ATI Radeon X600 XT

The ATI Radeon X600 XT is an end-of-life graphics card from AMD, built around the RV380 chip and the R300 architecture. It belongs to the Radeon R300 (X600) generation, and TSMC fabricated it on a 130 nm process. The die holds 75 million transistors across a 92 mm² area, with a transistor density of 815.2K per mm². The database places the card at the 50th percentile among all tracked GPUs, but no individual benchmark scores are recorded.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark array for the X600 XT is empty, and the aggregate average benchmark score is 0. That absence means there is no direct synthetic or game-score data to quote. What remains is a positional signal: the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. A 50th-percentile placement is a median position, not a leading or trailing one, but without rival deltas it cannot be translated into a percentage advantage over a specific product.

The closest available performance measures are the pixel and texture rates. The card outputs 2.000 GPixel/s and 2.000 GTexel/s, using 4 texture mapping units and 4 render output units. Those rates are exact and modest. They describe a GPU that can process a fixed amount of pixel and texture work per second, and that amount is small relative to what higher-end parts can manage. The absence of nearestRivals entries compounds the issue: there are no named comparison points and no deltaPct values in the database. Consequently, any statement like “x% faster than a rival” is unsupported by the data.

The 25 W TDP, the single-slot design, and the lack of auxiliary power connectors all point to a deliberately constrained performance envelope. None of those are benchmark scores, but they inform how the 50th percentile should be read: this is a card whose database position is centered, while its actual throughput is limited by its fixed-function configuration.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The X600 XT is built on the R300 architecture and exposes a DirectX 9.0 and OpenGL 2.0 feature set. Vulkan support is not listed, and the RT core and tensor core fields are null. That combination indicates a GPU without dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware. No ray tracing accelerator units are present in the stated data; any ray tracing workload would have to be handled without dedicated acceleration. Tensor-like AI workloads are similarly absent, since no tensor cores are listed.

The fixed-function side is represented by 4 texture mapping units and 4 render output units. Pixel rate is 2.000 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 2.000 GTexel/s. DirectX 9.0 is the highest DirectX version listed, so features tied to later DirectX revisions are not part of the product’s API support. OpenGL 2.0 marks a specific API generation as well. With no Vulkan entry, modern low-level cross-platform API access is unavailable. The feature set is therefore best understood as DirectX 9.0-era rendering: standard pixel and texture processing tasks, but not hardware-accelerated ray tracing or tensor operations.

Memory Subsystem

The memory subsystem is built around 128 MB of DDR memory on a 128-bit bus. Memory clock is listed as 370 MHz, with a 740 Mbps effective data rate. Total bandwidth is 11.84 GB/s. These figures are tightly connected: the 128-bit interface and the DDR data rate determine the 11.84 GB/s ceiling.

For high-resolution workloads, the 128 MB capacity is the more immediate constraint. A frame buffer holds geometry data, texture data, and intermediate buffers; 128 MB limits how much of that data can remain local. The 128-bit bus and 11.84 GB/s bandwidth also limit how quickly pixel data can move. The combination of small memory capacity and relatively low bandwidth means that moving large amounts of frame data will become a bottleneck. The card is likely to be more comfortable at lower resolutions, though the fact pack does not include resolution-specific test results.

The memory type is DDR. The bus width is 128 bit, a mainstream configuration for this product’s generation. No memory size variant is listed beyond this single 128 MB configuration. For the X600 XT, the frame buffer is fixed at 128 MB, so users cannot rely on additional capacity to offset bandwidth limits.

Who Should Consider It

The X600 XT is a 25 W, single-slot card with no auxiliary power connectors, so it fits in systems where the power supply is rated at 200 W and physical space is limited. The bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x16, and the display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video. That output trio gives it flexibility for older monitors and TV-out connections.

Because the database contains no benchmark scores for this card, any recommendation has to be grounded in its feature set and database position. The 50th-percentile standing indicates a middle-of-pack placement across all tracked GPUs. Users who need a functional DirectX 9.0 / OpenGL 2.0 card with low power draw and a small footprint could consider this part. Users targeting high resolutions, large textures, or modern graphics APIs should not: 128 MB of VRAM, 11.84 GB/s of bandwidth, and the absence of Vulkan and DirectX versions beyond 9.0 are decisive limitations.

The production status is end-of-life, so new availability is not expected. The predecessor Radeon R200 and successor Radeon R400 AGP frame its position in the Radeon lineage, but the X600 XT itself remains a PCIe 1.0 x16 part. That interface matters for system compatibility. The data shows no evidence that this card can keep pace with high-end workloads or API features introduced after its listed support.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals list is empty. There are no rival names, no scores, and no deltaPct values in the database. Therefore, this card cannot be positioned against a specific competitor in the usual database format. The only comparative data point is the overall 50th percentile among all GPUs. That places the X600 XT in the middle of the distribution, but a percentile without a comparison set does not identify which GPUs are above or below it.

Because no rival entries exist, there is no basis for statements such as “ahead of” or “behind” a named product. A per-rival comparison would require at least one nearestRivals object with a name, score, and deltaPct. None is present. The comparison data is missing, so no direct rival analysis can be constructed.