NVIDIA's GeForce 6200 & 6600 non-GT: Affordable Gaming
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 11, 2004 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance
UT2004 continues to be quite popular, so we take a look at how well the entry level cards play Epic's latest game.At 800x600, many of the cards appear to be CPU limited, with the exception of the GeForce 6200, X300 and X300SE (and, of course, the integrated graphics solution).
The performance is very similar between all of them because of this CPU limitation, so let's step back and see what the whole picture tells us:
The X700 continues to dominate performance, but here, it mostly allows you to play at higher resolutions more than anything else. The 6600 and X600 Pro actually perform quite similarly, as do the 6200 and X300, which isn't too good for NVIDIA.
Notes from the Lab
ATI X300: The added memory bandwidth really helps. It's definitely a noticeable improvement in performance over the X300SE. Interestingly enough, the X300 is basically as fast as the 6200 here, with a higher core clock and less memory bandwidth.ATI X300SE: Not obscenely fast, but the card will play UT.
ATI X600 Pro: Visual quality, again, looks similar to NVIDIA. Performance at lower resolutions is CPU limited and competitive with NVIDIA. At 800x600, the X600 manages to stay ahead of the game, where NVIDIA falls behind a bit with the 6200. The game locked up switching resolutions once. It is interesting that average frame rates are actually higher in Doom 3 than they are in UT2004. It looks like Doom 3 is a much more peaky game, with more peaks and dips than UT2004, which offers a more stable frame rate. A quick check with FRAPS reveals what we had suspected. Although both UT2004 and Doom 3 have a minimum frame rate around 30 fps with the X600, Doom 3 peaks at about 150fps while UT does so at 113fps. Doom 3 peaks a full 30% higher than UT, despite the fact that the average frame rates are the same. Performance of the X600 is very strong; it's better matched for the 6600 than the 6200, despite NVIDIA's marketing.
ATI X700: At lower resolutions, it's the same speed as the X600. Only when you get past 1024 does it really separate itself.
NVIDIA GeForce 6200: Anything below 10x7 is a bit too aliased, but 10x7 seems to play well and look great on the 6200, despite what the average framerate may indicate. Launching the timedemo while still in the video settings screen caused UT to GPF (General Protection Fault).
NVIDIA GeForce 6600: It's tough to tell the difference between the 6600 and the 6200 at lower resolutions. The 6600 gives you the ability to play at up to 10x7 with no real drop in frame rate, but the 6200 does work well for the beginning/casual gamer.
Intel Integrated Graphics: The game is playable at 800x600 with the integrated graphics solution. You have to turn down some detail settings to get better responsiveness, though. It can work as a platform to introduce someone to UT2004.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
Saist - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
xsliver : I think it's because ATi has generally cared more about optimizing for DirectX, and more recently just optimizing for API. OpenGl was never really big on ATi's list of supported API's... However, adding in Doom3, and the requirement of OGL on non-Windows-based systems, and OGL is at least as important to ATi now as DirectX. How long it will take to convert that priority into performance is unknown.Also, keep this in mind: Nvidia specifically built the Geforce mark-itecture from the ground up to power John Carmack's 3D dream. Nvidia has specifically stated they create their cards based on what Carmack says. Wether or not that is right or wrong I will leave up to you to decide, but that does very well explain the disparity between ID games and other games, even under OGL.
xsilver - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Just a conspiracy theory -- does the NV cards only perform well on the most popular / publicised games whereas the ATI cards excel due to a better written driver / better hardware?Or is the FRAPS testing biasing ATI for some reason?
Cygni - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
What do you mean "who has the right games"? If you want to play Doom3, look at the Doom3 graphs. If you want to play FarCry, look a the FarCry graphs. If you want to play CoH, Madden, or Thunder 04, look at HardOCP's graphs. Every game is going to handle the cards differently. I really dont see anything wrong with AnandTech's current group of testing programs.And Newegg now has 5 6600 non-GTs in stock, ranging in price from $175-$148. But remember that it takes time to test and review these cards. When Anand went to get a 6600, its very likely that that was the only card he could find. I know I couldnt find one at all a week ago.
T8000 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Check this, a XFX 6600 in stock for just $143:http://www.gameve.com/gve/Store/ProductDetails.asp...
Furthermore, the games you pick for a review make a large difference for the conclusion. Because of that, HardOCP has the 6200 outperforming the x600 by a small margin. So, I would like to know who has the right games.
And #2:
The X700/X800 is simular enough to the 9800 to compare them on pipelines and clock speeds. Based on that, the x700 should perform about the same.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Thanks for the responses, here are some answers in no specific order:1) The X300 was omitted from the Video Stress Test benchmark because CS: Source was released before we could finish testing the X300, no longer giving us access to the beta. We will run the cards on the final version of CS: Source in future reviews.
2) I apologize for the confusing conclusion, that statement was meant to follow the line before it about the X300. I've made the appropriate changes.
3) No prob in regards to the Video Processor, I've literally been asking every week since May about this thing. I will get the full story one way or another.
4) I am working on answering some of your questions about comparing other cards to what we've seen here. Don't worry, the comparisons are coming...
Take care,
Anand
friedrice - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Here's my question, what is better? A Geforce 6800 or a Geforce 6600 GT? I wish there was like a Geforce round-up somewhere. And I saw some benchmarks that showed SLI does indeed work, but these were just used on 3dmark and anyone know if there is any actual tests out yet on SLI?Also to address another issue some of you have brought up, these new line of cards beat the 9800 Pro by a huge amount. But it's not worth the upgrade. Stick with what you have until it no longer works, and right now a 9800 Pro works just fine. Of course if you do need a new graphics card, the 6600 GT seems the way to go. If you can find someone that sells them.
O, and to address the pricing. nVidia only offers suggested retail prices. Vendors can up the price on parts so that they can still sell the inventory they have on older cards. In the next couple of months we should see these new graphics cards drop to the MSRP
ViRGE - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
#10, because it's still an MP game at the core. The AI is as dumb as rocks, and is there for the console users. Most PC users will be playing this online, not alone in SP mode.rbV5 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Thanks for the tidbit on the 6800's PVP. I'd like to see Anandtech take on a video card round up aimed at video processing and what these cards are actually capable of. It would fit in nicely with the media software/hardware Andrew's been looking at, and let users know what to actually expect from their hardware.thebluesgnr - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Buyxtremegear has the GeForce 6600 from Leadtek for $135. Gameve has 3 different cards (Sparkle, XFX, Leadtek) all under $150 for the 128MB version.#1,
they're probably talking about the power consumption under full load.
Sunbird - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
All I hope is that the 128bit and 64bit versions have some easy way of distinguishing between them.