Good card? Nay or Yay?
- Thread starter jon2231
- Start date
Computer Head
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,841
Jon. said:Thanks man for the find.
Okay everyone, i'm gonna go with this one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130017
Nay or Yay?
Yay, I would've recommended that card if I had seen the post earlier. Nice find, that should do you well.
I'm suprised
Looked at the specs - they seem identical to the ones of the 6600GT but with a lower core clock.
Looking at this review:
http://xtreview.com/review92.htm
It does seem to be better though.
And seeing as you can get a 6600GT for $99:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814135185
And seeing as how the 6800GS is $190 or so, I'd take a look at the benchmarks more closely and if the 6600GT can play BF2 - which I'm sure it can - then I would save the money.
Looked at the specs - they seem identical to the ones of the 6600GT but with a lower core clock.
Looking at this review:
http://xtreview.com/review92.htm
It does seem to be better though.
And seeing as you can get a 6600GT for $99:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814135185
And seeing as how the 6800GS is $190 or so, I'd take a look at the benchmarks more closely and if the 6600GT can play BF2 - which I'm sure it can - then I would save the money.
Kage
Golden Master
- Messages
- 13,873
The 7600GT though on the other hand should be alot better in new games, because of its new core, and features.
Its also cheaper than the 6800XT he was looking at previously.
Make sure to look at my posts...
The 6600GT, though good won't handle new games really at high settings, and will fail when the next bout comes along, like Unreal, etc, so its just not worth it anymore.
Plus, that 128mb now is very very small for a latest chip. 256mb is the minimum in a graphics card nowadays.
Its also cheaper than the 6800XT he was looking at previously.
Make sure to look at my posts...
The 6600GT, though good won't handle new games really at high settings, and will fail when the next bout comes along, like Unreal, etc, so its just not worth it anymore.
Plus, that 128mb now is very very small for a latest chip. 256mb is the minimum in a graphics card nowadays.
I've got a 6600GT - I don't think it will "fail", but you certainly won't be able to play at highest settings - then again, neither will you be able to with a 7600GT.
The 7600GT won't be a lot better, but you may be able to put settings from 3 out of 6 to 4 out of 6
The 7600GT won't be a lot better, but you may be able to put settings from 3 out of 6 to 4 out of 6
Kage
Golden Master
- Messages
- 13,873
Its true, they'll both fail at some point, but the 7600GT is definietly doing more future proofing, but I guess whne Viesta comes along, all these new cards will be exstinct anyways when Direct X 10 is really concerned (Viesta will still run though with a Direct x 9 card)
Condemned on the other hand, even though the 6600GT can run BF2 might be slightly more graphics intensive.
This is basically why I decided to go for the 7600GT.
It prooved to be cheaper than the 6800GS and offer a slightly better performance!
Condemned on the other hand, even though the 6600GT can run BF2 might be slightly more graphics intensive.
This is basically why I decided to go for the 7600GT.
It prooved to be cheaper than the 6800GS and offer a slightly better performance!
Kage
Golden Master
- Messages
- 13,873
Well, i haven't exactly proven it
You see, I have a 6800GS overclocked slightly higher than stock settings, and its better than the 6600GT in performance with games, but, in new games, I'm still not getting brilliant frame rates.
Need For Speed Most wanted for example is in the 25-30's with high settings at 1280x1024 with 2x antialising (only slightly faster with 0x). This is boarding on a problem area.
Then theres the Half Life 2 Lost Coast patch, that at 1280x1024 with 0x antialising, I get 28-35FPS... Now thats also boardering on slow.
With new games using HDR alot more, and since the 7000 series is built alot better for this, it prooves to be a better card, and a cheaper alternative (for some reason) than the 6800GS which I have myself.
Since its cheaper, this bit doesn't matter, but at larger resoloutions, the 7600GT and the 6800GS pan out almost equal, with the 7600GT pulling slightly ahead.
HDR prooves better though.
If it was any more expensive, I wouldn't suggest to get the 7600GT, but for the price vs the 6800GS, you can't fault it.
You see, I have a 6800GS overclocked slightly higher than stock settings, and its better than the 6600GT in performance with games, but, in new games, I'm still not getting brilliant frame rates.
Need For Speed Most wanted for example is in the 25-30's with high settings at 1280x1024 with 2x antialising (only slightly faster with 0x). This is boarding on a problem area.
Then theres the Half Life 2 Lost Coast patch, that at 1280x1024 with 0x antialising, I get 28-35FPS... Now thats also boardering on slow.
With new games using HDR alot more, and since the 7000 series is built alot better for this, it prooves to be a better card, and a cheaper alternative (for some reason) than the 6800GS which I have myself.
Since its cheaper, this bit doesn't matter, but at larger resoloutions, the 7600GT and the 6800GS pan out almost equal, with the 7600GT pulling slightly ahead.
HDR prooves better though.
If it was any more expensive, I wouldn't suggest to get the 7600GT, but for the price vs the 6800GS, you can't fault it.
Yes - I know the 6800GS is a good card and is better than the 7600GT. But that doesn't mean that the 7600GT is better than either of the two cards.
Just because it has a 7 instead of a 6, it doesn't mean it is better than the previous age of cards. The 7600GT was released because nVidia needed a midrange card in the 7-series - not because it is better than the equivalent card in the 6-series.
If your going to tell someone to buy something, then you should at least be able to back up what you say.
Just because it has a 7 instead of a 6, it doesn't mean it is better than the previous age of cards. The 7600GT was released because nVidia needed a midrange card in the 7-series - not because it is better than the equivalent card in the 6-series.
If your going to tell someone to buy something, then you should at least be able to back up what you say.
Kage
Golden Master
- Messages
- 13,873
I've read reviews myself, and they both narrow out at a certain point, but its cheaper too!
http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2649&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=3
Its still alot better than the 6600GT from that review
I store information in my head after reading a review, and have alot of magazines instead to back it up.
Heres how it performs though from a magazine (Custom PC):
7600GT example:
n F.E.A.R., the EN7600GT won't provide smooth frame rates at 1,280 x 960 with AA and AF engaged. Overclocking will slightly increase these frame rates, but you'll still see the card falter in fierce firefights. That said, F.E.A.R. isn't kind to any 6-series graphics card, even high-end models, so the EN7600GT isn't doing too badly to make the game playable at 1,024 x 768 with all of the detail settings up high.
In Quake 4, the EN7600GT was fine at 1,280 x 1,024 with 2x AA, which is once again a great achievement for a mid-range card. We also put the EN7600GT through its paces in Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend. Although we haven't yet developed a benchmark for the game, the EN7600GT averaged close to 30fps at 1,280 x 1,024 in the first level, with the demanding 'next generation content' option turned on, although without AA enabled.
6800GS example:
While the GeForce 6800 GS has fewer pipelines than the 6800 GT, its higher clock speeds make up for this. The Leadtek has no trouble playing Battlefield 2 at 1,280 x 1,024, so it will be perfect for playing the game's two new mini expansion packs, which should be available by the time you read this. The Leadtek can even provide a fighting-fit frame rate at 1,600 x 1,200 with 2x AA, if your monitor can handle this resolution.
F.E.A.R. is a much more demanding game than Battlefield 2, and even GeForce 7-series cards struggle at high resolutions, so it's no surprise that the Leadtek found it tough going. That said, it can produce a playable frame rate at 1,280 x 960 with 2x AA and 2x AF, and thanks to its overclock, the Leadtek is quicker than the reference GeForce 6800 GT, averaging 38fps to the GT's 36fps. This may not sound like a great result, but if you bear in mind that we test at the 'maximum' detail settings, and so F.E.A.R. looks amazing, then the Leadtek's score is very impressive.
While the Leadtek generally handles Quake 4 well, as evidenced by its high average score of 50fps at 1,280 x 1,024 with 2x AA, the complex lighting and shader effects means that it struggles during certain points in the game. This means you can get some pretty nasty stuttering, and the vast majority of gamers will find this quite intolerable, particularly when it occurs during a heavy bout of combat. As such, you basically want to ditch the AA if you want to play Quake 4 at any resolution above 1,024 x 768"
Haha, not exactly an equal match of quotes, but it sort of says it...
ANOTHER QUOTE ON THE 7600GT:
Initally it looks as though theres little to distinquish between the 7600gt and 6800gs. Both cards have 12 pixel pipelines and are in the same price bracket.
However, comparing these two cards would be doing a grave injustice to the 7600GT. This is mainly because its clocked much higher, with the core running at 450mhz.
It can also run 4 pixel operations per pixel shader clock, instead of 2 with the 6800GS.
Not only that, but the GPU on our test sample is also massively overlclockable.
Its a worthy successer to the 6600GT and is easily the best card if you can't afford past £150.
So sorry Prosser13, but I do know what I'm talking about People just have to trust my judgements on what I've read, etc.
I wouldn't say something like this, if I wasn't sure it could perform. I would suggest, but I'd never say it definitely would without truley knowing.
http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2649&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=3
Its still alot better than the 6600GT from that review
I store information in my head after reading a review, and have alot of magazines instead to back it up.
Heres how it performs though from a magazine (Custom PC):
7600GT example:
n F.E.A.R., the EN7600GT won't provide smooth frame rates at 1,280 x 960 with AA and AF engaged. Overclocking will slightly increase these frame rates, but you'll still see the card falter in fierce firefights. That said, F.E.A.R. isn't kind to any 6-series graphics card, even high-end models, so the EN7600GT isn't doing too badly to make the game playable at 1,024 x 768 with all of the detail settings up high.
In Quake 4, the EN7600GT was fine at 1,280 x 1,024 with 2x AA, which is once again a great achievement for a mid-range card. We also put the EN7600GT through its paces in Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend. Although we haven't yet developed a benchmark for the game, the EN7600GT averaged close to 30fps at 1,280 x 1,024 in the first level, with the demanding 'next generation content' option turned on, although without AA enabled.
6800GS example:
While the GeForce 6800 GS has fewer pipelines than the 6800 GT, its higher clock speeds make up for this. The Leadtek has no trouble playing Battlefield 2 at 1,280 x 1,024, so it will be perfect for playing the game's two new mini expansion packs, which should be available by the time you read this. The Leadtek can even provide a fighting-fit frame rate at 1,600 x 1,200 with 2x AA, if your monitor can handle this resolution.
F.E.A.R. is a much more demanding game than Battlefield 2, and even GeForce 7-series cards struggle at high resolutions, so it's no surprise that the Leadtek found it tough going. That said, it can produce a playable frame rate at 1,280 x 960 with 2x AA and 2x AF, and thanks to its overclock, the Leadtek is quicker than the reference GeForce 6800 GT, averaging 38fps to the GT's 36fps. This may not sound like a great result, but if you bear in mind that we test at the 'maximum' detail settings, and so F.E.A.R. looks amazing, then the Leadtek's score is very impressive.
While the Leadtek generally handles Quake 4 well, as evidenced by its high average score of 50fps at 1,280 x 1,024 with 2x AA, the complex lighting and shader effects means that it struggles during certain points in the game. This means you can get some pretty nasty stuttering, and the vast majority of gamers will find this quite intolerable, particularly when it occurs during a heavy bout of combat. As such, you basically want to ditch the AA if you want to play Quake 4 at any resolution above 1,024 x 768"
Haha, not exactly an equal match of quotes, but it sort of says it...
ANOTHER QUOTE ON THE 7600GT:
Initally it looks as though theres little to distinquish between the 7600gt and 6800gs. Both cards have 12 pixel pipelines and are in the same price bracket.
However, comparing these two cards would be doing a grave injustice to the 7600GT. This is mainly because its clocked much higher, with the core running at 450mhz.
It can also run 4 pixel operations per pixel shader clock, instead of 2 with the 6800GS.
Not only that, but the GPU on our test sample is also massively overlclockable.
Its a worthy successer to the 6600GT and is easily the best card if you can't afford past £150.
So sorry Prosser13, but I do know what I'm talking about
People just have to trust my judgements on what I've read, etc.I wouldn't say something like this, if I wasn't sure it could perform. I would suggest, but I'd never say it definitely would without truley knowing.
