Most powerful half-height PCI-E graphic card.

[CougTek]

I'm looking for the fastest 0.5- 8 (half height) PCI-E graphic card currently available. It is for a slimPC that will have to be good enough for casual gaming on a WUXGA display. DVI out is mandatory, HDMI would be nice too, althought I'm not dreaming. Please don't tell me that 0.5 8 card aren't for gamers : I know.

 

[CougTek]

Wow, 8400GS versus HD 2400 Pro. Both 64bit memory interface. I'm speechless.

 

[CougTek]

Replace half-height by low profile. Bad connections in my brain this evening.

 

[CougTek]

FOUND! : MSI NX8500GT-MTD256EH. HDMI, low-profile and a tolerable 8500GT GPU. I just don't know where I'll find a low-profile bracket for it, but at least half the problem has been solved.

Thanks all for your help.

 

[CougTek]

Even better : Galaxy 8600GT low-profile. But not available in North America! The world is against me.

 

[Pradeep]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161079

Dunno how an x1550 performs, but this one gives you dual DVI (via two low profile slots).

 

[ddrueding]

Nice find Pradeep, that is a 1x PCIe as well....

 

[CougTek]

Thanks. I'll see if I can get this card here. It's a little on the expensive side though.

An X1550 with 128bit memory should perform more or less like a 8400GS, a tad better than a HD 2400 Pro.

 

[Stereodude]

A last gen card may be faster for casual gaming than these new budget cards from ATI and nVidia. Not sure if this helps you any.

 

[CougTek]

I own an X1600 Pro and it scores ~1750 3D Mark'06. What I read on the Net was that the HD 2400 Pro scores ~1250 3D Mark'06 and the 8400GS scores ~1600 3D Mark'06. The X1550 Pro is slower than my X1600 Pro, but I don't think it is by much. I suppose it must scores between 1400 and 1600 3D Mark'06. I also read that an X1300 scores ~1200 3D Mark'06, so the X1550 has to be faster than this by at least 200 points.

I fully realize that nobody buys graphic cards to run 3D Mark'06, but that's the only common benchmark I've seen to compare those cards.

 

[CougTek]

I have found this review to be particularly helpful. The cards tested there are those most computer shops sell the most (the low-end to mainstream ones).

I've found an HD 2400XT made by PowerColor that is in low profile format. I think that's the card I'll end up putting in the SlimPC. Despite the 64bit memory bus, it posts acceptable results. For 90$, that's probably the best I'll be able to get.

 

[Platform]

An X1550 with 128bit memory should perform more or less like a 8400GS, a tad better than a HD 2400 Pro.

According to TechARP (or Rojakpot or whatever they call themselves these days), the older Radeon X1550 is virtually even with a Radeon HD2900XT.

• Radeon X1550 == 2200 MTexels/s + 12.80 GB/s
  
  
• Radeon HD2900XT == 2100 ~ 2800 MTexels/s + 6.40~12.80 GB/s

One big difference between the two is that the Radeon HD2900XT supports Direct-X 10.


http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=2

 

[CougTek]

Of course you meant the HD 2400 XT, not the 2900.

Thanks for linking the specification table. It will be quite useful.

 

[Platform]

Of course you meant the HD 2400 XT, not the 2900.

Thanks for linking the specification table. It will be quite useful.

Indeed. I meant HD 2400 XT, but for some reason when I went back to edit that post, the [Edit] function here on the StorageForum website was not working.