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
Sunbird - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
bpt8056 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Anand, thanks so much for updating us on the PVP feature in the NV40. I think it's high-time somebody held nVidia accountable for a "broken" feature. Do you know if the PVP is working in the PCI-Express version (NV45)? Any information you can get would be great. Thanks Anand!mczak - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
That's an odd conclusion... "In most cases, the GeForce 6200 does significantly outperform the X300 and X600 Pro, its target competitors from ATI."But looking at the results, the X600Pro is _faster_ in 5 of 8 benchmarks (sometimes significantly), 2 are a draw, and only slower in 1 (DoomIII, by a significant margin). Not to disregard DoomIII, but if you base your conclusion entirely on that game alone why do you even bother with the other titles?
I just can't see why that alone justifies "...overall, the 6200 takes the crown".
There are some other odd comments as well, for instance at the Star Wars Battlefront performance: "The X300SE is basically too slow to play this game. There's nothing more to it. The X300 doesn't make it much better either." Compared to the 6200 which gets "An OK performer;..." but is actually (very slightly) slower than the X300?
gordon151 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
"In most cases, the GeForce 6200 does significantly outperform the X300 and X600 Pro, its target competitors from ATI."Eh, am I missing something or wasnt it the X600 Pro the card that significantly outperformed the 6200 in almost all areas with the exception of Doom3.
dragonic - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
#6 Why would they drop it because the multiplayer framerate is locked? They benchmark using the single player, not the multiplayerDAPUNISHER - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Thanks Anand! I've been on about the PVP problems with nV40 for months now, and have become increasing fustrated with the lack of information and/or progress by nV. Now that a major site is pursuing this with vigor I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that answers will be forthcoming one way or another!Again, thanks for making this issue a priority and emphatically stating you will get more information for us. It's nV vs Anand so "Rumble young man! Rumble!" :-)
AlphaFox - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
if you ask me, all these low end cards are stupid if you have a PCIe motherboard.. who the heck would get one of these crappy cards if they spent all the money for a brand new PCIe computer??? these cards would be perfect for AGP as they are now going to start to be lower end..ROcHE - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
How would a 9800 Pro do against these card?ViRGE - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Unless LucasArts changes something Anand, you may want to drop the Battlefront test. With multiplayer, the framerate is locked to the tick rate(usually 20FPS), so its performance is nearly irrelivant.PS #1, he's talking about the full load graph, not the idle graph
teng029 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
"For example, the GeForce 6600 is supposed to have a street price of $149, but currently, it's selling for closer to $170. So, as the pricing changes, so does our recommendation."i have yet to see the 6600 anywhere. pricewatch only lists two aopen cards (both well over 200.00) it and newegg doesn't carry it. i'm curious as to where he got the 170.00 street price.