Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is a 6600gt still any good in new games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 12, 2007 1:53:11 AM

I'm thinking of building a cheap lan rig using my spare a64 3200. Is the 6600gt still any good and whats the most you should pay for it? or would it be better to pay a bit more for a x1600/7600?

More about : 6600gt good games

February 12, 2007 4:21:08 AM

it will play Counter-strike Source good, and Pretty much all Valve games


i wouldnt use it if your really into gaming
February 12, 2007 11:57:32 AM

also for BF2 or B2142 is still ok but you will have a hardtime finding one and it will be overpriced... i suggest a 7600GS/GT or X1650 PRO/XT according to your $$$
Related resources
February 12, 2007 1:12:04 PM

In BF2 I can pull an average of 60fps (40fps min) at 1024x768, but that's with everything at low, dynamic light and shadows off. It also sometimes puts me at a disadvantage because the grass is more like a big blob instead of fine blades and is harder to see through. In FEAR, with video on medium, my frame rates sometimes dip down to 19fps, which is typically when there are two or three other people trying to kill me (successfully) and I need the fast response the most. I'd pony up a bit more for a 7600GT or a x1650xt if you want to play today's games and enjoy them more.

In Doom3 or RTCW I can run 1280x1024 with everything pretty much on high no problem, so for your games two years old or more it does work great.
March 18, 2007 7:06:48 PM

Quote:
it will play Counter-strike Source good, and Pretty much all Valve games


i wouldnt use it if your really into gaming

Yea, if you're running games like CS, a 6600GT will do good.

Most current games, won't play all that well, no matter what.

So it really depends on what games you play.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 7:39:50 PM

Quote:
So it really depends on what games you play.


yes and also the resolution.

my 68gt played all games with high settings great.
but that was at 10x7.

it lagged some at 16x10 though.

it really lags now as it has no hdd :cry: 
March 18, 2007 8:19:59 PM

Let's say my 6600GT is still kicking it.

I can play things like Test Drive Unlimited at 1024x768 with motion blur on med settings. It'll play any recent game up to 1024x768 on med settings... of course, it all depends on the game.

I played R6 Vegas at 800x600 on low settings, but with HDR enabled.

HL2 and CS:S run pretty good (above 30 fps) at 1024x768 with 4xAA.

I just wanted to give you some examples of what you can expect of the 6600GT (don't even think about Supreme Commander :wink: ).
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 8:31:37 PM

i had 68gt,s in sli for a little while.
then split them up to make another computer.

couldnt use the aftermarket coolers on both.
they wouldnt fit in my case.

i now have an 88gts just sitting collecting dust. :cry: 

edit; my one 68gt played the games i play just fine at 10x7.
bf2,fear, and yes oblivion with 80% of the sliders maxed.
March 18, 2007 8:34:57 PM

Quote:
i now have an 88gts just sitting collecting dust. :cry: 

Send it this way then.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 8:38:27 PM

no ill have my new hdd by the middle of next week.

i hope.
March 18, 2007 9:01:32 PM

Quote:
not bad, but for the same price, you could get a cheap x1600pro, which is the better choice by far


According to this, the 6600GT and the X1600Pro are in the same tier.

It's a matter of brand preference, IMO.
March 18, 2007 9:13:42 PM

Maybe Cleeve can clear your confusion a little bit...

As far as I know, the X1650Pro/XT can be compared to a 7600GT.

Anyway, this has gone far enough. Too off-topic.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 9:15:31 PM

the 68gt has 16 pipes.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 9:16:13 PM

Quote:
As far as I know, the X1650Pro/XT can be compared to a 7600GT.


yes they are pretty close.
March 18, 2007 9:30:29 PM

Quote:
not bad, but for the same price, you could get a cheap x1600pro, which is the better choice by far


According to this, the 6600GT and the X1600Pro are in the same tier.

It's a matter of brand preference, IMO.Uhh, no; the X1600 pro is faster than the 6600GT, as it's a generation newer.

Edit: You can find a 6600GT for $50 after mail in rebate on tiger direct. On SLI Zone it says: "Now through the rest of March, save $40 with a rebate at TigerDirect.com. Click HERE to pick up one (or two!) of these SLI-Ready graphics cards from BFG Tech." Those cards would be just as slow in SLI... :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 9:34:43 PM

Quote:
Really? According to newegg that's false, but what does newegg know :?

Too off-topic.

no, you have no idea what off topic is, trust me, in my mind, considering the topics I have seen, we are perfectly reasonable since we are still discussing gfx cards for the op

yeah the 68gt=16 pipes.
68gs=12 pipes
76gt=12 pipes and is a little better than the 68 with half the memory.
March 18, 2007 9:41:40 PM

Quote:
Uhh, no; the X1600 pro is faster than the 6600GT, as it's a generation newer.


So, following your reasoning, a 7300GS would be faster than a 6600GT, right? :roll:

All because is a generation newer.


Quote:
we are perfectly reasonable since we are still discussing gfx cards for the op


On a second thought, yeah, I agree. :) 
March 18, 2007 9:44:27 PM

Quote:
I would think a high clocked 7600gt would beat it out


The 7600GT trade blows with the 6800 Ultra and the X850XT. Of course, it has a 128 bit memory interface, but the clocks are really high.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 9:45:23 PM

well for the price of around 100frogskins for the 76gt
and it doesnt require a power connect.

i would go for a 76gt.

last i checked the 68gt,s (if you can find them) are 250$ or so. 8O
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 9:47:41 PM

Quote:
So, following your reasoning, a 7300GS would be faster than a 6600GT, right?


i would go for the 66gt over the 73gs.
March 18, 2007 9:49:08 PM

7600GT > 6800GT.

6600GT is more powerful than a 7300 also.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 9:51:35 PM

Quote:
7600GT > 6800GT.


my 68gt (oc,ed of course) beats my brothers 76gt (in benchies :lol:  )

gaming seems about the same.
March 18, 2007 10:25:25 PM

Quote:
6600GT is more powerful than a 7300 also.


There are some GDDR3 versions of the 7300GT that really stand out.
I think those are based on the 7600 GPU.
a b U Graphics card
March 18, 2007 10:39:26 PM

Quote:
What are the two cards clocked at? Will help point out which is the better card, price:p erformance, 7600gt wins in my book, but what do I know, I'm a taco :mrgreen:


mine is 350 and 1000.
my brothers is 550 and 1.2(i think)?

for benchies i score a 6000 in 3dmark05 and 3200 in 06
my brothers 76gt scores around 5700 in 05 and 3000 in 06.

this is with both cards oc,ed.

but yes i would take the 76 over a 68 card because of the price
and less power requirement.
March 18, 2007 11:12:15 PM

it plays newer games ok on medium settings but youd be better off getting a 7600gt or when the new nvidia cards come out get an 8500gt
March 18, 2007 11:30:10 PM

Quote:
Uhh, no; the X1600 pro is faster than the 6600GT, as it's a generation newer.


So, following your reasoning, a 7300GS would be faster than a 6600GT, right? :roll:

All because is a generation newer.


Quote:
we are perfectly reasonable since we are still discussing gfx cards for the op


On a second thought, yeah, I agree. :) A 6600GT has a core speed of 500MHz with 8 pixel pipelines; the X1600 Pro has a core clockspeed of 500MHz with 12 pixel pipelines. The X1600 Pro also has the advantage with HDR+AA, non angle-dependent anisotropic filtering, and the AVIVO hardware acceleration features that the 6600GT simply cannot compete with. Perhaps you are the one with the brand bias as you're recommending an older, slower videocard, with a smaller feature set.
March 19, 2007 12:15:57 AM

Quote:
A 6600GT has a core speed of 500MHz with 8 pixel pipelines; the X1600 Pro has a core clockspeed of 500MHz with 12 pixel pipelines. The X1600 Pro also has the advantage with HDR+AA, non angle-dependent anisotropic filtering, and the AVIVO hardware acceleration features that the 6600GT simply cannot compete with.


Points taken. But let's not forget about PureVideo. And that the X1600Pro does not have enough horsepower to do HDR+AA without taking a heavy hit in performance (kind of meaningless to have a feature you can't use properly, isn't it?).

Quote:
Perhaps you are the one with the brand bias as you're recommending an older, slower videocard, with a smaller feature set.


I'm not recommending anything. I just pointed out your nonsense reasoning. Being a generation newer does not imply it'll be more powerful.

Slower? I'd like you to see the THG VGA Charts. Sticking to 1024x768 (which is the resolution you'd play with any of these cards), even with some AA or AF, they perform almost the same.


EDIT: I just want to make this clear: the X1600Pro does not have 12 Pixel Pipelines... it has 12 Pixel Shaders... it's not the same thing. :wink:
March 19, 2007 12:52:10 AM

Quote:
A 6600GT has a core speed of 500MHz with 8 pixel pipelines; the X1600 Pro has a core clockspeed of 500MHz with 12 pixel pipelines. The X1600 Pro also has the advantage with HDR+AA, non angle-dependent anisotropic filtering, and the AVIVO hardware acceleration features that the 6600GT simply cannot compete with.


Points taken. But let's not forget about PureVideo. And that the X1600Pro does not have enough horsepower to do HDR+AA without taking a heavy hit in performance (kind of meaningless to have a feature you can't use properly, isn't it?).

Quote:
Perhaps you are the one with the brand bias as you're recommending an older, slower videocard, with a smaller feature set.


I'm not recommending anything. I just pointed out your nonsense reasoning. Being a generation newer does not imply it'll be more powerful.

Slower? I'd like you to see the THG VGA Charts. Sticking to 1024x768 (which is the resolution you'd play with any of these cards), even with some AA or AF, they perform almost the same.


EDIT: I just want to make this clear: the X1600Pro does not have 12 Pixel Pipelines... it has 12 Pixel Shaders... it's not the same thing. :wink:I'd rather have a feature perfrom poorly, than not have it at all. Also, AVIVO kills purevideo as you can use it for encoding and decoding for free. I don't even think the newer versions of purevideo support the 6600GT. The X1600 has 12 pixel shaders and 12 TMUs. Personally, I think a 7600GT would be an even better buy, but I suppose I got stuck on the X1600 because that was card the OP had mentioned.
March 19, 2007 1:07:04 AM

The X1600Pro has 12 Pixel Shaders and 4 TMUs. Link

AFAIK, PureVideo supports GF6, GF7 and GF8 series. Link
The only features the 6600GT does not support are Inverse Telecine and Bad Edit Correction in HD content.

I also think a 7600GT would be better, by all means.
March 19, 2007 1:48:35 AM

Quote:
Not at all true, I don't care how many times you check toms's charts, an x1600pro will outperform a 6600gt everytime consistantly, perhaps if either one had more memory, that may change the tide, but it's mainly the pipelines that matter


Well...

Link 1
Except for the Riddick bench (it has problems with the OpenGL 2.0 NVidia driver, it seems those guys didn't know about it), both cards perform very closely.

Link 2
A comparison of the full X1000 lineup, when introduced, a year and a half ago. Quoting AnandTech: "In the midrange space, the X1600 XT performs okay against the 6600GT" (the following information about pricing isn't relevant, it's too old).
Please note that they were comparing the X1600XT against the 6600GT.

Link 3
Even though the 6600GT used in this article is a 256 MB version, I included this just for reference. Take this article with a grain of salt.

Link 4
Again, a 256 MB 6600GT is used. It seems the bigger frame buffer is giving it some advantage in lower resolutions.


About the pipelines, I've already posted a link to a Guru3D article with a list of the X1600Pro specs. Just in case, here it is again. Link
March 19, 2007 1:53:00 AM

Quote:
3dmark wise, I think that atis have naturally been better there according to many sites


Throughout the time, it has been proven many times that a higher 3DMark score doesn't mean anything. :mrgreen:
March 19, 2007 2:18:43 AM

I played Oblivion and BF2 on my 6600GT and it was decent, you won't get good frame-rates unless you drop the quality but it should work.
March 19, 2007 3:24:08 AM

Just borrow some cash and get a 8800 gts or sell the car or house whatever and get a Gtx . :lol: 

Now we are of topic :D  :lol: 
March 19, 2007 7:39:22 PM

Quote:
Maybe Cleeve can clear your confusion a little bit...

As far as I know, the X1650Pro/XT can be compared to a 7600GT.

Anyway, this has gone far enough. Too off-topic.


The X1650XT is comparable to the 7600GT, not the X1650pro though.
March 19, 2007 7:48:39 PM

Quote:
an x1600pro will outperform a 6600gt everytime consistantly, perhaps if either one had more memory, that may change the tide, but it's mainly the pipelines that matter


Pipelines matter, but the X1600 doesn't have traditional pipelines. TMUs (texture management units) matter, too.

The 6600 GT has 8 TMUs and 8 Pixel Shaders. Each TMU is paired with a Pixel Shader to form 8 pipelines.

The X1600 PRO has only 4 TMUs, but 12 Pixel Shaders. So it performs like a 4 pipeline card in heavy texture situations, but has the pixel shader power of a 12 pipeline card. In reality, it is neither a 4 nor 12 pipeline architecture because they are not paired: its TMUs are independant of its pixel shaders. It's a 4-TMU, 12 shader GPU.

The X1600 PRO will usually get beaten by the 6600 GT on average, and the X1600 XT/X1650 PRO will usually beat the 6600 GT on average due to their higher clockspeeds.

The X1650 XT is actually a different GPU, not the same one as in the X1600s or X1650 PRO.
It's got 8 TMUs and 24 pixel shaders and that's why it competes well with the 12-pipe 7600 GT, which has 12 TMUs and 12 Pixel Shaders.

The 7600 GT does have a few more TMUs than the X1650 XT, but the X1650 XT has more shaders. That's why they perform so closely on average.
March 19, 2007 8:47:55 PM

Yeah, with the X1XXX series, ATI stopped going with the traditional pixel pipelines, and focused more on pixel shaders. Cleeve or Grape are much more qualified to explain this than I am, so thanks Cleeve.
March 19, 2007 8:54:22 PM

It's a move toward the future, as games are becoming more shader intensive, and also a step closer to unified shaders (DX10).
March 19, 2007 9:47:20 PM

Actually, the G80 doesn't have the "traditional" pixel shaders... Is based on a Unified Shader architecture.

Either you can ask Cleeve or read this. Both are good options. :wink:
!