This is supported by the fact that the GT also has superior memory performance overall. However, the actual shader performance of the X Pro is 4 and the actual shader performance of the GT is The cards tested today will be pushed to the limits using the standard stock coolers. Nevertheless, at the default frequencies the results could go either way, depending greatly on the gaming platform used for testing. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate. Future Proof My PC.
|Date Added:||4 June 2013|
|File Size:||23.38 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
That said, most retail cards do not reflect the true performance of the GPU as they are usually either below or above the default specification.
PassMark – Radeon X Pro – Price performance comparison
However, there is another product that will also tempt the budget user and this one comes from the green team. Can I Run It.
The cooler can dissipate heat effectively from the GPU while keeping the fan at lower speed and noise. Nevertheless, at the default frequencies the results could go either way, depending greatly on the gaming platform used for testing.
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT vs. ATI Radeon X1600 Pro
Global Game Awards Add your comment to this article You need to be a member to leave a comment. Sign up for freeit takes 30 seconds.
Join thousands of x160 enthusiasts and participate. However, this may not necessarily pose a problem for the GT, as we will also set our focus on overclocking performance. The difference is not significant enough for the GT to have a noticeably larger impact on your yearly electricity bills than the X Pro.
The GT has MB more video memory than the X Proso is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. Making a brief comparison between both models we noticed both feature 12 pixel pipelines, 1 texture mapping unit and 5 vertex processing units, with the only difference between them being the core and memory clock frequencies.
However, the actual shader performance of the X Pro is 4 and the actual shader performance of the GT is Cooling Solution The Cooling System was replaced by Gigabyte’s custom-designed 80 mm cooler, with air flow optimized cover and aluminum base. TechSpot Account Sign up for freeit takes 30 seconds.
This is supported by the fact that the GT also has superior memory performance overall. The GT has On paper the Radeon appears to have the edge since the GT features just 8 pixel pipelines, 1 texture mapping unit and 4 vertex processing units.
The central unit runs at MHz and the memory clock operates at up to MHz. Already have an account? The GT was released over three years more recently than the X Proand so the GT is likely to have far better driver support, meaning it will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the X Pro when running the latest games.
It’s significantly faster than its predecessors and so some of x1060 games might be playable at medium settings ggabyte the low preset will have to be used on most.
The GT having better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the GT delivers a significantly pr and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the X Pro.
Future Proof My PC.
Price History for Gigabyte Radeon X1600 Pro Passive II 256MB
Intel Celeron G 2. The cards tested today will be pushed to the limits using the standard stock coolers. There will also x6100 a Radeon X Pro thrown into the comparison, which will under-go some extensive overclocking as well.