PC Hardware forum

General discussion

What graphics card is better??\

by ANDxEST / May 27, 2005 8:28 PM PDT

I was wondering which graphics card is better in performance wise:

Geforce 6600GT 128MB

or

Geforce 6600 256MB


Thanks!

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: What graphics card is better??\
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: What graphics card is better??\
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
re
by nerdyboy1234 / May 28, 2005 2:51 AM PDT

the 6600gt is better cuz its faster.

Collapse -
check this cnet article out.
by capkingy / June 3, 2005 12:14 AM PDT

Hey cnet rates the Ati x8500 as the top card and yours is in the middle perfomrance wise. Surprise Surprise. Here is an interesting article from them. Like you I want an SLI motherboard cause its Sexy Happy Here is the link. A good read.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8902_7-6213103.html

Collapse -
the X850 XT PE to be exact
by ozos / June 3, 2005 9:43 AM PDT

is the fastest single GPU solution currently avliable on earth

BUT
both nVidia and ATi are releasing new GPU's in the next 2 months, so it won't hold that title for long

in addition, X850XT PE's can be run in CrossFire, which would give between a 1.15 to 1.8x performance increase (certain modes of CrossFire aren't designed for performance increase, but image quality)

Collapse -
The Nvidia 6800 Ultra appears to be top dog in
by John Robie / June 3, 2005 6:27 PM PDT
Collapse -
no it doesn't SLI is though
by ozos / June 4, 2005 5:55 AM PDT

UT2004 and Doom III are nVidia's strong suites
Doom III is OpenGL, which nVidia dominates at
and UT2004 was developed with nVidia (just like ATi's invovlement in HL2)
HL2 is really the only major game in there
that test isn't so great compared to VGA 5 (they benched games that don't really tax the GPU, like The Sims 2...??? I have to ask, WHY?!)

but the 6800 Ultra will outperform in SM 3.0, some SM2 (it has better shader support, while the X850 lacks) and in OpenGL
but in general the X850XT PE outperforms in most games

Collapse -
I was looking at your
by John Robie / June 4, 2005 11:42 AM PDT

post, ''the X850 XT PE to be exact is the fastest single GPU solution currently avliable on earth'', and comparing the X850 XT PE against the Nvidia 6800 Ultra.

Re: ATI X850 XT PE vs Nvidia 6800 Ultra according to the latest (24 May) Tom's Hardware test of PCIe cards:

Unreal Tournament
NoAA/AF 1024x768 = 6800Ultra with X850XTPE 0.3 fps behind
NoAA/AF 1280x1024= 6800Ultra with X850XTPE 0.5 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1024x768 = 6800Ultra with X850XTPE 1.4 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1280x1024= X850XTPE with 6800Ultra 7.1 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1600x1200= X850XTPE with 6800Ultra 6.9 fps behind

Doom3
NoAA/AF 1024x768 = 6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 3.4 fps behind
NoAA/AF 1280x1024= 6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 6.9 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1024x768 = 6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 4.7 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1280x1024=6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 3.6 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1600x1200=6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 3.8 fps behind

Half-Life
NoAA/AF 1024x768 = X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 6.7 fps behind
NoAA/AF 1280x1024=X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 7,5 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1024x768 =X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 6.8 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1280x1024=X850 XT PT with 6800Ultra 14.2 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1600x1200=X850 XT PT with 6800Ultra 13.6 fps behind

Riddick
NoAA/AF 1024x768 = 6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 14.1 fps behind
NoAA/AF 1280x1024=6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 10.9 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1024x768 =6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 9.3 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1280x1024=6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 5.9 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1600x1200=6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 2.7 fps behind

Pacific Fighters
NoAA/AF 1024x768 = 6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 0.3 fps behind
NoAA/AF 1280x1024=X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 2.9 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1024x768 =X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 0.1 fps behind fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1280x1024=6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 0.4 fps behind
4xA/8xAF 1600x1200=X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 2.2 fps behind

Sims 2

1024x768 with Smooth Edges = 6800Ultra with X850 XT PE 4.0 fps behind
1024x768 with NO Smooth Edges = X850 XT PE with 6800Ultra 12.6 fps behind

Yes, the Nvidia SLI versions are a little higher in some instances.

But still IMO, the Nvidia 6800Ultra beats the ATI X850 XT PE.

Collapse -
um...sure
by ozos / June 4, 2005 2:23 PM PDT
In reply to: I was looking at your

it's commonly accepted by ATi and nVidia that the X850XT PE is the overall fastest card on earth

just considering it's raw power
BUT
the 6800U does defeat it in SOME things
also
I've stated before THG's current benchies lack
a lot

Collapse -
Sorry, but I have never read
by John Robie / June 4, 2005 4:06 PM PDT
In reply to: um...sure

anything from ATI or Nvidia that they agree the X850XT PE is better than the 6800Ultra.

In my opinion THG is a good enough guide for lack of something better.

Someone will always find fault with any test of anything even if they don't have any instruments or materials to show otherwise.

The difference in the two cards is just a few frames per second and really not worth the trouble of an argument. Your opinion is opposite of mine, as I still maintain the 'test' gives a good enough view, so we could just agree to disagree.

Collapse -
Better in performance....
by John Robie / June 3, 2005 7:25 AM PDT

As Nerdyboy indicates the 6600GT is better in performance:

6600 256MB = Core Clock 300Mhz, Memory Clock 500 or 550MHz. Cost = low $112 for PCIe, or $132 for AGP at Newegg

6600GT 128MB = Core Clock 500MHz, Memory Clock 1000MHz
Cost = low $151 for AGP, or $165 for PCIe at Newegg

Unless you want AA at very high resolutions, and have a big card to match, 256MB is not of much value. Current games rarely uses up 128MB of mem, so that makes the 256mb kind of a waste unless you really crank the resolution up. The difference is not apparent until you enable AA and AF, bump the resolution up to 1600x1200 and are running a game with more advanced shader requirements. Normal gamer resolution is 1024x768 and I sometimes run mine at 800x600.

The 6600GT is the better value and performance for the $$ overall IMO.

Collapse -
Go with the GT...
by Splicer / June 3, 2005 3:38 PM PDT

I recently built my new PC and i have the 6600 GT PCIe, its a great card and it is better than the 6600 256MB. Its not a 6800 Ultra but you get great graphics and its at a good price. Good luck!

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Big stars on small screens

Smosh tells CNET what it took to make it big online

Internet sensations Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla discuss how YouTube has changed and why among all their goals, "real TV" isn't an ambition.