6600 GT 256mb

[Diablo]

anyone know when the 256mb model will be avilible on the market ? If anyone could find me some good deals one them if they even exist. I really want on of these puppies

 

[D14JEFF]

id like to know that myself.i want to upgrade my 9800 non pro but i also want a 256 meg card and unless i wait 2 or so years im not gonna be able to afford a 6800gt
oh,,,,,,,,,,,,by the way,,,,,,
BUMP

 

[dderidex]

Yeah, and I want a GeForce FX 5200 with 256mb!! 256MB ROCK!! POWA TO TEH RAM!!!

(No, seriously, why on earth would you want such a stupid thing?)

 

[stelleg151]

Yeah, and I want a GeForce FX 5200 with 256mb!! 256MB ROCK!! POWA TO TEH RAM!!!

(No, seriously, why on earth would you want such a stupid thing?)

I read on review that even at 6600gt and x700xt speeds, the 128mb can cause texture thrashing, which didnt occur with the 256mb x700pro. You think 256mb 9800xt is worthless???? These are faster than the 9800xt, so your analogy to 5200 is pretty weak I would say....

 

[pxc]

Yeah, and I want a GeForce FX 5200 with 256mb!! 256MB ROCK!! POWA TO TEH RAM!!!

(No, seriously, why on earth would you want such a stupid thing?)

Just to remind you, a 6600GT has 8 pipelines (let's not get into 4x2 or 8x1 ) and a 500MHz core speed. It's nothing like a 256MB FX 5200.

Like the last generation of cards (9800XT and 59x0), 256MB helps out in some games with LOTS of textures and FSAA enabled.

 

[ikellensbro]

Hey, I have an FX 5200 and it pwns you 5900XT. Didn't You hear? Nvidea is oing backwards now, and new patches make the lower number cards faster than higher ones! Now a 6800 is the slowest, and a G3 ti 200 is the r0x0rs of all cards . Nah, just fooling around, but don't diss my card! It runs COD at a constant 20 fps @ 1024x768 high most stuff (on some levels when staring at a wall)!

 

[dderidex]

I read on review that even at 6600gt and x700xt speeds, the 128mb can cause texture thrashing, which didnt occur with the 256mb x700pro. You think 256mb 9800xt is worthless???? These are faster than the 9800xt, so your analogy to 5200 is pretty weak I would say....

Yes, absolutely, 256mb on the 9800xt was worthless.

And 'texture thrashing' - *whew* - you'd be *hard* pressed to find a game that this would be a problem on.

Hell, even Doom3 can fit in 64mb of vram. All you get by having more is the ability to use uncompressed textures, but the 'quality' difference is virtually indistinguishable.

And that's on games that OFFER the uncompressed textures. I can think, offhand, of only 3 games right now that you can even set up to need more than 128mb:
Doom 3
Far Cry
Half-Life 2

And that said, if you have the graphics cranked so high that you NEED 256mb of vram - you can forget playing any of these games on anything less than a 6800GT.

Like the last generation of cards (9800XT and 59x0), 256MB helps out in some games with LOTS of textures and FSAA enabled.

That's all the point I was making. Sure, you can create a hypothetical situation where 256mb is superior to 128mb. But that's the same thing as creating a hypothetical situation where having 3gb of system ram is better than 1gb. Could such a situation possibly exist right now? Maybe. Does that mean it makes sense to have 3gb of system ram? Hell, no!

It'd be useful SO RARELY, if EVER in 'real life' situations, it just doesn't make sense to pay so much more FOR it.

 

[stelleg151]

Extra RAM isn't really about outright performance, but more about maintaining the maximum potential performance in applications / situations where lots of RAM is required. At this juncture its somewhat of a close call as to what's best in this segment. In the game tests we had here you can see that there aren't many titles that you will loose much performance on without 256MB, and the main cases where this happens was at 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA enabled - arguably, though, the performance of these boards may not be sufficient for those conditions anyway. Of course, as detail creeps up in later titles, as we are beginning to see a little with Doom3 and the Source Video Stress Test, 256MB may start to become more of a requirement in the future.

That is from direct 3d review, and does show that you have a point, but I feel safer with 256, as games are tending to use more and more. Also, still looking for review that noticed significant texture thrashin in cs: source with 128mb cards.

 

[dderidex]

That is from direct 3d review, and does show that you have a point, but I feel safer with 256, as games are tending to use more and more. Also, still looking for review that noticed significant texture thrashin in cs: source with 128mb cards.

The point, though, is that the article only mentioned POSSIBLE situations that it would be a limitation in. Even then, it's only "a little".

Thing thing is, the bulk of users out there still have 64mb cards, and game designers make their games to be playable on that.

128mb is plenty for the forseeable future - STILL. Maybe late 2005/2006 will start showing games where 128mb really is the minimum and to crank the graphics up to even upper mid-level quality requires 256mb....but that's still a LONG way off.

It's just not worth the price premium at the moment.

 

[Advil]

Have to disagree here. While it may be on the ragged edge of "necessary" the 6600GT may very well be a good card to have 256mb on.

HardOCP's own Half Life 2 benchmarks prove this out. Look at this page:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjkyLDI=

And this excerpt:

"...The GeForce 6600GT takes a nosedive at 4XAA/8XAF, but do keep in mind that there is only 128MB of RAM on the GeForce 6600GT, while all the other cards here have 256MB of RAM..."

What they call a "nosedive" is still averaging 40 FPS at 1600x1200 at 4xAA/8xAF. The chart suggests that the card may be able to maintain around 50fps with 256mb.

I'd say that it would be well worth it, especially if you are going to have this card more than a year.

 

[pxc]

That's all the point I was making. Sure, you can create a hypothetical situation where 256mb is superior to 128mb.

Doom3, Far Cry, HL2. Maybe those games will come out someday. They must not exist because you say they are "hypothetical". Each of those 3 benefits from 256MB in 1600x1200 w/FSAA. And yes, the 6600GT is fast enough for that.

You might want to try out a newer card before spouting off.

 

[Xilikon]

Back on topic... I don't think there will be a 6600GT with 256 MB of ram before the next lineup release.

 

[pxc]

Back on topic... I don't think there will be a 6600GT with 256 MB of ram before the next lineup release.

I agree. I hope the NV41 with 256MB is cheap.

 

[SlasherDNA]

Its no need for a 6600GT to have 256mb. This card wont run games on 1600x1280 high anywayz, so extra 128mb wouldnt help it.

 

[dderidex]

Doom3, Far Cry, HL2. Maybe those games will come out someday. They must not exist because you say they are "hypothetical". Each of those 3 benefits from 256MB in 1600x1200 w/FSAA. And yes, the 6600GT is fast enough for that.

You might want to try out a newer card before spouting off.

At 4xFSAA, 1600x1200 sure. But no, that card is NOT fast enough for those games at that setting, so it really is only 'hypothetical'.

The 6600GT gets a whopping 19.7 fps in Far Cry at that level - and the 256mb 6800GT only gets 35.7, so I think we can exclude ram amount as the discerning factor, here.

In Doom3 it's...wait for it...26.9 fps! Wow, that's playable! And, again, the 256mb 6800GT only gets 36fps, so it is, again, not the ram that is limiting - the 6600GT is staying in it's place in relation to the 6800GT just as it was in every other lower res and setting.

Finally, we have Half-Life 2. Where the AGP 6600GT gets 18.3 fps at 1600x1200 with 4xFSAA. Now, this appears to be the ONLY game your position holds up on, as there is a pretty substantial difference between that card (and the 6800nu) and the 256mb 6800GT. Of course, even the 6800GT is getting a quite-unplayable 36fps, so who cares? If the 6800GT is unplayable at this res, no amount of ram on a the 6600GT will help.

So, how about YOU get some experience with these new cards before "spouting off".

(And in any case, the last survey I had seen showed that something like 0.5% of PC gamers have monitors capable of 1600x1200 ANYWAY, so I'd still definately call this a 'hypothetical')

 

[tranCendenZ]

Have to disagree here. While it may be on the ragged edge of "necessary" the 6600GT may very well be a good card to have 256mb on.

HardOCP's own Half Life 2 benchmarks prove this out. Look at this page:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjkyLDI=

And this excerpt:

"...The GeForce 6600GT takes a nosedive at 4XAA/8XAF, but do keep in mind that there is only 128MB of RAM on the GeForce 6600GT, while all the other cards here have 256MB of RAM..."

The 6600GT is also the only card out of that bunch that has a 128-bit memory bus, probably more responsible for the performance loss than the memory.

 

[Celsius]

I'll let all you know how it looks on saturday. The card will get to me on thursday, and I will load the games on saturday.

I only play the games at 1280X1024 because my eyesight is not that great. So when they talk about the higher res I'm not really affected. Sure I can turn on all the bells and whistles but when I tried that with my 9800Pro XT it was horrible. Yes, I'm coming back to Nvidia I'll let you know.

I don't live by benchmarks, I live by, Am I able to have fun in the game and not notice a slowdown? If its yes I'm not going to drive my wallet in the ground and drive myself nuts over 8% increase in frame rate.


XFX GeForce 6600 GT 128MB Dual DVI AGP 8X DX 9 DDR3

They are the only ones I could find in stock.

 

[pxc]

At 4xFSAA, 1600x1200 sure. But no, that card is NOT fast enough for those games at that setting, so it really is only 'hypothetical'.

<change of subject to something ridiculous deleted>

So, how about YOU get some experience with these new cards before "spouting off".

Last thing first, I have a 6600GT, so I'm not just spouting off like you are with your ghetto 5900xt. And I'm one of the few who has a 1600x1200 LCD, so I prefer to play games at the native resolution.

Now back to the beginning: Who said only 4xAA? I said FSAA, which includes 2xAA. And I've seen a lot more texture thrashing with 2xAA enabled at 1600x1200 in the 3 games I listed. The performance hit at 1600x1200 with 2xAA is also far more than than the 2xAA hit at lower resolutions, so texture thrashing is a main reason for what's causing the performance nose-dive. 256MB would help in the 3 games I listed. Period.

Have fun criticizing cards and things you've never even run.

 

[pxc]

The 6600GT is also the only card out of that bunch that has a 128-bit memory bus, probably more responsible for the performance loss than the memory.

That is one cause, but you also have to look at how much the slowdown is. If the performance hit % is much, much higher than lower resolutions, the cause of the drop includes texture thrashing from the small amount of memory.

 

[Celsius]

Praise to the Brother!!!

 

[swirly]

why play on 1600X1200??? whats the damn point.. it doesnt look much better even with the 4xaa.. its dumb.. i get awoms egraphical features and looks sweet on 1024X768 no aa shit on.. highest settings and thats what oyu should be worried about. m getting the 6600GT over the 6800 > 1 because its better and > 2 becuase.. i play on 1024 , why do people care how it performs with settings u dont play on lol? just me.. if u agree type 1-800-SwirlyOwns!

 

[dderidex]

why play on 1600X1200??? whats the damn point.. it doesnt look much better even with the 4xaa.. its dumb.. i get awoms egraphical features and looks sweet on 1024X768 no aa shit on.. highest settings and thats what oyu should be worried about. m getting the 6600GT over the 6800 > 1 because its better and > 2 becuase.. i play on 1024 , why do people care how it performs with settings u dont play on lol? just me.. if u agree type 1-800-SwirlyOwns!

Actually, although my LCD does do 1280x1024 (native), I kinda prefer 1024x768 for most games, myself. Playing off native res puts a little fuzz into the image, and using 2xQ AA instead of 4x does the same.

Dunno about you guys, but when I look out at the world, I don't see the razor-sharp edges on objects that appear in games. And those two changes make a world of difference.

Now, games with 'bloom' effect done right don't really need that, as they kinda get the way things look done fine in-game. (And just as well, as 'bloom' won't work with FSAA, anyway).

And then, yeah, the FPS at those levels is pretty awesome.

 

[The Doomguy]

1024 looks like ass on my Dell2001FP. 1280 is the min I'll play at, even then I'll take 4xAA everytime I can get it.

 

[Advil]

Actually, although my LCD does do 1280x1024 (native), I kinda prefer 1024x768 for most games, myself. Playing off native res puts a little fuzz into the image, and using 2xQ AA instead of 4x does the same.

Dunno about you guys, but when I look out at the world, I don't see the razor-sharp edges on objects that appear in games. And those two changes make a world of difference.

Now, games with 'bloom' effect done right don't really need that, as they kinda get the way things look done fine in-game. (And just as well, as 'bloom' won't work with FSAA, anyway).

And then, yeah, the FPS at those levels is pretty awesome.

I see razor sharp edges everywhere. I can easily see the difference between 1280 and 1600, and I can easily see the difference between 1600 with and without AA.

Considering my current system, I won't play games below 1600x1200. My concern is keeping the frame rate good all the time. The frame rate numbers you guys are quoting are quite low compared to what I'm seeing, and since when is 35-40fps unplayable? It's only unplayable if your minimum frame rate gets down around 25 and you start seeing a slide show. It's the minimum that counts. I never see frame rate issues in Doom3 or HL2 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA on a 6800GT. I bet the 6600GT could manage 1600x1200 with no AA. And maybe with 2x if they put 256mb on it.

 

[The Doomguy]

Checking out [H]'s SLI article, 256mb 6600GTs could be very useful in SLI.