On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:56:44 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I know it's not top-of-the-line, but is the ATI X1600 512MB PCI-E any good?
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>
i know that the x1600xt is as fast as a x800xl so a x1600 would run
like a x800 i guess.

I know it's not top-of-the-line, but is the ATI X1600 512MB PCI-E any good?

Thanks,
Bill

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:56:44 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I know it's not top-of-the-line, but is the ATI X1600 512MB PCI-E any good?
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>

Define your needs. The X1600 is a mediocre card all things considered
buy may very well be equal to your needs. It is an odd mix. It has
shader 3.0 which is about the only reason to own it. It is castrated
with only 128-bit ram. I have a vanilla x800 and it'll run rings
around any x1600... but I don't have shader 3.0.... and by the time I
need it neither my card nor any x1600 ever made will be adequate to
the task.

If you aren't a heavy gamer the x1600 is perfectly fine, if you are
then you will likely find a faster card cheaper in the x800 as long as
you don't need the 512Mb of ram...

The X1600 does have support for high definition video and Shader Model 3.0
and a 256 bit bus ring, but only 128 bit wide memory access
The X800 has both a 256 bit bus ring and 256 bit wide memory access.
I would also say ATI has not had enough time to improve the X1600 drivers to
their fullest.
I would say go for the X1600, the 256MB model.

"Bill Crocker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I know it's not top-of-the-line, but is the ATI X1600 512MB PCI-E any good?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>

Well I bought the ATI X1600 512MB PCI-E, and I'm impressed! I'm playing
UT2004, HalfLife-2, Halo, Counter Strike, and others at 1600X1200 with no
problems!

Bill Crocker