6600 gt wtf?!

[alexius]

ive just got the new issue of pczone and in the hardware section it has reviewed and tested the "sparkle computer geforce 6600gt"
and it gav it 92% and says the price of buying it is 139 english pounds
i was thinking of getting the 6800gt which i thought was 300 pounds, so i decided on getting the ati 9800 pro about 150 pounds cheaper now i was gob smaked to see this card the 6600 gt for only 140 which i thought was one of the best cards. now please tell me that im stupid or shall i get it.

http://www.sparkle.com.tw/html/r_page1.htm#

 

[silverstealth89]

get the RAD no question

 

[skarrob]

if you get the radion get the x800

 

[Asus]

Its better than the 9800pro but not by a lot. Inface the 9800pro (256bit) can beat the 6600gt (128bit) with heavy AA/AF in a number of games. Otherwise the 6600GT wins by a little or by a lot.

Your choice.

 

[Acert93]

The 6600GT outperforms the 9800Pro in most situations. Toms hardware has a decent evaluation of the two cards in AGP. There are some mixed messages about HL2, but it seems that the 6600GT does better in many situations compared to the 9800Pro, at least according to the benchmarks at Anandtech. The 9800Pro is a good card but the 6600GT seems to be a little better.

If you can find a good sale, the 6800 (non-ultra) has been found at times for as low as $250. If you can spare the extra $30-$50 this is a much better card.

 

[Acert93]

Its better than the 9800pro but not by a lot. Inface the 9800pro (256bit) can beat the 6600gt (128bit) with heavy AA/AF in a number of games. Otherwise the 6600GT wins by a little or by a lot.

The problem with heavy AA/AF is that both boards are often "unplayable" at those extreme settings/resolutions. e.g. If card X gets 20 FPS and card Z gets 15 with heavy AA/AF at 1600x1200 is a pointless benchmark. A minimum of 30FPS is acceptable, 60FPS ideal. How I look at it:

Card X vs. Card Z
Test #1: 80fps vs. 110fps
Test #2: 60fps vs. 45fps
Test #3: 12fps vs. 20fps

As a gamer I would say the #3 is worthless, and #1 is not a deal breaker. I would rather get Card X, that plays both Test Game 1&2 above 60FPS (ideal) than Card Z that plays Test Game 1 well, but below ideal on Test Game 2. This is kind of the situation ATi has themselves in, imo. I like ATi (previous board was a 9700), ignoring the rare $500+ cards, when you compare the 6800GT to the X800Pro and to a lesser extent the 6600GT to the X700Pro (XT is impossible to find) or 9800Pro, it seems when the Radeon cards win both cards are very playable, but in games that push the edge the Radeons have not done as well. The D3 and Source engine are good examples. The Radeons do very well in Source, but so do the nVidia cards. But in most OpenGL games (UT2004 being an exception) nVidia cards really do outpace the Radeons.

We always have to be careful with generalities like (to paraphrase) "the Radeon 9800Pro is better at high AA/AF settings". Examples:

CoD at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF the 6600GT has 59FPS while the the 9800 has 45FPS. Clearly the GT is better here and plays close to the ideal 60FPS.

Doom 3 is another example where the 6600GT does better with AA. YOu get the a nod in favor of the GT at 1280x1024 w/o AA (55fps vs. 33fps) and with 4xaa at 1028x768 (39fps vs. 27fps).

FarCry is the same. Once you turn it on the GT does better than the 9800Pro. e.g. With 1024x768 4xaa / 4x af the GT wins by 37fps to 27fps. Similar situation at the unplayable 1280x1024 (24fps vs. 16fps). Most telling for gamers who want 60FPS are better, the GT wins at 1024x768 w/ aa/af with the GT coming in at 60fps and the 9800Pro with 41fps.

Similar story for BF:V. At 1280x960 4xaa 8xaf, the GT outpaces the 9800Pro (39fps vs. 31fps), and at 1024x768 that GT almost hits the "ideal" range while the 9800Pro is a bit behind (59fps vs. 43fps).

Interesting to note that in CoD and BF:V that when the 6600GT hits the majical 60fps mark with AA/AF that the 9800Pro lags behind, usually in the mid 40 range. Similar story for FarCry w/o AA/AF.

Yet in UT2004 at 1600x1200 w/ 4xAA / 8xAF the Radeon 9800Pro does 40fps while the 6600GT does 35fps. They are close but the Radeon wins out. But note at 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA / 8xAF the 6600GT wins 63fps to 55fps. So what is more important to you: 60fps or ultra high resolutions?

And then there are games like JO that the Radeon wins in the pure speed and at low resolutions plus AA/AF (under 30FPS), but the 660GT pulls ahead in higher resolutions with AA/AF, but it is totally pointless because both cards are under 20fps.

The above points are often missed in reviews. It is good to be forward looking, but only within reason. If a card is 5FPS faster than a competitor, but both are under 15FPS, who cares? But my main point is we need to be careful making generalities if there are a lot of exceptions to the rule. Is the 9800Pro better with high levels of AA and AF as stated? I think the above info would contradict this.

-The 9800Pro does not always, or even more often, do better with higher amounts of AA/AF compared to the 660GT.

-For gamers looking for 60fps looking at high levels of AA/AF is almost pointless as most new games will not run above 60fps with those features enabled.

-It is all about the games. The best card for ANYONE is the cards that plays their games, and the games they want to play, the best.

 

[Grumpy]

Heh, if you keep trying to decide the cards will be superceded before you purchase The 6699GT is better mostly, the AGP versionms usually come with the ram 100 Mhz slower But as ram is only available at 1 or 2 speeds right now due to supply issues, you still get the same ram as in the PCI-E models..so you can OC it back to normal

Now, ATi looks set to dump the 6600GT rival the X700XT for a 800 Series card with 12 Pipes for around $250 also. Whether it will be AGP is the sad part. And more importantly, Nvidia looks set to revamp the 6800 series with a GPU that can do 24 Bits in DX9 (NV47 I believe). So if you wait you will be in a retirement home before you get to use it. If the card has to last a long time, you want 256 Megs, end of story

 

[big_king_frosty]

Radeons are always better cards, and ATI are better than the other brands. Ive gone Radeon and i wont go back.

 

[Eunoch]

ive had both radeon and nvidia and radeon is much better. save urself the money and go for the 9800 which is more than enough for hl2...

 

[Acert93]

Radeons are always better cards...

Can we not have an intelligent discussion about hardware without a falacious fanboy attack?

 

[Asus]

I think you missed what I was saying. All I said was the 6600GT does better. Just added that there are times where the 9800Pro can pull ahead. I never said anything to disagree with what you wrote. hehe

It was a generalization. If someone was that interested between the 9800pro and 6600gt for their differences then they would read some reviews and find out how it does with the games they play. We are on the same page bud.

 

[OD-Black_Fire]

If you go with AGP, go with Radeon. ATI AGP > Nvidia AGP. However, Nvidia's PCI-E cards have SLI support. Radeon's don't.

And NO ONE should ever get a single Geforce 6800 Ultra PCI-E. They are about $500 at the least. I found a 6600GT 256mb that costs $200. Two geforce 6600's = $400, and 9.5% -12.3% faster than the single 6800u that costs $500, and really, you'll have a REAL hard time looking for that price. Usualy it's about $550-$600. Not only that, but you get:

1. Double the upgrade possibilites with a SLI Mobo than with a single PCI-E. Great for people who like to save but keep top-of-the-line speeds.
2. You have bragging rights. **** dude, you've got two video cards and can play HL2 on max settings and never get below 40fps. MAX SETTINGS~

Google it. Benchmarks prove this. It's what I'm getting. I'm getting a AMD Athlon 64 3500 (939 pin = awsome upgrade possibilites), nforce4 SLI, nVidia Geforce 6600 GT 256mb (2), 120 gig Western Digital HDD, 1 gig of ram (Most likely Kingston) 17' or 19' (must decide) monitor, 7.1 Sound Blaster Audigy, 2.1 30-watt speakers but a pair of very nice headphones, all for about $1,500. It's not exactly CHEAP, or REALLY EASY TO GET, but it's just what I need. Source, Doom3, and X-Ray (STALKERS engine) maxxed out for roxxor-the-boxxor mapping, and, can easily be upgraded for the next generation of...parts. The 939-Pin will last a while, because AMD is making it their new standard. If I feel I need a new chip in a few years, I can upgrade to the 939-pin AMD Athlon 64 4000, or, a new GPU, I can order some 6800's, or if ATI picks up on SLI, two of those. Also, the nforce4 supports a new kind of ram. I's no faster than pc3200, but it could get better. Just like 939-pin. Right now, the 3500 is not much faster than the 3400, but it can be optimised.

I'm tried right now, so If i just fed out incorrect facts, forgive me. www.cnet.com owns me.

EDIT: Fixed shit.

EDIT: To sum it up, if you want more upgrade possibilities, go with the Geforce 6600. If you want just the slightest amount better FPS in HL2, go with the Radeon. If most of your games run better on the Radeon (please don't pay attention when they are like, 4 fps appart and in the 30's, 40's, or even as low as 20's. You wont notice anything), go with the Radeon. I like ATI's way of looking at things. I like ATI better than nvidia, but right now, IMHO, nvidia is ahead. I feel guilty even just thinking about buying a Geforce. But who knows what will happen when ATI gives their cards SLI.

 

[OD-Black_Fire]

(I can't edit my last post anymore )

To sum up SLI, it's when you plug in two PCI-E cards into a mobo that has SLI support. The screen is then split apart, top and bottom. Each card renders one of the halfs. By theory, if you run a game at 1600x1200, you'll get the same fps as if you run the same card (but single) at 800x600. It's almost like that. It's slightly slower. I forgot why. I'll remember it somewhere, but I do remember it seeming fixable. I'll add a edit when I remember OMFG, I REMEMBERED RIGHT BEFORE CLICKING SAVE CHANGES! Believe it or not, the proccessor can change FPS. You're proccessor (and maybe other parts, but extreamly minimal, can't measure it) could handle game X at 800x600 at 80fps, but it can't handle 1600x1200 as well because it's not doubled. So running it at 1600x1200 with SLI, game X would get like, 70-75fps. I must go do my homework on dual proccessors now.

 

[Acert93]

OD-Black_Fire:

If you go with AGP, go with Radeon. ATI AGP > Nvidia AGP. However, Nvidia's PCI-E cards have SLI support. Radeon's don't.

Actually the 6600GT is better more often than not compared to the 9800Pro. See links in previous post.

And NO ONE should ever get a single Geforce 6800 Ultra PCI-E.....

The 6600GT in SLI is not necessarily better than a 6800Ultra, or even the 6800GT. The 6800gt/Ultra outperform the 6600GT SLI at high resolutions with AA and AF very often. It all depends if you are comparing results with, or without, AA/AF. My guess is most people paying $400 for a video card want AA and AF (I know I did). The 6600GT in SLI is very memory bandwidth limited meaning it will struggle with AA/AF at times. Sure, it does well at 1600x1200 with no AA/AF, but when you turn on AA and AF a single 6800GT whips it in HL2:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=11
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=10
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=8
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=9

Same story with D3--the 6600GT SLI does well w/o AA, but once you turn it on the 6800GT outpaces it. Oddly in FarCry, BF:V, and UT2004 the 6800GT beats the 6600GT SLI with or without AA/AF:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=14
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2284&p=17

So there are games where the 6600GT SLI does not even stack up against a 6800GT, let alone a 6800Ultra. And with the 6600GTs you are paying an extra ~$50 for the MB (or even worse you have to upgrade all together which will cost upward of $150 or more) so, while SLI has some payoffs, it is not an absolute. I would personally take a PCI-E 6800GT over a PCI-E 6600GT.

Another issue is that SLI often runs into CPU bottlenecks, meaning that a faster GPU is not always the solution. And as Tomshardware mentions, there are driver issues and some games work even worse with SLI or not at all. SLI is not for everyone. It may be an OK option between DirectX cycles, but paying $200 extra for another board or $200 for a board that will do new DX tricks, well, I will take the new DX.

ASUS: Sorry, I guess my post came off wrong in your direction. Was not picking on you necessarily but the general posts. If you look through the thread there area lot of "Radeons are always better" and "Radeon is much better" and "Get the RAD no question" statements. You are right that the Radeon does do better at times with heavy AA/AF. I was more directing my comments at the fact a lot of people blindly believe Radeons always do much better (which as I showed is not even the case) with AA/AF. Sorry if you felt jumped on... I am just trying to prevent the poor guy trying to get a board getting mixed messages. That is why I have posted some benchmark links. Personally, I have owned/purchased/used extensively a lot of 3D cards including the Riva 128, VoodooII, Voodoo Banshee, TNT2, GeForce 2, GeForce Ti4200, Radeon 9700, GeForce 6800GT. I actually like ATi as a company (although way back in the day before 3D cards and early in they leveraged their strong OEM position to sell horrible junk... not to mention sub par drivers for many years... I know network admins who still wont touch an ATi product) and they REALLY turned the curve with the R3xx series. That is why I bought one! And the R420 series is not bad either! I am personally glad that MS/Nintendo have gone with ATi products for their next consoles and am glad nVidia is getting TOUGH competition (and hopefully this means no more of their stupid half done product updates... I got tired of the New technology that does not work fast enough, wait 1 year, same tech beefed up so it works type mentality). I also have really disliked how nVidia has gone about certain issues like benchmarking, their "TWGWMTBP" program, and their constant efforts to have MS dumb down DX to meet their product line vision. That all said, I think if you are just buying a card you really need to look at things evenly... that is why I have a 6800GT right now. Loved my Radeon 9700 but the GeForce was a better buy at $400 for me.

Anyhow, sorry if I came off wrong. Just trying to steer this conversation in a way that is beneficial to the poster with facts and links. You were right and I did not mean to step on toes.

 

[nvrmor]

If you go with AGP, go with Radeon. ATI AGP > Nvidia AGP. However, Nvidia's PCI-E cards have SLI support. Radeon's don't.

And NO ONE should ever get a single Geforce 6800 Ultra PCI-E. They are about $500 at the least. I found a 6600GT 256mb that costs $200. Two geforce 6600's = $400, and 9.5% -12.3% faster than the single 6800u that costs $500, and really, you'll have a REAL hard time looking for that price. Usualy it's about $550-$600. Not only that, but you get:

1. Double the upgrade possibilites with a SLI Mobo than with a single PCI-E. Great for people who like to save but keep top-of-the-line speeds.
2. You have bragging rights. **** dude, you've got two video cards and can play HL2 on max settings and never get below 40fps. MAX SETTINGS~

Google it. Benchmarks prove this. It's what I'm getting. I'm getting a AMD Athlon 64 3500 (939 pin = awsome upgrade possibilites), nforce4 SLI, nVidia Geforce 6600 GT 256mb (2), 120 gig Western Digital HDD, 1 gig of ram (Most likely Kingston) 17' or 19' (must decide) monitor, 7.1 Sound Blaster Audigy, 2.1 30-watt speakers but a pair of very nice headphones, all for about $1,500. It's not exactly CHEAP, or REALLY EASY TO GET, but it's just what I need. Source, Doom3, and X-Ray (STALKERS engine) maxxed out for roxxor-the-boxxor mapping, and, can easily be upgraded for the next generation of...parts. The 939-Pin will last a while, because AMD is making it their new standard. If I feel I need a new chip in a few years, I can upgrade to the 939-pin AMD Athlon 64 4000, or, a new GPU, I can order some 6800's, or if ATI picks up on SLI, two of those. Also, the nforce4 supports a new kind of ram. I's no faster than pc3200, but it could get better. Just like 939-pin. Right now, the 3500 is not much faster than the 3400, but it can be optimised.

I'm tried right now, so If i just fed out incorrect facts, forgive me. www.cnet.com owns me.

EDIT: Fixed shit.

EDIT: To sum it up, if you want more upgrade possibilities, go with the Geforce 6600. If you want just the slightest amount better FPS in HL2, go with the Radeon. If most of your games run better on the Radeon (please don't pay attention when they are like, 4 fps appart and in the 30's, 40's, or even as low as 20's. You wont notice anything), go with the Radeon. I like ATI's way of looking at things. I like ATI better than nvidia, but right now, IMHO, nvidia is ahead. I feel guilty even just thinking about buying a Geforce. But who knows what will happen when ATI gives their cards SLI.

ati is implimenting their own form of sli, and as usual ati's solution is superior. nvidia's sli forces you to use identical cards, this in fact sucks. with the ati solution you can buy an pcie x800 this year, and if you want you can buy an x900 next year and use both. plus there isnt a physical connector to attach each card. what do you think will win benchmarks? 2 6800's or an x800 and a x900? it wont even be close. most people who take advantage of a dually setup are not going to buy 2 cards at the same time. whats the point of upgrading a year later with last years card? price? it might be cheaper, but you then have 2 of last years cards. atleast with the ati solution you can take advantage of newer tech, while still getting benefits from last years. or if you are cheap you can get another x800, and still beat a dually 6800. ati>nvidia.

 

[Milkman]

I am curious, why are we comparing a 6000 series Nvidea to a 9800pro? I thought the 6000s were a step up from the 9800, and if you want to make a fair comparison then compare the 9800 pro to the 5900FX cards.

 

[MajorPayne]

According to what a lot of reviewers have been saying, the new line of Nvidia cards are more "future proof" because they support pixel shader 3.0 fully, where the ATI cards do not. This roughly equates to a reversal of the positions that ATI/Nvidia were in when Pixel shader 2.0 games started coming out. However.... For this to be an advantage, games will have to start using PS 3.0, and dropping support for PS2.0 (which is what happened with PS2.0 when Halo/Doom 3 came out). That being said, Nvidia burned me with thier FX line and the PS2.0 fiasco. Given the money, I would get an x800 over any other card out there right now, just because Nvidia screwed me hard on that one. It all comes down to personal choice, and right now, I have loved my 9600XT for MUCH longer than any other card I have EVER had,

 

[jmjneary]

definitly get the radion

 

[OD-Black_Fire]

At 1600x1200, the extreamly high AA really is not needed. I mean, you don't see many jaggies to begin with. But your right, the 6600GT lags with high settings of AA and AFF. I wonder if it's fixable.

Also, I forgot to add, i was talking in terms of a brand new computer. My idea is pretty bad for upgrading.

But I'd go with the Radeon. If you did get a PCI-E, the SLI equiviliant is coming.

 

[Acert93]

I am curious, why are we comparing a 6000 series Nvidea to a 9800pro? I thought the 6000s were a step up from the 9800, and if you want to make a fair comparison then compare the 9800 pro to the 5900FX cards.

We are comparing the 9800Pro to the 6600GT AGP because both are in the $200-$230 range (retail) right now and that is what the poster was debating purchasing. Price and Availability are the most relevant factors when comparing products.

 

[Vito Dintino]

i am not saying ATI is a bad company, but i beleive there are way to many ATI fanboys, simply saying to definately go with the radeon... i mean honletly try to explain why or your comment is irrelevant, and in personally, IM getting the 6600 gt and i did alot of research compareing performance tests on the 9800pro and 6600 gt and most of the time the 6600 gt pulls ahead but only by 5-10 fps or so.. so really its just a matter of what you want, both cards are excellent and (in my opinon) equal in performance!

 

[Grumpy]

The 6600 and 6800 have 1 flaw, they have to do DX9 in 32 bit per pipeline where ati has 24 bit, this slows down the Nvidia cards bad at times, and is why Nvidia is working on a new Core with a 24 Bit mode

 

[tranCendenZ]

ive just got the new issue of pczone and in the hardware section it has reviewed and tested the "sparkle computer geforce 6600gt"
and it gav it 92% and says the price of buying it is 139 english pounds
i was thinking of getting the 6800gt which i thought was 300 pounds, so i decided on getting the ati 9800 pro about 150 pounds cheaper now i was gob smaked to see this card the 6600 gt for only 140 which i thought was one of the best cards. now please tell me that im stupid or shall i get it.

http://www.sparkle.com.tw/html/r_page1.htm#

6800GT > 6600GT > 9800PRO

 

[tranCendenZ]

The 6600 and 6800 have 1 flaw, they have to do DX9 in 32 bit per pipeline where ati has 24 bit, this slows down the Nvidia cards bad at times, and is why Nvidia is working on a new Core with a 24 Bit mode

Uh, you have it backwards

32-bit is the requirement for SM3.0, which is the new DX9 standard, that Nvidia supports this year and ATI will be supporting next year. ATI has to rework their core for 32-bit because its current 24-bit does not meet the SM3.0 requirements. Games that require FP32 next year, like Unreal 3, will show artifacts on certain shaders on FP24 cards like the x800 and 9800.

And the 6600/6800 can run FP32 just fine, you are thinking of the older crappy FX series

 

[GRIMEY]

Yes get the 6600GT. It's faster in most benchmarks. It's cheaper, it has ps3 support. If you ever play Doom 3 or any Doom 3-based game the 6600GT will run roughly twice as fast as the 9800 pro.

The 9800 pro is old, tired and at the end of its life. The 6600GT is a brand new card.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2278&p=3

 

[Grumpy]

Yes, 32 is needed for SM 3.0, but 24 is DX9 Minimum Requirement..the 6800/6600 do not have thiis, and the extra load needed for 32 bit handicaps them, not badly, but enough. Nvidia is going to implement a 24 Bit mode for games that do not need SM 3.0..which means a lot of games. The result will be superior FPS to current ATi cards. 5900 Cards are a lot worse off as their Core is lousy at 32 Bit Mode

 

[Acert93]

The 6600 and 6800 have 1 flaw, they have to do DX9 in 32 bit per pipeline where ati has 24 bit, this slows down the Nvidia cards bad at times, and is why Nvidia is working on a new Core with a 24 Bit mode

Never heard of the 24bit mode chip. As someone else pointed out 32bit fp is needed for SM 3.0 (i.e. DX 9.0c). 24bit fp is the minimum full percision required for DX 9.0 (DX 9.0 allows 16bit fp for partial percision).

I am not sure where you got the 24bit mode from. nVidia intentionally went with 16/32bit fp percision to cut out some work down the road. From here on out 32bit will be the standard and the NV4x chips do fine--you must be thinking of the FX chips that do 32bit VERY VERY slow. As any review site will show the NV4x series is fine even with 32bit fp.

I think you may be confusing 24bit with the fact it is rumored the new NV47 will have 24 PS units, where as the NV40 (6800) had 16 PS units. I am guessing that is where you got your info.

 

[Ownzed]

If I were you, I would go for the Nvidia Gefore 6600 GT.

 

[Grumpy]

New Chip is the NV47, expected Jan/Feb. 6800 basically with 24 Bit Mode for extra speed in games that dont need 32

32 is fine for high end cards, but with the 24 Mode, lower end cards will see good gains in performance