X300

[miliniumeye]

somebody tell me does this SUCK?

 

[Elbatrop1]

I think that you should try to make more constructive posts.

At this forum, you will usually get a better response if you make good points or tell everyone something that we didnt know.

Even if you say the X300 sucks, at least say why.

For example, you could say something fictional like this (this example being fictional):

I find that the X300 if overpriced for its performance. I was reading at this website (enter website URL here), that the (enter another video card here) is a much better buy.

I think that the performance of this card is (enter rating here).

What do you guys think?

 

[Nitestick]

umm i think you misread the post. to me it seems to be asking a question not telling us anything.

 

[003]

Yes it does.

 

[Trifid]

And to respond to the question, http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050208/geforce_6200-15.html

It's a medium setting card really, at the most, that will be needed to be run in directX 8 when the new games come out which require Pixel Shader Model 3 support to run in direct X 9.

 

[beedubaya]

X300 isn't really a gaming card, while it can run games on low to medium settings. X300 is only slightly better than the 9200SE. Pretty much all the Radeon X series cards are this way when compared to their Radeon 9 series counterparts.

 

[Hacp]

Except that the x600 pwnz the 9600XT.

 

[Nitestick]

yeh basically you get what u pay for. i wouldnt say its crap but because it does what it was designed to do for the price they intended

 

[003]

yeh basically you get what u pay for. i wouldnt say its crap but because it does what it was designed to do for the price they intended

No, it sucks. The 6200 beats the X300, it is clocked at 300/550, vs the x300 which is clocked at 325/400. Plus, the 6200 supports shader model 3.

 

[beedubaya]

The 6200 may support Shader Model 3, but its not powerful enough to use its features.