We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
Officially called Radeon X1300 XT IceQ Turbo, this entry-level video card from HIS comes overclocked and featuring a good cooling solution from Arctic Cooling. We know that Radeon HD 2400 is around the corner, but let’s take a look at this entry-level video card from HIS and compare it with other entry-level and mid-range cards from both ATI and NVIDIA.
Figure 1: HIS Radeon X1300 XT IceQ Turbo.
This video card can be classified as a top entry-level video card or as a low mid-range card, you choose. The truth is that the standard Radeon X1300 XT is a renamed Radeon X1600 Pro running with a higher memory clock rate. The Radeon X1300 XT runs at 500 MHz and it is interesting to note that it can be found with two memory clock rates. If your Radeon X1300 XT has DDR2 chips then they run at 800 MHz (400 MHz transferring two data per clock cycle), and if your Radeon X1300 XT has GDDR3 chips then they run at 1 GHz (500 MHz x 2). In both cases the memory chip accesses the memory through a 128-bit memory interface.
This card from HIS runs at 587 MHz and accesses its 256 MB GDDR3 memory at 1.37 GHz (688.5 MHz x 2), so it runs at a clock rate 17% higher than the standard model and accesses its memory at a rate 37% higher than the standard model. That is really interesting.
Radeon X1300 XT competes in price with GeForce 8500 GT, even though Radeon X1300 XT is a DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) product, while GeForce 8500 GT is a DirectX 10 (Shader 4.0) product. Radeon HD 2400 is the new family that will be released by AMD during this month to replace Radeon X1300 series.
For a full comparison between Radeon X1300 XT and other chips from AMD/ATI, please read our ATI Chips Comparison Table tutorial. On NVIDIAChips Comparison Table you can compare them to competitors from NVIDIA.
This video card features the traditional cooler used by HIS, IceQ, that blows the hot air produced by the video card to outside the computer. This cooler is in fact manufactured by Arctic Cooling and called “VGA Silencer Rev. 3”.
On Figures 2 and 3 you can see the reviewed card from HIS.
Figure 2: HIS Radeon X1300 XT IceQ Turbo.
Figure 3: HIS Radeon X1300 XT IceQ Turbo, back view.
[nextpage title=”HIS Radeon X1300 XT IceQ Turbo”]
This video card uses four GDDR3 512-Mbit chips with an individual passive heatsink glued on top of each chip. Because of the existence of this heatsink we couldn’t see the chip manufacturer and the chip model like we traditionally do (once this heatsink is removed we can’t glue it back, so we didn’t do this in order to avoid damaging our card).
Figure 4: Each memory chip features an individual passive heatsink.
This video card comes with one full game (Dungeon Siege 1.1) and several demos (RollerCoaster Tycoon 3, Half-Life 2, Act of War: Direct Action, Tribes: Vengeance Single Player and Axies & Allies).
In Figure 5, you can see the video component cable, the S-Video cable, the two DVI-to-VGA adapters and the S-Video-to-Composite Video adapter that come with this product.
Figure 5: Cables and adapters that come with this video card.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
- Graphics chip: Radeon X1300 XT, running at 587 MHz.
- Memory: 256 MB GDDR3 memory, running at 1.37 GHz (688.5 MHz DDR).
- Bus type: PCI Express x16.
- Connectors: Two DVI and one S-Video output supporting component video.
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: Two.
- Games that come with this board: Dungeon Siege 1.1 (full), RollerCoaster Tycoon 3, Half-Life 2, Act of War: Direct Action, Tribes: Vengeance Single Player and Axies & Allies (all demo).
- Programs that come with this board: PowerDirector 5 SE Plus, Power2Go 5 and others.
- More information: https://www.hisdigital.com
- Average price in the US*: We couldn’t find this product being sold in the US on the day we published this review. Radeon X1300 XT with GDDR2 memories from other manufacturers could be found between USD 90 and USD 100 – notice that the reviewed model featured GDDR3 memories.
* Researched at Shopping.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only different device was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- Motherboard: ASUS P5B (Intel P965, 0904 BIOS)
- CPU: Core 2 Extreme X6800 (dual-core, 2.93 GHz)
- CPU Cooler: Gigabyte Neon 775-BL
- Memory: 2 GB PC-1066/PC2-8500 (Corsair TWIN2X2048-8500C5 kit), configured at 1,066 MHz with 5-5-5-15 timings.
- Hard Drive: Samsung HD080HJ (80 GB, SATA-300, 8 MB buffer, 7,200 rpm)
- Power Supply: Zalman ZM-600HP
- Video Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 1100MB
- Screen resolution: [email protected] Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows XP Professional installed using NTFS
- Service Pack 2
- Direct X 9.0c
- Intel inf driver version: 8.0.1.1002
- ATI video driver version: Catalyst 7.2
- NVIDIA video driver version: 93.71 (GeForce 6 and 7 Family)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 158.22 (GeForce 8 Family)
Used Software
- 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0
- 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10
- Battlefield 2142 1.01
- Far Cry 1.4 with HardwareOC Far Cry Benchmark 1.7
- F.E.A.R. 1.08
- Quake 4 1.3
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark03″]
3DMark03 simulates DirectX 8 and 9 games. Even though this program may be considered “old”, we ran it to see how the tested video cards perform on older games. Since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (which is considered low for today’s standards and thus providing a simulation for low resolution) and 1600×1200 (which provides a simulation for high resolution). At each resolution we simulated two scenarios, first with no image quality enhancements enabled (this scenario we called “low”) and then with anti-aliasing set at 4x and anisotropic filtering set at 4x (this scenario we called “high”). The results you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 18236 | 75.99% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 15741 | 51.91% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 14487 | 39.81% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 14391 | 38.88% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 13663 | 31.86% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 10574 | 2.05% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 10362 | |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 10271 | 0.89% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 9557 | 8.42% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 8984 | 15.34% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 8935 | 15.97% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 8124 | 27.55% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 7359 | 40.81% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 6385 | 62.29% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 5593 | 85.27% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 4179 | 147.95% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 10538 | 96.31% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 8797 | 63.88% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 8450 | 57.41% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 8263 | 53.93% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 7556 | 40.76% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 5429 | 1.14% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 5385 | 0.32% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 5368 | |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 5255 | 2.15% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 5086 | 5.54% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 4497 | 19.37% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 4313 | 24.46% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 4011 | 33.83% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 2915 | 84.15% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 2712 | 97.94% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 2076 | 158.57% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1024×768 – AAx4.AFx4 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 10742 | 97.61% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 9119 | 67.75% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 8019 | 47.52% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 7980 | 46.80% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 7602 | 39.85% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 5592 | 2.87% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 5436 | |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 5396 | 0.74% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 4873 | 11.55% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 4844 | 12.22% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 4635 | 17.28% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 4605 | 18.05% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 3894 | 39.60% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 3376 | 61.02% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 2617 | 107.72% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 1745 | 211.52% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1600×1200 – AAx4.AFx4 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 5612 | 107.85% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 4639 | 71.81% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 4542 | 68.22% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 4276 | 58.37% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 4110 | 52.22% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 2714 | 0.52% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 2700 | |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 2691 | 0.33% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 2320 | 16.38% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 2237 | 20.70% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 2217 | 21.79% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 2162 | 24.88% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 1917 | 40.85% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 1212 | 122.77% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 1038 | 160.12% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 837 | 222.58% |
[nextpage title=”3DMark06″]
3DMark06 simulates DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) games and it also puts HDR (High Dynamic Range) into the equation to calculate its final score. So it simulates the most high-end games available today. Since we were comparing mid-range cards, we ran this program in two resolutions, one low (1024×768) and one high (1600×1200). The results you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 7002 | 112.37% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 5743 | 74.19% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 4543 | 37.79% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 4292 | 30.18% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 4192 | 27.15% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 3369 | 2.18% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 3297 | |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 3295 | 0.06% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 2927 | 12.64% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 2860 | 15.28% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 2763 | 19.33% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 2213 | 48.98% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 2046 | 61.14% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 1920 | 71.72% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 1357 | 142.96% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 741 | 344.94% |
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 4607 | 121.07% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 3707 | 77.88% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 3147 | 51.01% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 2923 | 40.26% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 2765 | 32.68% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 2117 | 1.58% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 2086 | 0.10% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 2084 | |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 1796 | 16.04% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 1784 | 16.82% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 1781 | 17.01% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 1281 | 62.69% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 1100 | 89.45% |
[nextpage title=”Quake 4″]
Quake 4 uses the same game engine as Doom 3 and since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution), first with image quality set at “low” and then with image quality set at “high”. We upgraded this game to version 1.3 and run the id_demo001 net demo that comes with this version. Click here for more details on how to use Quake 4 to benchmark a system. The results you check below and are given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1024×768 – low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 123.21 | 97.23% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 114.53 | 83.34% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 109.14 | 74.71% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 92.18 | 47.56% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 85.44 | 36.77% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 79.65 | 27.50% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 77.86 | 24.64% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 74.81 | 19.75% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 66.54 | 6.52% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 62.47 | |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 61.90 | 0.92% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 55.69 | 12.17% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 46.40 | 34.63% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 35.03 | 78.33% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1600×1200 – low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 77.30 | 150.49% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 65.14 | 111.08% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 61.34 | 98.77% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 48.43 | 56.93% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 44.18 | 43.16% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 41.01 | 32.89% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 39.59 | 28.29% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 37.63 | 21.94% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 33.65 | 9.04% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 30.86 | |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 29.63 | 4.15% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 28.01 | 10.17% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 23.02 | 34.06% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 16.95 | 82.06% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1024×768 – high | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 120.14 | 116.08% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 112.95 | 103.15% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 110.23 | 98.26% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 84.54 | 52.05% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 78.24 | 40.72% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 75.27 | 35.38% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 71.89 | 29.30% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 70.76 | 27.27% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 60.53 | 8.87% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 58.80 | 5.76% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 55.60 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 49.15 | 13.12% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 42.87 | 29.69% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 32.15 | 72.94% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1600×1200 – high | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 75.51 | 166.44% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 62.23 | 119.58% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 59.99 | 111.68% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 44.95 | 58.61% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 41.05 | 44.85% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 39.05 | 37.79% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 37.10 | 30.91% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 35.94 | 26.82% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 30.75 | 8.50% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 28.93 | 2.08% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 28.34 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 25.62 | 10.62% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 21.47 | 32.00% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 15.76 | 79.82% |
[nextpage title=”F.E.A.R.”]
F.E.A.R. is a heavy game and we used its internal benchmarking module. We upgraded it to version 1.08 and since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution). We set “computer settings” to “maximum” and then ran each resolution in two scenarios, first with “graphics card” set at “low” and then with this item set at “maximum”. Let’s take a look at the results, given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1024×768 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 282 | 83.12% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 268 | 74.03% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 247 | 60.39% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 193 | 25.32% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 186 | 20.78% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 167 | 8.44% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 154 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 139 | 10.79% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 121 | 27.27% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 114 | 35.09% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 94 | 63.83% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 83 | 85.54% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 66 | 133.33% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 38 | 305.26% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1600×1200 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 128 | 88.24% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 123 | 80.88% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 115 | 69.12% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 89 | 30.88% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 89 | 30.88% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 75 | 10.29% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 68 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 62 | 9.68% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 58 | 17.24% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 54 | 25.93% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 42 | 61.90% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 38 | 78.95% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 31 | 119.35% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 17 | 300.00% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1024×768 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 62 | 58.97% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 55 | 41.03% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 51 | 30.77% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 50 | 28.21% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 46 | 17.95% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 40 | 2.56% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 39 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 33 | 18.18% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 29 | 34.48% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 27 | 44.44% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 27 | 44.44% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 26 | 50.00% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 26 | 50.00% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 10 | 290.00% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1600×1200 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 26 | 52.94% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 26 | 52.94% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 24 | 41.18% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 23 | 35.29% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 22 | 29.41% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 17 | 0.00% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 17 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 14 | 21.43% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 13 | 30.77% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 12 | 41.67% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 12 | 41.67% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 11 | 54.55% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 11 | 54.55% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 4 | 325.00% |
[nextpage title=”Far Cry”]
Far Cry is a heavy game based on the Shader 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c) programming model. We’ve updated the game to version 1.4. To measure the performance we run four times the demo created by German magazine PC Games Hardware (PCGH) and the results presented below are an arithmetic average of the collected data. We used the HardwareOC Far Cry Benchmark 1.7 utility to help us collecting data.
Since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution). At each resolution we simulated two scenarios, first with no image quality enhancements enabled and graphics details set to “maximum” (this scenario we called “low”) and then with anti-aliasing set at 4x, anisotropic filtering set at 16x and graphics details set to “ultra” (this scenario we called “high”). On all scenarios we set the rendering engine to Shader 3.0. The results, given in frames per second, you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1024×768 – Maximum Details | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 141.84 | 46.44% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 131.39 | 35.65% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 130.21 | 34.43% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 128.86 | 33.04% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 118.14 | 21.97% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 97.75 | 0.92% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 96.86 | |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 89.96 | 7.67% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 85.77 | 12.93% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 81.60 | 18.70% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 67.03 | 44.50% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 60.84 | 59.20% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 50.01 | 93.68% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 34.90 | 177.54% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1600×1200 – Maximum Details | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 78.86 | 62.00% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 77.92 | 60.07% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 75.56 | 55.22% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 71.84 | 47.58% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 61.09 | 25.49% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 49.39 | 1.46% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 48.68 | |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 46.17 | 5.44% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 45.07 | 8.01% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 40.88 | 19.08% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 34.52 | 41.02% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 30.56 | 59.29% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 25.62 | 90.01% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 17.65 | 175.81% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1024×768 – AAx4. AFx16. Ultra Details | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 98.33 | 102.74% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 81.34 | 67.71% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 79.72 | 64.37% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 77.96 | 60.74% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 74.08 | 52.74% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 49.96 | 3.01% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 48.93 | 0.89% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 48.50 | |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 45.34 | 6.97% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 44.59 | 8.77% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 41.31 | 17.40% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 40.86 | 18.70% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 24.88 | 94.94% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 17.97 | 169.89% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1600×1200 – AAx4. AFx16. Ultra Details | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 46.71 | 87.67% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 46.52 | 86.90% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 42.10 | 69.14% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 38.49 | 54.64% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 38.33 | 54.00% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 24.89 | |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 24.81 | 0.32% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 21.23 | 17.24% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 21.13 | 17.79% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 21.04 | 18.30% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 20.53 | 21.24% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 18.78 | 32.53% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 11.44 | 117.57% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 8.47 | 193.86% |
[nextpage title=”Battlefield 2142″]
Battlefield 2142 is the latest member of the Battlefield franchise. We updated this game to version 1.01. We created our own demo based on Sidi Power Plant map (click here to download the demo we created for this test), which provided a very consistent number of frames per second. We ran it and measured performance with FRAPS. Click here to read in details how we benchmarked using Battlefield 2142.
Since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution). First we ran our demo with image quality set at “low” (with texture manually set at its minimum level) and then with image quality set at “high” (with anti-aliasing manually set at 4x). Below you can see the results, given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1024×768 – low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 335.30 | 94.78% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 262.63 | 52.57% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 255.24 | 48.27% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 254.29 | 47.72% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 230.79 | 34.07% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 172.14 | |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 171.15 | 0.58% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 164.71 | 4.51% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 152.17 | 13.12% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 142.72 | 20.61% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 127.20 | 35.33% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 124.62 | 38.13% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 87.63 | 96.44% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 62.96 | 173.41% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1600×1200 – low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 171.89 | 115.27% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 132.60 | 66.06% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 131.81 | 65.07% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 127.06 | 59.12% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 117.01 | 46.54% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 82.04 | 2.74% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 79.85 | |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 78.45 | 1.78% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 75.60 | 5.62% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 68.07 | 17.31% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 64.47 | 23.86% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 59.96 | 33.17% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 42.81 | 86.52% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 28.47 | 180.47% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1024×768 – high | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 86.49 | 97.78% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 72.85 | 66.59% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 70.57 | 61.38% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 69.90 | 59.84% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 63.95 | 46.24% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 46.82 | 7.07% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 43.73 | |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 38.99 | 12.16% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 38.71 | 12.97% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 36.30 | 20.47% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 34.52 | 26.68% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 30.55 | 43.14% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 20.32 | 115.21% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 13.96 | 213.25% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1600×1200 – high | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 43.22 | 121.19% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) OC | 37.06 | 89.66% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 35.05 | 79.38% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 33.63 | 72.11% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 31.16 | 59.47% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 19.85 | 1.59% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) OC | 19.54 | |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 17.94 | 8.92% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 16.95 | 15.28% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 16.67 | 17.22% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 16.47 | 18.64% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 13.98 | 39.77% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 9.38 | 108.32% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 6.49 | 201.08% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
First of all, yes, we know we are delayed in posting this review. Radeon HD 2400 is around the corner and will replace this video card.
In our review we were able to compare the overclocked Radeon X1300 XT from HIS with a vast range of new and old mid-range PCI Express video cards, as you could see on our previous pages.
Officially costing around USD 100 in the USA, this video card competes in price with GeForce 8500 GT.
In our MSI GeForce 8500 GT review we came to the conclusion that even though Radeon X1300 XT does not feature a Shader 4.0 unified engine – i.e., not supporting DirectX 10 –it was a better buy than GeForce 8500 GT, being the product we recommend if you are looking for a video card on the USD 90-100 range.
This overclocked model from HIS is even better than GeForce 8500 GT. To begin with, it was between 10% and 22% faster than the standard Radeon X1300 XT based on GDDR3 memories, depending on the game and video configuration we used, and this overclocking really boosted the performance difference between the reviewed card and GeForce 8500 GT.
Radeon X1300 XT IceQ Turbo was between 11% and 64% faster than GeForce 8500 GT, depending on the game and video configuration we used, except on Quake 4, which continues to be NVIDIA’s territory (on Quake 4 both cards achieved similar results at 1024×768 with no image quality settings enabled and at 1600×1200 with image quality settings enabled, with the reviewed card being 4% faster at 1600×1200 and with GeForce 8500 GT being 9% faster at 1024×768 with image quality settings enable – in our benchmark this was the only test that GeForce 8500 GT was faster than the overclocked Radeon X1300 XT from HIS).
For the kind of user this video card is targeted – someone willing to spend only up to USD 100 on a video card – we think this overclocked Radeon X1300 XT with GDDR3 memories from HIS is the best buy.
But beware. We only recommend this video card if you can find it being sold up to USD 100. Above this price limit there are better options on the market, for example the Radeon X1650 Pro at the USD 120 price range and the GeForce 8600 GT at the USD 150 price range.
Also keep in mind that the majority of Radeon X1300 XT around are based on GDDR2 memories, not GDDR3, running at a lower clock rate.