TechSpot

Unfair techspot review....

By F1N3ST
Sep 13, 2006
Post New Reply
  1. http://www.techspot.com/review/15-visiontek-radeon-x1300-pci/ They compared it to a card with 128-bit interface on a PCI-e Bus. Honestly, this is like the dumbest review out there, because if they had put the 128-bit memory on there, it would exceed the PCI bus' bandwith capability. Why not compare it to a 5500FX or a 6200, or that Radeon

    "Of course, if you are limited to the PCI bus for one reason or another this VisionTek Radeon graphics card is probably the most powerful solution out there."

    He said it himself. It really isnt fair to the company. Most computers dont have an AGP or PCI-e bus, so this is still the most powerful solution for PCI, and icant run FEAR and get 50FPS on 1024x768 resolution on my 5500FX. I get like 30fps on 640x480. I will write my own review soon, comparing it to my 5500FX.
  2. howard_hopkinso

    howard_hopkinso TS Rookie Posts: 25,948   +19

    I look forward to reading your review.

    However, in the meantime, you can comment on the Techspot review HERE.

    I`m sure [-Steve-] will be happy to read your comments and maybe reply as necessary.

    Regards Howard :)
  3. Viper770

    Viper770 TS Rookie

    Honestly I think those are some of the dumbest comments ever made!

    Most computers don’t have an AGP or PCI-e bus, so this is still the most powerful solution for PCI. Most computers really? Most computers only have PCI slots, well if most gaming systems only have PCI slots then you are completely right.

    I have to say I agree with the reviewer. I mean he is only trying to point us in the right direction, though I could have worked out for myself that a $120 PCI card that runs like crap is a bad buy without reading the review!
  4. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,352   +440 Staff Member

    Completing the quote…

    “That said, it is still nearly useless when it comes to gaming, so why not go with an older and much cheaper PCI graphics card? Older PCI -based Radeon cards still offer TV-Out and DVI, so there is really no need to spend $110 on this updated version. Given the Radeon X1300 Pro used for comparison costs just $60 and resulted in a 100% performance increase, how could anyone justify purchasing this graphics card?”

    My point is there is no need to spend $110 US on this graphics card when there are cheaper alternatives such as the GeForceFX 5500 that you mentioned. If gaming is a priority and you have a system without an AGP or PCIe slot then I really need say no more. I did acknowledge that this will be the fastest PCI card available but this alone does not make it fast and in my eyes it’s not a good value solution either.

    I look very forward to reading your review though!
  5. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 1,088

    Just a FYI, the PCI bus is 6.4gb/s, and this card is 4.3gb/s, with an overclock, this card will break the bus barrier, and lag up games. I plan to overclock mine, we'll see how performances is then :)
  6. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,352   +440 Staff Member

    The PCI bus transfers 6.4GB/s is that what you are trying to say? I thought the PCI throughput was a shared 133MB/s bus.
  7. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 1,088

    No its 133mhz lol.
  8. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,352   +440 Staff Member

    Really I must be an ***** I thought it was 33MHz, how embarrassing :(

    I thought PCI 2.2 operated at 66MHz for a peak bandwidth of 266MB/s, rather shy of 6400MB/s.
  9. Lekki_Sheep

    Lekki_Sheep TS Rookie Posts: 168

    I'd just like to point out that I'd find it hard to get hold of a board even for our classroom machines that doesn't at least have AGP. It's like a pretty standard feature on most boards and has been for years. I mean it, years! How old is your machine that you don't have one? What is your justification for trying to use it for a gaming system? Really I'd like to know. Hey, the machine I'm working on right now has one and it's a shuttle with an on-board card aswell.
  10. Viper770

    Viper770 TS Rookie

    Lekki_Sheep: That is exactly what I have been thinking all along.

    F1N3ST: The only thing worth laughing about is a 133MHz bus of any kind producing 6400MB/s of bandwidth in this day and age!
  11. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 1,088

    My computer is 1 year old....
     
  12. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,352   +440 Staff Member

    What motherboard are you using?
  13. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    PCI bus is 33MHz ~= 127MB/s.
  14. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 1,088

    idk, ppl were telling me otherwise, and it cant be only 127mb/s, or otherwise this card would exceed the bus by like 40X

    I have an Intel D865GVHZ
  15. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,352   +440 Staff Member

    I am a little surprised by all this. First you tell me I have written the worst review on the net which is a little displeasing. Sure you are entitled to your opinion but please back it up with some facts so we can discuss the issue properly.

    I am also shocked that you were going to do a better review than mine on this graphics card without knowing how limited with PCI bus is. Not only is it limited to less than 130MB/s, it’s a shared bus so intergraded devices that use the PCI bus such as network and RAID controllers use a lot of the avalible bandwidth.

    When you say the graphics card would exceed the bus by 40x you are again wrong. Where are you getting these figures? The memory bandwidth of the graphics card is measured between the GPU and the onboard memory. Think about it high-end PCI Express cards offer over 40GB/s of memory bandwidth … how much does a PCIe 16x port support?
  16. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 1,088

    No i didnt say it was the worst, i said dumbest, and i g2g to scholl.
  17. Lekki_Sheep

    Lekki_Sheep TS Rookie Posts: 168

    The Intel Desktop Board D865GVHZ was designed with a focus on reducing overall platform cost. Features such as the Intel® 865GV Chipset with Intel® Extreme Graphics 2 and support for up to 2 GB of DDR 400/333 SDRAM memory, onboard Intel® PRO 10/100 LAN Network Connection, and AC'97 audio provide the essential building blocks for the value-oriented customer to use on a low-cost platform.

    Nuff Said I feel. You bought a real budget piece of kit. This board was never designed with performance in mind. Here's a link to the specs & details page:

    http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d865gvhz/index.htm

    If you're a miser with your board you're always going to find problems with upgrading. Also, it takes a lot of effort to pursue such a faulse economy. You'd be better off getting a few more hours of work and using it to pay the extra required for a quality piece of hardware.
  18. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,352   +440 Staff Member

    Again Lekki_Sheep is right on the money!

    Like I said in the review save your money and invest in a motherboard that’s not a waste of time. I just don’t get the logic behind what he is saying. He wants to play games and to do so he is willing to spend $110 US on a graphics card that can only play games at 1024x768 with every possible quality setting disabled just to get playable performance. Why not just do what I suggested in the review and purchase a motherboard/graphics combo for $110 US and get significantly more performance.

    Finally, that motherboard is much much older than one year, I cannot recall the last time I used DDR technology with an Intel processor. In fact it has been at least 3 years since I tested a s-478 motherboard.
  19. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TS Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    You think GeForce FX5500 is faster than Radeon X1300?
  20. wolfram

    wolfram TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,605   +9

    Hehe, not even PCI express has that bandwith :) According to THIS, it has a 4GB/s transfer rate :)
    And PCI 2.2, has a 266MB/s shared bandwith.
  21. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 1,088

    Yeah, i will settle for 1024x768, because that is the max res for my monitor lol.
  22. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,304   +52 Staff Member

    Your numbers are way off! This is completely wrong and everyone should ignore this entire thread.

    First point: The vast majority of workload performed is on the local bus of the graphics card, not across the PCI or other system buses. That's why this quote is completely incorrect: "idk, ppl were telling me otherwise, and it cant be only 127mb/s, or otherwise this card would exceed the bus by like 40X" -- Originally spewed by F1N3ST

    Wrong. It is 133MB/sec. Traditional PCI is 32 bits and 33MHz. 33 x 32 = 1056Mbps. 1056Mbps / 8 bits in a byte = 132MB/sec. There's also PCI 2.2 (as mentioned above) which doubles the MHz to 66Mhz. There's also 64-bit PCI called PCI-X which ramps up the MHz even more to (up to) 133MHz.

    Anyway, F1N3ST, you're wrong and you need to do some research before you criticize.
  23. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    AGP has been standard on most motherboards for years!
  24. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,525   +300

    Standard on motherboards you buy from retailers. But not standard on Branded PCs. Many have onboard video and no AGP slot, leaving the only option for upgrades to come on the regular PCI bus.
  25. wolfram

    wolfram TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,605   +9

    I agree with SNGX1275. I had a "2004" Gateway PC, and I thought it was the best, because it was very recent. Then I opened it, and surprise, no AGP slot :(

    Just 3 damn white PCI slots :dead:


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.