PDA

View Full Version : NVIDIA GeForce 6200 Review

Dave Baumann
13-Jan-2005, 09:22
http://www.beyond3d.com/siteimages/b3dsmall.gif (http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/6200/)The NV43 based GeForce 6200 appeared to have come in order to put a placer out on the "6200" entry level boards to build OEM awareness of the full range of 6200 products that would come with 6200 TurboCache, however it also brought the GeForce 6 architecture, along with Shader 3.0 capabilities, within the reach of a much wider audience thanks to its low end target and price.

Here we test the board with a variety of games and benchmarks as well as look at the the heat / power / noise levels of it and also take a look at the CPU utilisation of the board when video playback is in operation using NVIDIA’s new software to enable their “PureVideo” video decoding engine. Read the full review here (http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/6200/)
madshi
13-Jan-2005, 10:07
Power consumption chart, baby!

http://madshi.net/icon_crazy.gif
mczak
13-Jan-2005, 13:25
page 5: 1.4 billion frames per second! whoa, that's fast :lol:

edit: ah it's fixed.
Anonymous
13-Jan-2005, 17:41
**Newb alert**

I never understood why beyond3d doesn't compare the card being reviewed to compeitors products aimed at the same market. Would anybody like to explain this to me?
digitalwanderer
13-Jan-2005, 18:37
**Newb alert**

I never understood why beyond3d doesn't compare the card being reviewed to compeitors products aimed at the same market. Would anybody like to explain this to me?
Sure, they don't like to. :)
Neeyik
13-Jan-2005, 18:55
**Newb alert**

I never understood why beyond3d doesn't compare the card being reviewed to compeitors products aimed at the same market. Would anybody like to explain this to me?
This isn't an "official" answer as such but it mostly stems on wishing to look a product on its own pros and cons; other cards are included simply to provide reference points with which to discuss the review sample's results. Besides, one can do their own cross-IHV review by just comparing different articles - each reviewer uses the same machine. Of course, drivers change quite a lot (which is part of the problem behind cross-IHV reviewing...)
Anonymous
13-Jan-2005, 20:23
Its highly inconvienent to compare cards manually by looking at diffrent articles. I think it would make alot more sense to include the all competing cards in the same article. I mean I don't know of any other site that sticks to one IHV other than beyond3d. Diffrent drivers really arn't that much of an issue, just state in the article somewhere that X drivers were used with X card. Performance diffrence between driver revisions is usually minimal anyway (within 5% 95% of the time) Occasionally you get a set of drivers that boost performance by significant margins but thats only on occasion and it could be worked around fairly easily. Added all competing cards to each review would make them alot more usefull IMO.
Neeyik
13-Jan-2005, 20:30
Its highly inconvienent to compare cards manually by looking at diffrent articles.

Highly is far too strong a word - one could not seriously argue that it's taxing to have additional open browsers.


I think it would make alot more sense to include the all competing cards in the same article.

How many? From what IHVs? From what AIBs? Why should we force such decisions on the reader, when they can simply do this for themselves by selecting a particular review/preview and open it in a new window.


I mean I don't know of any other site that sticks to one IHV other than beyond3d.

That's why we're so cute and different 8) Seriously though, this isn't the thread for such a discussion - leave this one for the 6200 review and if you want to continue, please open up a new thread in the Site Feedback forum.
digitalwanderer
13-Jan-2005, 20:41
I always really thought that B3D didn't do it that way since their articles were so focused and in-depth about the card that comparing two cards wouldn't be fair to one of them.

Also add to that it's damned hard to truly do apples-to-apples comparison and their is now a hugely politically charged climate in just how to do such comparisons and you can pretty much make up your own reasons.

Nice review Dave, btw. ;)
Mulciber
13-Jan-2005, 21:41
Its highly inconvienent to compare cards manually by looking at diffrent articles.

Highly is far too strong a word - one could not seriously argue that it's taxing to have additional open browsers.
.

system specs, testing methodologies, driver revision used, game selection and settings are all dependant upon the reviewer. having two browsers open being the only limitation of your suggestion is a gross understatement.
martrox
14-Jan-2005, 10:40
Once again the card compare thing raises it's ugly head. As has been stated here before - countless friggin times - you want comparisons? Go to the countless sites that do such things.

To those that ask this question please use your search fuction

BTW, Dave, nice stuff once again......
protomech
15-Jan-2005, 02:04
Some nitpicks:

page 2:
'previous page' link refers back to page 2, not page 1.

page 5, 2nd paragraph:
"board in mind that this will also directly affect Pixel Shader throughput." - should probably be bear

page 5, first graph:
Y axis legend should be pixels/s or the ticks should be measured in MPixels/s (eg from 200 to 1400).


Great article :-) I like the power, noise and temperature results ...
skazz
16-Jan-2005, 11:42
I have a few questions I'm hoping will get an answer here:

Any clues/guestimates as to 6200 AGP availability?
Anyone know what exactly separates the ASUS 6200 gamer edition from a standard 6200? It has the standard 300/275 clocks and 128MB DDR RAM, so I can't see why they give it the gamer edition sticker...