how much better is 7300GS from 6200

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
UHHGGGggggg! Anyone here actually own a 7300GS? Anyone have ANY experience using one? First off, let me start by saying that the 6600 is a better card for the money, and so is the X1300. But, the 7300GS should not really even be compared to the 6200. I have gotten TWICE the frames in doom 3 (openGL) than with the 6200. Other games show signaficant gains accross the board. Any game that is optimized for ATI plays like crap on this card (read HL2). Meanwhile, the Nvidia optimized games still do ok on the X1300 (not good, just ok). This card only has 4 pixel pipelines. When rating video cards, pipelines are most important, along with the number of shaders per pipeline and the core clock. The memory interface matters far less than these three, so please, PLEASE, quit telling everyone the card is crippled by it's memory interface. It's got other issues that are more pressing. If the memroy interface was as big of a deal as everyone seems to believe, the 7600GT could not perform so well. People who think everything NEEDS a 256bit memory interface are not informed on what they are talking about. Probably don't realize that ATI's top of the line workstation cards have 512bit memory interfaces, all for small gains. The difference between the memory interface is much like the difference between XP and XP x64. For some things it really matters, but for most it doesn't. Being able to address above 4GB of memory is great, but if the system is using 1GB, it doesn't matter. Having more maximum theoretical bandwidth is great, but if you are complaining that SATA does not have enough bandwidth and your raptor should have been SATA2, you're not being realistic. If the raptor had 128MB of cache instead of 16MB (or 8MB) it would matter, but it doesn't so it don't. If the 7300GS had 8 pixel pipelines, it would matter, but it has 4 so it don't.
 
UHHGGGggggg! Anyone here actually own a 7300GS? Anyone have ANY experience using one? First off, let me start by saying that the 6600 is a better card for the money, and so is the X1300. But, the 7300GS should not really even be compared to the 6200. I have gotten TWICE the frames in doom 3 (openGL) than with the 6200. Other games show signaficant gains accross the board. Any game that is optimized for ATI plays like crap on this card (read HL2). Meanwhile, the Nvidia optimized games still do ok on the X1300 (not good, just ok). This card only has 4 pixel pipelines. When rating video cards, pipelines are most important, along with the number of shaders per pipeline and the core clock. The memory interface matters far less than these three, so please, PLEASE, quit telling everyone the card is crippled by it's memory interface. It's got other issues that are more pressing. If the memroy interface was as big of a deal as everyone seems to believe, the 7600GT could not perform so well. People who think everything NEEDS a 256bit memory interface are not informed on what they are talking about. Probably don't realize that ATI's top of the line workstation cards have 512bit memory interfaces, all for small gains. The difference between the memory interface is much like the difference between XP and XP x64. For some things it really matters, but for most it doesn't. Being able to address above 4GB of memory is great, but if the system is using 1GB, it doesn't matter. Having more maximum theoretical bandwidth is great, but if you are complaining that SATA does not have enough bandwidth and your raptor should have been SATA2, you're not being realistic. If the raptor had 128MB of cache instead of 16MB (or 8MB) it would matter, but it doesn't so it don't. If the 7300GS had 8 pixel pipelines, it would matter, but it has 4 so it don't.
Click to expand...

Wow. You understand the marketing tactics that manufacturers use to sell "superior" products higher than previous ones. Amen to the Raptor theory too, 100% correct.
 
Thanks. I appreciate someone actually listening. My frustration is from feeling like I am talking to a wall in the first place. If people would think more logically about this stuff, they probably understand it more, but that's not likely to occur any time soon. (Ford is better than Chevy! ETC ETC). :)
 
Interesting article. A cheap 6600 would be nice, and stated above the 6600 is better than both the 6200 and 7300. However, the 7300GS is a PCIe card, and I don't know of any 6200 PCIe card that is unlockable, so this idea would only be good for those AGP users who weren't considering the 7300GS anyway. Very nice scores for the money, though!
 
1. start of by tweaking by follwoing the guide on here www.tweaker.se dont mind the odd domain, i did all of them and everythign was fine, its a legit place. thats where i first started then i started doing some thigns on my own.

i can no longer get the 6600 cheap, i can still get the 7300GS, but now im lost, is the 7300GS ACTULLY BETTER THEN THE 6200? I already ordered 2 new mobos(one for da sis'es pc) one with pci-e and apg, and the other with pci-e and with built in 6100 as video..... I'm ready to get the bfg tech 7300gs if it is truly better.

and bf2 keeps deciding to crash. i think my pc may be overheating, due to my OCs which i made while in the ^0degree weatehr, which has now turned into 85 degree weather and my box in surrounded by wood now.(desk)
 
I don't know what your budget is, but, the 7300GS IS better than the 6200 in every way, except for the 6200 AGP card AFTER all the flashing and unlocking which is not going to work 100% of the time. The AsRock board with both AGP and PCIe is a good board, but it will not run the AGP as efficiently as a normal nforce3 AGP board. The difference between the 6100 and the 7300GS is large, sure, but all these graphics are low end. The X1300 is a better buy than the 7300GS unless you are going to play only OpenGL games (Doom/Quake). However, the 7600GS by Leadtek just came out with active cooling, a copy of Serious Sam 2, and a price tag of $125 and is 3X the card of any of these budget cards.
 
i think the 7300GS is a better buy, I'm gettying it for 40$ 😛 brand new too, i have hook ups.

and the intergrated i wasn;'t plannign on useing, except maybe for my sisters pc instead of a 5500.
 
The AsRock board with both AGP and PCIe is a good board, but it will not run the AGP as efficiently as a normal nforce3 AGP board.
Click to expand...

Wha? AGP has the full 8X capacity on the ASRock board, and the PCI-e is can use the full x16 speed too. Where are you getting this info?
 
The AsRock board with both AGP and PCIe is a good board, but it will not run the AGP as efficiently as a normal nforce3 AGP board.
Click to expand...

Not so... the Asrock 939dual-SATA2 can run both AGP & PCIe with no performance penalty. The ULI chipset has both native AGP & PCIe support.

you're thinking of some other boards with jury-rigged PCIe/AGP functionality, but the Asrock board doesn't have any of those performance penalties.
 
IT wont be a few more bucks though, the 7300GS is 20$ for me, heehe, I no longer have the opertunity to get the 6600 either so i already ordered the 7300GS and a new Mobo, I'll let you guys know.
 
You are not correct about the memory bandwidth. i have an fx5700le (im pov) which has a 64bit memory bandwidth. When i overclock the core id be lucky to get half the extra performance of overclocking the memory. BTW stock speed for core/mem are 425/400 oc'd are 495/600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom