The Right Graphics Card for Your Need

Remember the good old days when a game like Pacman was a rage? Games have

come a long way since then. Graphics cards manufacturers have been working

closely with game developers and coming out with increasingly powerful GPUs. So

much so that today you can buy graphics cards that are so poweful that the

characters in a game you play on them will appear life-like. Nowadays new GPUs

are being released at a very rapid pace. Owing to this, the market is flooded

with all sorts of graphics cards that are based on different GPUs. The problem

is compounded by the fact that there are only a handful of GPU manufacturers

(you can count them on your fingers), but the graphics cards manufacturers that

use them are many. So you'll find different brands of graphics cards based on

the same GPU. Some will over-clock their cards, while others will provide better

cooling solutions, and still others will bundle lots of goodies like popular

game titles. All this makes it very difficult to decide what to choose. To help

you decide, we managed to get 90 graphics cards from different vendors. We

evaluated them and categorized them to make it easy for you to choose the right

one. But before we get into the reviews of those cards, we'll give you a few

pointers on what to look for when buying a graphics card.

DirectX 10 support



This is the era of DirectX 10 and unified architecture. The move toward

unified architecture is co-related to the development of DirectX 10. The prime

aim behind DirectX 10 is to improve the ease of programming and allow designers

to easily implement enhanced graphics effects and more. DirectX 10 brings along

with it Shader Model 4, with some additions such as instructions for integer and

bitwise calculations, and the debut of the Geometry Shader. DirectX 10 reduces

the load on the CPU by taking up more of the rendering processes. The Geometry

Shader allows better manipulation of vertex and other objects. This means more

than one way to access, process, and move data. All these new manipulations

enable developers to add new features into games and utilize GPUs for more than

just rendering a scene. If you want to utilize the full potential of Windows

Vista and also want to play the latest games on floor, you'll need a graphics

card that supports DirectX 10. Such cards are available in the budget range as

well, and although their gaming performance is nothing to boast of, they're

mainly meant to play HD content and provide good Vista experience. So today, you

should not settle for a graphics card that doesn't support DirectX 10.

How important is RAM?



RAM constitutes a vital part in a GPU. We noticed that some of the cheaper

cards with lesser RAM underperformed compared to ones with higher RAM.

Generally, budget range cards use DDR (double data rate) or DDR2 memory, running

at around 400 to 800 MHz. As you move up the ladder, you'll find cards with DDR3

or DDR4 memory running at much higher speeds. Faster RAM increases memory

bandwidth, hence information can be loaded and offloaded much faster. In entry

level or budget cards, you'll not find much of a performance difference between

256 and 512 MB of video memory. Gamers however need to go for cards with higher

video memory.

Types of cooling solutions



Heat is the biggest enemy of a graphics card, because it reduces the

performance. If you've ever scouted around for a graphics card, you would have

noticed huge pieces of metal or fans stuck to them. These are meant to keep the

cards cool. While testing so many graphics cards, we found some differences

between the various cooling solutions they shipped with. Asus, for instance, was

the only one that had a card, the 8800GTX, with a liquid cooling solution. Asus

calls it 'Aqua tank,' and has patented it. It keeps the card cool, which

directly translates to better performance. We've also found some cards having

what's known as a Zalman fan. This provides better cooling than ordinary fans.

Plus, it spins only when the card is being stressed, meaning more power saving.

We've found Zalman fans mostly in mid-range cards. The other kind of cooling

solution is a heatsink. This is usually made of aluminum fins, which dissipate

heat very fast, thereby keeping the card cool. We've not found too much of a

difference between the different heat sinks of cards we tested. One thing that

you should check is which side of the card is the heat sink attached on. It

could create a problem if it's attached behind the GPU. Motherboards with a

single PCI-Express slot usually have the slot very close to the CPU. Such a

graphics card will not fit on this motherboard. If a motherboard has two PCI-Express

slots, then it will fit in the one further to the CPU, and render the second one

completely useless.

Over-clocked or not?



Over-clocking is very common amongst gamers. However, over-clocking has its

ups and downs. Though it helps you increase the performance of the card by a few

notches, the flip side is that this results in excessive heat generation. So

it's always essential to keep the cooling solution in mind before thinking about

over-clocking. There are vendors who provide 'factory over-clocked cards,' ie,

over-clock the card in their own factory before shipping it in the market. It

surely gives them an edge over other cards in terms of performance, but they

cost a little more. There are several free software available that help

over-clock your card without much fuss. RivaTuner is a common over-clocking

software used by many gamers. However, if you are an occasional gamer and aren't

bothered much about the fps score, then you can do away with over-clocking.

Features to look for



Today's GPU is not just about gaming, there are several other elements to

it. Be it an entry level card or a high end card, each one is packed with

features that will out do the other. Features like HDMI support, HDCP support,

Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD are all packed with the GPU to provide a much better High

Definition Digital viewing experience. Be it NVIDIA's PureVideo technology or

ATI's Unified Video Decoding, the race to provide enhanced digital viewing

experience to the consumer is on. You will find cards with HDMI output ports

enabling you to connect your HDMI capable LCD with your card. Now with such high

end features you need not look any further for enhanced HD viewing experience;

get the latest cards onto your system and you have all the required features for

a pleasant HD viewing experience.

Price variation



Most often you'll find the same chipset from either NVIDIA or ATI sold at

different prices by different vendors. That's primarily because of the packaging

and not because of quality. Some vendors ship the card with DVD full version

games, some improve the cooling solution, some over-clock the card, and hence

the same chipset is sold at various prices by different vendors. So it's

important to identify your need first before taking the buying decision. If

you're an occasional gamer, then you won't really need an over-clocked card.

SLI or CrossFire?



If you are a pro-gamer, then you would be tempted to use two cards in tandem

and leverage the maximum benefit out of it, that's the power of SLI or CrossFire.

The use of such technology is very common among top end gamers and not meant for

occasional gamers. Right from the budget range to the high end almost all cards

have native SLI or CrossFire support these days. Many workstation class people

prefer this technology for multitasking; they can connect several LCD monitors

to the card and run various apps. Even gamers love this as they can connect

multiple monitors via these cards and enhance their gaming experience. But then

for this you need to dish out the cost of two cards.

How we tested



We tested the cards on a number of parameters: Performance, Features, and

Price. All tests were performed at 1024x1028, 1280x1024, and 1350x768

resolutions. We kept the tests constant for all ranges, though in our final

assessment we changed the scoring as per category. For example, in our

calculation model for extreme and high end cards we gave more weightage to the

scores for 3D Mark06, FEAR, Company of Heroes, BIOSHOCK, and Doom3, and less to

Vista performance and its gaming scores. For entry level or budget range cards,

the score weightage pattern was changed and complex games were given less

weightage than the Vista score. The games used for the benchmark were FEAR,

Company of Heroes, BIOSHOCK, Doom 3 along with 3D Mark06, with its features

option turned 'on.'

Card categories



With prices varying heavily across cards, we had a tough time classifying

them. However, based on our experience and user needs, we classified them as

follows:



Sub 4,000- Entry Level


4,001—10,000-Budget range


10,001— 20,000-Mid range


20,001—30,000- High-end


30,001 & above-Extreme gaming

The test bed



Throughout the shootout we kept identical test beds for a particular

category to maintain consistency. To test Extreme, High-end, and Mid-range

gaming cards, we used a system with Intel Core 2 Extreme processor(x6800)

running at 2.93 GHz with 2 GB DDR2 RAM, along with 120 GB Seagate SATA HDD (7200

rpm) on an Intel Desktop Board (D875XBX). For the entry level and budget gaming

cards, we used an AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core 6400+ processor (Black Edition)

running at 3.2 GHz having 1 GB DDR2 RAM and 120 GB Seagate SATA HDD (7200 rpm)

on an ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard.

In the following pages we discuss the performance of each card and the

winners for respective categories.

Rahul Sah and Saurangshu Kanunjna with help from Suman Guha

Budget cards

This segment of cards is targeted at those who want to have some features to

enhance their graphics experience and be able to play some games. So, these

cards suit the needs of occasional gamers and gaming enthusiasts. In our

shootout, this segment had the highest number of cards (34) and most of them

were from nVidia (a total of 23). Price of these cards range between 4-10k, but

ASUS 2600XT despite being priced higher than 10k was placed in this segment as

its main competition is with nVidia 8600GT series cards.

3D Mark06 and Vista score



These budget range cards provide a better experience of both Vista and

gaming than normal. Obviously, the 3D Mark scores were not as impressive as

high-end cards, but were much better than the entry-level cards. In this

segment, Palit 8600GT Sonic+ was the leader with a 3D Marks score of 5438. While

ASUS 2600XT and ATI 2600XT followed with scores of 5160 and 5090, respectively.

For Vista, the leaders were the 2600XT series cards. They gave a score of 5.

Surprisingly though nVidia's 7900GS series cards from MSI and Zebronics also

managed an



overall Vista experience score of 5. For Vista gaming score the leaders again
were 7900GS cards, as they clocked a score of 5.7.

F.E.A.R



The cards in this segment are not capable of rendering graphics for a game

like FEAR. So, we tested them on a relatively lower resolution of 1024 x 768.

Zebronics 7900GS scored 85, which is decent for a card in this series. The 512

MB RAM that this card has, might be the reason of this. Palit 860GT Sonic+ with

a score of 80 closely followed it up.

ATI 2600XT 512 MB

Company Of Heroes



The game's in-built benchmark stresses the card to a good limit and the

performers that emerged after this test were again from the 7900GS series of

cards from MSI and Zebronics. They scored 54 and 55, respectively. Cards like

MSI 1650XT EZ having given a decent performance score of 60 fps in F.E.A.R went

down here in Company of Heroes to give a moderate score of 33.

Doom 3



Here, Palit 8600GT Sonic+ made a come back with a score of 60.1 fps. The

cards supporting DirectX 9 got a chance here to show their performance

potential. MSI's 7600GS and 7900GS scored 57 and 58, respectively. The 2600XT

series cards also clocked a frame rate of about 59 fps. Whereas 8500GT series

cards scored low for Doom 3, despite being DirectX 10 supporting card.

BioShock



In this DirectX 10 game, the ASUS 8600GT showed its supremacy with a score

of 56.2 fps and was closely followed by another ASUS 8600GT Silent, that showed

a frame rate of 54.8 fps. Whereas 2600XT series cards from ATI and ASUS gave a

score of 52. Other cards in this segment showed varied results and were not in

contention with these high scoring cards.

Palit Geforce 8500GT Sonic 256 MB

The winner



This segment had a wide variety of cards and all gave different performance.

In some tests the DirectX 9 cards excelled ahead of the DirectX 10 cards. While

considering features DirectX 10 support and SLI/Crossfire readiness were also

looked at besides HDCP and HDMI support. HDCP and HDMI are important to

experience HD movies. DirectX 10 is the next 'in' thing and most games are

moving toward that. Therefore, the card proving support for that scored extra.

Editor's choice



On the basis of overall score ATI 2600XT came out as a clear winner. It

scored the maximum in features, where it was met only by ASUS 2600XT. Palit

8600GT Sonic+ scored slightly better in performance against this ATI 2600XT and

was equaled by Asus 2600XT. But ATI 2600XT won because ASUS was priced higher.

Palit 8600GT sonic+ 256MB

Lab's recommended



This segment again showed a tie for the second position. Palit 8600GT Sonic+

and Palit 8500GT Sonic both managed to score equally. While Palit 8600GT Sonic+

topped the budget segment with its performance score, the other one scored in

price.

Best priced



In this segment, performance is not that crucial and you can trade it for

price. If you have a tight budget and still want a feature-rich card, then

better opt for Palit 8500GT, as it's the lowest priced, yet workable. Unlike

Palit 8600GT Sonic+, which is based on nVidia 8600GT chipset, this one is based

on 8500GT chipset. The difference is well reflected in the performance. Anyway,

choice is yours.

Mid-range cards

This category is for pro-gamers, who are inclined toward high-end

gaming but have budget restriction and want value for money. Again, NVIDIA

clearly out numbers ATI in the number of participants. Mid-range primarily had

8600GTS cards along with some 7-series cards from NVIDIA and only one 1900 XT

from ATI. We included Foxconn 8600 GTS in this category even though it costs

less than 10K, as it is based on the 8600 GTS chipset and deserved a slot here.

3D Mark 06 and Vista score



Significant variations were noticed in 3D Mark scores-MSI NX7950 top scored

with 8293 3DMarks. None even came close to such a high score, and this could

well be attributed toward its dual GPU feature. The second in the lot was Asus

8600 GTS Top which was marginally ahead of MSI NX7900GTX and MSI RX1900XT.

Interestingly, the DirectX 9 card performed better than the DirectX 10

counterpart. In Vista, all gave a score of 5 when it came to overall Vista Score

but MSI RX1900XT and Sapphire X1950 Pro gave a Vista gaming score of 5.8

compared to 5.6 achieved by all others. This clearly indicates that this range

of cards possesses good Vista capability.

F.E.A.R



We were not surprised that DirectX 9 cards fared well in this test, with MSI

NX7950 leading, followed by MSI RS 1900XT and Sapphire X1950 Pro. If you monitor

closely, all the 8600 GTS cards performed in close proximity to each other and

there was hardly any significant difference between them, though they lag behind

the DirectX 9 cards in this game. As we move toward the DirectX 10 games, the

performance of the DirectX 9 cards was found wanting under certain conditions.

XFX 8600GTS

Company of Heroes



This DirectX 10 game made the life of the DirectX 9 cards a little difficult

with its high intensive graphics scenario. The top performer in the above two

tests, MSI NX7950 fell short of its standard in this game and could barely

manage an average fps of 23. The other 8600 GTS series cards scored very similar

to each other, with XFX 8600 GTS leading by a small margin and closely followed

by Zebronics 8600 GTS. Other cards also scored around 40 fps and weren't far

behind.

Doom 3



This test again provided the opportunity for the DirectX 9 cards to gain

their supremacy over DirectX 10 cards. MSI NX7950 top scored with a score of 60

fps, which is significantly higher than what we got from the DirectX 10 cards.

The only DirectX 9 card which couldn't make a mark of its own was MSI NX

7900GTX. Among the DirectX 10 cards, the scores were on the lower side.

ASUS EN8600GTS Silent

BioShock



The most challenging DirectX 10 game witnessed good performance from all the

cards. Almost all cards ticked around the score of 40 fps (avg) in this game,

which goes to prove that this range of card will allow you to play the most

enthralling game of current generation. The DirectX 9 card also showed decent

performance in this test. Zebronics 8600 GTS performed the best in this test

followed by Asus EN8600 GTS TOP.

The verdict



This is another category where we had a tough call when it came to deciding

the winner. All cards were evenly matched. Even the DirectX 9 card proved to be

a strong contender for the top slot. While considering features, apart from HDCP

support, cooling and the games bundle, we also looked into the DirectX factor.

As we move toward DirectX 10 it's important to have a card with DirectX 10

capability, so the DirectX 9 cards gain less points than DirectX 10 cards.

Editor's choice



XFX 8600GTS (256 MB) is the Editor's choice for this category. In terms of

performance Zebronics 8600 GTS was better owing to its higher RAM, but was

costlier and hence lost out to XFX 8600 GTS. In fact there was hardly any

difference between the two and since they are based on the same 8600 GTS

chipset, so there wasn't any significant difference in scores. Since both had

similar features, price was the only factor that gave XFX 8600 GTS got an edge

over others.

Zebronics nVidia 8600GTS

Labs recommended



There is a tie here for the second spot between Zebronics 8600 GTS and ASUS

8600 GTS Silent. If Zebronics 8800 GTS performed well out of the box, ASUS 8600

GTS Silent was rich on features. Zebronics 8800 GTS comes with 512 MB RAM and

hence higher scores in performance. ASUS 8600 GTS Silent also performed well but

scored in features, mainly because of the heat sink rather than fan which

reduces the noise and helps keep the card cool under stressful conditions. As

far as price goes there is hardly any difference between the two as both cost

around 14K.

High-end cards

This category is for those with serious gaming intentions and

slightly restricted budget. The entire category mainly had NVIDIA 8800 GTS cards

with one ATI 2900XT card. ATI was clearly outdone in numbers of cards by NVIDIA,

but thanks to its strong performance and excellent features, it came out as the

dark horse in this race.

3D Mark06 and Vista score



Unlike extreme gaming, in this range, we did notice a significant difference

of score when we compared the top scorer with other cards. ATI 2900XT the

surprise pack in the lot, managed a top score of 10706 3D Marks, followed by MSI

NX8800 GTS and Leadtek 8800 GTS. In Vista all of them gave an overall Vista

experience score of 5 and Vista gaming score of 5.9, which is extremely high.

Though ATI Radeon 2900XT was able to hold on the top position throughout, some

of the other cards lost it when some real challenge was thrown upon them.

F.E.A.R



This game is feared by all cards because of its high intensity and

graphically challenging scenario. The surprise element in this test was MSI

NX8800 GTS, which out of no where topped under the four defined conditions of

the game, closely followed by ATI Radeon 2900XT. All other cards performed in

close proximity. We were a bit surprised to see a 320 MB RAM 8800 GTS scoring

well above the 640 MB RAM ones. So, we cross-checked it, a couple of times and

got similar results. But hold yourself from drawing any conclusions now, as the

assault continues.

ATI HD2900XT512 MB

Company of Heroes



This game helped us to identify the man amongst the boys. The challenge

thrown by this graphics intensive game was most efficiently tackled by ATI

Radeon 2900 XT, which maintained its supremacy over the others. Leadtek 8800GTS

with 640 MB RAM along with ASUS 8800GTS were in close proximity to each other,

but we noticed that with the increase in resolution, ASUS 8800GTS had a more

significant fps drop than Leadtek. The interesting observation was the fact that

MSI 8800 GTS which performed so well in F.E.A.R couldn't live up to the

expectation in this test.

Doom 3



Interestingly, all cards performed similarly in Doom 3, with no one

particularly showing any extraordinary frame rates. All scored in and around 60

fps, though two cards which couldn't survive this test were ASUS 8800 GTS (320

MB) and Leadtek Winfast PX8800GTS (320 MB). They could hardly manage a score of

39 fps, given any resolution. This could be attributed toward their lower RAM.

BioShock



In Bioshock, across all ranges, we noticed that the main drop in frame rates

was at 1280x1024 resolution. Here also, we noticed a similar trend. At 1024x768

all performed similarly with a score of 60 fps (avg), but as we increased the

resolution some got throttled under stress. The one which maintained its

supremacy was once again ATI Radeon 2900 XT. It was equally matched by XFX 8800

GTS (640MB). All the other cards scored around 50 fps (avg), which is a good

score for this game.

XFX 8800GTS 640 MB

The verdict



For this category we didn't have to scratch our head as much as we did for

the Extreme range as ATI Radeon 2900XT comprehensively top-scored in terms of

price, performance and features. For features, we considered essential elements,

like HDCP support, HDMI support, and game bundle. Though, cooling was not as

essential as all of them used fans for cooling. Warranty was also not a

differentiating factor, as all the cards had a warranty of 3 years.

Editor's choice



ATI Radeon 2900XT came up as the dark horse in the race. The only

participant from ATI, in this category, outperformed all other cards in our

performance tests. Being the only card with HDMI support, it's also got a thin

edge over others, in terms of features. Even though it is the second costliest

card in the lot, the edge in performance and features helped it attain the top

spot with an overall score of 92 (out of 100). It's a perfect option for

pro-gamers, both in terms of performance and features.

Lab's recommended



Leadtek 8800 GTS (640 MB) emerged as the second best card in this category,

in terms of price, performance and features. Though for performance Asus 8800

GTS and XFX 8800 GTS (640 MB) were slightly better than this card, but when you

take into account the fact that this card ships with two games and is among the

most affordable cards in the lot, it surely makes it a good buy. Even if you see

the overall scores, there is very little to choose between this one and the ASUS

8800 GTS or XFX 8800 GTS (640 MB), the difference of 1 or 2 points can be

overlooked.

Leadtek Winfast PX8800GTS 640MB

Extreme gaming

This segment belongs to the game maniacs, for whom money is secondary and

performance is a priority. NVIDIA rules the roost in this segment with no ATI

cards to give them any competition. In fact, the Extreme Gaming category gave us

a very tough time choosing the best among the lot. There is hardly any

performance difference between these cards and feature wise also they are

similar. Only major difference is on the price point, which is not a very big

concern for this segment of buyers. Hence if you see the final score you will

clearly notice that there is hardly anything to choose between these cards.

3D Mark06 and Vista score



We expected to see some noticeable difference in 3D Mark06, but there was

hardly any. The two cards that topped the score were XFX Ultra and Galaxy Ultra

with scores of 11814 and 11812 respectively. Asus 8800GTX Aquatank wasn't far

behind with a score of 11738 followed by XFX 8800 GTX and Asus 8800GTX. XFX

Ultra had the highest core clock speed among the lot followed by Asus 8800GTX

Aqua Tank, which eventually attributed toward their high score in all the tests.

In Vista all scored a whopping 5.9 in Vista Gaming score and gave a score of 5

for over all Vista experience, which is excellent.

Asus EN 8800GTX Aquatank

F.E.A.R



We trusted F.E.A.R to bring some relief for us in indentifying the best card

from the lot, but it also couldn't help us, as the performance difference even

at high resolution with both AA (Anti-Aliasing) and AF (Anisotropic Filtering)

at maximum was not significant. Clearly a difference of only 14 fps between the

top scorer and the lowest scorer doesn't indicate supremacy of any card over the

other. This was the trend that was noticed in all the game tests we ran. The

highest scorer in F.E.A.R was achieved again by XFX Ultra (average of 130 fps)

followed by Galaxy Ultra (average of 128 fps).

Company of Heroes



One of the most graphically challenging games of the current generation,

Company of Heroes was bound to stress these monstrous cards to its optimum

limit. Again very little to judge from the scores at different resolutions, but

one surprise was that Asus 8800GTX Aquatank top scored with an average of 159.9

fps at 1024x768 resolution but when we increased the resolution to 1360x768

(widescreen) it couldn't maintain its top position and XFX Ultra regained the

top spot.

Doom 3



We were a little disappointed with the score of Doom 3 in this range. We

expected all the cards to score very heavily but all gave an average of 60 fps,

which is a low score for this range of card. We believe the bottleneck was not

with the card, but with the settings as the frame rate was locked at 60 fps so

we could not get anything beyond 60 fps score. As Doom 3 continues to be one of

the most important benchmark to stress any card, we carried on with the score we

got from it.

XFX 8800 Ultra

BioShock



Undoubtedly among the most stressful and graphically demanding game of the

current generation, BioShock can stress any card to its premium limit. With

high-quality physics and geometry level, this DirectX 10 game didn't have any

in-game benchmark, so we used FRAP to calculate the fps at various resolutions.

The only issue was with the frame locked at 60 fps, nothing beyond that can be

achieved without tweaking or using cracks to unlock the frame. One interesting

observation in BioShock was that as we increased the resolution from 1024x768 to

1280x1024 we did notice fps dropping but much to our surprise at 1360x768

(widescreen) the fps again increased instead of dropping further. All the cards

performed at par with each other and the result difference was not significant

to draw any conclusion.

The verdict



All the cards were evenly matched and there was little to separate them in

terms of performance or features. Since all of them were based on the same 8800

GTX chipset with the same amount of RAM, so the performance results were very

close to each other. We generally decide on the winner based on price,

performance, and features. In features we included HDCP, cooling, and game

bundle as the major deciding factor. HDCP had its presence in all the cards and

hence was not a critical parameter. All the cards came with 3 years warranty and

hence warranty didn't play an important role in determining the winner.

Editor's choice



Asus 8800GTX Aquatank is the complete winning package, be it performance or

features. Though it is the most expensive card of the lot, with its strong

performance, attributed by higher core clock speed and an excellent cooling

solution, it deserves the top spot. Asus bundle their card with 2 games compared

to one by XFX and none by Galaxy. It helped Asus score more on features.

Performance was just marginally behind XFX Ultra and performed at par with

Galaxy Ultra. With an overall score of 97 (out of 100) this great performer

comes with an excellent cooling solution and is worth dishing out a few extra

bucks for.

Labs recommended



XFX 8800 Ultra is the performance king in this category. It topped all game

and benchmark scores and a performance score of 100 (out of 100) clearly

indicates its supremacy over others. Even though Galaxy 8800 Ultra is also a

tempting option mainly because of its affordable price point and value for

money, XFX Ultra will any day be a better performer, thanks to its higher core

clock speed.

If top performance is your only requirement, XFX Ultra will suffice your

needs.

Entry-level cards

This segment is for those users who want to boost their onboard

graphics accelerator or for those whose motherboard is devoid of that. With the

emergence of Blu-ray and HD quality movies, users now have a new movie-viewing

experience. But today very few motherboards having onboard graphics accelerator

are capable of rendering such high definition image quality. So, a graphics card

will enable a user to experience the full potential of high quality movies. This

category comprised of nVidia's 7300, 7200 and 8400 cards and from ATI there were

cards from 1550 and 2400 series.

3D Mark 06 and Vista score



As these were low-end cards the 3D Marks score were not as high as with

other categories. Here the leader was Palit 2400XT with 1805, followed closely

by GeCube 2400XT scoring 1767 and Galaxy 8400GS managing a score of 1690. As 3D

Mark 06 contains a lot of graphics intensive tests, some cards were not even

able to cross 1000. The Vista scores for overall experience varied between 3.3

and 3.5, which is good and implies that you can harness full Vista experience

along with Aero. The GeCube 2400XT being the only one to score 3.5. For Vista

gaming, the same card lead with a score of 4.5, while others managed with a

gaming score of 4.4.

F.E.A.R



For a graphics intensive game like F.E.A.R. we tested these cards at a

resolution of 1024 x 768 only. Again Palit and GeCube with their 2400XT cards

lead the show with scores of 26 fps each. With 512MB RAM, XFX 8400GS, Sapphire

1550 and GeCube 1550 Pro were able to score at 23 fps. Similarly, other cards of

8400 series scored between 21-23 fps, while 7200 and 7300 series cards had given

a frame rate of around 21.

Palit HD2400XT

Company of Heroes



This being a DirectX 10 game, many cards fumbled here as they only support

DirectX 9. Though 8400 and 2400 series cards gave better performance with scores

exceeding 15, these were the only cards that support DirectX 10. Other cards

obtained scores ranging from 11 to 13. The leader again was Palit 2400XT that

gave a performance of 16.2. Here also the performance was tested at 1024 x 768.

Doom 3



The graphics cards were put to some real stress by Doom. So, for entry level

cards high scores were not expected. Palit 2400XT emerged winner again with 23.1

fps, while XFX and Galaxy's 8400GS cards were not far behind at 22.5 fps. MSI

7300LE gave good performance as it has 128 MB RAM and is able to fetch a frame

rate of 21.2. The tests were not done at higher resolutions as an increased

resolution would make frame rendering choppy and result in a poor gaming

experience.

BioShock



No surprises as Palit 2400XT excelled again, followed closely by Zebronics

8400GS. Palit clocked a frame rate of 14 at 1024 x 768 resolution. The Zebronics

8400GS didn't lag much and gave 13 fps. For other cards, the frame rate was not

very high, hovering between 8 to 11 fps. This is because these cards could not

render the graphics that the game demands.

Galaxy Geforce 8400GS

The verdict



As this is the price specific category the weightage for price was highest.

For features and performance, weightage was equally distributed. For

performance, major emphasis was given to Vista scores, followed by equal

weightages to other game scores. For features we looked at HDCP and HDMI

compliance and the DirectX 10 support available with these cards. The cards that

were SLI/Crossfire ready were also given extra points for features. We received

90 cards and majority of them were into entry-level and budget range categories.

In the detailed scorecard we could provide scores for 75 cards only and the

missing 15 fall mainly in this category. . However, all of the cards were tested

and a few noticeable performers amongst them are Galaxy 7300LE, Point of View's

7200GS and Galaxy (BiG) 8400GS. The GeCube 1550 and 1550 PRO cards boast of 1 GB

Hyper Memory. Their onboard memory was 256 and 512 MB respectively and so they

access the remaining memory from your system's RAM.

XFX 8400GS

Editor's choice



Two cards finished first in this category: Palit 2400 XT and Galaxy 8400 GS.

The former is priced at Rs 3,990 and is both HDCP and HDMI compliant, while the

latter is priced at Rs 3,000 and supports HDCP and DirectX 10. Palit belongs to

ATI 2400 series and also supports DirectX 10, the reason why it performed so

well in Company of Heroes. Its price, features and performance make it a worthy

winner in the Entry Level



category. Though Galaxy matched the performance but with a lower price it
equalled Palit in overall score.

Labs recommended



XFX 8400GS lagged behind on features and performance than the winners but

pricewise it is cheaper than both. As this is a price conscious segment where

performance doesn't matter much, this is a good choice.

For detailed score sheet of all GPUs with price,

performance and features-click

here