1024 NAA - Results (In FPS)	Minimum	Average	Maximum
Asus Extreme AX800XL:	35	48.62	77
HIS x1650 Pro:	33	46.92	79

    The results here favor the x800 by a slight margin (3.5%) but a real difference.  Both cards can easily be considered playable at this setting, at least for me they are.  The graphs are very similar between the cards apart from the result at the 3 second mark.  Lets turn up the quality settings to see what will happen.

1024 AA - Results (In FPS)	Minimum	Average	Maximum
Asus Extreme AX800XL:	28	40.16	77
HIS x1650 Pro:	26	37.18	66
HIS x1650 Pro 658/760MHz::	27	38.35	68

    Here the results mirror the previous test, though the difference is higher (8%) between the two cards.  The overall results drop by 8-9fps on average by turning on the higher quality settings.  Overclocking the video card gains about 3% faster average frame rate compared to stock speeds.  Again I would personally find this adaquate to play for my own gaming, but I am not a die hard gamer so your results may well vary, though the graph is fairly smooth in this case.

1600 NAA - Results (In FPS)	Minimum	Average	Maximum
Asus Extreme AX800XL:	28	41.95	77
HIS x1650 Pro:	24	33.66	58

    Here is perhaps where the raw fill rate and bandwidth abilities of the x800XL make a very marked difference.  It is about 25% faster than the x1650 or in real numbers, about 8fps on average, a noticeable difference to many gamers.  The x800XL would get my nod as playable, with the x1650 being right on the edge of my comfort zone for myself.  The graphs are fairly identical apart from the fact that the x1650 graph is consistently 6fps lower than the x800XL.

1600 AA - Results (In FPS)	Minimum	Average	Maximum
Asus Extreme AX800XL:	20	26.42	44
HIS x1650 Pro:	16	21.52	34
HIS x1650 Pro 658/760MHz::	17	22.97	35

    This resolution and quality setting brings both cards to their knees, as neither one is what I'd consider playable.  Again the x800XL gives an extra 22% improvement over the stock speeds of the x1650, while overclocking the x1650 gives you almost a 7% increase (1.5fps) over stock speeds.  Again the graphs here a very flat but the average frame rate doesn't allow a playable gaming experience in this case.  Lets see what other games do with this newer card.

Game Tests - F.E.A.R.

    Next is F.E.A.R, a fps that offers a high quality gaming experience, with the added enjoyment of 'bullet time'.  The game itself isn't that interesting to me, but the engine offers some higher graphical quality so lets see what it does to our test cards.

    Lastly we will look at Half Life 2: Lost Coast, which was a the forefront of the HDR experience, in fact this level is really an HDR tester.  Most of the features from this made it directly to Episode 1, so performance should be very similar between these two games.  Lets see the results.

    One last test we ran has to do with ATi's AVIVO video, a feature found only only on the x1K series of video cards.  So I ran a few HD videos, some 720p and one 1080p video on my computer to see the respective CPU loads.  As a note the CPU had Hyperthreading enabled, and the desktop resolution was 1600*1200 for all but the 1080p video where the resolution was 1800*1440 the maximum of my monitor.  We used a 720p x264 video, a 720p WMV (Flight), and the same WMV video but in 1080p.  So lets see if AVIVO does anything to lessen the CPU load.

Conclusion

    HIS has provided us with one of the newest cards on the market, due to their being a ATi partner, but did this card have what it takes to be a market leader in its segment?

    First the box and its contents.  The box itself catches your eye and the plastic window allows you to see the card, and its cooling fan without having to take it out of the box.  The contents are a good mix, the software is better than some in the video/image editing area, though without a video-in this is a slightly odd inclusion.  Games were mainly missing, but most bundles aren't anything to write home about, as long as everything else gains from the money saved there. 

    The video card itself is dominated by the IceQ cooler, which although big isn't at all heavy in comparison to some other video cards.  Cooling was well taken care of with that cooler as well as the ramsinks.  This allowed the card to keep cooler than many other cards I've looked at, while still keeping very quiet in overclocked operation.  Overclocking wasn't anything to write home about but there was a increase that we were able to find out of this card.

    2D quality is something that ATi and its partners can be very proud of, as it is among the best I've ever seen.  Game results were a mixed bag, though for the most part it kept up with the x800XL an older but higher end card.  The 1600*1200 results in Serious Sam 2 and the 1024*768 NAA F.E.A.R results were the exception where the x800XL beat the x1650 by a wide (~20%) margin.  However if you play Half Life 2 or any of its newer variants I would definitely recommend the x1650 over the x800XL as it beats it from 11%-70%.  Overall unless you play Half Life 2 a fair amount you would find it and the x800XL good for playing at most of the same resolutions.

    Price is always a factor in buying a video card, at this time I couldn't find any direct pricing for this card, but it should be around the price of the older x1600XT which is basically the same unit which goes for about $130(US).  Considering the price of the x800XL is still in the $250(US) range, if you can find this card for around the same price as the x1600XT and you don't need 1600*1200 gaming, but want a very solid Media Center based card, then this is a very good idea for you.  If the price is too much above that $150(US) mark I would go with a x1600XT with similar features which should be cheaper.  As a bonus, if you have a CrossFire capable board you can get a second one later for increased performance in most games.  I would like to thank HIS for providing this card for us to review.

Any questions or comments on this or other articles here at Viperlair can be addressed in our Forums.

HOME