Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BFG GF6600GT AGP & PCI-e review

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2005 11:47:15 AM

[H] <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzE2LDE=" target="_new">reviews two BFG GF6600GT's</A>. Still looks to be about as good a card as you can get for the money with exception of the X700 pro taking HL2 IQ and performance. I'd like to see this OC model go against a plain GF6800 though as they are often priced about the same.

Anyway, both AGP and PCI-e are OC'ed to 525MHz/1.05GHz out of the box. But [H] hit 600/1.24GHz on an AGP retail box card; Very nice for sure!!


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A> <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
February 10, 2005 9:30:10 PM

Quote:
Still looks to be about as good a card as you can get for the money with exception of the X700 pro taking HL2 IQ and performance.

Yup, the 6600GT is currently a best buy in both agp and pci-express version. I hat the X700PRO on my wishlist, but I changed my mind when I san that I could get a Gigabyte 6600GT for 250$CA! A bargain!

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2005 10:28:01 PM

Just an interesting item, they put the GF6600GT ahead of the X700Pro in FartCry at 1024x768AA/AF, yet at 1280x1024 2xAA/8xAF the X700P pulls ahead. Same results with NFSU2 where the GF6800GT falls off the end of the scale.

Makes me wonder if the X700 is playable at 1280x1024 with no AA/AF in FartCry. In which case like they said it would give better visuals. It depends on their view of 'playable' I guess. Personally 40fps AVG in something as frenetic as FartCry is a little low. So I'd say even their choice for 1024x768 with AA/AF might not work for some. However maybe that's the only point at which positive differences started appearing.

And I agree with you about the GF6800, considering the price points, currently it's very likely worth the small premium for the GF6800.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
February 11, 2005 1:44:36 AM

Hey, that's interesting. I hadn't taken the time to look at the apples to apples charts. It would seem that the X700 pro and the 6600GT are pretty even in those two games then. I guess it does come down to just how playable each setting is. I am like you, that average fps in the low 40's isn't good enough. I'll definately drop some eye candy to avoid studder lows(hate that). Anyway, personally I would say I use 1280x1024 no AA more often than 1024x768 w/ AA. Of course, 1280x1024 4X/16X would be my most desired setting on my 19" CRT. 16x12 is OK of course too, but often text and so forth just seems too small on a 19" CRT.

Sure was a nice OC that AGP 6600GT achieved wasn't it. Pretty respectable increase and clock speeds in general. Now if only this 6800U could reach 600/1240, I'd forget all about wanting that X800XTpe. :lol: 



<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A> <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
!