New Radeon X1300 512MB??!

[maroon1]

Nah, X1300 > 9600.

The X1300s are supposed to face off with the regular 6600. The 6600GT falls somewhere in between the X1300 and X1600.

even the 6600 vanilla (plain) is better than x1300, i saw it in a benchmark, so i think x1300 is somewhere between 6200 and 6600

 

[maroon1]

Very good point, 512mb will actually slow the card down. 512mb is only meant for powerful enough cards that can handle it.

why it will slow it down???

 

[LegendBreath]

Maybe, because the chip needs to handles more ram?

 

[Tyler1989]

Correct and for each pass it has to account for the extra ram making it slow. Only a powerfull card can handle the extra ram with out a reduced speed hence the $730 cards.

 

[LegendBreath]

Yeah but if the x1300 chipset would be clocked higher, would it be better than those 730$ cards?

 

[Powerslave]

Yeah but if the x1300 chipset would be clocked higher, would it be better than those 730$ cards?

wrong. It only has 4 pipelines, the top card right now has 24.

 

[LegendBreath]

Oh... nice A higher number but way cheaper card...

 

[beedubaya]

This guy I know got one of these and tried to convince me its better than my 7800GT, just because it has 512MB. Go to google and find reviews of this card. They will all agree on one thing, its a terrible card for the money.

 

[PZEROFGH]

ATI likes to mess with people's heads

 

[beedubaya]

ATI likes to mess with people's heads

True, and they are pretty successful at it. Thats why I will never buy an ATI card again. Then again, Nvidia did the same thing when it released the 6200 512MB. However, Nvidia doesn't rip people off in the high end market like ATI does.