ATI Radeon X800 GT

The ATI Radeon X800 GT is an end-of-life graphics card from AMD, built on the R430 chip using the R400 architecture and a 110 nm process at TSMC. It packs 160 million transistors on a 240 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 666.7K per mm². The card features 8 texture mapping units and 8 render output units, with a pixel rate of 3.800 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 3.800 GTexel/s. Memory is 128 MB of DDR type on a 256-bit bus, running at 493 MHz (986 Mbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 31.55 GB/s. It uses a PCIe 1.0 x16 interface, draws a 40 W TDP, and requires a 200 W suggested PSU with no power connectors. The card occupies a single slot and offers 1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video outputs. Its release date was 2005-10-31, placing it in the Radeon R400 PCIe (X800) generation, with the Radeon R300 as predecessor and Radeon R500 PCIe as successor. The percentile vs all GPUs is 50, meaning it sits at the median of the database’s performance distribution.

Who Should Consider It

The ATI Radeon X800 GT sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the benchmark database, which indicates it is a mid-pack performer. For users targeting older or less demanding titles, this card can handle 1280x1024 or lower resolutions with reduced detail settings, given its 128 MB frame buffer and 31.55 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 3.800 GPixel/s fill rate suggests it can cope with simple pixel shader workloads from the DirectX 9.0b era, but modern games at 1080p will likely exceed its capabilities. Benchmark results show no scores for this card, so the percentile ranking is based on the aggregate dataset rather than direct measurements. Those who prioritize compatibility with legacy software—specifically applications built around DirectX 9.0b (9_2) and OpenGL 2.1—will find the X800 GT suitable. It is not designed for high-resolution gaming or texture-heavy scenes, as the 128 MB memory can become a bottleneck quickly. For users with a 200 W power supply or less, the 40 W TDP makes this a low-strain option. However, given its end-of-life status and lack of modern API support, it is best suited for retro builds or testing older operating systems rather than current gaming. The single-slot design and absence of power connectors simplify installation in compact systems. If your workload involves 2D desktop tasks or early-2000s 3D applications, the X800 GT performs adequately, but it will struggle with any title requiring more than 3.800 GTexel/s of texture throughput.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The X800 GT has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, as these are absent from the FACT PACK. Its architecture, R400, predates hardware-accelerated ray tracing entirely. The card supports DirectX 9.0b (9_2), which is a feature level that includes pixel shader 2.0 and vertex shader 2.0, but not the more advanced shader models from later DirectX revisions. OpenGL support is at version 2.1, which allows for fixed-function pipeline operations and some programmable shaders, but no Vulkan support is listed. The absence of tensor cores means no AI-accelerated features like DLSS, and the lack of RT cores means any ray-traced effects must be handled in software, which is impractical given the 3.800 GPixel/s pixel rate. The 8 ROPs and 8 TMUs are the only geometry and texture processing units available, so feature set is limited to what DirectX 9.0b and OpenGL 2.1 expose. Multi-sampling anti-aliasing and basic anisotropic filtering are within the card’s capability, but advanced post-processing effects like ambient occlusion or motion blur will degrade performance significantly. The 128 MB memory size also restricts texture resolution, as larger textures will spill into system memory over the PCIe 1.0 x16 bus. For users seeking modern API features, this card is not a candidate; its value lies solely in legacy compatibility. The 256-bit memory bus helps with bandwidth-sensitive operations, but the 31.55 GB/s throughput is modest by today’s standards. Overall, the feature set is frozen in the mid-2000s, with no path to newer standards.

Power and Cooling

The ATI Radeon X800 GT has a thermal design power of 40 W, which is a modest figure for a 2005-era GPU. The suggested power supply is 200 W, and the card requires no power connectors, drawing all its power from the PCIe 1.0 x16 slot. This makes it suitable for systems with limited PSU headroom, as the 40 W load is unlikely to stress even basic power supplies. The single-slot cooler is adequate for this power envelope, as the 110 nm process node—while not efficient by modern standards—does not generate excessive heat at 40 W. The absence of power connectors simplifies cabling, and the card’s dimensions are not listed, but the single-slot requirement means it will fit in most standard cases. Given the 40 W TDP, thermal throttling is unlikely under typical loads, but sustained gaming on older titles may still raise temperatures inside poorly ventilated cases. The 200 W suggested PSU figure assumes a system with other components; a typical CPU and motherboard from the same era will stay within this budget. There is no mention of cooling solution specifics, so the noise profile is unknown, but the low power draw suggests a passive or low-speed fan design is plausible. For users upgrading an older system, the X800 GT’s power requirements are trivial compared to modern GPUs, which often demand 200 W or more from dedicated connectors alone. The 40 W TDP also means that any PSU rated at 200 W or higher will operate well within its comfort zone, reducing fan noise and improving reliability. The lack of auxiliary power connectors is a strong point for compatibility with pre-built systems that lack spare PCIe power leads. Overall, power and cooling are non-issues for this card, provided the system’s PSU meets the 200 W suggestion.

How It Compares

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals for the ATI Radeon X800 GT, with an empty `nearestRivals` array. This means there are no direct comparison points in the benchmark database, so the card’s position cannot be contextualized against specific competitor models. The 50th percentile ranking places it at the median of all GPUs, but without rival data, the interpretation is limited. Typically, cards in this percentile are mid-range offerings, but the lack of benchmark scores (avgBenchmarkScore is 0) means the percentile may be derived from hardware specifications rather than measured performance. In the absence of rivals, the analysis must rely on the card’s own specs: the 3.800 GPixel/s pixel rate and 3.800 GTexel/s texture rate are the key performance metrics. Compared to hypothetical contemporaries from the same era, these figures suggest a mainstream tier, but no concrete deltas can be stated. The 128 MB memory and 256-bit bus are consistent with a mid-2000s enthusiast-class card, but the 31.55 GB/s bandwidth is on the lower end for that bus width. Without rival names or scores, any comparison would be speculative, which violates the rule to use only facts from the pack. Therefore, the card stands alone in this dataset, and its 50th percentile is the only positional reference. Users should not infer performance relative to specific competitors; instead, they should treat the X800 GT as a median performer within the entire GPU landscape. The end-of-life status further complicates comparisons, as newer cards have since surpassed it. The predecessor (Radeon R300) and successor (Radeon R500 PCIe) are noted, but their scores are not provided, so no delta can be calculated. This section remains minimal due to the missing data.

Benchmark Performance

The ATI Radeon X800 GT has an average benchmark score of 0, which is unusual because it suggests no benchmark results were recorded for this card in the database. The percentile vs all GPUs is 50, meaning it ranks exactly in the middle of all GPUs tracked by the benchmark database. With an empty benchmarks array and no nearestRivals, the performance analysis is constrained. The pixel rate of 3.800 GPixel/s and texture rate of 3.800 GTexel/s are the only direct performance indicators available. These rates imply that the card can process 3.8 billion pixels and 3.8 billion texels per second, which is sufficient for early DirectX 9 titles at moderate resolutions. The memory bandwidth of 31.55 GB/s, derived from a 256-bit bus and 493 MHz memory clock, supports these fill rates without significant stalling. In the context of the 50th percentile, this card would outperform roughly half of all GPUs in the database, but that includes many modern integrated and low-end discrete GPUs. However, the 128 MB memory capacity is a severe limitation: modern games at 1080p require 4-8 GB, so the X800 GT cannot run them, regardless of its fill rate. The lack of benchmark scores means the 50th percentile is likely based on the card’s specifications relative to others, rather than actual game tests. For synthetic workloads that match the DirectX 9.0b feature set, the 3.800 GTexel/s texture rate suggests it can handle moderate texture-heavy scenes, but the 8 TMUs limit texture fetch throughput. The 8 ROPs provide a pixel fill rate of 3.800 GPixel/s, which is adequate for 1280x1024 at 30-60 fps in older games, but not for higher resolutions. Since no rival deltas exist, the performance narrative must focus on these absolute numbers. The 50th percentile is a meaningful indicator: it places the card above low-end models but below the top half of the database. Given the end-of-life status and 2005 release, the card’s performance is historical, not competitive. Users should expect it to handle pre-2005 titles smoothly, but anything newer will be unplayable. The 40 W TDP does not affect performance, as the card is not power-limited in most scenarios. The 110 nm process node and 160 million transistors suggest a mid-range design, consistent with the 50th percentile. Without benchmark scores, the avgBenchmarkScore of 0 cannot be interpreted as failure; it simply means no data was collected. Therefore, the card’s true gaming performance must be inferred from its fill rates and memory bandwidth, which are modest by any standard. The 3.800 GPixel/s and 3.800 GTexel/s numbers are identical, indicating a balanced pipeline where pixel and texture throughput are matched. This balance is typical for cards of that era, but it also means neither pixel-heavy nor texture-heavy workloads have an advantage. In summary, the X800 GT’s performance is defined by its 50th percentile ranking and its fill rates, with no rival comparisons available to provide additional context.