ATI Radeon X1300 PRO

The ATI Radeon X1300 PRO is a legacy entry-level graphics card from AMD, built on the 90 nm process node at UMC and featuring the RV516 chip with the Ultra-Threaded SE architecture. It belongs to the Radeon R500 PCIe generation, succeeding the Radeon R400 and preceding the Radeon R600, and is now end-of-life. With a modest 105 million transistors on a 100 mm² die, this card targets basic 3D acceleration and multimedia tasks from its 2006 release era, though its benchmark data shows no recorded scores and a neutral 50th percentile standing among all GPUs.

Who Should Consider It

The X1300 PRO is not designed for modern gaming or demanding workloads; its hardware profile suggests it was aimed at office PCs, media centers, or budget builds of its time. Given the absence of benchmark scores, the data cannot support any resolution or settings-based recommendation for contemporary titles. However, its specifications indicate it could handle older DirectX 9.0c applications at low resolutions and minimal detail settings, likely 800x600 or 1024x768, where its 2.400 GPixel/s pixel rate and 2.400 GTexel/s texture rate would not be immediately overwhelmed.

For users with legacy software that relies on DirectX 9.0c or OpenGL 2.1, this card offers basic functional support, but no Vulkan compatibility means it is locked out of modern API-based titles. The 256 MB DDR2 memory and 128-bit bus width limit effective performance to low-resolution textures and simple scenes; high-resolution gaming or multi-monitor setups are out of reach. The card's single-slot design and lack of display outputs—the fact pack lists "No outputs"—suggest it was intended as an OEM part or for systems where the motherboard provided video output, making it unsuitable even for basic display tasks without additional hardware.

The 50th percentile ranking, combined with zero benchmark scores, indicates that this card performs at a level indistinguishable from the median of all GPUs ever cataloged, but without actual data, its practical capabilities remain speculative. Users should consider this card only for retro computing, hardware collection, or testing legacy drivers in a controlled environment—not for any performance-oriented purpose.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The X1300 PRO has no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as these technologies were not part of the Ultra-Threaded SE architecture. The API support is limited to DirectX 9.0c (shader model 9_3) and OpenGL 2.1, with no Vulkan support listed. This means the card cannot accelerate any form of ray-traced effects, which require hardware features absent from this silicon. The absence of tensor cores also precludes any AI-accelerated features like DLSS or similar upscaling technologies.

The feature set is anchored in the mid-2000s: 4 texture mapping units and 4 render output units, which are the building blocks for traditional rasterization. The pixel rate of 2.400 GPixel/s and texture rate of 2.400 GTexel/s are identical, suggesting a balanced design for its era, but they fall far short of anything needed for modern visual effects. The DirectX 9.0c support is the highest API level available, meaning the card cannot run games that require DirectX 10 or later, which became standard after 2006. OpenGL 2.1 similarly limits compatibility with newer OpenGL-based applications.

For users who prioritize ray tracing or advanced shading features, this card offers nothing—no hardware acceleration, no API support, and no software fallback that would make such features practical. The data clearly indicates a product frozen in time, incapable of executing the workloads that modern GPUs handle with dedicated silicon.

Memory Subsystem

The memory configuration consists of 256 MB of DDR2 VRAM on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s. The memory clock runs at 400 MHz, with an effective data rate of 800 Mbps. This bandwidth figure is a critical bottleneck: at 1080p resolution, modern games require tens of gigabytes per second to stream textures and geometry, and even at lower resolutions, the 12.80 GB/s would saturate quickly with any complex scene.

The 256 MB capacity is another limiting factor. High-resolution textures in contemporary games easily exceed this amount, forcing the card to spill over into system memory via PCIe 1.0 x16, which itself is an older, slower interface. The 128-bit bus width, while standard for entry-level cards of its generation, halves the potential bandwidth compared to 256-bit designs, and the DDR2 type lacks the efficiency of later GDDR3 or GDDR5 memory. For high resolutions like 1440p or 4K, the memory subsystem is wholly inadequate—the card would struggle to even store a frame buffer for such outputs, let alone process textures.

The data shows a balanced but minimal memory design: 256 MB was entry-level even in 2006, and 12.80 GB/s is a fraction of what even low-end modern cards offer. The effective 800 Mbps data rate per pin is typical of DDR2 but does not compensate for the narrow bus. Users should interpret this as a hard limit for any resolution above 1024x768, and even at that resolution, texture-heavy scenes will cause stuttering or dropped frames.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals field is empty, meaning the FACT PACK provides no direct comparison data for this card. Without rival names, scores, or deltaPct values, any positional analysis is impossible from the given facts. The 50th percentile vs all GPUs suggests a median performance level, but this is unanchored—there is no reference point to say whether it is 10% faster or slower than any specific competitor. The lack of benchmark scores compounds this: the card has a zero average benchmark score, which may indicate no tested workloads or a failure to complete any benchmarks.

In the absence of rival data, the only meaningful comparison is against the broader GPU landscape: the 50th percentile places it exactly in the middle of all GPUs ever cataloged, but this is a statistical artifact rather than a performance statement. The fact that it has no successors listed among its nearest rivals suggests it was a low-volume or OEM-only product, further isolating it from comparative analysis. The data implies a card that was not competitive even at launch, though without rival scores, this remains an inference from its specifications rather than a measured fact.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum DirectX version supported?

A: The card supports DirectX 9.0c (shader model 9_3), which is the highest API level listed in the fact pack.

Q: Does this card support Vulkan?

A: No, the fact pack lists Vulkan as null, meaning no Vulkan support is available.

Q: How much VRAM does the X1300 PRO have?

A: It has 256 MB of DDR2 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption?

A: The TDP is 31 W, with a suggested PSU of 200 W and no power connectors required.

Q: What display outputs does it have?

A: The fact pack states "No outputs," so the card cannot connect to any display directly.

Q: When was this card released?

A: The release date is 2006-10-31, and it is now end-of-life.

Power and Cooling

The X1300 PRO has a thermal design power of 31 W, which is extremely low by modern standards. This modest power draw means cooling requirements are minimal—the card is single-slot and requires no auxiliary power connectors, drawing all its power from the PCIe 1.0 x16 slot itself. The suggested PSU is 200 W, a figure that any modern power supply easily exceeds, but this recommendation reflects the era's low-power systems rather than any high-current demand from the card.

The lack of power connectors simplifies installation in legacy systems, but the 31 W TDP also indicates a very limited electrical budget for performance. The single-slot design means no extra cooling shroud or heatsink mass, relying on passive or low-speed fan solutions typical of entry-level cards. The cooling solution is unspecified in the fact pack, but the power envelope suggests a small heatsink with or without a fan would suffice.

For users considering this card in a modern system, the power requirements are non-issues—any PSU above 200 W will handle it, and the PCIe slot provides sufficient power. However, the absence of display outputs means the card cannot function as a primary video output without additional hardware, and the 31 W TDP is a testament to its limited processing capability. The data shows a card designed to sip power, not to deliver performance, and its cooling needs are correspondingly trivial.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data for the X1300 PRO is starkly empty: the benchmarks array is empty, the average benchmark score is 0, and the nearestRivals list is empty. This means there are no measured performance figures to analyze, no percentage deltas to compute, and no rival scores to compare against. The 50th percentile vs all GPUs is the only statistical anchor, but without a distribution of scores, this percentile is meaningless—it could represent a single entry or a wide spread of performance.

What the specifications suggest is a card that would score poorly in any modern benchmark. The 2.400 GPixel/s pixel rate and 2.400 GTexel/s texture rate are fixed hardware limits, and the 12.80 GB/s bandwidth constrains data throughput. In a hypothetical test against any modern GPU, the X1300 PRO would be orders of magnitude slower, but the fact pack provides no such data to quantify this. The zero average score might indicate that no benchmark was successfully run, or that the card fails to meet minimum requirements for testing.

The absence of rival data prevents any percentage-based analysis. Unlike other pages where deltaPct values show a card is 30% ahead or behind a competitor, this page offers no such comparisons. The user is left with raw specifications and a neutral percentile, which is insufficient for any performance conclusion. The data implies a card that was never meaningfully benchmarked in the database, possibly due to its age, obscurity, or lack of display outputs preventing test execution. As such, any performance interpretation must rely solely on the hardware specs, which point to a very low-end device suitable only for the simplest 3D tasks from its 2006 era.