HIS Overclocked Radeon X1600 Pro Turbo Review

**Hardware Secrets Team** · 04-18-2006, 07:37 AM

There has been a new article posted.

Title: HIS Overclocked Radeon X1600 Pro Turbo Review
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/316

Here is a snippet:
"Radeon X1600 Pro is a mid-range graphic chip from ATI, and HIS has launched a factory-overclocked model using this chip, dubbed X1600 Pro IceQ Turbo. While “Turbo” goes for the factory-set overclockin..."

Comments on this article are welcome.

Best regards,
Hardware Secrets Team
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

TomFeehan · 01-24-2007, 02:46 PM

I can't see the point of testing this card out in screen resolutions above 1024x768 with FSAA & AF on, not to mention what sagnificant impact it'll have on performance overall (it's only 128MB frame buffer). In my opinion, it doesn not even make sense to run this graphics card in 1280x1024 (is it playable yet with those 128MB of RAM in Oblivion or Gothica3 for example) with all those IQ settings off at all. I bought this board (actually similar to this one from GIGABYTE) for just over 53 quids (94 us dollars) so presumably it's not even a mainstream card (perhaps WAS? at the time) at that. And look at its competitors in that review? I would have preferred to have seen a more reasonable comparison based on rival NVIDIA cards like 7300GT or some with the same amount of on-board video memory and perhaps one with twice that size because the point of reviewing this board should be based on whether 128MB of GDDR3 on RX1600PRO is or isn't going to deliver similar to or better performance compared to that of 256MB DDR2 on the same chip in popular 3D resolutions like 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (or are all u guys out there playing in 1600x1200) when the latter comes generally at a somewhat higher price nowadays. Thanks.

billy_bob · 06-28-2007, 05:18 AM

First af all, why use Intel? Intel sucks. I would have preffered to benchmark it on an AMD motherboard socket 754 at that stage. I know it is a little bit late to reply on this forum, but still. Coming to overall system performance, AMD beats Intel by far. And second of all, shouldn't you benchmark the Radeon X1600 PRO with only one rival card that has about the same specifications?

**Gabriel Torres** · 06-28-2007, 06:10 AM

Hi,

Thanks about posting your thoughts. We have changed a lot our methodology since then. You are talking about a review that was posted more than a year ago.

Cheers,
Gabriel.

04-18-2006, 07:37 AM	#1
Hardware Secrets Team Administrator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,952	HIS Overclocked Radeon X1600 Pro Turbo Review There has been a new article posted. Title: HIS Overclocked Radeon X1600 Pro Turbo Review URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/316 Here is a snippet: "Radeon X1600 Pro is a mid-range graphic chip from ATI, and HIS has launched a factory-overclocked model using this chip, dubbed X1600 Pro IceQ Turbo. While “Turbo” goes for the factory-set overclockin..." Comments on this article are welcome. Best regards, Hardware Secrets Team http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

01-24-2007, 02:46 PM	#2
TomFeehan Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1	Why go 1600x1200 with FSAAx4 & AFx4 on this card? I can't see the point of testing this card out in screen resolutions above 1024x768 with FSAA & AF on, not to mention what sagnificant impact it'll have on performance overall (it's only 128MB frame buffer). In my opinion, it doesn not even make sense to run this graphics card in 1280x1024 (is it playable yet with those 128MB of RAM in Oblivion or Gothica3 for example) with all those IQ settings off at all. I bought this board (actually similar to this one from GIGABYTE) for just over 53 quids (94 us dollars) so presumably it's not even a mainstream card (perhaps WAS? at the time) at that. And look at its competitors in that review? I would have preferred to have seen a more reasonable comparison based on rival NVIDIA cards like 7300GT or some with the same amount of on-board video memory and perhaps one with twice that size because the point of reviewing this board should be based on whether 128MB of GDDR3 on RX1600PRO is or isn't going to deliver similar to or better performance compared to that of 256MB DDR2 on the same chip in popular 3D resolutions like 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (or are all u guys out there playing in 1600x1200) when the latter comes generally at a somewhat higher price nowadays. Thanks.

06-28-2007, 05:18 AM	#3
billy_bob Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Klerksdorp, South Africa Posts: 17	Intel First af all, why use Intel? Intel sucks. I would have preffered to benchmark it on an AMD motherboard socket 754 at that stage. I know it is a little bit late to reply on this forum, but still. Coming to overall system performance, AMD beats Intel by far. And second of all, shouldn't you benchmark the Radeon X1600 PRO with only one rival card that has about the same specifications?

Laptop Deals			Powered by Shopping.com
Acer (LU.S680B.066) PC Notebook From $256	Acer AOD250-1116 (LU.S700B.029) Netbook From $287	Toshiba NB205-N310/BN (PLL20U-00201D) Netbook From $367	Acer Aspire One AOD250-1326 10.1-Inch UltraThin Seashell White Netbook - 3 Cell Battery (LU.S690B.037) From $287	ASUS Eee PC 1005HA-PU1X-BK Netbook From $355

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-28-2007, 06:10 AM	#4
Gabriel Torres Administrator Join Date: Oct 2004 USA Posts: 2,553	Hi, Thanks about posting your thoughts. We have changed a lot our methodology since then. You are talking about a review that was posted more than a year ago. Cheers, Gabriel.