battle of the forget parts: 6200 vs 9800

pxc said:
I wouldn't either. :p Although a 6600 (or unlocked NV43 core 6200) at 500MHz+ has more shading power, the slow 128-bit memory holds it back a lot. It might be possible to find shader heavy games where an overclocked 6600 beats a 9800 Pro at medium resolution (1024x768 or 1280x1024), but that will be an exception.
----

Out of the 7 6200 and 6600 cards I bought, all did at least 525MHz stable on the core and 600-700MHz on the memory. I'd take the 9800 Pro over the 6200 if I was getting a card for free. Successful unlocking is only a 50% chance even with an A3 or older core, and NV43 6200s came in both 64-bit and 128-bit memory flavors.
Click to expand...
the two 6600 cards i had would not go much over 430 for the the core and 620 for memory. i never run more than 375/575 on it though.
 
Along the same lines as the original poster,
which of the following 2 cards would be better without overclock & unlocking

geforce 6200 (64-bit, 4 pipes)
vs.
radeon 9550 (128-bit, 4 pipes)

I'm looking for a super cheap (sub $50) card for an old computer that has agp.
 
surazal said:
Along the same lines as the original poster,
which of the following 2 cards would be better without overclock & unlocking

geforce 6200 (64-bit, 4 pipes)
vs.
radeon 9550 (128-bit, 4 pipes)

I'm looking for a super cheap (sub $50) card for an old computer that has agp.
Click to expand...

I'd go with the 128-bit card. Your better option is a 128-bit 6200 if you want any chance at unlocking. Or get a used card. 9600XT or so can be had for $50.
 
I have a BFG 6200OC, which I even overclocked again myself. It is now at 428/514. It is the 256MB version. Will a 9800Pro outperform my card?

Also, what can I use to unlock pipes?
 
—§urfÅceЗ said:
I have a BFG 6200OC, which I even overclocked again myself. It is now at 428/514. It is the 256MB version. Will a 9800Pro outperform my card?

Also, what can I use to unlock pipes?
Click to expand...

yes, a 9800Pro would outperform that. Use Rivatuner to unlock pipes. You'd have to consult a guide (maybe pxc will link you to his thread on his 6200 unlocking experiences).
 
SilentScope said:
No it wouldn't. Well, my 6200 would beat the shit out of most 9500s. There is a difference with mine, I have mine overclocked quite a bit ;) In fact, mine is overclocked enough to play HL2 on max settings with no AA or AF at 1280.1024 at 25-30 FPS.

Either way, a 9800 PRO would beat the shit out of any 6200. It would be closer with the 9800SE (Shitty Edition), but the PRO and XT are much better cards.
Click to expand...

Eh, my 9500 which was unlocked and overclocked could do 1600x1200 no AA or AF at 45 to 50 fps in HL2. Of course, when you get right down to it, by modding it and overclocking it, I basically turned it into a 9700 Pro, but it still said 9500 on the card and the box it came in.

Now if you're saying most 9500s meaning at stock speeds, then you're probably right, but if you mean most 9500s in general, you're probably wrong since unlocked 9500s were quite common a few years back.
 
Radeon 9800 Pro
Fill rate=3040 Mtexels/s
Memory bandwidth 680mhz x 2 for 256 bit = 21.8 GB/s


Geforce 6600 non GT
Fill rate = 2400 Mtexels/s
Memory bandwidth @ 550mhz ddr 128 bit = 8.8 GB/s



Typical overclocked 6600 non GT and lucked out on the memory dept...
425 mhz core = 3400 Mtexels/s
Memory bandwidth @ 700mhz ddr 128 bit = 11.2 GB/s

Typical overclocked Radeon 9800 Pro
420 mhz core = 3360 Mtexels/s
Memory bandwidth @ 730mhz ddr 256 bit = 23.4 GB/s

If you're a 6600 owner... I heard fill rate does wonders with 16 bit color but not 32 bit. :(
 
trek554 said:
well for BF2 a 6200 will run around 20 fps with no AA medium quality at 1024x768. now whos statement is dumb.
Click to expand...

Not true for my system. I play BF2 rather comfortably at 1024, no AA, 4xAF, Medium Quality, Dynamic Shadows / Lighting Off, 100% Viewing Distance.

I even have only 1GB memory. Apparently without the Texture / Terrain on High the game isn't such a memory hog.

Also, I have the 256/512MB version of the 6200 TC. I'm using the latest version Omega nVidia driver.
 
Stellar said:
Not true for my system. I play BF2 rather comfortably at 1024, no AA, 4xAF, Medium Quality, Dynamic Shadows / Lighting Off, 100% Viewing Distance.

I even have only 1GB memory. Apparently without the Texture / Terrain on High the game isn't such a memory hog.

Also, I have the 256/512MB version of the 6200 TC. I'm using the latest version Omega nVidia driver.
Click to expand...
well that was the benchmarks i saw for the 6200. i think it was on anantech or xbitlabs. i trust hardware sites for facts on benchmarks more than i do users opinions. ;)
 
trek554 said:
well that was the benchmarks i saw for the 6200. i think it was on anantech or xbitlabs. i trust hardware sites for facts on benchmarks more than i do users opinions. ;)
Click to expand...

Ha.. how is what I said an "opinion"?
 
Stellar said:
Ha.. how is what I said an "opinion"?
Click to expand...
well you said "I play BF2 rather comfortably at 1024". that looks like an opinion to me. i like cold hard facts from hardware sites not touchy feely user opinions. almost everybody says their cards can handle every game. even people with a 5200 will brag how good their card is. ;)
 
trek554 said:
well you said "I play BF2 rather comfortably at 1024". that looks like an opinion to me. i like cold hard facts from hardware sites not touchy feely user opinions. ;)
Click to expand...

..because surely "cold hard facts" could never come from a user. ;)
 
Stellar said:
..because surely "cold hard facts" could never come from a user. ;)
Click to expand...
run several benchmarks at different points and post them and i will have a different view on what you are saying. hardware sites usually dont pull any punches. a lot of users will find an area in a game that they get good fps and post those.
 
Without putting too much effort into it...

Played one round in Oman (single player) and this is copied straight from my FRAPS log..

2006-06-03 00:56:20 - BF2
Frames: 56 - Time: 1563ms - Avg: 35.829 - Min: 35 - Max: 37

2006-06-03 00:56:29 - BF2
Frames: 243 - Time: 6501ms - Avg: 37.379 - Min: 32 - Max: 41

2006-06-03 00:56:37 - BF2
Frames: 24984 - Time: 566286ms - Avg: 44.119 - Min: 8 - Max: 101
 
Stellar said:
Without putting too much effort into it...

Played one round in Oman (single player) and this is copied straight from my FRAPS log..

2006-06-03 00:56:20 - BF2
Frames: 56 - Time: 1563ms - Avg: 35.829 - Min: 35 - Max: 37

2006-06-03 00:56:29 - BF2
Frames: 243 - Time: 6501ms - Avg: 37.379 - Min: 32 - Max: 41

2006-06-03 00:56:37 - BF2
Frames: 24984 - Time: 566286ms - Avg: 44.119 - Min: 8 - Max: 101
Click to expand...
i wondered what happened to you? lol. those are some great numbers for a 6200. i will look around to see if i can find those BF2 benchmarks for the 6200TC. :D

well according to Xbitlabs not even a 6600 can get the numbers you got on a 6200. in pure speed they only got 30fps with a 6600. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_8.html

here is a 6200 at xbitlabs. they got 24 fps in pure speed mode. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1300_3.html
 
Well, to be fair I'm using the 256MB version, with a faster dual-core processor, overclocked RAM, and newer optimized driver.

Still not bad for a $45 card.

Screenshots for the sceptics..



 
Geforce 6200

300mhz core 4 pixel pipes = 1200 Mtexels/s
500mhz ddr = 8 GB/s

It's really a Nvidia's version of radeon 8500 with DX9 capabilities.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top