Both Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory and GeForce 6200 TurboCache are clearly targeted to the very entry-level market based on the PCI Express bus. The idea of these two chips is to be the cheapest video card with better performance than on-board video.

There are some good things about Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory. First, its performance was the same of a “normal” Radeon X300, which uses a 128-bit memory interface. So, HyperMemory technology is, in fact, very efficient. The second good thing is that ATI is very conservative in letting their partners change memory interface width, memory quantity and memory clock. So everybody knows that “SE” models use 64-bit interface and that’s it. This is far better than the nVidia scenario, where there are a myriad of GeForce 6200 models with different memory configurations, and the regular user is not able to tell which is which.

Another good thing about Radeon X300 SE is that it was able to run Far Cry with a playable performance, if you don’t increase image quality settings, of course. But forget about Doom 3, it is unplayable under this card.

But the main problem of Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory is its performance. Only on 3DMark2001 SE increasing image quality settings Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory was faster than GeForce 6200 TurboCache (compared to the 64 MB model with 64-bit interface). On all other tests, GeForce 6200 TurboCache (64 MB model with 64-bit interface from XFX) was faster or tied with Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory from PowerColor. We could claim that Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory is a good video card if you want to play DirectX 8.1 games with high image quality settings on, but in our opinion nobody that owns a low-end video card will enable high image quality settings – usually people will prefer performance than quality when using a low-end VGA.

Since both PowerColor Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory and GeForce 6200 TurboCache with 64-bit memory interface and 64 MB and are in the same price range, we can say that GeForce 6200 TurboCache is a better buy, since it provides a better performance level.

Keep in mind that compared to a GeForce 6200 TurboCache with only 16 MB Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory is faster. But why pick a Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory if you can get a GeForce 6200 TurboCache for the same price?

In summary, if you are a user that wants to play some games, can’t stand on-board video performance and has only between USD 50 and USD 60 to spend on a video card, GeForce 6200 TurboCache with 64 MB and 64-bit interface like the one we reviewed from XFX is a better buy than Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory. But if you have USD 20 more to spend, go for the "real" GeForce 6200 with 128 MB and 128-bit interface, which provides a far better cost/benefit ratio than the reviewed card.

Keep in mind, however, that ATI has just released their new Radeon X1300, which promises to be faster than GeForce 6200 TurboCache.