NVIDIA's GeForce 6200 & 6600 non-GT: Affordable Gaming
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 11, 2004 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield Vietnam Performance
The Battlefield series continues to be popular; with no built-in benchmark, we're forced to develop a benchmark by starting a multi-player game in the Quang Tri 1972 level and manually navigate through a path using FRAPS to record the average frame rate.We kept all of the settings at high except for the graphics detail slider, which we had to keep at low in order to provide a true "apples to apples" comparison between all of the cards here. The standings will remain the same at higher detail settings; the frame rates will simply be lower.
The X700 continues to dominate performance here, outperforming the GeForce 660 by 32%. In the lower end of things, the X600 Pro and the GeForce 6200 are pretty much neck and neck, with the X300 clearly falling behind.
The rest of the resolution picture isn't much different from what we've already shown you:
Notes from the Lab
ATI X600 Pro: Mouse isn't as laggy, but still laggy enough, especially at 12x10.ATI X700: This continues to dominate performance here as well.
NVIDIA GeForce 6200: The mouse speed is erratic in the menus before you enter a game. The card isn't really considered "fast", but smooth at 800x600.
NVIDIA GeForce 6600: Performance is much better than the 6200, and the mouse still lags in the menu for some reason. This card plays the game nice and fast.
Intel Integrated Graphics: At 800x600, it actually plays and looks pretty decent. Graphics quality always defaults to lowest for some reason. The mouse is surprisingly not as laggy as on the NV cards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
nvdm24 - Sunday, December 19, 2004 - link
Many of the readers of these tech sites want to know the full capabilities of the cards, yet, sadly, reviewers at anandtech and every other tech site ignore the video capabilities of video cards. Even in the reviews for the new 6600 agp, the video aspect has not been tested by any reviewer despite the problems of the 6800. Never mind the fact that EVERY review of these cards is about the 3d aspect and is nearly the exact same - run halo, doom 3, hl 2, etc. and list the performance, yet no tests of dvd movies or the video aspect are conducted, thus doing a HUGE disservice to readers.nserra - Thursday, December 16, 2004 - link
I dont understand why on you previous 6200 review the X300 wins, loses (Doom3), and keep up, but now a much worst 6200 wins over X300. How the hell did that hapen, new nvidia drivers?nserra - Thursday, December 16, 2004 - link
I dont understand why on you previous 6200 review the X300 wins, loses (Doom3), and keep up, but now a much worst 6200 wins over X300. How the hell did that hapen, new nvidia drivers?IntelUser2000 - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Surprisingly, my 865G with Intel Extreme Graphics 2 can run Doom 3 beta at default, it still crashes, but when I run it, I get barely playable frames, I say around 20 at the highest and less than 10. I think the GMA900 should be much better, but maybe the DX9 support in it really sucks.nserra - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link
#39 Thanks to the answer, but...Doesnt 2 cards cost more then one?
And whats the difference between having two 6600GT vs 6800GT? in price and performance?
I think this kind of "edge" could come in the future like the voodoo2 did, the card was getting old, people getting rid of it and "some" get them cheap just to keep their PC the longger time they could.
Confusednewbie1552 - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
#30Everyone wants 660GT because they are cheap and two of them can be put into SLI mode (once Nforce 4 comes out) which could mean better performance than the X700, and maybe even the X800.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I'm sure the core of the 6600 will overclock very well, but the memory all depends on the particular chips used and might not have any real headroom. That could be its main problem as its an 8-pipe 300MHz core so theres plenty of power there, but only 128-bit 500MHz (effective) memory which is what is probably holding it back. If thats the case then overclocking the core may not help very much.Its a pity no attempt to overclock was performed in the review, but then again the results from overclocking cards sent out by the manufacturer are always suspect as they could have hand-picked the best.
thebluesgnr - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
" I can't see how the 6200 could have a street-price of $149 (128-bit) and $129 (64-bit). "It's actually $129 for the 128MB 128-bit version and $149 for the 256MB 128-bit version. The 64-bit version (only 128MB) should have an MSRP of $100, according to the Inquirer.
So nVidia has:
$100 6200 128MB 64-bit
$130 6200 128MB 128-bit
$150 6200 256MB 128-bit
$150 6600 128MB 128-bit
$200 6600GT 128MB 128-bit
In my opinion ATI beats all nVidia cards except for their $200, where the 6600GT wins. But we can't forget the 6600 has a great overclocking potential, and street prices should be lower than the X700's, because of the slower memory.
Like already mentioned, you can find the 6600 for $135 already.
mkruer - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
To X700 XT or to 9800 Pro, that is the questionneo229 - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I also wish to thank you for keeping up the fight to unravel the mystery behind the mysterious video processor. That notion of that feature really got me excited when I first heard about it, yet site after site after site reviewed these cards without even touching on the subject.