Better?

[imported_Joey]

Ok,
Which is better the -
256MB nVidia® GeForce® 7300 Turbocache graphics card

or

256MB ATI® Radeon® X1300 Pro graphics card

as they are relativly the same price.

[=98=]

Re: Better?

They are both as equally crap...

[camper.]

Re: Better?

They are both as equally crap...

LOL. But the 7300 will be better, ATI's low end cards really struggle.

[=98=]

Re: Better?

You will find a second hand 7600gt for the same price as a new 7300 or X1300 on ebay

[imported_Joey]

Re: Better?

Thing is I can only choose out of these 2

[camper.]

Re: Better?

Is "neither" an option?

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: Better?

yeah theyre both pretty bad. wat do u have right now? i think the 7300 would be better tho if u really had to choose.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=564&model2=534&chart=196

check out that site, but IMO, i wouldnt bother

[imported_Joey]

Re: Better?

These are the only ones i can choose out of. What I am planning to do is when it gets built i want the best one out of those 2 so i can play on best graphics i can when playing with one of those 2 cards. So when i get the funds i will upgrade to a better one

[=98=]

Re: Better?

7300 would probably be the best of both cards .... in the same way that chlamydia is the best of all the STD's...

You should be able to play on low graphics.... on 800 x 600... with 20fps...

[camper.]

Re: Better?

7300 would probably be the best of both cards .... in the same way that chlamydia is the best of all the STD's...

You should be able to play on low graphics.... on 800 x 600... with 20fps...

If a 7600GT will handle the game on all high @ 1280x1024, where would that leave the 7300GT with half the memory bandwidth, a third of the shader power, third of the texture fill rate, a third of the pixel fill rate, etc?

I'd say medium-low settings at best of 1024x768. Forget about any setting with the words "dynamic" or "aliasing" in it.


The 7300GT comes out on top: http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=328&card2=431

And with a little overclocking, you should be able to play somewhat decent.

Do you feel lucky? You could volt mod it and overclock like crazy...

[[GCA]Tim270]

Re: Better?

The 7300 sucks big time , from what i have herd you will be lucky to run it on low well , get a 7900-50 or something , its worth saving your money for something better

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: Better?

If a 7600GT will handle the game on all high @ 1280x1024, where would that leave the 7300GT with half the memory bandwidth, a third of the shader power, third of the texture fill rate, a third of the pixel fill rate, etc?

It would leave the 7300gt performing the exact same as a 6600gt.

[camper.]

Re: Better?

Ah well. Enjoy all low @ 800x600 I guess...

[=98=]

Re: Better?

i used to play all low @ 800x600 when i had a X300 & then an X600. It was horrific...

[efcmandan]

Re: Better?

I'm gonna check what mine's set too when I get home. I have a GeForce 5700 and it doesn't seem as awful as you lot are saying! Or maybe I'm just used to ****e.