Budget Battle: HyperMemory vs. TurboCache
[First Page]
Introduction
Affordable, full featured cards have been long in coming from ATI and NVIDIA. With the HyperMemory and TurboCache cards, we are finally able to recommend a budget card that can absolutely play the latest games with all the eye candy developers built in. The tradeoff we have to make for the lower price is resolution and filtering options, but we no longer need to sacrifice effects or realism and are rewarded with the immersive experience modern games are able to deliver at a reasonable price.
For those who have experienced huge resolutions with AA and AF enabled, it would be very hard to go back to playing games at an aliased 800x600 with no filtering. On the upside, casual computer users who may not have any real gaming experience now have a cost effective way to add DX9 level graphics to their next computer upgrade.
Another major upside of the current landscape is that when the bear minimum in graphics cards supports DX9 level graphics, the minimum requirements of games will shift up to the DX9 level. Designing for DX9 at the outset will change the way game developers approach their work. This is really the excuse we need to see gaming experiences jump up to the next level.
In this look at ATI's HyperMemory and NVIDIA's TurboCache parts, we will be trying to determine which card is the best value for the money. Something we also want to learn is whether the cheapest budget card can still hold its own, and whether the most expensive card we test is worth the price difference.
We have already written about the technology behind TurboCache, today we talk about HyperMemory and concentrate on what these products are actually able to deliver.
.........
[Last Page]
Final Round
What everything comes down to is the price. We are seeing the TurboCache parts coming in at between $59 and $80 for the range of cards we tested here. While it isn't as widely available yet, the ATI HyperMemroy parts are coming in at between $53 and $75. It is absolutely important to realize that we tested the cheapest of the X300 HyperMemory cards here - the 32MB onboard model. With this card coming in at under $60, there is no reason to choose the 16MB TC part over the ATI solution unless vendors can get the prices down near $50.
The 128MB onboard X300 HyperMemory part should perform significantly better than what we are seeing here, and we suspect the price point puts it in good competition with the higher end TurboCache parts. But we will have to wait until we have hardware for testing before we can confirm this suspicion. Regardless, the small price difference for the extra 96MB of onboard RAM makes the more expensive ATI part a very interesting option.
We really can't see much reason to recommend the 64MB TurboCache part. Unless one of the vendors comes out with a solution that runs the memory at 700MHz or more, there's really no advantage to the 32MB onboard part (in fact, there is a disadvantage at the speeds we tested). We really can't see any reason for the most expensive part we tested to cost as much as it does.
For well rounded performance, the 32MB 64-bit TurboCache part is our pick. Of course, that may change when we look at the 128MB HyperMemory card depending on performance and price at the time.
Business customers who want some added 3D functionality and possibly the ability to play games at the absolute lowest cost will not be disappointed with the 32MB onbaord ATI X300 SE HyperMemory solution. If the budget it tight, this is definitely a workable part.
For those who will be buying in volume, even a single dollar counts in the grand scheme of things. With the low prices of these cards, we can expect a lot of competition between vendors in the high volume market. It will take quite a lot for NVIDIA and ATI to build up enough steam to surpass Intel in the graphics solution volume department, but perhaps upcoming integrated graphics solutions from ATI and NVIDIA will be as compelling as these parts show value products can be.
[RANK="www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2413"]Read the complete review here[/RANK]
[First Page]
Introduction
Affordable, full featured cards have been long in coming from ATI and NVIDIA. With the HyperMemory and TurboCache cards, we are finally able to recommend a budget card that can absolutely play the latest games with all the eye candy developers built in. The tradeoff we have to make for the lower price is resolution and filtering options, but we no longer need to sacrifice effects or realism and are rewarded with the immersive experience modern games are able to deliver at a reasonable price.
For those who have experienced huge resolutions with AA and AF enabled, it would be very hard to go back to playing games at an aliased 800x600 with no filtering. On the upside, casual computer users who may not have any real gaming experience now have a cost effective way to add DX9 level graphics to their next computer upgrade.
Another major upside of the current landscape is that when the bear minimum in graphics cards supports DX9 level graphics, the minimum requirements of games will shift up to the DX9 level. Designing for DX9 at the outset will change the way game developers approach their work. This is really the excuse we need to see gaming experiences jump up to the next level.
In this look at ATI's HyperMemory and NVIDIA's TurboCache parts, we will be trying to determine which card is the best value for the money. Something we also want to learn is whether the cheapest budget card can still hold its own, and whether the most expensive card we test is worth the price difference.
We have already written about the technology behind TurboCache, today we talk about HyperMemory and concentrate on what these products are actually able to deliver.
.........
[Last Page]
Final Round
What everything comes down to is the price. We are seeing the TurboCache parts coming in at between $59 and $80 for the range of cards we tested here. While it isn't as widely available yet, the ATI HyperMemroy parts are coming in at between $53 and $75. It is absolutely important to realize that we tested the cheapest of the X300 HyperMemory cards here - the 32MB onboard model. With this card coming in at under $60, there is no reason to choose the 16MB TC part over the ATI solution unless vendors can get the prices down near $50.
The 128MB onboard X300 HyperMemory part should perform significantly better than what we are seeing here, and we suspect the price point puts it in good competition with the higher end TurboCache parts. But we will have to wait until we have hardware for testing before we can confirm this suspicion. Regardless, the small price difference for the extra 96MB of onboard RAM makes the more expensive ATI part a very interesting option.
We really can't see much reason to recommend the 64MB TurboCache part. Unless one of the vendors comes out with a solution that runs the memory at 700MHz or more, there's really no advantage to the 32MB onboard part (in fact, there is a disadvantage at the speeds we tested). We really can't see any reason for the most expensive part we tested to cost as much as it does.
For well rounded performance, the 32MB 64-bit TurboCache part is our pick. Of course, that may change when we look at the 128MB HyperMemory card depending on performance and price at the time.
Business customers who want some added 3D functionality and possibly the ability to play games at the absolute lowest cost will not be disappointed with the 32MB onbaord ATI X300 SE HyperMemory solution. If the budget it tight, this is definitely a workable part.
For those who will be buying in volume, even a single dollar counts in the grand scheme of things. With the low prices of these cards, we can expect a lot of competition between vendors in the high volume market. It will take quite a lot for NVIDIA and ATI to build up enough steam to surpass Intel in the graphics solution volume department, but perhaps upcoming integrated graphics solutions from ATI and NVIDIA will be as compelling as these parts show value products can be.
[RANK="www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2413"]Read the complete review here[/RANK]
