6800nu vs 6600GT.

[Staz]

OK, I want a new videocard, and my 2 choices are the 6800nu or the 6600GT, AGP models for both. We all know the 6800nu will outpreform the 6600GT, but no one seems to know by how much. I did some basic number crunching, nothing scientific, but thought you guys would like to know the outcome.

Basically what I did was find a couple videocard comparisons that included both the 6600GT and the 6800nu. I also only used the comparisons that had a 1024x768 speed setting and a 1600x1200 eye-candy setting. I got about 15 numbers from each comparison, converted those numbers into a speed difference %, dropped the highest and lowest %, and then averaged the rest. These were the numbers I got...


3.5% was how much faster the 6800nu was over the 6600GT for the speed setting at 1024x768.

29.1% was how much faster the 6800nu was over the 6600GT for the eye-candy setting at 1600x1200.


From these numbers, the only difference I saw was when you maxed out your resolution and turned on all the eye-candy. That's when the 6800nu starts to pull away. But for more basic resolutions without all the eye-candy on, the two cards were nearly the same.

I have a Dell 2005FPW that runs at 1680x1050 and I like to max out the eye candy. For my situation, the 6800nu is a better choice as that $50 gets me nearly 1/3 more speed. However, if I was running my games at 1024x768 and only used the medium graphic settings, then the 6600GT would be my choice as 3.5% doesn't warrent the extra $50.

Hope this helps some people.

 

[Matthias99]

From these numbers, the only difference I saw was when you maxed out your resolution and turned on all the eye-candy. That's when the 6800nu starts to pull away. But for more basic resolutions without all the eye-candy on, the two cards were nearly the same.

That's pretty much it. The two cards have nearly identical fillrate (4000MPixels/sec. versus 3900MPixels/sec.), but the 6800NU has much more memory bandwidth (which comes into play when you start using AA/AF, especially at high resolutions).

Also, the 6800NU has a chance to be softmodded into a 6800GT -- and since it has 12 pipes, it gets more benefit out of a core overclock than a 6600GT, even if it doesn't softmod.

 

[kamranziadar]

6600GT

 

[Staz]

Bumping this so more people can see it...

 

[PrayForDeath]

Interesting tests, Staz, I hope this thread makes the people here stop posting those million 6800 vs 6600GT threads. :thumbsup:

 

[Blastman]

The 6800 is more memory hungry than a 6600. For eg., the 6800 does fine at 1024x768 - 4AA/16AF but takes a big performance hit on a lot of games moving up to 1280x1024- 4AA/16AF -- dropping even below the 9800XT on some games.

xbit ? ? 10x7/12x10 ? ? with 4AA/16AF

COD

6800 ? ?151.7/78.7
9800XT ?107.1/83.1

Painkiller

6800 ? ?158.8/82.4
9800XT ?110.4/78.3

Other games in that review where the 9800XT is faster at 12x10 include TRON, America?s Army, and Max Payne 2. I haven?t seen any slowdowns with the 6600GT in the reviews I?ve read so it just seems on the 6800 you likely need 256MB. I read a post (on some forum ..???) who had a 6800 128MB and wasn?t happy with the slowdowns (texture thrashing) he was getting in some games at 12x10.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Blastman
The 6800 is more memory hungry than a 6600. For eg., the 6800 does fine at 1024x768 - 4AA/16AF but takes a big performance hit on a lot of games moving up to 1280x1024- 4AA/16AF -- dropping even below the 9800XT on some games.

xbit ? ? 10x7/12x10 ? ? with 4AA/16AF

COD

6800 ? ?151.7/78.7
9800XT ?107.1/83.1

Painkiller

6800 ? ?158.8/82.4
9800XT ?110.4/78.3

Other games in that review where the 9800XT is faster at 12x10 include TRON, America?s Army, and Max Payne 2. I haven?t seen any slowdowns with the 6600GT in the reviews I?ve read so it just seems on the 6800 you likely need 256MB. I read a post (on some forum ..???) who had a 6800 128MB and wasn?t happy with the slowdowns (texture thrashing) he was getting in some games at 12x10.

The problem with Xbit is they use this 16XAF setting that I honestly doubt anyone with 6800NU is foolish enough to run. Those of us who own 6800NUs use up to 12X10 4X8X, depending on the game, because we understand the limitations of a $300 card.
I use 16X AF on my X800XT PE sometimes. :roll:

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The problem with Xbit is they use this 16XAF setting that I honestly doubt anyone with 6800NU is foolish enough to run. Those of us who own 6800NUs use up to 12X10 4X8X, depending on the game, because we understand the limitations of a $300 card.
I use 16X AF on my X800XT PE sometimes. :roll:

Will dropping from ? 4AA/16AF --- > 4AA/8AF ? actually make much of a difference? How do you know this?

 

[Paratus]

Just some info for people who are reading and don't understand how Matthias came up with the theoretical maximum pixel fill rate of each card:

Pixel fill rate - Core Clock speed X No. of Pipes
Memory Bandwith = Memory Clock Speed X No of Bits


So for example (Core, Mem, Pipes, Bits):
Card Fill Rate
My 9600XT (526,648,4,128) 526 X 4 = 2.1 Gigapixels
NV 6600GT(500,1000,8,128) 500 X 8 = 4.0 GP
NV 6800NU(325,700,12,256) 325 x 12 = 3.9 GP
X800XT PE (520,1120,16,256) 520 x 16 = 8.3 GP

Card Memory Bandwith
My 9600XT (526,648,4,128) (648 X 128)/(8 bits/byte) = 10.4 Gigabytes/Second
NV 6600GT(500,1000,8,128) (1000 X 128)/8 = 16.0 GB/S
NV 6800NU(325,700,12,256) (700 x 256)/8 = 22.4 GB/S
X800XT PE (520,1120,16,256) (1120*256)/8 = 35.8 GB/S


What does it all mean?

Well a couple of things should be obvious core clock speed is not the end all be all of existence, (just like in CPUS ) If it was my 9600XT would PWN insteaded of being PWNED. The number of pipes and bit width of the memory are just as important as pure speed. But to really figure out what you want YOU need to know what kind of games you play, at what resolution you want to play, and how much eye candy you want. The other thing to remember is that card with more pipes and bits you get more bang for the buck when you OC. For each mhz you overclock the core on an X800XT PE you get 4 times as many pixels as you do on the 9600XT.

The higher the resolution coupled with more AA/AF the more memory bandwith you need. As the OP saw the 6600GT and 6800 NU were about equal at 1024x768 but at 1600x1200 the NU was significantly faster. This is due to its 40% more memory bandwith. AA/AF also require more bandwith so if you want to play at anything higher than 1280x1024 no 2AA/4AF get a 256 bit card. At low resolution both the 9600XT and X800XT PE are both sitting around waiting for the CPU. So if you only play at 800x600 save yourself some money and get a lower end card.

What about 128mb vs 256mb?
Again the more eyecandy you want the more memory you need. Playing at lower settings or higher settings with lower resolution any 128mb card will be fine. However if you want to play at high or ultra settings AND higher resolution 256mb is better. But remember you need a card that can use it. A 256mb FX 5200 CANNOT push enough frames at high resolution to begin to use that 256 mb. Conventional wisdom holds that you won't see a benift to 256mb until you hit the 9800 PRO level and up.

Other things to condsider:

You should also consider what features you want in a card. Things like VIVO, SM3.0, hardware video decoding, bundling and price.

I'm a casual gamer, wanted to try video capturing, and try HL2, but not spend over $200. Plus I have an LCD so I can't game over 1280x1024. So I got a 9600XT VIVO model with the HL2 coupon. If you are more of a gamer than I am but have an LCD the 6600GT is a great buy if you can find it at MSRP. It'll play any game at high details and some AA/AF at 1280x1024. The 6800nu would be even better at 1280x1024 but is slightly more expensive and may not have the fully functional video decoder that the 6600GT does, if thats important to you.

If you are a hard core gamer then you'll already have a monitor capable of 1600x1200 at which point you want a card with 16 pipes. Cards like the X800XT, 6800GT, 6800Ultra, or X800XT PE.

So to sum up figure out what resolution you want to play at , how much eye candy, any special features you want and then base your budget accordingly.



Wow this turned out to be a lot longer than I thought it would

 

[Pnoy02]

Paratus, thanks so much, that made alot of sense to me. I'm going to buy a LCD monitor sson and you're right it does top at that res, so I'm thinking a 6600gt would probly be better in that case, don't you think? and I would only really play at that res max, AA and AF isn't really a necessity for me, and a fully functional decoder would be a benefit for someone who watches alot of media. Although I game alot, I'm not HARDCORE, atleast I don't feel the need for 1600 - 1200 with all eye candy and the differences between the 6800 NU and the 6600gt seems neglible at lower res, almost pointless to pick 6800 at those settings. Guess I got my decision changed again, damn I really wish I knew more of how things run, good thing I come to these forums

 

[asustech]

its mostly down to the resolution. Now i feel like stupid as to why i bought an X800 Pro when my monitor doesnt support anything over 1024 x 768 ..

A $ 200-250 card is always sweet.

 

[canadageek]

too bad the 6800nu doesn't come in pci-e yet....mmm...sli.....

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: canadageek
too bad the 6800nu doesn't come in pci-e yet....mmm...sli.....

uh, welcome to last week.

 

[Staz]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: canadageek
too bad the 6800nu doesn't come in pci-e yet....mmm...sli.....

uh, welcome to last week.

I don't see a 128mb version of any of those cards. Plus with all of them being $350+, might as well get the GT version for only a bit more. I think his comment was geared at having two 128mb 6800 cards in SLI mode, each costing only $250. I bet that setup for $500 would beat a 6800 Ultra.