Common misconception. The X1600, whether Pro or XT is a 4 pipe card in the same way the X1900XT is a 16 pipe card. In fact, it's exactly 1/4 of a X1900XT, running at a lower clock. It's a 4 pipe card that happens to be as fast as a 12 pipe card on pixel shader operations, so does really well on 3dmark05/06 and in some game scenarios (heavy pixel shader load, no FSAA, no high detail textures)
Unless you're willing to call the X1900XT a 48 pipe card, you really shouldn't consider the 1600 a 12 pipe card. It has 12 pixel shaders, but only 4 of the rest of the pipeline.
The 128 bit memory bus is pretty lackluster, doubly so combined with the slow ram on the Pro version (the only one you can get in AGP). The bandwidth of 900 mhz at 128 bits is exactly equivalent to 450 mhz at 256 bits (and the X800 is a 256 bit interface to its ram). As Intel and AMD have demonstrated, there's more to the complete picture than just an out of context mhz number.
This is not to say the X1600Pro is a bad budget card, but it really doesn't compare to a 'mainstream' performer like the X800GTO performance wise. SM3.0 won't do you too much good on a budget level graphics card. I'd rather have a similar performing 6600GT at the $100 pricepoint to avoid ATI drivers, but to each their own.
It was the cheapest, safe way to go. 
Facebook
Twitter