Gefoce 6600GT.
- Thread starter wzh100
- Start date
wzh100 said:
From daves review the 6600gt is indeed faster than a 9800xt .
The 9800pro though is now selling for as low as 170$ and soon after the 6600gt and the x700xt come out i'm sure it will drop lower.
The 6600gt is a great card for the price. You really can't go wrong. However they wont really be avalible tll the middle of october if not a bit later. So its wise to see what the x700xt is like and how much it ends up costing and also to see how far the 9800pro drops in price.
IF you can get a refurbished 9800 for 125 or less (you can already get them for 150) or a new one for 150ish after the 6800gt launch that may be a good deal.
I don't understand what your saying.
If you have a 9800pro then its not worth the upgrade to the 6600 gt. It is faster but not by that much, perhaps 35-55% on average .
Also the r9800 is a dx 9 card just like the 6600gt. However the 6600gt is shader model 3.0 while the 9800 is shader model 2.0. But that should not be a problem for at least another 2 years .
Like i said if you already have a 9800pro the jump to the 6600gt and the x700xt are likely not worth the price . Unless you really need more performance for some reason.
Hellbinder
Banned
hmmm... I would call 35-55% a good reason to upgrade considering the additional feature boost.
Um, jvd, I think he's asking why it's so much faster, not so much about buying one.
Anyway, as for the why, I'm not sure exactly. The most logical reason would be that the 6600 GT has quite a bit more fillrate (500MHz clock, 8 pipelines), and has enough memory bandwidth efficiency to make this fillrate its primary limiting factor in today's games.
Said another way, this card is one that is geared for shader performance. Since shader performance is now very important in games, it performs very well.
Anyway, as for the why, I'm not sure exactly. The most logical reason would be that the 6600 GT has quite a bit more fillrate (500MHz clock, 8 pipelines), and has enough memory bandwidth efficiency to make this fillrate its primary limiting factor in today's games.
Said another way, this card is one that is geared for shader performance. Since shader performance is now very important in games, it performs very well.
An even bigger reason to upgrade - but not to a 6600 though.It's not 4x2, jvd. It's 8x1 with a limit of four pixels outputted per clock. This means that in 99.999% of game scenarios, it will perform exactly like an 8x1 architecture. In the rest of the game scenarios it would be too memory bandwidth-limited anyway, so it's pointless to call it a 4x2 architecture. It's 8x1.jvd said:
It's neither, and therefore it's magic. What's with the semantic bullshit? It's not a 4x2, it's not an 8x1, it's something that can't accurately be described in terms that simple.
No, it's an 80x.1.
There is a difference. A 4x2 architecture has texture units that are paired, and has only four pixel shader units.Kaotik said:
The GeForce 6600 has eight pixel shader units, each with its own texture unit. This allows the card to perform like an eight pipeline card whenever no more than four pixels need be output in a single clock.
A true 4x2 architecture would instead also have performance problems with, say, three textures, or even any pixel shader programs that don't pair texture reads.
Whichever way you slice it, the GeForce 6600 can have eight pixels in-flight in parallel. It is only limited by output. Since few situations in games today do one shader operation and/or one texture or less, the 6600 is not at a disadvantage. Its only disadvantage is its 128-bit memory bus (which imposes the same limits, by the way).
