ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT

The ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT is a single-slot, end-of-life graphics card from AMD, built on the R430 chip using a 110 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 160 million transistors on a 240 mm² die, with a transistor density of 666.7K per mm². The card targets a niche segment where multimedia capture and playback are as important as 3D rendering, and its benchmark percentile of 50 places it exactly at the midpoint of all GPUs tracked in the database.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data for the ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT is sparse, with no individual scores recorded and an average benchmark score of zero. However, the percentile ranking of 50 out of all GPUs indicates that the card sits at the median of the performance spectrum—neither a top-tier contender nor a bottom-feeder. This position aligns with its architectural heritage: the R400 architecture, while capable in its era, lacks the raw throughput of later designs.

The pixel rate of 3.184 GPixel/s and texture rate of 3.184 GTexel/s are identical, suggesting a balanced design where each of the 8 texture mapping units and 8 raster output units operates at the same clock. The memory clock runs at 492 MHz, yielding 984 Mbps effective, which is modest by modern standards. Without specific rival scores or delta percentages, the quantitative comparison must rely on the percentile field alone. Being at the 50th percentile means the card outperforms roughly half of all GPUs in the database, but the lack of a concrete average score makes granular deltas impossible to state.

The card’s DirectX 9.0b (9_2) support is a key limitation. This API level predates many advanced shading features, and benchmark results for modern workloads would not reflect the card’s strengths. The absence of Vulkan support further restricts its applicability to contemporary titles. In essence, the data indicates a card that was mid-pack at its release, but its age and API constraints mean it cannot compete with even entry-level modern hardware.

Who Should Consider It

Given the 128 MB VRAM capacity and 128-bit memory bus, the ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT is not suited for high-resolution gaming. The 15.74 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolutions in older titles, but it will struggle with texture-heavy scenes at higher settings. Benchmark results, though absent numerically, would logically show playable frame rates only in DirectX 9.0b-era games from its release period. The card’s 50th percentile rank suggests it could handle medium detail levels at those resolutions, but not maxed-out settings.

Users who might consider this card are those seeking a functional display adapter with a built-in TV tuner and video capture capabilities—the All-In-Wonder branding implies such features, though specifics are not in the fact pack. The single DVI output limits multi-monitor setups, and the PCIe 1.0 x16 interface, while functional, offers lower bandwidth than later revisions. Power requirements are minimal, with no additional power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, making it suitable for low-power builds. However, for gaming, the card is best suited to retro or indie titles that do not demand modern API features.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. These hardware units, which accelerate real-time ray tracing and AI-based upscaling, are absent entirely from this architecture. The R400 design predates any such dedicated silicon, so any ray tracing workload would fall entirely on the shader units, which are not optimized for that task. The card’s API support includes DirectX 9.0b (9_2) and OpenGL 2.1, but no Vulkan. This means the card cannot run any modern ray-traced effects, as those require DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan with ray tracing extensions.

The feature set is further constrained by the lack of modern shading capabilities. The pixel and texture rates of 3.184 GPixel/s and 3.184 GTexel/s, respectively, indicate a fixed-function pipeline that lacks the flexibility of unified shaders. This makes the card unsuitable for any workload involving compute shaders, tessellation, or geometry shaders—all of which are standard in contemporary APIs. For users interested in the All-In-Wonder’s multimedia features, the absence of modern API support does not hinder video playback or capture, but it severely limits 3D application compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Does the ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT support ray tracing?

A: No. The card has no ray tracing cores, and its API support (DirectX 9.0b and OpenGL 2.1) does not include any ray tracing extensions. Hardware-accelerated ray tracing is impossible on this architecture.

Q: What is the maximum memory bandwidth of this card?

A: The memory bandwidth is 15.74 GB/s, derived from a 128 MB GDDR3 memory pool on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 492 MHz (984 Mbps effective).

Q: Can this card run modern games at high resolutions?

A: No. The 128 MB VRAM and 15.74 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for high-resolution textures or modern game engines. The 50th percentile rank suggests it can handle older titles at low to medium settings, but not contemporary releases.

Q: What power supply is recommended for this card?

A: The suggested PSU is 200 W, and the card requires no additional power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot.

Q: Does the card have tensor cores for AI workloads?

A: No. The ATI All-In-Wonder X800 GT has no tensor cores, and its R400 architecture does not support any form of AI acceleration.

Q: What display output does the card provide?

A: The card has a single DVI output, which limits it to one digital display connection.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals array is empty, so no direct rival comparisons can be made with exact scores or delta percentages. The percentile of 50 places the card exactly at the median of the database, meaning it is neither ahead nor behind the average GPU. In the absence of specific rival data, the card’s position is defined solely by this percentile. A card at the 50th percentile would outperform half of all tracked GPUs, but those outperformed GPUs are likely from the same era or lower-tier. The lack of any recorded benchmark score (average score of 0) further complicates direct comparison, as no quantitative metric exists to contrast with rivals.

The 110 nm process and 160 million transistors suggest a mid-range design for its time, but without rival names or scores, the analysis must remain qualitative. The card’s single-slot design and lack of power connectors position it as a low-power option, which could be an advantage in compact systems. However, the 128 MB VRAM and 128-bit bus are clear bottlenecks compared to any card with larger memory pools or wider buses. In summary, the data shows a card that is exactly average in the database, but its dated architecture and API limitations make it unsuitable for any modern comparison.

Memory Subsystem

The memory subsystem consists of 128 MB of GDDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The memory clock is 492 MHz, which translates to 984 Mbps effective due to double data rate operation. This configuration yields a bandwidth of 15.74 GB/s. For its release era, GDDR3 was a reasonable choice, but the capacity and bus width are severely limiting by current standards. The 128 MB capacity means texture datasets must be heavily compressed or streamed from system memory, which is not possible over PCIe 1.0 x16 at sufficient speed for modern games.

The bandwidth of 15.74 GB/s is a bottleneck for any resolution above 1280x1024, where texture fetch demands can exceed this rate. At lower resolutions, the card can operate within its limits, but the lack of memory headroom means stuttering in scenes with dynamic geometry or large textures. The pixel rate of 3.184 GPixel/s and texture rate of 3.184 GTexel/s are also tied to this memory bandwidth; the card cannot exceed these rates regardless of shader workload. For high-resolution gaming, the memory subsystem would need at least double the capacity and bandwidth, but the fact pack provides no such alternative. The 128-bit bus is narrow, and the effective speed of 984 Mbps is low, but these numbers align with a card designed for 2004-era gaming at 1024x768. In practical terms, the memory subsystem is the primary constraint on this card’s performance, and benchmark results, if available, would likely show a steep drop-off when texture resolution exceeds the VRAM capacity.