CGW warns readers about $150 ATI X1300Pro

[nRollo]

The January 2006 issue of Computer Gaming World has an article entitled "Low Price, Low Performance" in regard to the new ATI X1300Pro video card on page 110.

I can't actually remember the last time I've seen a product so crucified by the press.

I think the "Verdict" sums it up pretty well: "If you have $150 to spend on a video card, there's absolutely no reason to pick this one. It doesn't make up in features what it clearly lacks in performance"*

*CGW, 1/06/05, p.110

Ouch. A lot more people buy $150 video cards than $500 cards, an important read for them.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The January 2006 issue of Computer Gaming World has an article entitled "Low Price, Low Performance" in regard to the new ATI X1300Pro video card on page 110.

I can't actually remember the last time I've seen a product so crucified by the press.

I think the "Verdict" sums it up pretty well: "If you have $150 to spend on a video card, there's absolutely no reason to pick this one. It doesn't make up in features what it clearly lacks in performance"*

*CGW, 1/06/05, p.110

Ouch. A lot more people buy $150 video cards than $500 cards, an important read for them.

Well, when you can get a 6800nu for 140$, or a 6600GT for 120$ It's obvius that the x1300Pro at 150$ isn't a good buy... (lowest prices I found on newegg)

Oh and you can get a x1300Pro for 100$ on newegg.

 

[LTC8K6]

Did they compare video encoding abilities?

$100 is a great price for the X1300pro imo.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Did they compare video encoding abilities?

$100 is a great price for the X1300pro imo.

Good question, as some of us want soemthing besides gaming from particular cards. BTW, what are these capable of with 2 slaved in cross-fire, any benchies?

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: linkgoron
Oh and you can get a x1300Pro for 100$ on newegg.

pwned.

Besides, $150 is MSRP. Remember the MSRP for 256MB GTX is $599, so if X1300 is a bad value, the 256MB GTX is even worse.

Thanks fbrdphreak.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Oh Trollo will u ever get tired of ur own ******? I see a thread from u and i almost know what to expect...trolloing.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: linkgoron
Oh and you can get a x1300Pro for 100$ on newegg.

pwned.

Besides, $150 is MSRP. Remember the MSRP for 256MB GTX is $599, so if X1300 is a bad buy, the 256MB GTX is even worse.

No, the GTX is a bad value, not a bad buy.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Did they compare video encoding abilities?

$100 is a great price for the X1300pro imo.

Its Computer Gaming World so I doubt it, when I did get them I remember their tech section seeming like something of an after thought. They mostly reviewed complete systems, and when they did review video cards a third the page would be filled by a picture of the card, and another portion of the page with a couple of 3DMark graphs, then use that half a page for an intro, quick analysis of the graphs and a "pithy" conclusion.

 

[natto fire]

Golly Gee Whiz!
Thanks for this "news". :roll:

 

[Lord Banshee]

personly i think the x1300Pro is a great card for $100.00. It doesn't do as good as a 6600 no GT but it is close enough if you are not a gamer. Not to mention the new Avivo technology. I found my 9800Pro gives better Video Out (Svideo) and my 6800NU so i can only imagine how well Ati has increased this feature because of HDTV and such.

So if you are a gamer buy a 6600GT, if you are HTPC user you might want to consider useing the X1300. I actually think i read on (www.htpcnews.com) thatt PureVideo work on ATI cards too. If you are non gamer avg user... buy a x1300 non-pro or a 6600LE. If you only surf the web and use office products how about the integrated 6150

 

[Sunrise089]

The X1300 is a pretty terrible card for most. No performance to speak of in games, and for those who don't need the performance Intel makes Integrated Graphics that will do just fine. I think ATI's problem is they placed their pricing around the jump from the 9800/geforceFX generation to the X800/6800 generation. Remember when the 6600gt came out - it was priced at less than $200, but it outperformed 9800pros that cost $300+. ATI's prices would make sense if that happened again - but this product cycle is much more an incremental improvement - like 9700pro to 9800pro, and ATI's pricing on X1600 and X1300 just don't match up. I know they claim they are making up for it with SM3.0 and video encoding stuff, but to the average gaming user that is of very secondary importance.

 

[Valrandir]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
Oh Trollo will u ever get tired of ur own ******? I see a thread from u and i almost know what to expect...trolloing.

Go away BlinBlingArsch troll.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
Oh Trollo will u ever get tired of ur own ******? I see a thread from u and i almost know what to expect...trolloing.

Rollo may be biased, but he makes a good point here. As much as I like ATI, I will admit nvidia's low and middle offerings have been better. All ATI has really offered was the GTO, but that was only good after overclocking or unlocking.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Did they compare video encoding abilities?

$100 is a great price for the X1300pro imo.

I don't think so after reading that article. The 6600GT is $125 at newegg.

I'll post more from the article tonight, they really thrash it.

 

[ElFenix]

who games on those anyway?

 

[kurt454]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
personly i think the x1300Pro is a great card for $100.00. It doesn't do as good as a 6600 no GT but it is close enough if you are not a gamer. Not to mention the new Avivo technology. I found my 9800Pro gives better Video Out (Svideo) and my 6800NU so i can only imagine how well Ati has increased this feature because of HDTV and such.

So if you are a gamer buy a 6600GT, if you are HTPC user you might want to consider useing the X1300. I actually think i read on (www.htpcnews.com) thatt PureVideo work on ATI cards too. If you are non gamer avg user... buy a x1300 non-pro or a 6600LE. If you only surf the web and use office products how about the integrated 6150

Actually a 6600 is considered the best entry level vid card for HTPCs right now. Purevideo Deinterlacing only works on Nvidia cards.

 

[Lord Banshee]

Isn't the real rival to the x1300 is the 6200 and the new 7200 not the 6600 and the new 7600. I can see people like to compare them because of the price but serious if someone wanted to buy a 6200 i would say PLEASE don't!.. Pay 30 dollars more and get the x1300Pro. Have you seen the benchmark, this card is pretty good at 640x480-1024x768 in most games. not better than the 6600GT but something between the 6600 and the 6600GT and thats where it falls in price. I remember the 6200 being 100 bucks a month after it released so i soon expect to see the card fall into the 60-80 dollar range.

for example
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1300.html

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Rollo
I can't actually remember the last time I've seen a product so crucified by the press.

FX generation?

I think the "Verdict" sums it up pretty well: "If you have $150 to spend on a video card, there's absolutely no reason to pick this one. It doesn't make up in features what it clearly lacks in performance"*

The cards here (XL and Pro) are going for <100 for the 256 and <120 for the 512, looks like the US got them last so expect the prices to fall soon.

And I highly doubt anybody buys these for gaming. It does have some other nice features but gaming on low end cards... not gonna look good.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

since its a new card and NV competitors like 6600 are out for years now its normal that the ATI is more expensive. ANd if Trollo doesnt know how to verify his sources (the x1300pro isnt 150$, its 90,-Eur in Europe agaik) i have no choice but to talk to him in his own language. Btw read between his lines...sentences like "Ouch, I can't actually remember the last time I've seen a product so crucified by the press." clearly show what his interests are. he quotes bs magazines and hopes we bite the bullet. sry, but i dont like that trolloing.

 

[IeraseU]

I think the x1300 is a fantastic card for those interested in encoding or HTPC use.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: kurt454

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
personly i think the x1300Pro is a great card for $100.00. It doesn't do as good as a 6600 no GT but it is close enough if you are not a gamer. Not to mention the new Avivo technology. I found my 9800Pro gives better Video Out (Svideo) and my 6800NU so i can only imagine how well Ati has increased this feature because of HDTV and such.

So if you are a gamer buy a 6600GT, if you are HTPC user you might want to consider useing the X1300. I actually think i read on (www.htpcnews.com) thatt PureVideo work on ATI cards too. If you are non gamer avg user... buy a x1300 non-pro or a 6600LE. If you only surf the web and use office products how about the integrated 6150

Actually a 6600 is considered the best entry level vid card for HTPCs right now. Purevideo Deinterlacing only works on Nvidia cards.

Well the Purevideo decoder works with ATI, but the video processing on the 6600 is better for DVD playback according to Anandtech's recent review. However, that isn't the only use for a HTPC, and the 6600 won't support anything to do with H.264 whereas the X1300pro will once implemented in drivers. If you don't have a uberCPU or dual-core as the basis of your HTPC, that will be important should H.264 content enjoy the support it is reported to. You will have encoding and transcoding capabilities the 6600 doesn't too, and you can bet your ass you have a much better chance of ATI fulfilling those stated capabilities than the 6600's PVP will.

After the nv40 PVP debacle, and nV's revision of features after it was finally revealed it couldn't do what they claimed initially, I have no faith in them delivering anymore. Not to mention, H.264 was never one of its stated capabilities. And all this time later, where is any transcode or encode support for any nV PVP?

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Did they compare video encoding abilities?

$100 is a great price for the X1300pro imo.

And right now it's $99 @Newegg.

Of course certain people would not bother checking prices so they can perpetuate FUD.

Oh, but someone else said it so its OK :roll:

 

[RussianSensation]

Wow rollo, very informative post.

And when you kept recommending 5900 over 9800pro, that wasn't as big of a disaster? Tell that to everyone who bought 5900 cards and had to play HL2 in DX8 mode.

What about the cheapest 6800Ultra 256mb card on pricewatch? $504 But 7800GT at $300 smokes it at everything. Yet Nvidia failed to adjust prices.

oh wait 512mb card is 2x as fast as 256mb one...I forgot. I am gonna buy FX5200 Ultra 512mb

I agree with you that ATI's pricing doesnt justify the jump to X1300/X1600 pro. I think ATI was trying to pull a fast one by selling slow cards to uninformed consumers (which I imagine is the majority) who think X1300Pro > ancient 9700pro card. Same argument can be made for X300/X600 cards which were junk since day 1.

I think the issue here is not just ATI, but neither ATI nor Nvidia have cards that justify the $100 price given the horrible performance they give in games.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: nts

Originally posted by: Rollo
I can't actually remember the last time I've seen a product so crucified by the press.

FX generation?

Read the article. You'll NEVER find a review by professional reviewers that even comes CLOSE to this level of hatred. (with good reason, 5800U was the second best card you could buy at the time- if being second best made people hate, ATI would have been gone long ago, time and again, today as well)

I think the "Verdict" sums it up pretty well: "If you have $150 to spend on a video card, there's absolutely no reason to pick this one. It doesn't make up in features what it clearly lacks in performance"*

The cards here (XL and Pro) are going for <100 for the 256 and <120 for the 512, looks like the US got them last so expect the prices to fall soon.

And I highly doubt anybody buys these for gaming. It does have some other nice features but gaming on low end cards... not gonna look good.

[/quote]

Hmmm apparently you can't see beyond your socio economic class. I guarantee you more people will buy this card to game than all X1800s combined. Your bourgeoisie
tunnel vision is crass.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Wow rollo, very informative post.

And when you kept recommending 5900 over 9800pro, that wasn't as big of a disaster? Tell that to everyone who bought 5900 cards and had to play HL2 in DX8 mode.

What about the cheapest 6800Ultra 256mb card on pricewatch? $504 But 7800GT at $300 smokes it at everything. Yet Nvidia failed to adjust prices.

oh wait 512mb card is 2x as fast as 256mb one...I forgot. I am gonna buy FX5200 Ultra 512mb

I agree with you that ATI's pricing doesnt justify the jump to X1300/X1600 pro. I think ATI was trying to pull a fast one by selling slow cards to uninformed consumers (which I imagine is the majority) who think X1300Pro > ancient 9700pro card. Same argument can be made for X300/X600 cards which were junk since day 1.

I think the issue here is not just ATI, but neither ATI nor Nvidia have cards that justify the $100 price given the horrible performance they give in games.

Errr, all off topic, thanks for wasting the space. If AT really wanted to recoup losses, they'd delete every time some knucklehead replied to me and tried to talk about three year old video cards. What a waste of bandwidth, specious argument, attend school and come back.