what do you all think about this card

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's Vista ready along as you intend to spend the amount for this model card. When the model has been out long enough the price will start dropping as newer ones follow. What make and model board are you planning to run it on? That can help at times in deciding which model will work out the best.
 
It's overpriced alright! The MSI RadeonX1300 Pro does well without OCing here when gaming and using multimedia apps. That cost only $80 US at newegg when that was ordered. That also shows how far the prices will drop in so many months.

Gee? Now for the next build I will need an ATI chipset instead of the nForce 4 SLI shipset on this board to run two X1300 Pros.
 
The X1300 is obviously in a very different league to a 7900GT or X1900. The X1300 was introduced as a budget card, and is not a high end card that has dropped in price. It's not really indicative of what will happen to prices in the future. My 'overpriced' comment was based on a comparison to other 7900GTs, and other similar cards, not with entry level cards.

Oh, and I really wouldn't crossfire X1300s:)

An X1900XTX would be an even better choice, if you don't mind some enormous MIRs!
 
I wouldn't mind a pair of X1600 Pros in a Crossfire setup if I was planning to go that far for gaming alone. There's no question on the X1900XTX card here. I've been running ATI models strictly at this point. But the initial expense for a newly released model for someone that may be on a.... tight budget also has to be looked at.

Someone well resourced can easily jump on the "Latest" that comes out to be the first with it. When you are looking to build only a high end build you look for .... the "latest" again. If you want any system to last a few years you have to look later expandibility and upgrade. Right now the X1900XTX is the top model with the ATI chip. MSI adds a little to that. besides price.

The older card that had the promise in 2005 was the All in Wonder 9800 Pro. Gee where did that one go? The Sapphire X1900XT doesn't look too bad at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102051
 
PC eye said:
I wouldn't mind a pair of X1600 Pros in a Crossfire setup if I was planning to go that far for gaming alone.
Click to expand...
It's better than an X1300 crossfire, no doubt, but still not something i'd go for:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/329/1/
The crossfired X1600Pros have difficulty matching the performance of even a 7600GT, let alone some of the sub-$200 single cards offered by both ATI and nVidia.
There's no question on the X1900XTX card here. I've been running ATI models strictly at this point. But the initial expense for a newly released model for someone that may be on a.... tight budget also has to be looked at.
Click to expand...
True, which is why I included my comment about the MIR. Nonetheless, if he doesn't mind dealing with the MIR, it's great value.
If you want any system to last a few years you have to look later expandibility and upgrade.
Click to expand...
If, by that, you mean the option of SLI/Crossfire, I tend to disagree. Adding a second card 'some time in the future' is rarely a cost-effective solution, since by the time a single high-end card like an X1900 becomes outdated, superior single card solutions are available. The option is even less appealing when one considers the extra cost for an SLI/CF motherboard (although granted this is less an issue now than in the past), and PSU.
Video Card 101 puts up a compelling argument against this sort of plan.
Right now the X1900XTX is the top model with the ATI chip. MSI adds a little to that. besides price.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be pedantic, but the X1900XTX is no longer ATIs top card. Moreover MSIs model is the cheapest of the lot after the MIR, which is why I recommended it. Certainly it is very reasonably priced, for the performance advangage it offers over the X1900XT 256MB edition.
The Sapphire X1900XT doesn't look too bad at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102051
Click to expand...
Agreed, in fact that's the card I originally posted. A top choice if you don't want to deal with MIRs.
 
Last edited:
The newer models above even the X1300 with the limit of only 4 pixel pipelines are above the GeForce 2 equivalent card. The X1300 is about roughly equal to a budget GeForce 3 card with the other models discussed here being more capable for a Crossfire not SLI setup when run in pairs.
 
just a comment, but you should really get a card with 512mb of memory instead of 256mb. new-age games often require areound 300-500mb's of memory to run on high (black & white 2 being a good example)
 
Video memory and system memory are two different things. I've seen 128mb cards ring circles around 256mb model cards. Pc games mainly go after system memory. A good card with it's own vpu will take any real load off the cpu when it handles more intense graphics seen in some of the newer games.
 
lovely? said:
just a comment, but you should really get a card with 512mb of memory instead of 256mb. new-age games often require areound 300-500mb's of memory to run on high (black & white 2 being a good example)
Click to expand...

When did cards ever really need more than 256,i think 256 is fine and 512 is alright but a little bit unnecessary at the moment.
 
well the card i have chosen should play all games out right now flawless should it not with the rest of my system?

what do you all think about that build.. .wont be done till around xmas as its a expensive build but do you see any bottlekneck or should i be good to go for a long time
 
I have an x1300 as of now and it actually impressed me with the quality of graphics, it wouldn't win any awards for benchmarking, but for someone who wanted a better quality card for a year before building a behemoth gaming machine, it suffices.
 
A card with 512MB of VRAM is recommended I think. The problem is that newer games are coming out that have massive textures, forcing the card to use the aperture, especially when you start throwing lots of AA and Aniso into the mix. Of course you know what that means. Performance takes a hit.

There are a couple of new games coming out that can actually easily use up 256MB of vram and scream for more. 256 is old skool.
 
Last edited:
ETSA said:
I have an x1300 as of now and it actually impressed me with the quality of graphics, it wouldn't win any awards for benchmarking, but for someone who wanted a better quality card for a year before building a behemoth gaming machine, it suffices.
Click to expand...

I use the MSI Radeon X1300 Pro stock here without ever seeing one lag. Most games out are geared to run on 128mb cards currently available. For large graphics programs where graphics acceleration has no need the 512mb capacity then sees a definite use. Graphics design engineers even game designers will use that to create the ideal but not necessarily marketed designs.
 
Does anybody think we should bother to tell Mr. Google that even Quake 4 requires 512MB of VRAM to run on the highest settings, or do you think he'll just tell us another story about an x1300 that nobody cares about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top