Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

how much better is 7300GS from 6200

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 13, 2006 8:36:49 PM

How much better is an BFG Tech PCI-E 7300GS 256mb from a BFG Tech AGP Geforce 6200 256mb, both oced by 25mhx by default from bfg tech.

Much much better would the pci-e 7300gs be then the agp 6200? and benchmarks comparing? PLease stick to the question, and thanks in adavance :p 

More about : 7300gs 6200

April 13, 2006 8:45:45 PM

Maybe 10% to 20% better, depending on the game. Not much, and certainly not a worthwhile upgrade.

The 7300 GS has a crippled 64-bit memory interface which really holds it back.

If you're upgrading from a 6200, you want at least a $100 X800 GTO...
April 13, 2006 8:50:59 PM

yeah, but its going to cost me 30$ :p  I would for sure do it, except the hassle of installing a new motherboard. I'm going to be kind of busy with sping break and all :p 

but it would definaly be better right? lol. Thanks, for the input, any more would still b helpfull, and benchmarks are something i would like to see if they are availible.
Related resources
April 13, 2006 9:10:28 PM

Quote:
yeah, but its going to cost me 30$ :p  I would for sure do it, except the hassle of installing a new motherboard. I'm going to be kind of busy with sping break and all :p 

but it would definaly be better right? lol. Thanks, for the input, any more would still b helpfull, and benchmarks are something i would like to see if they are availible.


Then save your money for a PCI-E board.
April 13, 2006 9:17:27 PM

thats not the problem, since im going to have to later on anyways i dont mind that money, but i dont feel like taking thee time and dealing with swiching motherboards..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

That is also another option instead of the 7300gs. is there much difference in performace from the bfg tech 7300gs, and the evga geforce 6600
April 13, 2006 9:27:32 PM

The 6600 is much better than either the 7300 GS or 6200.
April 13, 2006 9:29:00 PM

really? alot better? its only lke 10$ mroe in price...
April 13, 2006 9:44:14 PM

6600 is 20% betetr then the 7300? or the 6200? how much is the 6600 and 7300 compared to the 6200. thanks for all the wuick help.
April 13, 2006 9:45:20 PM

6600 is 20% better than the 7300 GS, the 7300 GS is 5% to 20% better than the 6200.
April 13, 2006 9:50:11 PM

guess I'll get the 6600 then, since i decided i'll not be lazy and install a new motherboard too. Thanks for the help, the 7300GS sounds so much cooler then the 6600 though haha, almsot makes me want to get the 7300, but i'll just get the 6600.
April 13, 2006 9:57:14 PM

When you look at the specs, the 7300 GS doesn't look so cool:

7300 GS:
4 pipeline
62-bit memory interface

6600:
8 pipeline
128-bit memory interface

Sure the 7300 GS has higher clockspeeds, but the 6600 has it doubled in every major technical spec... core, and memory interface.
April 13, 2006 10:06:02 PM

True. thats why im getting it instead thanks to your help.
April 13, 2006 10:19:43 PM

the 7300gs IMO

is a video card that someone has just becuase they need one , to watch movies or go on the internet

-not really ment for gaming , just office work with graphics

and

it should run Counter-strike 1.6 Great
and quake 3

=]

jesus loves
April 13, 2006 10:28:24 PM

you wouldn't need anything like that for regular office use.....I used to game with a MX440 128MB.........couldn't play alot of newer games, but then i got a fx5500 and i gamed with that, could run most games, on low settings on some, and not well, but could play them., the little older ones i could run perfectly fine......I dont see how a 7300gs wold be a point to buy for office use.....
right now my 6200 even plays all games fine, bf2 on high, fear on med-high. why would you need or want to spend so much ona office pc...for online video watching.....you oculd have a MX440 for that....you could even use an mx440 for cs 1.6

i first had a 16mb video card, and tryed to play cs:cz, and some levels i would lag, so i got a 32mb from another pc, fixed the lag, for a max440 64, thn a mx440 128mb...i could pla4 cs:cz fine with no lag with the 64mb mx440.
April 13, 2006 10:42:33 PM

not like microsoft apps office use

i ment a little video encoding here and there maybe some animation

i know your frames drop on 1.6 on an MX card -smoke grenades



6200 with high settings on Bf2 8O
April 13, 2006 10:43:01 PM

Xycose wrote:
Quote:
right now my 6200 even plays all games fine, bf2 on high, fear on med-high.


Hahahahaha..............hahaha :lol: 

That made my day. Oh, btw, I call BS. (unless you are at 640x480 and by play you mean 15 fps... then maybe.
April 13, 2006 10:44:54 PM

Quote:
Xycose wrote:
right now my 6200 even plays all games fine, bf2 on high, fear on med-high.


Hahahahaha..............hahaha :lol: 

That made my day. Oh, btw, I call BS. (unless you are at 640x480 and by play you mean 15 fps... then maybe.
how can i get fps to show on the screen on bfs, i can proove it :p  I dont know what my fps is exactly when i play on high, but no noticible difference to my eye. :p  (Except during massive explosions, like when me and my friends play on a ff off server and we put 12C4's on a teammate to lauch him lol, then it goes down a bit)
April 13, 2006 10:52:41 PM

It just isn't possible. Do you have shadows turned completely off?

I have seen battlefield running on the max playable settings on several comps.
2500+ XP Barton 1 Gig ram, A7N8X, 9800 Pro 128mb-------> medium-low settings
2600+ XP Barton, 1 gig ram, A7N8X, 6800 128mb (my comp)----> medium settings
3200+ A64, 1 gig ram, ASrock dual SATA2, 7600 GT 256 mb------>medium-high settings
3200+ A64, 1 gig ram, EVGA SLI mobo, 7800 GT 256 mb----->high settings (lag for a 20 seconds or so when level loads while ram loads data)
3200+ A64, 1 gig ram, A8NE, 6200 Turbocache 64 mb(running with 256), low settings
3200+ A64, 1 gig ram, A8NE, 6600 256 mb,-----> medium settings

So, tell me how you play at max settings?

To see your FPS in BF2, go into the console with ~ then type: renderer.drawfps 1
April 13, 2006 10:56:19 PM

Nope, I'll get a screen shot for ya :p  And the rest of my system includes, 2GB DDR400 ram, and AMD 3100+ 1800mhz with 200gb sata hd 16mb cache, and some cheap sound card jsut to get off onboard.


I have the settings on the default "High" There is Low meduim high and custom, I choose "High" and left it at thatm if i turn aa on its to laggy, I'll be back sosn with a screenshot.

edit:D ont know how much this helps game performace but i am tweaker :p  windows starts in 1 bar and a half, and everything after it gets past laoding sceen loads in less then a second. i hhave spent hours tweaking, minly windows.
April 13, 2006 11:24:40 PM

blah,BF2 doesn't savescreenshots automaticaly in a folder?looked all over couldn't find them, guess ill have to go try and take some move and paint save each one.
April 14, 2006 12:11:20 AM

go to google and download fraps. youll even be able to benchmark with fraps. Good Luck.
April 14, 2006 12:42:19 AM

ugh




-kids





-and jesus hates u

=/
April 14, 2006 12:46:01 AM

Quote:
ugh




-kids





-and jesus hates u

=/

:( ???
April 14, 2006 2:46:44 PM

UHHGGGggggg! Anyone here actually own a 7300GS? Anyone have ANY experience using one? First off, let me start by saying that the 6600 is a better card for the money, and so is the X1300. But, the 7300GS should not really even be compared to the 6200. I have gotten TWICE the frames in doom 3 (openGL) than with the 6200. Other games show signaficant gains accross the board. Any game that is optimized for ATI plays like crap on this card (read HL2). Meanwhile, the Nvidia optimized games still do ok on the X1300 (not good, just ok). This card only has 4 pixel pipelines. When rating video cards, pipelines are most important, along with the number of shaders per pipeline and the core clock. The memory interface matters far less than these three, so please, PLEASE, quit telling everyone the card is crippled by it's memory interface. It's got other issues that are more pressing. If the memroy interface was as big of a deal as everyone seems to believe, the 7600GT could not perform so well. People who think everything NEEDS a 256bit memory interface are not informed on what they are talking about. Probably don't realize that ATI's top of the line workstation cards have 512bit memory interfaces, all for small gains. The difference between the memory interface is much like the difference between XP and XP x64. For some things it really matters, but for most it doesn't. Being able to address above 4GB of memory is great, but if the system is using 1GB, it doesn't matter. Having more maximum theoretical bandwidth is great, but if you are complaining that SATA does not have enough bandwidth and your raptor should have been SATA2, you're not being realistic. If the raptor had 128MB of cache instead of 16MB (or 8MB) it would matter, but it doesn't so it don't. If the 7300GS had 8 pixel pipelines, it would matter, but it has 4 so it don't.
April 14, 2006 7:34:49 PM

Quote:
UHHGGGggggg! Anyone here actually own a 7300GS? Anyone have ANY experience using one? First off, let me start by saying that the 6600 is a better card for the money, and so is the X1300. But, the 7300GS should not really even be compared to the 6200. I have gotten TWICE the frames in doom 3 (openGL) than with the 6200. Other games show signaficant gains accross the board. Any game that is optimized for ATI plays like crap on this card (read HL2). Meanwhile, the Nvidia optimized games still do ok on the X1300 (not good, just ok). This card only has 4 pixel pipelines. When rating video cards, pipelines are most important, along with the number of shaders per pipeline and the core clock. The memory interface matters far less than these three, so please, PLEASE, quit telling everyone the card is crippled by it's memory interface. It's got other issues that are more pressing. If the memroy interface was as big of a deal as everyone seems to believe, the 7600GT could not perform so well. People who think everything NEEDS a 256bit memory interface are not informed on what they are talking about. Probably don't realize that ATI's top of the line workstation cards have 512bit memory interfaces, all for small gains. The difference between the memory interface is much like the difference between XP and XP x64. For some things it really matters, but for most it doesn't. Being able to address above 4GB of memory is great, but if the system is using 1GB, it doesn't matter. Having more maximum theoretical bandwidth is great, but if you are complaining that SATA does not have enough bandwidth and your raptor should have been SATA2, you're not being realistic. If the raptor had 128MB of cache instead of 16MB (or 8MB) it would matter, but it doesn't so it don't. If the 7300GS had 8 pixel pipelines, it would matter, but it has 4 so it don't.


Wow. You understand the marketing tactics that manufacturers use to sell "superior" products higher than previous ones. Amen to the Raptor theory too, 100% correct.
April 14, 2006 7:39:01 PM

Thanks. I appreciate someone actually listening. My frustration is from feeling like I am talking to a wall in the first place. If people would think more logically about this stuff, they probably understand it more, but that's not likely to occur any time soon. (Ford is better than Chevy! ETC ETC). :) 
April 14, 2006 8:27:07 PM

Interesting article. A cheap 6600 would be nice, and stated above the 6600 is better than both the 6200 and 7300. However, the 7300GS is a PCIe card, and I don't know of any 6200 PCIe card that is unlockable, so this idea would only be good for those AGP users who weren't considering the 7300GS anyway. Very nice scores for the money, though!
April 14, 2006 8:58:27 PM

Xycose... just curious, mind telling me some of those windows tweaks?
April 16, 2006 7:27:33 PM

1. start of by tweaking by follwoing the guide on here www.tweaker.se dont mind the odd domain, i did all of them and everythign was fine, its a legit place. thats where i first started then i started doing some thigns on my own.

i can no longer get the 6600 cheap, i can still get the 7300GS, but now im lost, is the 7300GS ACTULLY BETTER THEN THE 6200? I already ordered 2 new mobos(one for da sis'es pc) one with pci-e and apg, and the other with pci-e and with built in 6100 as video..... I'm ready to get the bfg tech 7300gs if it is truly better.

and bf2 keeps deciding to crash. i think my pc may be overheating, due to my OCs which i made while in the ^0degree weatehr, which has now turned into 85 degree weather and my box in surrounded by wood now.(desk)
April 16, 2006 8:04:55 PM

I don't know what your budget is, but, the 7300GS IS better than the 6200 in every way, except for the 6200 AGP card AFTER all the flashing and unlocking which is not going to work 100% of the time. The AsRock board with both AGP and PCIe is a good board, but it will not run the AGP as efficiently as a normal nforce3 AGP board. The difference between the 6100 and the 7300GS is large, sure, but all these graphics are low end. The X1300 is a better buy than the 7300GS unless you are going to play only OpenGL games (Doom/Quake). However, the 7600GS by Leadtek just came out with active cooling, a copy of Serious Sam 2, and a price tag of $125 and is 3X the card of any of these budget cards.
April 16, 2006 8:12:44 PM

i think the 7300GS is a better buy, I'm gettying it for 40$ :p  brand new too, i have hook ups.

and the intergrated i wasn;'t plannign on useing, except maybe for my sisters pc instead of a 5500.
April 16, 2006 8:41:12 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
thats the mobo that i ordered for this pc.

also about unlocknig and stuff for the 6200, can that be done with the 7300GS? how safe is it? can the card actully permently break?


edit: also since i will be going from nf3 chipset to nf4 will it make any difference? what will it help or not help. my current mobo from this pc is ecs nforce 3 a
April 16, 2006 9:11:17 PM

Quote:
The AsRock board with both AGP and PCIe is a good board, but it will not run the AGP as efficiently as a normal nforce3 AGP board.


Wha? AGP has the full 8X capacity on the ASRock board, and the PCI-e is can use the full x16 speed too. Where are you getting this info?
April 16, 2006 9:53:13 PM

Quote:
The AsRock board with both AGP and PCIe is a good board, but it will not run the AGP as efficiently as a normal nforce3 AGP board.


Not so... the Asrock 939dual-SATA2 can run both AGP & PCIe with no performance penalty. The ULI chipset has both native AGP & PCIe support.

you're thinking of some other boards with jury-rigged PCIe/AGP functionality, but the Asrock board doesn't have any of those performance penalties.
April 17, 2006 10:57:00 PM

back on topic maybe?
April 18, 2006 2:16:08 AM

This is a forum. The topic is whatever we talk about. :p 
April 18, 2006 2:38:48 AM

IT wont be a few more bucks though, the 7300GS is 20$ for me, heehe, I no longer have the opertunity to get the 6600 either so i already ordered the 7300GS and a new Mobo, I'll let you guys know.
April 18, 2006 3:30:06 AM

Quote:
Make sure you don't get the 6600LE. IT WILL GET YOU KILLED BY THE MAFIA, GUTTED, AND FED TO THE FISHIES! BAD!
Don't buy a 6600LE.
April 18, 2006 3:51:48 AM

how did a 6600LE get into this?
April 18, 2006 4:59:59 AM

hope that your 7300 works well for you as i ordered one the otherday and should be getting it soon. th eone i get was from BFG.
April 18, 2006 6:11:14 AM

You are not correct about the memory bandwidth. i have an fx5700le (im pov) which has a 64bit memory bandwidth. When i overclock the core id be lucky to get half the extra performance of overclocking the memory. BTW stock speed for core/mem are 425/400 oc'd are 495/600.
!