I've read reviews myself, and they both narrow out at a certain point, but its cheaper too!
Its still alot better than the 6600GT from that review
I store information in my head after reading a review, and have alot of magazines instead to back it up.
Heres how it performs though from a magazine (Custom PC):
n F.E.A.R., the EN7600GT won't provide smooth frame rates at 1,280 x 960 with AA and AF engaged. Overclocking will slightly increase these frame rates, but you'll still see the card falter in fierce firefights. That said, F.E.A.R. isn't kind to any 6-series graphics card, even high-end models, so the EN7600GT isn't doing too badly to make the game playable at 1,024 x 768 with all of the detail settings up high.
In Quake 4, the EN7600GT was fine at 1,280 x 1,024 with 2x AA, which is once again a great achievement for a mid-range card. We also put the EN7600GT through its paces in Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend. Although we haven't yet developed a benchmark for the game, the EN7600GT averaged close to 30fps at 1,280 x 1,024 in the first level, with the demanding 'next generation content' option turned on, although without AA enabled.
While the GeForce 6800 GS has fewer pipelines than the 6800 GT, its higher clock speeds make up for this. The Leadtek has no trouble playing Battlefield 2 at 1,280 x 1,024, so it will be perfect for playing the game's two new mini expansion packs, which should be available by the time you read this. The Leadtek can even provide a fighting-fit frame rate at 1,600 x 1,200 with 2x AA, if your monitor can handle this resolution.
F.E.A.R. is a much more demanding game than Battlefield 2, and even GeForce 7-series cards struggle at high resolutions, so it's no surprise that the Leadtek found it tough going. That said, it can produce a playable frame rate at 1,280 x 960 with 2x AA and 2x AF, and thanks to its overclock, the Leadtek is quicker than the reference GeForce 6800 GT, averaging 38fps to the GT's 36fps. This may not sound like a great result, but if you bear in mind that we test at the 'maximum' detail settings, and so F.E.A.R. looks amazing, then the Leadtek's score is very impressive.
While the Leadtek generally handles Quake 4 well, as evidenced by its high average score of 50fps at 1,280 x 1,024 with 2x AA, the complex lighting and shader effects means that it struggles during certain points in the game. This means you can get some pretty nasty stuttering, and the vast majority of gamers will find this quite intolerable, particularly when it occurs during a heavy bout of combat. As such, you basically want to ditch the AA if you want to play Quake 4 at any resolution above 1,024 x 768"
Haha, not exactly an equal match of quotes, but it sort of says it...
ANOTHER QUOTE ON THE 7600GT:
Initally it looks as though theres little to distinquish between the 7600gt and 6800gs. Both cards have 12 pixel pipelines and are in the same price bracket.
However, comparing these two cards would be doing a grave injustice to the 7600GT. This is mainly because its clocked much higher, with the core running at 450mhz.
It can also run 4 pixel operations per pixel shader clock, instead of 2 with the 6800GS.
Not only that, but the GPU on our test sample is also massively overlclockable.
Its a worthy successer to the 6600GT and is easily the best card if you can't afford past £150.
So sorry Prosser13, but I do know what I'm talking about
People just have to trust my judgements on what I've read, etc.
I wouldn't say something like this, if I wasn't sure it could perform. I would suggest, but I'd never say it definitely would without truley knowing.