NVIDIA's GeForce 6200 & 6600 non-GT: Affordable Gaming
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 11, 2004 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Anti-Aliasing Performance
Although the GeForce 6200 lacks the color and z-compression support that the 6600 has, we've already seen that it is not a fast enough card to run at the high resolutions that would benefit from those features with AA enabled.We also see from the following benchmarks that the loss of color and z-compression does not negatively impact anti-aliasing performance at playable resolutions with the GeForce 6200. For the sake of simplicity, we left off cards that were simply too slow.
Under Doom 3, the move to 2X AA is a huge hit on all cards. There is a slight difference in the performance penalty between the 6200 and 6600 here. With 2X AA enabled, the GeForce 6600 offers around 79% of its original performance, while the 6200 offers only 75%. It's not a huge difference, which leads us to believe that NVIDIA made the right tradeoff in removing color and z-compression from the 6200 series. It honestly won't matter to most users.
Under UT2004, the impact from AA is much less pronounced as even the GeForce 6200 is still fairly CPU bound even with 2X AA enabled. The 6200 does take a bigger hit from enabling AA (89% of its original performance in 2X mode) when compared to the 6600 (93% of its original performance in 2X mode), but again, it's nothing dramatic.
44 Comments
View All Comments
MemberSince97 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
OT, I wonder about the outcome for us 6800 owners and the VP... Nvidia screamed this new feature to us and I bought it . Will this end in a class action,or perhaps some kind of voucher for people that bought the 6800 specifically for this highly touted feature....Lonyo - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Why is there no X300 in the CS: Source stress test?It seems oddly missing, and with no comment as to why...
projecteda - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
x700 > 9800 Pro?NesuD - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
there is some kind of error concerning your max power graph and this statement."other than the integrated graphics solution, the 6200 is the lowest power card here - drawing even less power than the X300,"
the graph clearly shows the 6200 drawing 117 watts while the x300 is shown drawing 110 watts. Just thought i would point that out.