MSI X1650 PRO 256MB - Review Feedback.

[dany]

Review


Post your feed back, for the following review, over here.

[farhan]

Nice thorough job onda review man, good going.

and i must say nice observation about the heat dissipation issue onda rams. that cud be an issue for the cards performance or shud i say under performance.

[Noobie]

This card has come wayy after 7600GS and is still slower than 7600GS... although image quality of X1xxx chips is better but thats not the point when you are just getting nothing better than a fast slide slow even on 1280x1024 setting and no AA and AF ( i m just assuming it as you have not mentioned it anywhere).

Overall i think the card is unduly highly rated.

[dany]

The problem is not the performance, you can add some twice the money and get an X1950 Pro. The main fact is that the card is cheaper than a common 7600GS and brings more technologies under the hood, that i categorically mentioned out quite a few times. So not every thing gets points based on the performance. If you are shelling out 6k... what more can you expect.
So Price/Performance ratio is a considerable factor.

[Ice Man]

personally dany i think u gave the card .5 extra marks, just my opinion, reason being that its not future proof, buying it now, and 6-8months down the road it won't really run the games like u'd want it to run. well im no guru, thats u, so think abt it and reply
nice review,

[dany]

Every other mid-ranged card on the market would be obsolete, but they will remain a value to a certain segment. Remember the days of an fx5200 and the mx440s. They did quite well in a massive segment.
The thing of appeal is that the presence of all technologies in a single core, and the ability to overclock. I think those points stand out aloud and hence earn the card the award, though I have reconsidered the review points and updated them as per the performance point of view. But still my concrete thinking is that we should look at the price/performance ratio and what features the card brings on the table. This is definitely not a high end card and points are bound to vary on personal opinions and interests.

[Ice Man]

okay by no means did i want you to take down your score to 7, but as i said that was just my personaly opinion, honestly for me any card earning an 8.5 or more rating would be like a MUST HAVE thing, maybe you get what i mean, but just giving it a score below that 8.5 benchmark makes it an almost must have thing and therefore a very good buy for those with a tight budget.
i had no objections against the award, and i never even mentionned that, heck if it overclocks like crazy then it deserves the award.

as this is your review and your opinion without any prejudice therefore you should give the card a score that you think it deserves, that way all your reviews and ratings will have the same standard.

^^my two cents peace

ps. mind telling me what you edited in my post?

[dany]

lolz... it was a mistake ... i was editing mine and accidentally started writing in yours

[Thyhammerr]

neat review..



Regards,
Thyhammerr

[Noobie]

Originally Posted by dany

The problem is not the performance, you can add some twice the money and get an X1950 Pro. The main fact is that the card is cheaper than a common 7600GS and brings more technologies under the hood, that i categorically mentioned out quite a few times. So not every thing gets points based on the performance. If you are shelling out 6k... what more can you expect.
So Price/Performance ratio is a considerable factor.

I checked the prices of 7600GS and X1650Pro. on galaxy computer.. and i found that X1650Pro is for 8000/- and 7600GS is starting from 7100/-. i didn't find the latest prices on the nofal computer site...
Secondly overclocking should have a very very less points.. i am saying based on the point made my by the anandtech's review in one of his post..

My personal experience is that if the boards maximum overclock is around 50%, long-term you will find that you will have to decrease the overclock in order to maintain stability. I have a couple systems that ran great with a 50% (sometimes more) overclock initially, and then a few months later I had to drop the overclock down to more like 40%. I even have one system now that I can hardly overclock at all, where is it used to hit a 30% overclock without difficulty.

Definitely there are other features in X1650Pro... but there isn;t enough horse power to fully use those features even in today's games.

Anyway still nice work overall

[dany]

well, we are all entitled to our opinions, but if i was given a choice between the 7600GS and the X1650pro... i would go for the latter 9 times out of 10. You just have to see the image quality produced by the card as compared to the 7600GS. Also note the resolutions that i tested out the card with. Just to show that even the least expensive of the cards can perform at a playable rate on higher resolutions.

[j@iDi]

I agree with Dany, and would like to add a bit further that this card is not meant for hardcore gamers, who like to crank up the IQ as high as possible. The majority of the gamers consists of the casual type, who prefers to stick with resolutions as high as 1024x768 with No AA/AF. With that in mind, i think this card has better value than a 7600GS, mainly due to the reasons:

1. Cheaper than other competing x1650 PRO cards

2. Avivo Technology (absolutely amazing and provides way better picture quality on HD videos & movies than any geforce card out there, the CPU usage is substantially lower than any 6xxx, 7xxx or 8 series card). Something HTPC users will simply love to have in their setups when watching movies or vidoes on their HDTV's/LCD's/Monitors.

3. Not even the highest end card is future proof in the PC industry. With the ever-evolving technologies in the PC industry, a product is already outdated once it gets shipped outside a store. Everyone has to take chances with what they can get, since not everyone can shell out 30k for a high end card.

4. The main + point for buying this card should've been it's ability for playing HD content without any interruptions/hindrances, and it's gaming performance should've been given 2ndary importance. That way the rating would be justified, as indicated by Iceman.

Overall, it's a job well done, since reviewing is not an easy job as one imagines .