Making the conclusion to this review is simple as the only point where the PowerColor X600 XT is inferior to the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750 is the appearance. The latter looks prettier, but loses to the competitor in almost all parameters, from the obsolete GeForce FX architecture which is inefficient in modern applications and the slow TSOP-packaged memory to the scanty accessories where a DVI-I-to-D-Sub adapter is even missing. As for their comparative performance, one glance over the following diagram should answer all of your questions:
So, the Albatron is slower than the PowerColor in almost every test or, more rarely, has the same performance, for example in Doom 3. The only exception if the beta version of the second next-generation game where the lack of pixel shaders coupled with the complex scene geometry allow the Trinity PCX 5750 to win. The overclocked PowerColor X600 XT, however, leaves no chance at all to the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, as it reaches the level of the reference RADEON X600 XT (the bright orange line in our diagram).
The Albatron is doing better in 1024x768 with full-screen antialiasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, but the PowerColor X600 XT still wins more tests.
Speaking about the device from PowerColor, we are really astonished at the extremely low GPU frequency as it is set by default, although the card is manufactured according to the reference design and can work without problems at the normal frequencies of a RADEON X600 XT – 500/365 (730DDR) MHz. If the manufacturer had wanted to make an inexpensive product, it would have certainly used a simplified design or at least equipped the card with slower (i.e. cheaper) memory chips. But in reality, the PowerColor X600 XT has the reference PCB and fast FBGA-packaged 2.5ns memory chips, like any regular RADEON X600 XT. The reduction of the default GPU frequency from 500 to 350MHz leads to the PowerColor card being slower than the RADEON X600 PRO in some cases which clocks its GPU at 400MHz. Again, the PowerColor can easily overclock to the normal frequencies of the RADEON X600 XT and deliver the appropriate performance. The most annoying thing, though, is that the manufacturer doesn’t warn the customers against the frequency reduction, which is unfair towards people who are shopping for a RADEON X600 XT-based card.
As for the Albatron Trinity PCX 5750, we have a beautiful and well-made product, which is regrettably out-dated now. We’re now looking forward to the more progressive GeForce 6600 series to appear in shops, so purchasing a graphics card with the GeForce FX architecture for the PCI Express platform seems to be a hasty decision now. As our tests confirm, the GeForce 6600 provides more performance as well as the support of Shader Model 3.0.