backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by bunnyfubbles.. on Sep 4 at 5:39 PM

No we didn't forget the "e", it is actually PCI

VisionTek has released the first PCI graphics card since the NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 and ATI Radeon 9250 was available in PCI. The new VisionTek Radeon X1300 256MB PCI provides users that lack AGP or PCI Express expansion capabilities with a new upgrade path. Based on the ATI Radeon X1300 graphics processor, the VisionTek Radeon X1300 256MB PCI features four pixel shaders and two vertex shaders. It also features a 450 MHz core and 533 MHz memory clock.

Features such as ATI’s AVIVO video processing is also supported with the VisionTek Radeon X1300 256MB PCI. Output capabilities of the VisionTek Radeon X1300 256MB PCI include VGA d-sub, dual-link DVI-I and TV-out. Component HDTV, S-Video and composite video out capabilities are supported, though a separate cable or adapter is required. VisionTek does not bundle the required TV-out adapters or cables.

The VisionTek Radeon X1300 256MB PCI is available immediately from online and bricks and mortar retailers for $129.99.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

256MB
By Hare on 9/2/2006 6:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hooray for 256MB of memory. Absolutely _no_ value for anyone.




RE: 256MB
By Kiwi on 9/2/2006 6:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't see a Bit-width on the card's memory system. But 128 has been common for two generations. What's more ridiculous is 512 MBs on cards slower than an X1800 or GF 7800, no matter the memory bit width.


RE: 256MB
By Hare on 9/2/2006 8:11:30 AM , Rating: 2
bit width doesn't ever matter in this case. Even if it would be 256b this card would be way too slow on any resolutions that would require more than 128mb. Just another big number for the ignorant consumer to drool over.


RE: 256MB
By plewis00 on 9/2/2006 10:56:55 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, but unfortunately it does convince them... I had a client arguing with me over 'ripping him off' because I sold him a 7900GT with 256mb RAM and another less scrupulous retailer was offering him (WOW!) a 6600GT with 512mb DDR2 fitted for a lower price. After numerous charts and phone calls he was reluctantly convinced that I was in fact telling the truth, sad but true.


RE: 256MB
By shecknoscopy on 9/2/2006 3:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well the issue here isn't the memory size (which I agree is typically misleading - and intentionally so - to/for the consumer), but the memory interface. Anybody here know of a discreet comparison between two otherwise identical cards with the same total memory, but for which one has - say, a 128bit memory interface but for which the othe has 256? Tom's hardware seems to think that it's this statistic which is more telling than the memory size per se (though of course clock rate and memory type have substantial and concretely observable effects), but I've yet to see an incisive comparrison of their individual effects.

Just out of curiosity, of course.

We all know that the prinicpal determinant of 3D rendering quality is whether or not your motherboard uses all solid state capacitors. (kidding! kidding!)


RE: 256MB
By ElFenix on 9/2/2006 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
memory bandwidth matters a lot, and doubling the width is probably more effective than doubling the mhz due to relaxed timings.

the best comparison i can think of is 7600GS and 6800GS. both have similar fillrate numbers (being 12 pipes, and 400 mhz and 425 mhz respectively.) and the GS has 100 mhz faster memory. but it's memory is also 256 bit. so, it gets 25% more bandwidth from the clocks, and 100% more bandwidth from the width. so it is 32 GB/sec compared to 12 GB/sec. and so the 7600GS performs about as well at a 6600GT, which the GS kills.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/611-11/nvidia-g...


RE: 256MB
By Hare on 9/2/2006 3:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sad but true, que metallica!


RE: 256MB
By ET on 9/3/2006 5:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
If there's anywhere more memory is good, it's on a PCI card. When there's need for more than the on-board RAM, PCI just doesn't have the bandwidth.

Since games are slowly starting to make use of even 512MB, 256MB is pretty reasonable these days. Remember that you can still play at low-res with few graphical options and benefit from hi-res textures (which look good up close), so even on a low end card more memory makes some sense.


that's amazing
By S3anister on 9/2/2006 5:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
but yet... i'm so sad that PCI isn't dead yet. I really hate the technology, especially compared to PCI-E it's horrible. But i guess it's still around so some people still need this kind of thing.




RE: that's amazing
By IamKindaHungry on 9/2/2006 5:34:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but yet... i'm so sad that PCI isn't dead yet. I really hate the technology, especially compared to PCI-E it's horrible. But i guess it's still around so some people still need this kind of thing.


hmmm... if theres anything remotely amazing about any of this, its the fact that a pci x1300pro is retailing for 129.99...

Is it the most powerful pci graphics card avail... yes
Is it worth the money... I doubt it..



RE: that's amazing
By lemonadesoda on 9/2/2006 7:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
PCI compared to PCIe x1 is not horrible at all. In fact it is about the same in terms of bandwidth. http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/3dws/product...

Remember that this card is not designed for 3D shooters, but for 2D desktop/workstation and TV.


RE: that's amazing
By hughlle on 9/2/2006 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
and pci-e is not that great.l the reasopn that there has been no advance on the pci-e x-fi and such is due to issues with the pci-e bus/lanes or something.

pci is all rather universal wheras with pci-e you have to worry about whether you have a pci-e 4x or 2x or 1x slot and such


RE: that's amazing
By TomZ on 9/2/2006 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PCI compared to PCIe x1 is not horrible at all. In fact it is about the same in terms of bandwidth.

That's kind of a misleading comparison, since PCIe video cards are typically x16, and in that case, PCI is left behind in the dust. There are some low-performance x1 cards, but all the high-performance cards are x16.

Not to mention that PCIe is point-to-point, whereas PCI needs to share bandwidth with all the other PCI devices on the MB and in the expansion slots. A single higabit Ethernet network adapter alone has the ability to practically use up all the PCI bus bandwidth.


RE: that's amazing
By S3anister on 9/2/2006 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention that PCIe is point-to-point, whereas PCI needs to share bandwidth with all the other PCI devices on the MB and in the expansion slots. A single higabit Ethernet network adapter alone has the ability to practically use up all the PCI bus bandwidth.


That is what I was talking about. This card is great for those who need it but it would be nice to see more PCI-E 1x cards being put into production.


RE: that's amazing
By Missing Ghost on 9/2/2006 4:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see. PCI (for desktops) is 133MB/s half duplex shared by all the devices on the bus. PCIe 1x is 250MB/s full duplex (500MB/S) dedicaced for that single device. That seems to be a whole lot more of bandwidth. Also a PCIe 1x slot has way more current available for the device than PCI does. PCIe 1x also needs a lot less traces than PCI.


Mmmmm, DirectX 9
By stuc on 9/2/2006 10:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'll actually find this quite useful. I have three flat-panel monitors, and right now two are attached to my main PCI-E video card and the third to an old PCI Radeon 9250 that only supports DirectX 8. That's been fine up until now, but as I understand it will keep me from having the Aero interface in Vista. Putting in a shiny new DirectX 9 card like this one ought to fix that.

Sure, the price is pretty high right now, but if the alternative is replacing the motherboard with something with two PCIe 16x slots just to get another DX9 card in there, I'll spend the money.




RE: Mmmmm, DirectX 9
By Spyvie on 9/2/2006 10:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was thinking...

I recently added a 3rd monitor to friends Adobe Premiere box with a PCI 9250, this would have been a better choice.


RE: Mmmmm, DirectX 9
By plewis00 on 9/2/2006 10:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
Depends what you are doing there. Asrock make some excellent dual-graphics slot PCIe boards at a very low price, much less than the entry price for this PCI graphics card. You could get a stable, reliable and cheap Asrock board with 2 slots including a 2nd PCIe graphics card for less than this PCI card alone and still have the old mainboard to sell on.


RE: Mmmmm, DirectX 9
By Spyvie on 9/2/2006 12:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
This was a heavily configured S478/AGP system with a Matrox captue board, a new mobo/cpu/ram/vid card would have cost a bundle... and the Matrox board is really picky about the platform its in.


Actually, there really is a GF 6200 for plain PCI
By Kiwi on 9/2/2006 6:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
The AGP and the plain PCI versions of nVidia's 6200 have more than the usual number of anomalous behaviors in the Oblivion game, and have made themselves known in the hardware forum on Bethesda's TES Sites. The 1300 will be slower than a 6200 and so will require Oldblivion to swap out the Dx9 for Dx8 to get its speed up enough.




By Bull Dog on 9/2/2006 2:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
Check your facts mister. The X1300 PCI will be FASTER than the 6200 PCI.


By Kiwi on 9/3/2006 11:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=437&...

There are the numbers. The shaders are better on an X1300, but not the rest of the items, same as always, or at least, since the R9500 came out. The next nVidia PCI, if any, will most likely be this "7100" recently announced, and the 7300 GPUs are both slower than an X1300 already.



By bunnyfubbles on 9/4/2006 5:39:24 PM , Rating: 1
$40 vs. $130 on an already handicapped PCI bus, I don't think the PCI 6200 is going to suffer too much.

I'd only consider the X1300 if I needed any of its extra features the 6200 might lack; performance is most likley a moot point since the PCI bus was abanded years ago for higher performing AGP - of which that bus is being replaced by PCI-e...

However even PCI doesn't have anywhere to go; if you do have one of those systems that doesn't have anything faster than PCI-e x1 slots, there are video cards made for such slots just as good (if not better) than this card and for cheaper to boot.

I think it is kinda cool that they're still putting out PCI cards, I got a PCI 6200 when it was $32 almost exclusively to play around with it (although it can work as an emergency back-up) - however I believe the price is a huge detterent for this card, $130 is simply way too much, you're almost (or are) better off buying a new, cheap motherboard and cheap PCI-e video card so that you have an upgrade path in the future (as they certainly can't keep pumping out PCI cards).


Dual-link DVI good / Only one DVI port bad
By lemonadesoda on 9/2/2006 7:14:47 AM , Rating: 3
The card would be a 2D desktop/workstation winner if it had 2x DVI out, so that it could drive 2 TFT screens.

One DVI and one VGA is a poor design concept, since DVI has VGA embedded, but VGA cannot drive a TFT screen. People will want this item for special purpose, e.g. secondary, diplay, mini-ITX, driving a high res TFT, etc. Seems to be that 2x DVI and Dual-link is what these people actually want from such a device.

The price is also a bit steep. Should be around $80-$90, since X1650 systems are at the $120 mark.

Quick! Back to the drawing board.




By TomZ on 9/2/2006 2:02:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The card would be a 2D desktop/workstation winner if it had 2x DVI out, so that it could drive 2 TFT screens.

I agree, anything besides dual DVI in a new card is silly, especially since DVI can be used to interface to a conventional VGA connector with just a simple passive adapter.


bla
By Cunthor01 on 9/2/2006 7:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
Sweet! I can throw away the beasty TNT2 M64, and stick this mofo in my P166... <Sigh> only if they came out in ISA flavour for my 486-DX4 :/




RE: bla
By lemonadesoda on 9/2/2006 7:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
Here's your chance to pick up a Socket 4 mainboard with PCI for your old 486DX4. LOL

http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentium1-60Mhz-Socket-4-Mainbo...


RE: bla
By johnsonx on 9/3/2006 4:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's an old Pentium-60 board, not a 486. It's the original Pentium, which came in 50, 60, and 66Mhz flavors (no bus multiplier either - the CPU ran at the FSB speed - multipliers didn't show up until the second-gen Pentiums). Much like the Pentium 4, the original socket (Socket 4) was short lived, and all future Pentiums would use Socket 5 and later 7.

I think I actually have a board just like that one in a box somewhere, with an original Pentium-60 in it.


The VGA connection
By JamRockaz on 9/2/2006 1:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know what the name of the VGA connection on this card is called?.....




RE: The VGA connection
By TomZ on 9/2/2006 2:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what you mean - it's typically called just VGA or high-density DB15.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/2/2006 3:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's called 15-pin d-sub.


Can't imagine anyone buying it
By tacoburrito on 9/3/2006 6:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
If a computer only has PCI slot, and no AGP or PCIe, it is at least 4 -5 yrs old. Considering a new computer can be had for less than $500 with AGP/PCIe motherboard, why would anyone in their right mind pay $130 for a card that, at best, performs marginally better than Intel integrated GPU?




By lemonadesoda on 9/3/2006 8:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
Check out mini-ITX and industrial boards; you will see many with only PCI. For example, I have http://www.ibase-i.com.tw/mb890.htm which is running 2x TFT 1280x1024 via DVI link (using Nvidia Quadro NVS 280) http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadronvs.html

I would love to upgrade that GPU to something faster, especially a 2 x dual-link DVI so the machine could run 2 x hi-res TFT, e.g. 2560 x 1600

But I haven't found any PCI GPU that is better. (YET)


By johnsonx on 9/4/2006 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
There are actually quite a lot of recent OEM boards with only PCI; perhaps none that are brand-new today, but it was quite common within the last couple of years.

An X1300 performs far more than marginally better than integrated graphics, particularly the older-gen integrated graphics found on the boards with no AGP slot. To say otherwise shows no knowledge of low-end graphics perfomance.

This board isn't for enthusiasts; it's for the average end-user. Let's stop deriding it because it isn't an enthusiast product.


A Very Good Thing Indeed...
By NextGenGamer2005 on 9/2/2006 4:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
The Radeon X1300 is undoubtedly the most powerful and feature-rich PCI card available now, which is a very good thing. There are a LOT of desktop computers sold from HP and Dell which only include a couple PCI and maybe one PCI Express x1 expansion slot, so for those people, this card is a very decent upgrade from the built-in Intel graphics.




RE: A Very Good Thing Indeed...
By Growly on 9/3/2006 5:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
When I set up my four screens of goodness, I was made to choose a Radeon 9250 PCI to couple with my X800XT. I never did manage to get a PCI FX5200 working in tandem with an AGP ATI card, so this makes me feel very good.

Now all I need is monies.


Alittle to Much?
By formulav8 on 9/2/2006 8:42:21 PM , Rating: 1
Does anyone else feel the card is alittle to expensive for what it is? I know PCI of this type will run a premium, but I would NOT expect a $130 card of this type, especially with this chipset. Maybe $90 or so would have been good? Or am I thinking in the wrong terms?

Is the PCI bridge that this card is evidentally using that complicated and expensive to implement? Or are they just trying to capitalize on it being a rare item for that market?

Jason




RE: Alittle to Much?
By johnsonx on 9/3/2006 4:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
It is rather a niche product; they can't depend on huge volume to make up for the narrow margins on the mainstream cards.

There're only two obvious markets for this card: First, those with AGP-based multi-monitor setups who want a PCI board to run more monitors, but need at least a bit of DX9 GPU power. Second, those with relatively recent computers with onboard video but no AGP or PCIe slot who want to do some low-end gaming or upgrade to Vista when it comes out. Both of those are small markets.

At the moment it's the only even vaguely powerful DX9 board available for PCI, period.


6200 PCI vs X1300
By RedWolf on 9/3/2006 9:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
First, this is not the first PCI card since the 5200/9250. I have a 6200 PCI card at work which I upgraded from a 5700 LE. Both PCI cards.

Second, these types of cards are extremely useful for anyone who wants to run Vista on business/educational machines. The machines we ordered this year came with X300s because I know we'll have people asking for it. We only replace machines every 4 years. Consequently, 75% of our machines cannot run Vista with Aero Glass enabled. Not to mention how great it is to have a card that I can use to play a little COD2 at lunch.

Finally, the x1300 might be faster than the 6200 but you can find the 6200 for under $40. I got mine for $35 shipped. It was cheaper than the 5200/9250s.




By BenSkywalker on 9/4/2006 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
I was in CC a few days ago and was holding in my hand a 512MB x1300Pro for $199 retail. I know someone who is going to buy it too, he lacks an AGP or PCI-E slot but just upgraded to a 19" widescreen LCD and his 9250 can't handle it. I broke down for him what he was talking about, what kind of performance difference he could honestly expect and how little lube they were using for that price on that part, but he wants to play WoW and doesn't want a new rig.... <shrug> what are you gonna do?




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki