Review PowerColor X600 XT vs Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 Gaming: MHZ

Review PowerColor X600 XT vs Albatron Trinity PCX 5750

Review of mid-range PCI Express video adapters: PowerColor X600 XT vs. Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 – With the appearance on the market of the first real chipsets supporting PCI Express, this new standard, actively promoted by a number of companies, has finally gone beyond laboratory samples and began its triumphant march around the world.

At the moment, the rate of expansion of PCI Express is not very high – so far only two families of chipsets from Intel with serial numbers 925 and 915 represent this bus on the market, but solutions from other system logic developers, such as VIA Technologies and NVIDIA Corporation, are not far off. … The real battle for the market for solutions using PCI Express should flare up only in the fourth quarter of this year.

According to the generally accepted opinion, PCI Express is intended to replace two established standards in the PC industry at once – PCI and AGP, due to their insufficient bandwidth for today. If for PCI with its 133 MB / sec. This is true, but in the case of AGP everything is not so simple. Let’s talk about this in a little more detail.

The AGP bus is, in essence, a special kind of PCI, optimized to provide the fastest possible data transfer rate from the system memory to the video adapter, but not in the opposite direction. This was done to implement the ability to store textures in system memory. As it turned out later, AGP DIME mode did not provide sufficient performance; As a result, almost no one used AGP texturing, except for Intel, which at one time created the i740 graphics chip, which stored all texture information in the PC’s system memory. A lot of time has passed since then; the amount of video memory installed on modern video adapters has grown significantly, and the AGP bus has begun to be used mainly

In the AGP 8x standard, the data transfer rate increased to 2.1 gigabytes per second, however, the transition from AGP 4x to AGP 8x actually did not give any advantages, since even the previous standard was more than enough to “feed” video adapters with all the necessary information. Currently AGP is used mainly for loading textures into the local memory of a video card, as well as for transferring geometric information to a graphics processor.

However, the PCI Express initiative provides for the ditching of AGP in favor of PCI Express x16, which provides data transfer rates of 4 GB per second in one direction. Now this speed is unlikely to be in demand, however, in the future, with the advent of new generation games with much more complex graphics, requiring the transfer of a large amount of geometric and texture data, it may turn out to be very appropriate.

The new bus was supported by both major players in the graphics market – ATI Technologies and NVIDIA Corporation, however, their approach to the implementation of the new interface turned out to be fundamentally different. While NVIDIA chose not to make changes to the existing graphics processors and implemented PCI Express support through a special adapter chip, ATI Technologies provided its X600 and X300 chips with native support for the new bus. Today we will consider both approaches, since the PowerColor X600 XT and Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 video adapters belonging to the middle class have arrived in our laboratory.

The first of them, as you might guess, is based on the ATI X600 graphics processor, and the second, in fact, is a PCI Express version of the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700. Both cards arrived to us with full combat layout, that is, in a version intended for retail sales – in colorful boxes with a full set of documentation, adapters, cables and software. The first parcel delivered to the world was a box with the PowerColor inscription and the ATI Technologies logo. We will begin our review with it.

PowerColor X600 XT: First Impression

The PowerColor product comes in a rather compact box with a rather austere design, which makes it very attractive especially for buyers who love this style.

There are no frills in the design – just a strict combination of black and blue with a small color insert in the center. The distinctive texture against the black and blue background gives the impression that the box is not made from ordinary cardboard, but from a material based on carbon fiber (carbon fiber). The back of the box contains information on the technical specifications of the product. Inside the box are the following items:

PowerColor X600 XT video adapter;
User manual in five languages;
Adapter DVI-I-> D-Sub;
S-Video-> RCA adapter;
S-Video cable;
RCA cable;
CD with drivers;
CyberLink software CD (PowerDirector SE +, MediaShow SE, PowerDVD, PowerProducer DVD, Power2Go);
2 CDs with Hitman: Contracts.

All discs with software are packed in a special envelope with the ProPack inscription. The PowerColor X600 XT bundle can rightfully be called quite rich. Let’s open the box and take a closer look at the video adapter itself.

PowerColor X600 XT: Pick up the card

The crimson-red color of the printed circuit board of the PowerColor X600 XT looks quite nice, but the cooling system is perplexing – on top of a rather roughly machined aluminum heatsink attached to the board using two ordinary spring-loaded clips, a strange-looking disc with a number of narrow slots is installed, equipped for some reason – then with a rubber mustache and a rubber circle in the center.

What it symbolizes is not clear. In our opinion, this disc obviously does not add beauty and, moreover, practically blocks the air access to the fan blowing over the radiator. The only thing he is capable of is interfering with the operation of a cooling system that is quite efficient as a whole. The contact between the heatsink and the memory chips is quite reliable – the thermal spacers have the appropriate thickness, however, the memory chips located on the back side of the PCB are not cooled. In addition, two of the four spacers have a reduced area and do not completely cover the corresponding memory chips, which can lead to a decrease in the efficiency of the heat sink.

PowerColor X600 XT uses a reference PCB design, which is rather complicated due to relatively high clock speeds – even on the front side of the PCB there are a lot of elements, and there are also places for installing the RageTheater chip and related elements that provide the card with VIVO functions. In our case, as you can see, these places are empty.

The reverse side is also littered with a mass of small elements. The volume of video memory is 128 megabytes, while using modern chips in FBGA packaging with an access time of 2.5 nanoseconds, manufactured by Hynix. The nominal operating frequency for them is 400 (800) MHz, but the memory operates at 350 (700) MHz. As it turned out during the installation of the card into the system and the first check – the frequency at which the GPU core operates is only 350 MHz. This is rather strange for a card with the XT index in its name, since the original ATI RADEON X600 XT operates at 500/365 (730) MHz. There is a strong decrease in frequencies compared to the nominal ones. The reduced VPU frequency can have an especially strong effect on performance, because even the RADEON 9600 PRO and RADEON X600 PRO have a graphics processor running at 400 MHz, not to mention the RADEON 9600 XT with its 500 MHz. There is no additional power connector – the card is quite content with the power supplied through the PCI Express x16 slot.

Running ahead, the card, being made on a reference PCB design and equipped with a full-fledged memory with an access time of 2.5 nanoseconds, easily worked at the frequencies rated for the RADEON X600 XT – 500/365 (730) MHz, demonstrating stable operation in all tests. as well as the performance level typical of a full-fledged RADEON X600 XT. What is the reason for such a decrease in clock frequencies by the manufacturer? In an effort to reduce the cost of a product? But the use of a reference PCB design and full speed memory does not support this hypothesis. Perhaps we have before us a certain analogue of the Gainward FX Power Pack! Ultra / 1300XT Golden Sample which, having a full-fledged design of the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and excellent overclocking potential, worked by default at the frequencies set by the cheap GeForce FX 5900 XT.

Read This Now:   SIS Xabre 600 64MB Video Card Review: comparison with ATI and NVIDI

But Gainward from the very beginning positioned this card as the choice of an overclocker, providing the potential buyer with all the necessary information, but PowerColor did not even mention that its product works at reduced frequencies … If this applies not only to our copy of the card, then buyers interested in buying a RADEON X600 XT may be very disappointed with the PowerColor X600 XT, being unaware of its real technical characteristics. This approach, we believe, can negatively affect the reputation of PowerColor and its products – it is very easy to lose user confidence, but it is extremely difficult to restore it.

PowerColor X600 XT: Noise, Overclocking and 2D Quality

The PowerColor X600 XT could not boast of a quiet cooler – a small high-speed fan forced to suck air through narrow slots in the “decorative” disk that covers it almost entirely emitted a rather unpleasant whistle, so the card cannot be called noiseless if you wanted to. As it turned out, the fan cooling the card is equipped with a bright red LED, the glow of which, however, is almost invisible through the dense layer of red rubber, so there is little sense in having this backlight.

During the overclocking process, we managed to get the VPU to work at 520 MHz, and the memory worked steadily at 380 (760) MHz. Such results should be considered excellent if we take the nominal frequencies of 350/350 (700) MHz as the starting point, and average if we count from the reference RADEON X600 XT. It’s strange that with such a good potential the card works at such low frequencies by default, but we’ll leave that to PowerColor’s conscience. There was no criticism about the 2D quality – it turned out to be at the level of most modern video adapters, that is, the picture was clear in all resolutions, up to 1600x1200x75 Hz, inclusive. Now let’s see what Albatron offers to buyers.

Albatron Trinity PCX 5750: First impression

The box in which the Trinity PCX 5750 video adapter is packed is a couple of centimeters wider than the box from the PowerColor X600 XT, and its design is fundamentally different from that used by the PowerColor designers – it is made as bright and eye-catching as possible. In this case, bright, shiny colors prevail, attracting attention, and the plot depicted on the front of the box reminds of the game purpose of the product hiding in it – here we see a humanoid-type combat vehicle, painted in an aggressive bright red, and also quite a pretty girl, apparently the pilot of this steel monster.

In our opinion, the design of the box looks too flashy and even, perhaps, clumsy, but someone may well like it, and even attract the attention of a potential buyer for sure. A few words should be said about the convenience of packaging – if the PowerColor product is packed in a white box, on which a colored cover is pulled, which, during unpacking, has to be removed, then the Albatron box opens immediately, which is more convenient. As with the PowerColor X600 XT, the back of the box is dedicated to describing the product’s specifications. Inside we found the following things:

Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 video adapter;
User manual in three languages;
S-Video-> RCA adapter;
CD with drivers;
Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project CD
CD with demos of various games.

Poor enough, even compared to the PowerColor X600 XT, not to mention the luxury inherent in products from ASUSTeK Computer. There is not even a DVI-I-> D-Sub adapter, which is an integral attribute of all modern video adapters, not to mention cables for connecting to video equipment.

Albatron Trinity PCX 5750: Picking up the card

At first glance at the Trinity PCX 5750, it seems that Albatron and PowerColor’s approach to product design is diametrically opposed.

The Albatron product looks very nice, which is facilitated by the dark blue color of the PCB and the silver-blue neat looking cooling system, which is attached to the PCB using three standard spring-loaded clips. In general, the combination of dark blue and silver is perhaps one of the most successful color solutions from an aesthetic point of view, and here Albatron is all right – its products, for the most part, are really beautiful.

However, the cooler with which the Trinity PCX 5750 is equipped has one important flaw – very poor contact with the memory chips, despite the presence of rubber-like thermal pads. The fact is that these gaskets are very thin; their thickness does not correspond to the width of the gap between the heatsink and the memory chips. As a result, half of the gaskets in our case stuck to the memory chips, leaving a gap between themselves and the heatsink sole, and the other half barely touched it. The memory chips located on the reverse side of the PCB, as in the case of the PowerColor X600 XT, are not cooled at all, which looks rather pointless.

As for the rest, the design of the cooling system, which the Trinity PCX 5750 is equipped with, is quite successful. In addition to the GPU core and memory chips, it also cools the AGP-> PCI Express bridge. Let us remind you that NVIDIA’s approach to creating solutions compatible with the new bus provides for the use of AGP-compatible GPUs and a special adapter bridge, so the GeForce PCX 5750 is, in fact, a specialized version of the GeForce FX 5700. A small microcircuit with an open crystal located under the graphics processor, and is thus the bridge responsible for interfacing the two buses.

As for the PCB design as a whole, it is not very complicated, except for the reverse side of the board in the locations of the graphics processor and the AGP-PCI Express bridge, where there are a lot of small elements. The Albatron product also lacks an additional power connector, since the new bus is capable of supplying power to a device with a power consumption level of up to 75 watts, which the Trininty PCX 5750 cannot reach. The board is equipped with 128 MB of video memory with 128-bit access, typed in eight DDR chips from Samsung in an outdated TSOP-type package. The memory has an access time of 3.6 nanoseconds and is designed to operate at a frequency of 275 (550) MHz, in fact, its frequency is only 250 (500)

MHz, since some Trinity PCX 5750 cards can be equipped with cheaper memory from Hynix with an access time of 4 nanoseconds. The graphics processor of the described product operates at a frequency of 425 MHz.

Albatron Trinity PCX 5750: Noise, acceleration and 2D quality

The card could not boast of absolute silence – the small fan made a noise that was easily distinguishable against the background of other noises emitted by the working test system, however, there was no annoying whistle, as in the case of the PowerColor X600 XT. Thus, the noise characteristics of the Trinity PCX 5750 can be considered gentle on the user’s ears.

The overclocking turned out to be excellent – at the nominal frequencies of 425/250 (500) MHz, the card worked steadily at 540/300 (600) MHz! In terms of VPU frequency, the video adapter surpassed all other NVIDIA products, including the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra with its 500 MHz. The relatively low memory overclocking is easily explained by the simplified PCB design, as well as the use of chips in outdated TSOP packaging with relatively high access times by today’s standards. Nevertheless, 300 (600) MHz should be considered an excellent result for memory with a nominal frequency of 275 (550) MHz.

2D quality turned out to be no worse than in the case of the PowerColor X600 XT – normal picture quality was provided in all modes, including 1600x1200x75 Hz. However, at present, the chances of encountering poor 2D quality are relatively low – manufacturers, for the most part, care about this.

Testbed configuration and test methods

We tested the performance of the two above-described products on a platform with the following configuration:

Intel Pentium 4 560 (Socket 775, 3.60GHz, 1MB L2 cache);
Intel Desktop Board D925CXC;
1GB DDR2 PC2-4300 (533MHz) SDRAM (Micron Technology, 2x512MB);
Samsung SpinPoint SP0812C (Serial ATA-150, 8MB buffer);
Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2;
Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2, DirectX 9.0с;
ATI CATALYST 4.8, NVIDIA ForceWare 61.77.

In this case, the following list of gaming and synthetic tests was used:

3D first-person shooters:

Call of Duty;
Doom III;
Unreal Tournament 2004;
Halo: Combat Evolved;
FarCry;
Painkiller;
Counter Strike: Source Beta
Highly Anticipated DX9 Game 1;
Highly Anticipated DX9 Game 2.


3D shooters with a third person view:

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow;
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time;
Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne.


Simulators:

IL-2 Sturmovik: Aces in the Sky;
Lock On;
Colin McRae Rally 04.


Strategies:

Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour;
Perimeter.


Semi-synthetic tests:

Aquamark3.


Synthetic tests:

Futuremark 3DMark03 build 340.

In each specific case, the graphics quality was adjusted to the highest possible level, the same for solutions from ATI Technologies and NVIDIA. The exception was the three-dimensional shooter Doom III – in it we used the Medium Quality mode recommended by id Software for mid-range video adapters with 128 MB of on-board memory. Trilinear and anisotropic filtering optimizations have also been enabled in the NVIDIA ForceWare driver. Since the video adapters described are of the middle class, we decided not to publish non-playable results obtained in some particularly demanding games.

Read This Now:   Review and testing of the AMD Radeon R7 370 video card: Test | Specs | CPU | Config

Game tests: Call of Duty

The very first diagram shows what the experiments of PowerColor with clock frequencies have brought about – the lag behind the reference RADEON X600 XT is very significant; moreover, there is a lag behind the original RADEON X600 PRO! However, this does not prevent PowerColor X600 XT from outperforming Trinity PCX 5750.

With FSAA enabled and anisotropic filtering, a somewhat atypical picture is observed – Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 takes the lead. among the test participants. However, this is just the beginning – let’s see how things are in more complex and modern games.

Game tests: Doom III

In this game, we used only the first two resolutions and refused to enable anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, since the game is extremely demanding on the PC video subsystem.

As you can see, no video adapter provides the minimum playable FPS values, however, the reference ATI RADEON X600 XT shows the closest result to them. There is nothing to say about the resolution of 1280×1024 – none of the test participants was able to overcome the barrier of 20 frames per second.

The d3dm4 level is simpler – there are no battles with monsters, since it is intended for multiplayer battles, so three video adapters at once demonstrate more or less decent results in it – the overclocked PowerColor X600 XT, the overclocked Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 and the original RADEON X600 XT. They also dominate in the 1280×1024 resolution, although it is no longer possible to play normally in it. After all, Doom III is not a game for mid-range hardware; she prefers powerful GPUs, massive amounts of RAM, and fast CPUs.

Game tests: Unreal Tournament 2004


The outsider here is Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, and only overclocking helps it keep up with the overclocked RADEON X600 XT.

As for the Eye Candy mode, the Albatron card demonstrates the best results in two out of three resolutions in it, and when overclocked it almost catches up with the original RADEON X600 XT.

We see almost the same at the Metallurgy level, despite the fact that this level is simpler than Torlan.

When tested at the same level, but with full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, PowerColor’s experiments with clock frequencies again played a cruel joke with its product – the card from Albatron easily showed comparable results, and even took the lead in 1600×1200 resolution. This, to some extent, was helped by the specificity of the level – closed spaces and complex geometry, which the fast vertex processors Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 handle so well.

Game Tests: Halo: Combat Evolved

We decided not to publish the results obtained in this game at 1600×1200, since all video adapters showed less than 15 FPS in it.

This shooter is also on par – the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 demonstrates almost the same results as the PowerColor X600 XT. The latter, of course, is better at handling pixel shaders, of which there are a lot in this game, but the greatly underestimated VPU clock frequency prevents it from showing itself.

Game tests: Far Cry

In principle, we had no doubts about who would win Far Cry – the game prefers cards that can work quickly with pixel shaders, and in our case, these were various versions of the RADEON X600. However, due to the low frequency of the GPU, the PowerColor X600 XT performed the worst among these cards in the nominal mode. The alignment of forces is retained even when anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled at the same time.

The same situation is observed at the Regulator level, except that the difference between the PowerColor product and the original RADEON X600 XT is much smaller here. Albatron’s card remained in last place, which is quite natural, given the GeForce FX architecture and the Far Cry engine, which is extremely rich in shader special effects.

Game Tests: Painkiller

Painkiller is one of the few games that feels comfortable in almost any environment; thanks to a well-written engine, it demonstrates quite playable results even on the slowest modern video adapters. Because of this, we can safely publish the results obtained in all resolutions and modes.

And again the last place is taken by Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, the first is rightfully divided between the reference RADEON X600 XT and the overclocked PowerColor X600 XT. Pay attention – all cards in all resolutions easily provide an acceptable level of playability, however, at the same time, the game is by no means primitive – its levels are beautiful and complex, and shader special effects are used everywhere.

With FSAA and AF enabled, acceptable playability remains up to 1600×1200, where only two cards managed to reach the 30 FPS barrier – the original RADEON X600 XT and the overclocked PowerColor product. However, Painkiller is a rare combination of beauty and undemandingness.

Game tests: Counter-Strike: Source Beta

The main competition is between different RADEON X600 models; The PowerColor X600 XT shows the worst results at nominal frequencies, which is not surprising. When overclocked, it goes on a par with ATI’s RADEON X600 XT and even slightly outperforms it. As for the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, it shows completely uncompetitive results, despite the fact that it works in DirectX 8.0 mode.

Exactly the same picture is observed when using the second demo recording we made in this game.

Game tests: Next Generation DirectX 9 Game 1

In the first of the preliminary versions of the next generation games that we use to test video adapters, the situation is almost the same as in the case of CS: Source Beta – cards equipped with graphics processors from ATI Technologies are in the lead.

The diagrams do not need comments – everything said for the Seafloor level fully applies to the Under Two level.

Game tests: Next Generation DirectX 9 Game 2


The second game of the new generation , which we use in our reviews, on the contrary, prefers cards operating at high frequencies and having fast geometry processors. As a result, Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 takes the lead by a wide margin.

However, when FSAA and anisotropic filtering are enabled, it lacks fast memory and the ability to work effectively with it, and the Albatron product is somewhat inferior to its rival PowerColor X600 XT in the first two resolutions from three.

Everything said about the situation at the Danger level is also true for the Escape level – here the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 also rules the ball.

But in the Eye Candy mode the situation is somewhat different compared to the Danger level – here the two rivals are on par in all three resolutions.

Game tests: Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow

The game actively uses a variety of special effects created using pixel shaders, so there is nothing surprising in the results – cards using the X600 GPU are ahead again. However, the overclocking of Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 allows it to come close to the performance of its competitor operating at nominal frequencies, and even outrun it in 1600×1200 resolution.

Game tests: Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

PowerColor X600 XT and Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 demonstrate practically the same FPS values ​​while working at nominal frequencies, while overclocked the PowerColor card goes far ahead.

Game tests: Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

In pure performance mode, the PowerColor X600 XT is slightly ahead of the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, while the overclocked PowerColor product has no equal at all.

A classic case – when FSAA and AF were enabled at the same time, the increased load on the memory subsystem made ATI Tecchnologies’ VPU-based cards take the lead. The first place still belongs to the overclocked PowerColor X600 XT.

Game tests: IL-2 Sturmovik: Aces in the Sky

In this case, we decided to limit ourselves to the first two resolutions of the Pure Speed ​​mode, since even in them the performance demonstrated by the test participants is extremely low.

Different variants of RADEON X600 XT surely win in this simulator, but among them PowerColor X600 XT takes the last place when we talk about nominal VPU and memory frequencies. He easily takes the first, if you resort to overclocking. Once again, the bewilderment arises – why did PowerColor reduce the GPU frequency of its product so much?

Game tests: Lock On: Modern Air Cobmat


Lock On is a game that is also extremely demanding on the video adapter, but less simple than the latest version of the Il-2 Sturmovik. In this game, the heroes of our review are on a par, but when overclocked, the PowerColor X600 XT naturally leads, since its memory is overclocked much better than the outdated and slow memory of the opponent. With FSAA enabled and anisotropic filtering enabled, the Albatron card lags behind the PowerColor X600 XT in the nominal mode. In this case, she manages to equalize the score only with overclocking.

Game Tests: Colin McRae Rally 04

Since Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 uses the GeForce FX architecture, one of the main drawbacks of which is low performance when executing pixel shaders, the results obtained are not surprising – the card lags behind all competitors.

Read This Now:   Geforce GTX 1050 vs 1050 Ti GPU: Hashrate | Best Coins| Specs| Overclocking

With full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering of the highest quality enabled, the situation is somewhat evened out – the cards from Albatron and PowerColor show almost the same results. Yet the level of performance demonstrated by the overclocked PowerColor X600 XT remains unattainable.

Game tests: Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour

The PowerColor X600 XT is only slightly ahead of the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 and is inferior to the original ATI RADEON X600 XT, which is not surprising given the greatly understated GPU frequency. Overclocking once again allows the PowerColor card to take the lead.

In Eye Candy mode, the situation is similar, with the only exception that the gap between the PowerColor XT and the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 is significantly wider.

Game Tests: Perimeter

None of the cards provide even the minimum acceptable FPS, but cards with VPU RADEON X600 onboard show the best results.

Semi-synthetic tests: Aquamark3

Aquamark3 turns out to be one of the few tests in which, apart from overclocking, the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 wins. This is explained by the fact that the performance in this benchmark is primarily affected by the high scene fill rate and the fast operation of geometry processors. If we overclock both tested cards, then the PowerColor X600 XT again comes forward.

When the load increases, the Albatron product feels much less confident and falls into the last place, but all possible representatives of the RADEON X600 family are at their best. The performance of the PowerColor X600 XT roughly matches the performance of the ATI RADEON X600 PRO.

Synthetic tests: Futuremark 3DMark03

If you look only at the general 3DMark03 results, it is clear that the slowest card in our review is the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, and the fastest is the overclocked PowerColor X600 XT. But the total number of points says little, so let’s take a look at the results of specific game tests.

Despite the simplicity of the first game test, the lowest result is again demonstrated by the Albatron product, while the PowerColor X600 XT is confidently keeping up with the RADEON X600 PRO. When FSAA and anisotropic filtering are enabled, Trinity PCX 5750 starts slightly outperforming the PowerColor card.

In the second game test, the Albatron’s card demonstrates approximately the same performance as the PowerColor product, however, with FSAA enabled and anisotropic filtering, Trinity PCX 5750 comes out ahead.

In the third test, the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 unexpectedly slows down and lags behind even the PowerColor X600 XT operating at the frequencies set by the manufacturer, which is somewhat unexpected considering the suitability of the architectures developed by NVIDIA for the second and third 3DMark03 tests. However, the influence of slow memory could have affected here. In Eye Candy mode, however, the Albatron manages to get ahead.

As expected, the PowerColor X600 XT became the winner in the fourth gaming test, since it uses complex pixel shaders 2.0, which it handles more efficiently than the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750.

conclusions

It is not difficult to draw a conclusion on this review. The only point where the PowerColor X600 XT video adapter loses to the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 is its appearance; the latter looks much more aesthetically pleasing, but it is inferior to its rival in almost all other parameters, from the outdated GeForce FX architecture, ineffective in modern conditions, and slow memory in TSOP packaging, to the poor bundle, which even lacks a DVI-I-> D adapter -Sub. As for performance, there is no need for verbosity in this matter – just look at the pivot chart:

The results speak for themselves – in almost all tests the Albatron card lags behind the PowerColor product or, more rarely, goes on a par with it, for example, in Doom III.
The only exception is the preliminary version of the second game of the new generation, where the absence of pixel shaders and complex scene geometry allow Trinity PCX 5750 to become the undisputed leader. Overclocking the PowerColor X600 XT leaves no chances for the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 at all, since it easily achieves the performance level of the reference RADEON X600 XT, represented in our diagram by the bright orange line.

Albatron’s case is somewhat better at 1024×768, when full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled at the same time, however, on average, PowerColor X600 XT is still the winner.


In the case of the PowerColor product, the extremely low frequency of the graphics processor is perplexing, despite the fact that the card is made using the reference design and is easily capable of operating at the frequencies rated for the RADEON X600 XT – 500/365 (730) MHz. If the manufacturer set out to create an inexpensive product, then he would undoubtedly use a simplified design, or at least equip his product with slower and, accordingly, cheaper memory.

However, this did not happen – the PowerColor X600 XT was built using a reference design of the PCB and equipped with fast memory in FBGA packaging with an access time of 2.5 nanoseconds, as it should be for a full-fledged RADEON X600 XT. Nevertheless, the frequency of the graphics processor in this case has been reduced from 500 to 350 MHz, which in some cases leads to a lag behind the RADEON X600 PRO.

However, the card still easily reaches the nominal frequencies for the RADEON X600 XT, demonstrating the corresponding performance. Another unpleasant thing is that the box in which the PowerColor X600 XT is shipped to retail does not mention any understated frequencies, which is unfair to a buyer who wants to buy a full-fledged RADEON X600 XT and can lead to various misunderstandings.

As for the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, we have before us a beautiful, high-quality product, the time of which, alas, has passed. Considering the imminent appearance of the much more progressive GeForce 6600 line on store shelves, the purchase of a video adapter with the GeForce FX architecture, designed for installation on the PCI Express platform, looks at least a hasty decision. As shown by our testing in gaming applications, the GeForce 6600 will be able to offer future owners a much higher level of performance, as well as support for Shader Model 3.0.

PowerColor X600 XT vs. Albatron Trinity: pros and cons


PowerColor X600 XT

Достоинства:

PCB reference design
Fast memory
Good overclocking potential
Good bundle
High quality 2D

Flaws:

Strange cooling system
High noise level
Strongly underestimated VPU frequency

Albatron Trinity PCX 5750

Достоинства:

Nice appearance
Good overclocking potential
High quality 2D

Flaws:

Outdated architecture
Poor performance when executing pixel shaders
Slow memory in TSOP packaging
Poor bundle

Conclusion

If we touch upon the question of prices for the aforementioned products, then, according to Pricewatch.com, the PowerColor X600 XT will have to pay about $ 190, which is too much for a card with understated frequencies. As you probably remember, the recommended price of the GeForce 6600 GT is $ 199, which is only slightly more than the price of the PowerColor product, while the GeForce 6600 GT has incomparably higher performance. Moreover, the appearance of a cheaper GeForce 6600 is not far off, which also surpasses in performance even the original RADEON X600 XT, not to mention the PowerColor X600 XT. Such a high price does not allow us to recommend the Power Color X600 XT for purchase, given a number of disadvantages inherent in this video adapter. However, it may be of some interest for overclockers-enthusiasts, but even here one should not forget about the high price.

As for the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, its price, according to the same search engine, is about $ 133, which is more acceptable than the cost of the PowerColor product. However, the card uses the outdated GeForce FX architecture, which makes it unsuitable for use in modern games. The excellent overclocking potential, again, may interest overclockers, but, otherwise, the purchase of this product, in our opinion, is unjustified in light of the imminent appearance of the GeForce 6600 on store shelves.

Summing up, we can say that we have before us – two good video adapters of the mainstream class with good overclocking potential, designed for the PCI Express platform. They may well suit the current owners of such a platform, or those who are about to buy a PC based on it, not wanting to spend large sums on purchasing a GeForce 6800 GT or RADEON X800 XT / PRO with a PCI Express interface. All the rest who are going to switch to a new platform in the near future, we recommend waiting for the GeForce 6600/6600 GT to appear on sale. With the appearance of these new products, the prices for video adapters belonging to the RADEON X600 and GeForce PCX families will begin to fall, which will make them much more attractive purchases for buyers with limited budget.


Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (1) in /home/gamefeve/bitcoinminershashrate.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5373

Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (1) in /home/gamefeve/bitcoinminershashrate.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5373