Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

6600GT or 256MB?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 21, 2005 4:57:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Upgrading from a ATI 9800Pro- it's going into my daughters machine. System
is a (first generation) AMD64 3200+ 754 pin/Gigabyte K8NNXP (AGP only)/1GB
Mushkin Lvl 1 PC 3500 (433 MHz).

I've found multiple versions of the Geforce 6600 and the two I'm interested
in are the 128MB GT OC and the 256MB cards. I haven't been able to find
comparisons between the two. The GT OC has a slightly higher core speed and
the "GT" supposedly indicates superior performance to the standard 6600. The
only 256MB card I've found doesn't have a GT version, and some retailers
aren't listing performance specs or links to manufacture details.

Does anyone know how the two compare? The GT version of the 128MB card is
actually more expensive than the 256MB card, which leads me to believe it's
better quality DDR3 memory.

Thanks,
Fitz

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outgoing mail scanned with AVG 7 and is virus free

More about : 6600gt 256mb

Anonymous
August 21, 2005 8:02:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

128MB GT is better than 256MB non-GT. There is no 256MB 6600GT AFAIK. :) 
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:24:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Fitz wrote:
> Upgrading from a ATI 9800Pro- it's going into my daughters machine. System
> is a (first generation) AMD64 3200+ 754 pin/Gigabyte K8NNXP (AGP only)/1GB
> Mushkin Lvl 1 PC 3500 (433 MHz).
>
> I've found multiple versions of the Geforce 6600 and the two I'm interested
> in are the 128MB GT OC and the 256MB cards. I haven't been able to find
> comparisons between the two. The GT OC has a slightly higher core speed and
> the "GT" supposedly indicates superior performance to the standard 6600. The
> only 256MB card I've found doesn't have a GT version, and some retailers
> aren't listing performance specs or links to manufacture details.
>
> Does anyone know how the two compare? The GT version of the 128MB card is
> actually more expensive than the 256MB card, which leads me to believe it's
> better quality DDR3 memory.
>
> Thanks,
> Fitz
>

A 6600GT 128MB outperforms the 9800Pro, but the 256MB doesn't really
make a difference and it's also only found on vanilla 6600's as a
marketing "value add". On the highest end cards, like a 6800 Ultra or
7800 series, the 256MB framebuffer helps you run at the absolute highest
settings (like Ultra quality uncompressed textures in Doom 3 and similar
games). But for a 6600GT, you won't be running at 1600x1200 with 4x
AA/AF (unless it's like Half-Life 1 or DX7/8 games).

The DDR3 RAM also helps out a lot. Your overall fillrate with a 6600GT
is near equal to a 6800
(http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=88...), so in
some instances, you'll beat out DDR1 6800's and 6800LE's.
Related resources
August 21, 2005 10:54:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

But a 6600GT (128 or 256 mb) only beats the 9800 Pro a small amount and you
may not notice much of a difference. I don't think this upgrade makes much
sense.

DaveL


"deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:V28Oe.2964$WO2.2486@fe06.lga...
> Fitz wrote:
>> Upgrading from a ATI 9800Pro- it's going into my daughters machine.
>> System is a (first generation) AMD64 3200+ 754 pin/Gigabyte K8NNXP (AGP
>> only)/1GB Mushkin Lvl 1 PC 3500 (433 MHz).
>>
>> I've found multiple versions of the Geforce 6600 and the two I'm
>> interested in are the 128MB GT OC and the 256MB cards. I haven't been
>> able to find comparisons between the two. The GT OC has a slightly higher
>> core speed and the "GT" supposedly indicates superior performance to the
>> standard 6600. The only 256MB card I've found doesn't have a GT version,
>> and some retailers aren't listing performance specs or links to
>> manufacture details.
>>
>> Does anyone know how the two compare? The GT version of the 128MB card is
>> actually more expensive than the 256MB card, which leads me to believe
>> it's better quality DDR3 memory.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fitz
>>
>
> A 6600GT 128MB outperforms the 9800Pro, but the 256MB doesn't really make
> a difference and it's also only found on vanilla 6600's as a marketing
> "value add". On the highest end cards, like a 6800 Ultra or 7800 series,
> the 256MB framebuffer helps you run at the absolute highest settings (like
> Ultra quality uncompressed textures in Doom 3 and similar games). But for
> a 6600GT, you won't be running at 1600x1200 with 4x AA/AF (unless it's
> like Half-Life 1 or DX7/8 games).
>
> The DDR3 RAM also helps out a lot. Your overall fillrate with a 6600GT is
> near equal to a 6800
> (http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=88...), so in
> some instances, you'll beat out DDR1 6800's and 6800LE's.
>
August 22, 2005 6:29:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NZWdne0bUPb_rZTeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> But a 6600GT (128 or 256 mb) only beats the 9800 Pro a small amount and
> you may not notice much of a difference. I don't think this upgrade makes
> much sense.
>
> DaveL

The 9800 Pro and 6600GT are about even at 1024x768 or under. Anything above
this, which almost all native LCD resolutions are, a 6600GT really pulls
ahead. At 1280x1024 with options on, a 6600GT is considerably faster.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:44:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

dkldkl2@gmail.com wrote:
> 128MB GT is better than 256MB non-GT. There is no 256MB 6600GT AFAIK. :) 

I remember seeing 256mb 6600GTs somewhere, XFX was the brand if my
memory doesn't do its tricks. But in specs it had normal DDR memory as
128mb version has (dont know how much) faster DDR3.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:22:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Augustus wrote:
> "DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NZWdne0bUPb_rZTeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
>>But a 6600GT (128 or 256 mb) only beats the 9800 Pro a small amount and
>>you may not notice much of a difference. I don't think this upgrade makes
>>much sense.
>>
>>DaveL
>
>
> The 9800 Pro and 6600GT are about even at 1024x768 or under. Anything above
> this, which almost all native LCD resolutions are, a 6600GT really pulls
> ahead. At 1280x1024 with options on, a 6600GT is considerably faster.
>
>

I thought the OP was saying the 9800 would be a hand-me-down or
something, either way... GO NVIDIA RAWR! :) 
August 24, 2005 2:56:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> I thought the OP was saying the 9800 would be a hand-me-down <

I did say that...actually, a three way upgrade. New card replaces 9800Pro,
which replaces a 4800Ti, which will be added to daughters machine to upgrade
on board graphics. But, after reading some reviews and finally finding some
comparison benchmarks, I've decided to go with the 256MB 6800GT OC. I've
had good luck with video cards... the 4800Ti was bought when it was the
latest and greatest, and has never flickered though 3 different machines.
The 9800 Pro was bought new when the AMD64 3200's first came out and has
been a great card. Hope I have as much luck with a 6800.

Thanks for the input-
Fitz
!