My CHAINTECH Geforce 6600

[damnhao]

300mhz/500mhz i cant get it to oc pass 10%. i'm using the latest version rivatuner with the latest nvidia drivers.

a64 3200+ venice
2x 512 kingston pc3200 hyper x
500w x-connect psu
geforce 6600

 

[Maxim]

bad luck... i have the same with my ti 4400 cant overclock even a bit oh well... + there is no point of overclocking 6600 its a bad card to start with, it wont make a difference.

 

[gOJDO]

I have Inno3D GeForce 6600(NV43 REV A4) 256MB DDR2 in my rig(see signature) and I was experimenting with its overclocking abilities. I used 3D Mark 2005 Pro for testing and comparing the results.
The stock speeds are GPU:350MHz, Video RAM:700MHz.
I reached 525MHz max for the GPU, while 840MHz for the VRAM.
I did some test and concluded that both GPU&VRAM should be oced linearly in order to receive linear performance boost over the stock.
When overclocking only the VRAM from 700 to 840(120%), while the GPU remained at stock speed, there was an average of 3% boost.
But when I overclocked the GPU at 500MHz, the diference between the 840MHz VRAM VS 700MHz VRAM was 8% average boost.
When I overclocked only the GPU, while VRAM at stock speed, the performance boost was noticable, but not linear. With the GPU OCed at 525MHz (150%) I achieved about 28% overall performance boost.
With both the GPU 150% overcloked and VRAM 120% overclocked, I achieved 136% average better score on all 3D Mark 2005 Pro, tests.
I noticed that GPU OCing affected some tests, but the scores remained the same for some of the tests as nonOCed, while those tests performance was affected by OCing the VRAM.
Anyway, I need better cooling in order to play games with the GPU at 525MHz. After 30 minutes of playing F.E.A.R. invalid textures and polygons are apearing. I consider to buy new graphics card soon, so I don't want to replace the stock cooler on my GF6600. But anyway it is worth OCing the graphics card and I will do the same with the new when I buy it.

 

[FeareX]

bad luck... i have the same with my ti 4400 cant overclock even a bit oh well... + there is no point of overclocking 6600 its a bad card to start with, it wont make a difference.

I have to dissagree, I really liked the G6600 it wasnt that expensive and played good. Of course if you are used to an 7900gt (or whatever) then you dont want back. But i stepped of the system in my sig to an amd 64 3000+ 1gig ram and a G6600 and it played god-like. With the OC it played games even better (very good noticeble). In some parts of bf2 it went from 40fps to 60-70fps. I would call that a nice boost.

But even still, it aint a bad card.

And damnhao, I found out that with powerstrip you can OC your card without testing it. (it pushed mine to 600/650 and higher but only made it slower because the lack of voltage, and immediate freezing in games). So you really should check that out.[/quote]

 

[dougie_boy]

sounds like cheap ram used on the card. check the manufatures forum and see if anyone self has had any sucsess.

 

[Windfish]

I think that the standard 6600 is a good card, to whoever said it was bad. My Leadtek overclocks well, 536/760, and can play all the latest games like FEAR in 800x600 nearly max details with a really good framerate, between 40 and 50 most of the time.

 

[dougie_boy]

I think that the standard 6600 is a good card, to whoever said it was bad. My Leadtek overclocks well, 536/760, and can play all the latest games like FEAR in 800x600 nearly max details with a really good framerate, between 40 and 50 most of the time.

800x600 is not really playing games is it...

 

[FeareX]

It's just what you prefer. I dont give a damn about the res. I just want as much details as possible. And if i want 1024*786 you have to disable allot of effects. So i just kept it @ 800*600. 1024*768 was playable though. But i liked the somewhat higher fps'es

 

[Windfish]

I have an old monitor, everything is set at that, and it doesn't automatically adjust the picture when the resolution is changed. If I changed to a higher res for games the width and height of the screen would need altering manually using the monitor buttons about 5 or 10 times a day, and stuff looks fine in 800x600 if your used to it. It can run stuff in higher res, like Rome Total War, as that doesn't allow any lower resolutions.

 

[dougie_boy]

It's just what you prefer. I dont give a damn about the res. I just want as much details as possible. And if i want 1024*786 you have to disable allot of effects. So i just kept it @ 800*600. 1024*768 was playable though. But i liked the somewhat higher fps'es

fair. but by lowering the res your going to lose some of the effects that would only be rendered at higher res. you might as well run the game at mid res with mid detail surely....


each to their own i geuss...

 

[FeareX]

Yep that right, i also had my thoughts on that. Thought like, i can put for example textures on high, but on 800*600 you dont really see it as good. But hé i stepped of the G6600 and have a x800gto now. And it plays all the games @1024*768 and up . So im happy with it.