quote:

Because if u overclock then it will be better. Its not fair to judge cards wich have different clock speeds. You comments arent very smart..


You're statement is spurious at best. You just want to defend your favoured card, but all your arguments work both ways.

You compare STOCK speeds, because not all cards OC the same, and my ability to OC might be better than yours. Your argument falls apart also because the X1650Pro is now also 80nm and the GF7300GT is still only 90nm, and thus the OC potentials favour the X1650 on design alone. But hey based on your argument I say the X1300XT OC'ed to 5GHZ is the best overall. :roll:

Quote:
I dont think even you urself know what the hell that means.
Texture heavy? Without texture mapping there would be no game.


And without pixels there'd be no games, and without ROPs,, and without vertex/geometry engines....

However tell me the last game to have the texel load be so much heavier than the pixel load under default. Games now are far more pixel bound than texture bound.

Quote:
What? at the same clock speeds the 7300 GT is better.


Only in older titles, not in the latest titles, only if he's sticking to older games would it be a worthy competitor.

Quote:
Please listen to me, save each of us time.


Listen to you? Why bother, you've been talking out the side of you left butt cheek ever since you said the X1700 and GF7700 had the same core. :roll:
October 16, 2006 3:37:24 PM

Quote:
Because if u overclock then it will be better. Its not fair to judge cards wich have different clock speeds. You comments arent very smart.


WTF are you saying? You can't compare two cards in the same market segment and price range if their clockspeeds are different?

Hey everybody! Stop comparing cards! Track doesn't think it's fair!

Dude... I mean, WTF? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum. Seriously.
October 16, 2006 4:14:12 PM

Quote:
Because if u overclock then it will be better. Its not fair to judge cards wich have different clock speeds. You comments arent very smart..


We arent comparing the video card by its processing power/clock speed ratio, we compare them by real world speed. So if one video card performs better who cares what the clock speed is as long as it performs better than the card ur comparing it with Who cares if its fair? Bottom line is you want the best performance you can get for your money.
October 16, 2006 4:19:16 PM

I agree. the topic is 7300GT and x1600 series cards....why waste your time? Therse are entry level budget cards...sheesh. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2006 4:23:41 PM

You miss the point Cleev's making, Track is positioning it like only one can OC, and also that they only be compared at similar speeds (meaning the X1650P must stay where it is no OCing).

When comparing cards the only guaranteed thing is the stock speed, comparing OCs assumes that every card OCs the same (just ask the GF7600 and GF7900GT owners if that's anywhere near true). There are volt mods and OC tricks for pretty much every card out there, but it still doesn't mean they all OC the same level. Thus comparing OCs is ridiculous for a general recommendation for someone who needs to ask other people what they should buy. It's best for comparing afterwards and saying 'ooh, what a great little bonus'.

Many GF7300GTs ship with high clocks, but they also become much more expensive and then you once again come up against the 'plain GF7600GT' territory of argument. An OC'ed GF7300GT versus Stock GF7600GT, I'll take the later thanks.

I think that's Cleeve's point, and along the same lines of what I was getting at.
October 16, 2006 4:44:40 PM

Get none of them...............................pick up an X800GTO or a 7600GT. Take out a loan if necessary. :wink:
October 16, 2006 4:45:53 PM

I see TGGA has met Track and his singular logic.

@Genetic_Weapon....one of these days you'll be allowed to open up and unleash your anger upon the forums again and rule with an iron fist. Until that time, remember this...anger is a gift.
October 16, 2006 5:56:25 PM

Video cards and any hardware for that matter can only really be compared by thier factory default speeds, not the speeds you MIGHT be able to achieve with overclocking. Probably 95% of people do not overclock anyways.

I agree the best budget gaming card you can get is either an x800gto($100) or x850xt($120). Either will outperform all the cards listed. But you will give up some of the newer features and support like h.264 or Avivo just as examples.
October 16, 2006 6:32:16 PM

Quote:

Please listen to me, save each of us time.


Listen to you? It's hard to listen to someone who has their foot stuck in their mouth all the time.

To the OP: I agree with Grape, the X1650pro or the 7600GT. The 7600GT isn't much more $$$, and it's worth it. IMO anything less than the 7600GT isn't worth buying just for sm3.0.
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2006 5:43:06 AM

Quote:
IMO anything less than the 7600GT isn't worth buying just for sm3.0.

But if you want to go budget and dont care about sm3 and HDR then go for the x800gto or x850xt as Frankienyc123 said. There is absolutely NO POINT going for these two features on a budget card, since you wont even be able to play with those enabled anyway; unless you play at 640x480 like everyone else does :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
October 17, 2006 8:11:03 AM

Quote:
IMO anything less than the 7600GT isn't worth buying just for sm3.0.

But if you want to go budget and dont care about sm3 and HDR then go for the x800gto or x850xt as Frankienyc123 said. There is absolutely NO POINT going for these two features on a budget card, since you wont even be able to play with those enabled anyway; unless you play at 640x480 like everyone else does :lol: 

I second that concerning the budget at hand!
October 17, 2006 1:41:44 PM

Quote:
IMO anything less than the 7600GT isn't worth buying just for sm3.0.

But if you want to go budget and dont care about sm3 and HDR then go for the x800gto or x850xt as Frankienyc123 said. There is absolutely NO POINT going for these two features on a budget card, since you wont even be able to play with those enabled anyway; unless you play at 640x480 like everyone else does :lol: 

My point exactly.
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2006 5:20:26 AM

Finally someone agrees with me on something :roll: :wink: rather than arguing about it.
a b U Graphics card
October 23, 2006 5:17:39 AM

Here in Aus the 7600gts is much more expensive than the 7600gt, which is a good thing I guess, more (hardware SLI) for less.
!