• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

X700pro or 6600GT?

P

Phranq

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
842
I know the 6600GT outperforms the X700 in just about everything, but it's not by much and there are refurb X700s for ~$115. I'm trying to help a friend pick out parts. He will be playing HL2 a lot so I was thinking that an ATI would probably be good for him anyway...what do you all think? It won't really break him to get the 6600GT, but it would sure free up some cash to spend on something else.
 
I got the same problem before when i was deciding on which card to get and i ended up getting the 6600GT, it is a better card all rounder, you won't regret picking the 6600GT.
 
Then, if you ever get an SLI mobo, you can grab another 6600GT and put them together.
 
Another vote for the 6600GT its just flat out better than the x700 and your friend can still play HL2 at max everything at 1280/1024
 
x700pro ! if its just a pci-e mobo good deal on a refurb @ 115$ cant beat that.
 
You wanna wait for Asus' overclocked 6600? It isn't a GT, but it comes pretty damn close and can be overclocked into it. I don't know the price yet, but it should be closer to a 6600 than a 6600GT- otherwise no one will buy it anyway.
 
I have check out so many review, 6600GT is on par with X700 256MB, on some case it is a lil bit better. Remember, 6600GT is only 128MB and is already kicking X700 256MB's ass, you can tell what you want from now I guess :)
 
i vote for 6600GT bc/

1. Faster.
2. has more features and more future proof.
3. better drivers.
4. you can SLI it in the future if need be.
 
DO NOT GET REFURB PARTS FOR A FRIEND!

why? becuase you are already making a mistake in helping him build it, when something goes down hes going to call you for tech support. if the refurb card blows up, do you really want him to be pissed cause you got a refurb card for him and he has no warrenty?

that, and the 6600GT is faster. just think of it as the price you pay for peice of mind.
 
Nothing wrong with the refurbs.I guess some people seem to miss the $70+ price difference. I'd get the x700pro for that price.
 
bboynitrous said:
Nothing wrong with the refurbs.I guess some people seem to miss the $70+ price difference. I'd get the x700pro for that price.
Click to expand...
there is when teh x700 dies and you have no warrenty. doing free tech work for your friends isnt fun.
 
geekcomputing said:
i vote for 6600GT bc/

1. Faster.
2. has more features and more future proof.
3. better drivers.
4. you can SLI it in the future if need be.
Click to expand...

X700 256 can play at higher resolutions due to more memory, the 6600gt is limited pretty much to a 1024x768 with a little aa/af. Im sure you can play higher but those that do, dont tell me you get moments of unbearable framerates.

Better drivers....wtf? Why does some jamoe always have to be stupid about this? The time is long past when Nvidia had better drivers.

SLI, yes theres something not worth doing. Spend 300-400dollars for two cards to perform like a crippled 400dollar card. Unless you get them for free, 6600GTs in SLI is far from futureproof. Proof is in the X800XL which i'd take over 2 6600s, or the 6800GT, which again i'd take over 2 GTs. And it will further be proven worthless by future releases in this year.
 
Shifra said:
X700 256 can play at higher resolutions due to more memory, the 6600gt is limited pretty much to a 1024x768 with a little aa/af. Im sure you can play higher but those that do, dont tell me you get moments of unbearable framerates.
Click to expand...
bullshit. the 6600GT is more powerful than a 9800pro, and a 9800pro was most definatly NOT limited to 1024x768. hell, my 9600 pro could game at a higher resolution than that!

the 6600GT would choke at 1600x1200, but at 1280x1024, itll run like a dream.
 
geekcomputing said:
3. better drivers.
Click to expand...
What? ATI's Catalyst program with monthy releases and numbering system is far better than whatever Nvidia's got right now.
 
Shifra said:
X700 256 can play at higher resolutions due to more memory, the 6600gt is limited pretty much to a 1024x768 with a little aa/af. Im sure you can play higher but those that do, dont tell me you get moments of unbearable framerates..
Click to expand...


First, what game are you talking about? Second, I have yet to play anything at 1024x768 unless your talking about like 4aa/8af (Far Cry)
 
Memory size is more directly related to detail levels than it is to resolution/IQ, though they are both tied in. Bus width is more of a limiting factor for AA/AF and, to some extent, resolution; this is why there are some more stressful benchmarks (few and far between, but still there) where the 9800 can still beat the 6600GT. These are the tests of 1600x1200 with maxxed IQ, in which case any card short of a 6800GT will have unplayable framerates anyway.
 
I have to agree, the X700Pro is the better card in my eyes. Mine is running 500/525 on stock cooling and volts and I am scoring just shy of 27K in 01, in 03 I can hit almost 9K, so it is a bit slower than the 6600GT there. If you like to run with AA and AF I think the X700Pro is the stronger card, Nvidia cards have always been weak with high AA applied. One thing, Nvidia cards will have the edge in open-GL.
 
pigpen said:
First, what game are you talking about? Second, I have yet to play anything at 1024x768 unless your talking about like 4aa/8af (Far Cry)
Click to expand...

what i am talking about is the X700 being a little more kind on future games. Unreal 3, FEAR, Stalker. It can take hits. When the 6600GT attempts to run anything higher then 1024x768 with high settings it crumples. Go look at reviews, they even recommend nothing higher then 1024x768 on the most stressing titles, save Doom3, and simply increasing AA/AF. Once you go higher you can play but you'll hit periods where the frames drop to 20s and teens. I dont care what you can play UT2004 at, for future games i'd rather have the X700 256.

Memory size is directly related to resolution. The higher the resolution the more colors the card sends and recieves to put out each image, its directly impacted by the memory size.
 
Shifra said:
I dont care what you can play UT2004 at, for future games i'd rather have the X700 256.
Click to expand...

Screw that. For future games (Unreal 3) both are going to get beat down. "future proofing" is an antiquated practise for video cards. Think about all those people who splurged on the 5950u / 9800xt only a year and a half ago, only to have them shattered by newer cards for half the price a few months later. With the rumored specs for the R520, a x700 is going to look like a 7000 by the time Unreal 3 is on the shelves. By that time i'll be shopping for a 7600gt and a add on physics cards.

But for todays games, a 6600gt is a better card. No debate.

And in response to the recommended settings, i'm guessing nvidia isn't recomending me to run my card at 10-15% higher clock speeds than stock either. Recomendations are for pussies. That's the point of this forum. I'm saying that i can run the majority of my games (including HL2) higher than 1024 X 768
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top