[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
With VGA manufacturers releasing only PCI Express-based video cards, owners of AGP-based PCs were simply forgotten. Even though you can find quite easily AGP VGAs on the market, AGP users cannot find the latest releases for the AGP platform. For those who have an AGP-based motherboard, HIS is an oasis in the middle of the desert: they have just released an AGP-based Radeon X1600 Pro, which should satisfy owners of AGP-based PCs that are anxious to see new VGA models being released for this platform. Let’s see how the performance of this Radeon X1600 ProAGP from HIS is.
Figure 1: HIS Radeon X1600 Pro AGP.
As you can see in Figure 1, this model is part of IceQ series from HIS, where the video card uses a special cooler manufactured by Arctic Cooling that pulls hot air from inside the computer case to the outside.
Radeon X1600 Pro is a mid-range chip from ATI Radeon X1000 series, supporting Shader 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c) programming model. Its official specs include a 500 MHz clock rate, a 780 MHz memory clock rate, a 128-bit memory interface and 12 pixel shader units.
We ran PowerStrip software to check what clock rates this video card was using, and it was running at 792 MHz and not at 780 MHz – which is just a 1.5% increase and should not provide any considerable performance increase. Funny enough HIS lists this card as having its memory accessed at 800 MHz (in fact its memory chips can run up to 800 MHz).
You can see in our tutorial “ATI Chips Comparison Table” the difference between this chip and the other chips from ATI, while on our tutorial “NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table” you can compare it to its competitors from NVIDIA.
You can take a look at Radeon X1600 Pro AGP from HIS at Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2: HIS Radeon X1600 Pro IceQ AGP.
Figure 3: HIS Radeon X1600 Pro IceQ AGP, back view.
Let’s now take a closer look at the Radeon X1600 Pro IceQ AGP from HIS.
[nextpage title=”HIS Radeon X1600 Pro IceQ AGP”]
Radeon X1600 Pro is a PCI Express chip. So to connect it to AGP bus it is necessary a bridge chip, shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Bridge chip used on HIS Radeon X1600 Pro AGP.
The main advantage of HIS IceQ models is the design of their cooler, which blows hot air produced by the video card out the computer case – and later copied by Sapphire. Also, it is sensitive to UV light, so it will grow if you have an UV lamp inside your case. This cooler is entirely made of aluminum and it is actually made by Arctic Cooling (https://www.arctic.ac).
Figure 5: IceQ cooler detached from the video card.
Figure 6: Video card without its cooler.
On Figure 7 you can take a closer look at ATI’s Radeon X1600 Pro chip.
Figure 7: Radeon X1600 Pro graphics chip.
The heatsink used on this video card doesn’t touch the memory chips.
Talking about memory, this video card uses eight GDDR2 256-Mbit 2.5 ns chips from Hynix (HY5PS561621AFP-25), making its 256 MB video memory (256 Mbits x 8 = 256 MB). These chips can run up to 800 MHz. Since this video card accesses the memory very close to 800 MHz there is no room for memory overclocking inside the memory’s specifications. But of course you can try overclock it over its specs.
Figure 8: 2.5 ns GDDR2 memory chip used by HIS Radeon X1600 Pro AGP.
This board also comes with one S-Video cable, one Composite Video to S-Video adapter, one Component Video adapter and one DVI-to-VGA adapter.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
- Graphics chip: Radeon X1600 running at 500 MHz.
- Memory: 2.5 ns 128-bit 256 MB GDDR2 memory from Hynix (HY5PS561621AFP-25), running at 790 MHz.
- Bus type: AGP.
- Connectors: One DVI, one VGA and one mini-DIN for S-Video and Component Video output.
- Number of CDs that come with this board: 2.
- Games that come with this board: Dungeon Siege 1.1 (full), Flat Out (full), Act of War: Direct Action (demo), Axis&Allies (demo), Half-Life 2 (demo), RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (demo) and Tribes: Vengeance Single (demo).
- Programs that come with this board: PowerDirector 3 SE Plus, Power2Go 4 and other trial software.
- More Information: https://www.hisdigital.com
- Average Price in the US*: USD 127.50
- * Researched on Shopping.com on the day we published this review.
* Researched on 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 variable was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- Motherboard: Biostar K8VHA Pro (VIA K8T800, July 12th 2004 BIOS)
- CPU: Athlon 64 3200+
- Memory: Two 256 MB DDR400/PC3200 memory modules from TwinMOS
- Hard Drive: Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus (40 GB, ATA-133)
- Screen resolution: [email protected] Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows XP Professional installed using NTFS
- Service Pack 1A
- Direct X 9.0c
- ATI video driver version: 4.8
- ATI video driver version: 6.4 (Radeon X700, Radeon X1600 Pro)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 61.77
- VIA Hyperion driver version: 4.53
Used Software
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=”3DMark2001 SE”]
3DMark2001 SE measures video card performance simulating DirectX 8.1 games. It is very effective software for evaluating the performance from previous-generation games, programmed using DirectX 8. In this software we run six tests. We run the software in three resolutions, 1024x768x32, 1280x1024x32 and 1600x1200x32, first without antialising and with no frame buffer, then we put the antialising at 4 samples and the frame buffer at triple-buffering. This improves the video quality but lowers the performance. We were willing to see how much performance we lost by putting the VGA to run at the maximum possible image quality. It is important to note that ATI chips can run at 6x antialising. Since NVIDIA chips cannot run at this configuration, we had to use 4x antialising to use a configuration that is valid to all video cards included in our bechmarks, allowing direct comparison between them.
You may be asking yourself why we added an old program in a review of a latest generation video card. To us, it is as important to know the performance of a video card with the latest games as it is to know its performance in an older game. That’s why we kept this software in our methodology.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 24,579 | 40.43% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 24,293 | 38.79% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 23,086 | 31.90% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 22,642 | 29.36% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 20,770 | 18.67% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 18,199 | 3.98% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 18,192 | 3.94% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 17,503 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 16,264 | 7.62% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.62% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 40.43% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 38.79% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 31.90% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 29.36% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 18.67% faster, Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 3.98% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 3.94% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1280×1024 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 22,158 | 56.57% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 22,048 | 55.79% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 20,821 | 47.12% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 20,503 | 44.88% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 17,522 | 23.81% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 15,599 | 10.22% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 15,538 | 9.79% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 14,152 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 13,319 | 6.25% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 6.25% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 56.57% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 55.79% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 47.12% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 44.88% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 23.81% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 10.22% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 9.79% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 20,246 | 80.83% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 20,002 | 78.65% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 19,338 | 72.72% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 18,177 | 62.35% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 14,537 | 29.84% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 13,511 | 20.68% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 13,374 | 19.45% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 11,196 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 10,418 | 7.47% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.47% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 80.83% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 78.65% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 72.72% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 62.35% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 29.84% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 20.68% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 19.45% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1024×768 AA x4, FB x3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 21,625 | 63.15% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 20,847 | 57.28% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 19,731 | 48.86% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 19,525 | 47.30% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 15,993 | 20.66% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 15,517 | 17.07% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 13,482 | 1.71% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 13,255 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 12,474 | 6.26% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP and it was 6.26% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 63.15% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 57.28% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 48.86% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 47.30% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 20.66% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 17.07% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1280×1024 AA x4, FB x3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 19,015 | 92.89% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 17,926 | 81.84% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 17,253 | 75.02% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 16,421 | 66.58% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 12,530 | 27.10% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 12,289 | 24.66% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 10,102 | 2.48% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 9,858 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 9,257 | 6.49% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP and it was 6.49% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 92.89% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 81.84% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 75.02% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 66.58% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 27.10% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 24.66% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1600×1200 AA x4, FB x3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 16,632 | 203.01% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 15,001 | 173.29% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 13,632 | 148.35% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 13,331 | 142.87% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 9,497 | 73.02% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 9,022 | 64.37% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 6,873 | 25.21% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 6,206 | 13.06% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 5,489 |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 203.01% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 173.29% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 148.35% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 142.87% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 73.02% faster, Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 64.37% faster, HIS Radeon X700, which was 25.21% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 13.06% faster.
[nextpage title=”3DMark03″]
3DMark03 measures performance by simulating games written to DirectX 9, which are contemporary games. We run this program in three resolutions, 1024x768x32, 1280x1024x32 and 1600x1200x32, first without antialising and anisotropic filtering, and then configuring antialising at 4x and anisotropic filtering also at 4x. This improves the video quality but lowers the performance. We were willing to see how much performance we lost by putting the VGA to run at the maximum possible image quality. It is important to note that ATI chips can run at 6x antialising. Since NVIDIA chips cannot run at this configuration, we had to use 4x antialising to use a configuration that is valid to all video cards included in our bechmarks, allowing direct comparison between them.
| 3DMark03 – 1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 12,452 | 93.44% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 12,361 | 92.03% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 12,177 | 89.17% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 10,138 | 57.50% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 7,675 | 19.23% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 6,661 | 3.48% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 6,437 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 6,229 | 3.34% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 6,132 | 4.97% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 3.34% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and 4.97% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 93.44% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 92.03% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 89.17% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 57.50% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 19.23% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 3.48% faster.
| 3DMark03 – 1280×1024 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 10,116 | 109.05% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 9,934 | 105.29% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 9,826 | 103.06% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 7,901 | 63.28% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 5,780 | 19.45% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 5,016 | 3.66% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 4,839 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 4,780 | 1.23% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 4,445 | 8.86% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 8.86% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 109.05% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 105.29% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 103.06% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 63.28% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 19.45% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 3.66% faster.
| 3DMark03 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 8,363 | 127.32% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 8,074 | 119.46% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 7,967 | 116.55% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 6,377 | 73.34% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 4,466 | 21.39% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 3,803 | 3.37% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 3,730 | 1.39% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 3,679 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 3,193 | 15.22% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 15.22% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 127.32% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 119.46% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Editionm, which was 116.55% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 73.34% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 21.39% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 3.37% faster.
| 3DMark03 – 1024×768 AA x4, Aniso x4 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 7,983 | 129.33% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 7,517 | 115.94% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 7,268 | 108.79% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 5,860 | 68.34% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 4,081 | 17.24% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 3,860 | 10.89% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 3,481 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 3,428 | 1.55% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 2,949 | 18.04% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 18.04% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 129.33% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 115.94% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 108.79% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 68.34% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 17.24% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 10.89% faster.
| 3DMark03 – 1280×1024 AA x4, Aniso x4 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 8,151 | 220.40% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 5,673 | 123.00% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 5,595 | 119.93% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 4,370 | 71.78% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 2,836 | 11.48% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 2,765 | 8.69% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 2,544 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 2,490 | 2.17% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 1,979 | 28.55% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 28.55% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 220.40% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 123.00% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 119.93% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 71.78% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 11.48% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 8.69% faster.
| 3DMark03 – 1600×1200 AA x4, Aniso x4 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 5,001 | 185.93% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 4,421 | 152.77% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 4,352 | 148.83% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 3,394 | 94.05% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 2,129 | 21.73% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 1,936 | 10.69% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 1,906 | 8.98% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 1,749 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 1,391 | 25.74% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 25.74% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 185.93% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 152.77% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 148.83% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 94.05% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 21.73% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 10.69% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 8.98% faster.
[nextpage title=”Aquamark 3″]
Aquamark 3 is a 3D benchmarking program based on the engine of Aquanox game, which is a very “heavy” game. It is based on DirectX 9 and we ran it on its default configuration. From the results presented, we analyzed one called TriScore. This program runs automatically at 1024x768x32.
| Aquamark 3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 65,100 | 71.38% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 62,818 | 65.38% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 57,486 | 51.34% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 53,888 | 41.87% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 51,610 | 35.87% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 46,380 | 22.10% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 44,534 | 17.24% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 37,985 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 37,951 | 0.09% |
Here, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 71.38% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 65.38% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 51.34% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 41.87% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 35.87% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 22.10% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 17.24% faster.
[nextpage title=”Doom 3″]
Doom 3 is one of the heaviest games available today. As we’ve done on other programs, we ran this game at three resolutions: 1024x768x32, 1280x1024x32 and 1600x1200x32. This game allows several image quality levels and we’ve done our benchmarking on two levels, low and high. We ran demo1 four times and wrote the obtained number of frames per second. The first result we discarded at once, since it is far inferior than the other results. This happens because at the first time we run the demo the game must load all textures to video memory, fact that doesn’t happen from the second time we run the demo on. From the three results left, we consider as our official result the middle result, i.e., we discard the highest and the lowest values. Curiously almost all times the values obtained at the second round on were the same.
A very important detail that we must mention is that Doom 3 has an internal FPS lock: it is only capable of generating 60 frames per second, even if your board is able to produce more frames per second than that. This is done in order to make the game to have the same “playability” sensation independently from the video card installed on the PC. This lock, however, is disabled in the game benchmarking mode.
For further details on how to measure 3D performance with Doom 3, read our tutorial on this subject.
| Doom 3 – 1024×768 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 97.3 | 65.48% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 87.6 | 48.98% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 87.2 | 48.30% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 80.4 | 36.73% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 75.9 | 29.08% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 58.8 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 53.8 | 9.29% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 53.3 | 10.32% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 50.2 | 17.13% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 9.29% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 10.32% faster than ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 17.13% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 65.48% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 48.98% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 48.30% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 36.73% faster and Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 29.08% faster.
| Doom 3 – 1280×1024 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 85.0 | 121.35% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 83.4 | 117.19% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 71.2 | 85.42% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 61.1 | 59.11% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 54.6 | 42.19% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 38.4 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 35.8 | 7.26% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 34.4 | 11.63% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 33.3 | 15.32% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.26% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 11.63% faster than ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 15.32% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 121.35% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 117.19% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 85.42% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 59.11% faster and Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 42.19% faster.
| Doom 3 – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 75.0 | 174.73% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 64.7 | 137.00% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 55.1 | 101.83% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 44.9 | 64.47% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 39.9 | 46.15% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 27.3 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 25.9 | 5.41% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 23.4 | 16.67% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 22.8 | 19.74% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 5.41% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 16.67% faster than ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 19.74% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 174.73% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 137.00% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 101.83% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 64.47% faster and Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 46.15% faster.
| Doom 3 – 1024×768 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 95.3 | 71.40% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 84.6 | 52.16% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 83.1 | 49.46% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 76.1 | 36.87% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 69.6 | 25.18% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 55.6 | |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 47.1 | 18.05% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 45.8 | 21.40% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 44.1 | 26.08% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 18.05% faster than ATI Radeon 9800 XT, 21.40% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and 26.08% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 71.40% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 52.16% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 49.46% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 36.87% faster and Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 25.18% faster.
| Doom 3 – 1280×1024 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 80.4 | 117.30% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 80.1 | 116.49% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 67.1 | 81.35% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 57.5 | 55.41% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 50.1 | 35.41% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 37.0 | |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 31.9 | 15.99% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 31.3 | 18.21% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 30.8 | 20.13% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 15.99% faster than ATI Radeon 9800 XT, 18.21% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and 20.13% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 117.30% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 116.49% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 81.35% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 55.41% faster and Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 35.41% faster.
| Doom 3 – 1600×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 68.9 | 158.05% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 62.4 | 133.71% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 51.9 | 94.38% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 42.8 | 60.30% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 37.4 | 40.07% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 26.7 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 23.0 | 16.09% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 22.2 | 20.27% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 21.6 | 23.61% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 16.09% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 20.27% faster than ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 23.61% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 158.05% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 133.71% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 94.38% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 60.30% faster and Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 40.07% faster.
[nextpage title=”Far Cry”]
Far Cry is a game based on the new Shader 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c) programming model available on series 6 and 7 from NVIDIA and series X1000 from ATI graphics chips. We’ve updated the game to version 1.1.
As we’ve done on other programs, we ran this game at three resolutions, 1024x768x32, 1280x1024x32 and 1600x1200x32. This game allows several image quality levels and we’ve done our benchmarking on two levels, low and very high. To measure the performance we used the demo created by German magazine PC Games Hardware (PCGH), available at https://www.3dcenter.org/downloads/farcry-pcgh-vga.php. We run this demo four times and made an arithmetical average with the results. This average is the result presented in our graphs.
This game has a very important detail in its image quality configuration. Antialising, instead of being configured by numbers (1x, 2x, 4x or 6x) is configured as low, medium or high. The problem is that on NVIDIA chips both medium and high mean 4x, while on ATI chips medium means 2x and high means 6x, making the comparison between ATI and NVIDIA chips completely unfair. Because of that we configured antialising at 4x and anisotropic filtering at 8x manually at the video driver control panel.
For further details on how to measure 3D performance with Far Cry, read our tutorial on this subject.
| Far Cry – 1024×768 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 144.92 | 51.19% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 142.35 | 48.51% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 142.32 | 48.48% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 140.99 | 47.09% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 135.36 | 41.22% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 128.43 | 33.99% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 125.87 | 31.32% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 95.85 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 70.24 | 36.46% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 36.46% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was beaten by ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 51.19% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 48.51% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 48.48% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 47.09% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 41.22% faster, HIS Radeon X700, which was 33.99% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 31.32% faster.
| Far Cry – 1280×1024 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 141.03 | 50.10% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 140.54 | 49.57% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 140.23 | 49.24% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 138.10 | 46.98% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 132.42 | 40.93% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 122.54 | 30.42% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 118.99 | 26.64% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 93.96 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 48.18 | 95.02% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 95.02% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was beaten by Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 50.10% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 49.57% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 49.24% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 46.98% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 40.93% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 30.42% faster and HIS Radeon X700, which was 26.64% faster.
| Far Cry – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 141.40 | 54.23% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 141.27 | 54.09% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 138.96 | 51.57% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 138.79 | 51.39% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 113.93 | 24.27% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 105.27 | 14.82% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 91.68 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 85.32 | 7.45% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 34.26 | 167.60% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.45% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and 167.60% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 54.23% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 54.09% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 51.57% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 51.39% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 24.27% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 14.82% faster.
| Far Cry – 1024×768 – Very High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 81.90 | 119.22% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 81.48 | 118.09% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 78.92 | 111.24% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 66.18 | 77.14% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 40.13 | 7.41% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 37.36 | |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 36.89 | 1.27% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 33.25 | 12.36% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 32.90 | 13.56% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP and it was 12.36% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and 13.56% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 119.22% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 118.09% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 111.24% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 77.14% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 7.41% faster.
| Far Cry – 1280×1024 – Very High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 71.05 | 174.01% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 62.00 | 139.11% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 61.87 | 138.60% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 45.31 | 74.74% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 27.15 | 4.70% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 25.93 | |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 24.12 | 7.50% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 23.42 | 10.72% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 22.90 | 13.23% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.50% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 10.72% faster than Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP and 13.23% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 174.01% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 139.11% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 138.60% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 74.74% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 4.70% faster.
| Far Cry – 1600×1200 – Very High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 54.53 | 227.31% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 47.94 | 187.76% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 42.78 | 156.78% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 31.75 | 90.58% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 20.07 | 20.47% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 17.78 | 6.72% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 17.77 | 6.66% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 16.66 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 13.72 | 21.43% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 21.43% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 227.31% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 187.76% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 156.78% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 90.58% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 20.47% faster, Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 6.72% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 6.66% faster.
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
Even though Radeon X1600 AGP from HIS was faster than Radeon X700 AGP that we reviewed, GeForce 6600 GT is still a faster video card than Radeon X1600 Pro. On the other hand, this Radeon X1600 AGP with 256 MB is cheaper than a GeForce 6600 GT AGP with the same amount of video memory.
Frankly, if we were looking for the best mid-range AGP video card, we would buy a GeForce 6600 GT, as it is, in our opinion, the card that provides the best cost/benefit ratio for this segment. Radeon X1600 Pro should cost less (on the USD 110 range or below, we think) in order to compensate the performance difference between them and make it a reasonable buy. The price difference between them is very small and GeForce 6600 GT is definitely a better performer – it is worthwhile paying a little bit more to have one.
So, if we were looking for an AGP video card up to USD 140, we recommend you to go for a GeForce 6600 GT AGP, not a Radeon X1600 AGP.