NVIDIA's GeForce 6600GT AGP: The Little Bridge that Could
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 16, 2004 12:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Sims 2 Performance
In our final test, the 6600GT once again sits between the 9800 Pro and the x800 Pro. The relatively linear looking graph and low frame rates is due in no small part to the fact that The Sims 2 is not a heavily graphics centric game. The 3D interface and eye candy in this game is a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself. The popularity of this game, and the advantages of a smooth framerate therein afford it a spot in our benchmarking suite. And the 6600GT holds a nice position in this benchmark along with the rest of them.
The x800 scales better (or is it worse?) with resolution than the other cards, but the 6600GT doesn't do a bad job either. At 1600x1200 the midrange NVIDIA card nearly catches up with its big brother the 6800GT. It seems to us that there is either an issue with the game or a driver that is causeing the x800 to be frame rate limited at lower resolutions, which is why we are seeing these strange numbers. Certainly the x800 posts the best numbers at the highest resolution, so it deserves recognition for that.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
ShadowVlican - Thursday, November 18, 2004 - link
seems like #28 got pwned... think AGP ^_-very nice review Anand, it's quite astonishing how fast technology can grow isn't it? with the "top" cards of the last generation being eaten by this generation's top mid card... i'm looking forward to your next review when you have your vanilla 6800!
Speedo - Thursday, November 18, 2004 - link
Hmm... I also agree with you people, which wonder if an upgrade to a faster graphics card would help and if you perhaps already are CPU limited.One way of checking the "status" of your current system is to play around with resolutions for a given game. For example, lets say you normally play UT2004 at 1024x768. Try setting the resolution to 512x384 and see where your framerates go. You will not probably go much above that, no matter how fast video card you upgrade to.
You can also try upping the resolution one step from what you are usually using. If the framerate drops a lot, you would probably benefit from an upgrade.
I know this doesn't tell *which* new card you should get. But if your low-res test shows that your CPU can deliver double the framerate, then a good balance could be to upgrade to a card that is at least double as fast as your current one.
In my own system I seem to have a pretty good balance right now, with a 9800pro(xt mod) & barton@2.3Ghz.
bigpow - Thursday, November 18, 2004 - link
I agree with the previous commentators.Most of us are stuck with our older generation platform, say P4 2.4c or AthlonXP 1700+ or 2500+
Where's the result for these platforms, AT?
Most of us (see above) will decide whether it is worth it to upgrade to 6600GT if we see these numbers.
AT, step up and beat the competition.
Don't be lazy and just compare with the expensive and uncommon FX CPU.
Ender17 - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Those charts with the precentages are awesome!! and the head to stuff was great as well. Keep up the good work and try to get us that head to head with the 6800nu.Niatross - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Even when he's cpu limited he's limited by an FX-55 not an XP Barton. Yea I wonder how many 1000 dollar cpu systems have a 200 dollar card?Yea he's showing the cards abilities off well by using an FX-55 but it TELLS me nothing about what my experiance might be. I would just like to see what it would run like on the average machine. I said before that I've seen this hashed out many times on various sites and I see the value of the way it's usually done, just wishing I had my way (STOMP,STOMP BOO HOO,(LOL) I guess ;-) J
ciwell - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Maybe an article/chart that lists the CPUs from the past couple of years and the theoretical GPU to go along with it that would MAX out, given a CPU bottleneck or what-not.navsimpson - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
While I get why the fastest CPU must be used to prevent CPU bottlenecking, what I don't understand is why someone who can afford a $1000 processor would buy a $200 video card and not shell out the extra 100 or so bucks to move up a notch. These reviews end up being technically sound - we do our best to see what the cards are actually capable of - but of much less consequence to those of us looking to figure out what cards to buy. Will it be worth it to get a 6600gt or would a 9600xt max out the performance of my Athlon 2600? That's what I - and a heck of a lot of other people - want to know.Pete - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Derek emerged from his underground bunker! Now that you've recovered enough to type ;), can you verify and maybe explain those 9700P Far Cry numbers?nserra - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
#57 ciwellWhat is really funny is that nvidia almost didn’t beat a 2 year old card!
And that a similar hardware 5900 (to some people) at that time some even say it was better is in the ground.
Where are the 5900 PS2.0+ and VS2.0+?
This is the anandtech 5900 test conclusion:
“From the ATI camp the $499 Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB, just like the NV35, is a difficult purchase to justify; even more difficult in this case because the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra does outperform it in a number of tests.”
Where is the 5900 in all the benches? Who have bought an nvidia 5900 based on those comments?
ciwell - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
I find it funny how nVidia has beaten ATI to the punch and the fanbois are coming out of the woodwork. :D