XFX 6200 turbocache

[bodhisatva]

hey guys,
Has anybody tried this new card out? If yes how does it perform in comparison with FX 5700LE and FX 5200?
Also can anybody tell me the frame rates tht this card gives in DOOM3 and HL2 with AA and AF turned on? (at low, medium and high settings)

 

[chuck232]

Quite poorly honestly. If you're going to game the turbocache or hypermemory are both pretty horrible for newer games.

<A HREF="http://nfiniti.blogspot.com" target="_new">nfiniti plus one - my blog</A>

 

[cleeve]

Framerates in the 20's if you're lucky.

If you want good performance on the cheap for a PCI-ex stystem, look for the non-turbocache versions of the 6200 or X300 (128-bit).

________________
<b>Geforce <font color=red>6800 Ultra</b></font color=red>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~3300+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 412 FSB @ 2266 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark05: <font color=red>5,275</b>

 

[Crashman]

You do know that Turbocache cards DO NOT HAVE the advertized amount of RAM? For example, a board could have 16MB and be advertized as 128MB, because it gets the rest from much slower system RAM.

The 6200 without turbocache is a nice cheap card. The 6200 Turbocache is horrible.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[bodhisatva]

how does it stand in comparison with FX 5700LE and FX 5200.
Obviously, a 6600GT wud be better! but with reference to above mentioned cards!!
ALSO PLZ MENTION THE FRAME RATES!!
PS: a turbocache costs around USD 115 in my country, which is not vry cheap

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bodhisatva on 05/17/05 10:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

Tom's had a full article on 6200 Turbocache cards, compared to the standard 6200 cards. Turbocache inhibitted performance by a wide margin, depending on the game, as much as 50% lower framerates I believe. But you'll want to look up that article.

Anandtech had a more recent comparison of both the 6200 Turbocache and a similar solution from ATI, both provided framerates below acceptable levels on modern games at 800x600 resolution, I believe 20 frames per second was about the average, with other performance-robbing graphics details turned off.

The cheapest card I can recommend for ANY games is the GeForce4 Ti4200. That's 3 years old! You might be able to find one for $50. For around $65 (if you look hard enough) you can find an ATI Radeon 9550 with 128-bit memory interface (64-bit versions are inferior performers as well).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

Have you been missing the part where we said Turbocache is a BAD thing? It's marketing speak for "using shared system memory rather than on-card RAM".

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[cleeve]

ALSO PLZ MENTION THE FRAME RATES!!

See above, 3rd post:

"Framerates in the 20's if you're lucky."

Although, on a strong system you may get into the 40's with lower detail and 1024x768 resolution.

If you have a PCI-e platform, and need a cheap card, get an X300 128-bit or a 6200 128-bit.

You can count on the non-turbocache cards to beat their turbocache counterparts by 10 to 15 fps.


________________
<b>Geforce <font color=red>6800 Ultra</b></font color=red>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~3300+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 412 FSB @ 2266 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark05: <font color=red>5,275</b>