PDA

View Full Version : 5200 -> 6200? 6600? 6600GT?


Pages : [1] 2

SFL
01-24-05, 07:28 AM
Hi,

I am new to this forum :)

Well, I am going to buy a new grahpics card from NVidia. Currently I have a GeForceFX 5200 which shipped with my Dell Dimension 8300 [1] purchase about 1 year ago. This 5200 is one of the limited ones: I can play only in 640x480; if I switch to higher resolutions, FPS drop dramatically :|

I am not a heavy gamer but nevertheless would like to play my games in higher resolutions. I thought about buying a 6600 (~150EUR) or 6600GT (~200EUR). Now I noticed that NVidia starts selling the 6200 (~100EUR).

Which one would you recommend? Would I feel a performance boost using the 6200 or is this one too similar to my current 5200?

Thanks for your help!


[1]
Dell Dimension 8300
Intel Pentium 4 HT 2,6GHz
1024MB RAM
Intel 875P chipset

rewt
01-24-05, 07:38 AM
Nah the 6200 would probably eat the 5200 alive. But still I'd go with the 6600GT if you can afford it.

TeaEtchSee
01-24-05, 09:40 AM
i agree, the 6600gt is decent...u have AGP or PCIX?

SH64
01-24-05, 09:46 AM
Go for the best ! take the 6600GT :thumbsup:

BigFish7
01-24-05, 09:47 AM
if you are tight on $$$, then 6200 is great, from what i've seen it has great overclocking potential... yet if you have the $$$ 6600GT is a league of its own.


enjoy the new card :cool:

SFL
01-24-05, 11:21 AM
Thanks for your replies :)

I am using AGP8x.

What would you say to the difference between the 6600 and the GT version - from what I have seen the GT is "only" better when playing in higher resoultions such as >= 1280x1024...?

SH64
01-24-05, 12:13 PM
Thanks for your replies :)

I am using AGP8x.

What would you say to the difference between the 6600 and the GT version - from what I have seen the GT is "only" better when playing in higher resoultions such as >= 1280x1024...?

The 6600GT is faster even in low res (1024x768) thanks to its faster memory & higher fillrate .

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/images/image016.gif

FlyVomit
01-24-05, 12:16 PM
Given the rest of your hardware, you would defininately benefit from the GT

Even the GT is better balanced at 1024 x 768 which is what I use

Frankly, the 5200 was a load of rubbish so you are going to be very pleased with the GT

Gentle
01-24-05, 01:00 PM
This is basic information taken from the RojakPot.com website. It is on the second page of their "Desktop Graphics Card Comparison Guide Rev. 7.4!". It gives some specifications on cards going all the way back to the Riva 128 series. (That's a long time for graphics cards...)

GeForce 6200
300 MHz core
1200 MTexels/s
276 MHz 128-bits DDR memory
8.83 GB/s memory bandwidth

GeForce 6600
300 MHz core
2400 MTexels/s
128-bits DDR memory (didn't list speed, but it's still just DDR)
NA (Didn't list memory bandwidth, but again, it's still just DDR)

GeForce 6600 GT (Recommended)
500 MHz core
4000 MTexels/s
500 MHz 128-bits GDDR3 memory
16.00 GB/s memory bandwidth

Now, to compare... Your FX5200

GeForce FX 5200
250 MHz core
1000 MTexels/s
250MHz 128-bit DDR memory
8.00 GB/s memory bandwidth

Now, here's my logic. Don't even consider the 6200. It's not an upgrade really for you. The 6600 would be an upgrade that would leave you wanting more. The 6600GT would be something that should make you happy for a while.

Gentle

jAkUp
01-24-05, 02:27 PM
Go with the 6600gt :)

stncttr908
01-24-05, 02:43 PM
The 6600GT is fast enough to be worth the extra 50 euros over the standard 6600. I recommend it.

Chalnoth
01-24-05, 04:29 PM
You can't simply look at fillrate figures to give you information about the performance of a graphics card, Gentle. The 6200 is head and shoulders above the 5200.

As a side note, though, Beyond3D has a fantastic table of pretty much every 3D card that has come out for the past few years:
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcomp/

Regardless, though, the real reason the 6200 can trounce a 5200 is that it is much, much faster when it comes to playing any game that uses PS 2.0 or greater. Beyond that, I would expect it could play most games at 800x600 with no problem. For one who isn't a game enthusiast, I think it'd be a great buy (since the 6600 will only net you higher resolutions, not more games that are playable). But I don't know if it's available in AGP, so it may well be a mute point.

My advice is, find some benchmarks (tomshardware has some extensive tables), get an idea of the ideal resolution for a given graphics card, and ask yourself whether it's worth it to you to play at the higher resolution the more expensive card gives you.

SFL
01-24-05, 04:49 PM
Regardless, though, the real reason the 6200 can trounce a 5200 is that it is much, much faster when it comes to playing any game that uses PS 2.0 or greater. Beyond that, I would expect it could play most games at 800x600 with no problem. For one who isn't a game enthusiast, I think it'd be a great buy (since the 6600 will only net you higher resolutions, not more games that are playable). But I don't know if it's available in AGP, so it may well be a mute point.

I think that's exactly the point: since I am not a game enthusiast I think it would be sufficient to buy a 6200... The 6600 would be more future-proof...

It seems that the 6200 is available as an AGP version too:
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcomp/?view=boarddetails&id=225

I hope I find some good benchmarks comparing the 6000 series ;)

jAkUp
01-24-05, 04:58 PM
You can't simply look at fillrate figures to give you information about the performance of a graphics card, Gentle. The 6200 is head and shoulders above the 5200.

As a side note, though, Beyond3D has a fantastic table of pretty much every 3D card that has come out for the past few years:
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcomp/

Regardless, though, the real reason the 6200 can trounce a 5200 is that it is much, much faster when it comes to playing any game that uses PS 2.0 or greater. Beyond that, I would expect it could play most games at 800x600 with no problem. For one who isn't a game enthusiast, I think it'd be a great buy (since the 6600 will only net you higher resolutions, not more games that are playable). But I don't know if it's available in AGP, so it may well be a mute point.

My advice is, find some benchmarks (tomshardware has some extensive tables), get an idea of the ideal resolution for a given graphics card, and ask yourself whether it's worth it to you to play at the higher resolution the more expensive card gives you.

OMG its Chalnoth!

SFL
01-24-05, 05:07 PM
OMG its Chalnoth!
:confused:

WeReWoLf
01-24-05, 05:31 PM
One question.. Does an NV Silencer 5 fit on a 6600GT?

jAkUp
01-24-05, 06:15 PM
He hasnt posted in like a year.. heh

Chalnoth
01-24-05, 06:28 PM
He hasnt posted in like a year.. heh
So sue me, I got bored today :)

Tr1cK
01-24-05, 06:32 PM
Have yall taken into consideration the typical Dell PSU sucks? I wouldnt get anything higher than the 6200 unless I upgraded the PSU.

Rytr
01-24-05, 06:44 PM
The 6600 PCI-e plays HL2 very well at 1024x768, 2xAA/4xAF or even 8xAF. During testing for the review of the GigaByte 6600 PCI-e I did some gaming on a 17" LCD at 1280x1024 and performance was acceptable.
Just started playing around with the 6200 PCI-e in preparation for a potential upcoming comparison review on the 6000 series cards. In HL2 it appears performance will be acceptable (no problems such as slow downs, stuttering, etc.) at 800x600 no AA/AF but set, in game, at trilinear. All HL2 in game settings at max.

Chalnoth
01-24-05, 06:51 PM
Oh, and by the way, I just did a quick search on pricewatch, and it doesn't look like the 6200 is yet available in AGP form, and the 6600 AGP is a bit more expensive than its PCI Express counterpart.

SFL
01-25-05, 03:08 AM
Have yall taken into consideration the typical Dell PSU sucks? I wouldnt get anything higher than the 6200 unless I upgraded the PSU.
Concernig posts in the
Dell Community Forum (http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums) the Dell PSU should be ok up to the 6800GT:

The Dell power supplies are rated by their mean power consumption, not their maximum power consumption. Their maximum power consumption is around 350 watts
The Geforce 6600/GT draw less power than the Radeon 9800Pro, and the 8300 had those as an option, I think, so it's not going to be a problem :)

Tr1cK
01-25-05, 06:29 AM
I've seen many Dell P4s running 250 watters. Not saying yours does, it's just a word of caution.

FlyVomit
01-25-05, 08:42 AM
Good point - also their motherboard to PSU connector is wired differently - scumbags.

ViN86
01-25-05, 11:19 AM
heres how i see it. the 6200 really isnt meant to be a well performing agp card. the 6200 seems to be nvidia's competitor to ati's x300 series. a decent base level card for PCIe consumers. the 6200 might not even become agp, even though all they do is add a conversion chip. the choices for agp users are much larger.

i think the 6200 is fooling people cause its part of the 6-series. the truth is, it will be better, but for the amount of money it costs the upgrade to a 6600GT (from the 6200) the bang for the buck is very high. ;)