ATi Radeon 9800 Pro(128MB) Vs. 6600GT (128MB)

[halluc1nati0n]

Which one is better performance-wise?
I know both are at the same costs...
What I'm concerned abt. is that the 9800PRO is DDR1 whereas the 6600GT is DDR3 ..
So this means there'll be a massive difference between the two?

Here's the GPUreview comparison..
http://www.gpureview.com/show_...php?card1=31&card2=190

How can the performance be equal if one is DDR1 and the other is DDR3?

 

[LW07]

The Geforce 6600GT is better performance wise, so if they're at the same cost, get the 6600GT. It's not a massive difference, but it's the better choice.

 

[halluc1nati0n]

Originally posted by: LW07
The Geforce 6600GT is better performance wise, so if they're at the same cost, get the 6600GT. It's not a massive difference, but it's the better choice.

That is what I want to know...
How's it almost equal performance considering ones' DDR1 and others' GDDR3 ?

 

[evolucion8]

Being DDR or DDR3 doesn't make any difference in performance. DDR3 just runs cooler and makes PCB design more simple because the termination circuitry is built-in the chip, also consumes less power and generate less heat allowing those ram chips running higher. Even though the 6600GT has faster RAM vs the Radeon 9800PRO (900 vs 680), the Bus Width of the 9800PRO is 256-Bits which beats the 6600GT in bandwidth. http://www.gpureview.com/show_...php?card1=190&card2=31

The 6600GT will be a bit faster in overall due to it's more advanced architecture, but has less ROPs and less Vertex Shaders and a lower pixel fillrate against the 9800PRO while the 6600GT has more texture fillrate and pixel shader operations. If I had to choose between both, would be the 6600GT when not using Anti Aliasing or the 9800PRO when using it. Better get a 7600GS or something better.

There's also something a bit misleading in the GPU review site, if the 6600GT was a really full 8 pixel pipeline card, it should have a higher pixel fillrate than the 9800PRO because of it's higher core clock speed. The 9800PRO is a 8x1 design so it have the same pixel and texture fillrate. Seems that's the 6600GT is a 4x2 design.

 

[Rabidwerewolf]

The AGP keyed 6600GT's has a newer GPU operating at a higher clock of 500mhz over the 9800 Pro clock of 380mhz. The agp keyed 6600GT GDDR3 memory also operates at a higher clock of 900mhz over the 9800 Pro's GDDR1 memory clocked at 680mhz. The newer core and advanced architecture of the 6600GT as well as the higher clock speed on the GPU and memory allow the card to perform better at higher resolutions over the 9800 Pro. The advantage of GDDR3 chips over GDDR1 is that they operate at a lower voltage 1.8~1.9v versus the 2.5v of GDDR1. This allows for higher frequencies. On the first generation GDDR3 cards the cas latencies had to be increased to maintain stability at the higher frequencies so the difference in performance was slight when you just compared the memory chips, but as the technology advanced, chips were able to be produced that could operated at the higher frequencies with better cas latency timings. The 6600GT is in that first generation of GDDR3 cards. This article by Anand Lal Shimpi here at AnandTech:NVIDIA's GeForce 6600GT AGP: The Little Bridge that Could is a good read that shows the performance of the AGP keyed 6600GT to the 9800Pro.

edit: fixed link

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Rabidwerewolf
The AGP keyed 6600GT's has a newer GPU operating at a higher clock of 500mhz over the 9800 Pro clock of 380mhz. The agp keyed 6600GT GDDR3 memory also operates at a higher clock of 900mhz over the 9800 Pro's GDDR1 memory clocked at 680mhz. The newer core and advanced architecture of the 6600GT as well as the higher clock speed on the GPU and memory allow the card to perform better at higher resolutions over the 9800 Pro. The advantage of GDDR3 chips over GDDR1 is that they operate at a lower voltage 1.8~1.9v versus the 2.5v of GDDR1. This allows for higher frequencies. On the first generation GDDR3 cards the cas latencies had to be increased to maintain stability at the higher frequencies so the difference in performance was slight when you just compared the memory chips, but as the technology advanced, chips were able to be produced that could operated at the higher frequencies with better cas latency timings. The 6600GT is in that first generation of GDDR3 cards. This article by Anand Lal Shimpi here at AnandTech:NVIDIA's GeForce 6600GT AGP: The Little Bridge that Could is a good read that shows the performance of the AGP keyed 6600GT to the 9800Pro.

edit: fixed link

The difference doesn't worth the upgrade, even though the 6600GT has a higher core clock speed, it will run slighly slower than the 9800PRO in FSAA scenarios because it has half of the 9800PRO ROP's and 33% less pixel fillrate and 40% less bandwidth, what really help this card to outperform the 9800PRO in non AA scenarios is the more advanced architecture, 33% more pixel shader power and 33% more texture power. I still recommend the 6600GT even though it's feature set will be a bit useless for the kind of performance that this card offers. HDR and SM3.0 stuff will simply kill this card, at least still able to play newer games, the 9800PRO can't play Rainbow Six: Las Vegas and other SM3.0 exclusive games.

 

[Rabidwerewolf]

I agree evolucion8. He was concentrating on the memory. Most people don't know the difference between GDDR1, 2 and 3. I wouldn't upgrade from a 9800 Pro to a 6600GT either. Better agp cards out there on the market. Good post btw.

 

[superbooga]

I've used both before, and overall the 6600GT is considerably faster (20-40%) than the 9800 Pro. Although it's considerably faster, it's probably not worth the upgrading from the 9800 Pro to 6600 GT.

The 6600GT has far more efficient AA, so unless you are talking about 4xAA at 1280 or higher, where memory bandwidth comes into play, it will still outperform the 9800 Pro. 9800 Pro will only be faster in pre-2002 games where it has enough power to run 1600x1200 with 4xAA. I played UT2004 at 1280x1024 2xAA with the 9800 Pro, and 1600x1200 2xAA with the 6600GT. Even at 1280x1024 4xAA the 6600GT was faster, although neither could be considered super smooth. At 1600x1200 4xAA they were about even, but at that point both were unplayable.

In other words, only if you play 5-or-more year old games will the 9800 Pro's superior bandwidth come into play.

 

[constable]

All-in-All, their performace is comparable. Instead of trying to nitpick the slight advantages of one card, examine the engines of the games you intend to play. Most games will favor one or the other; either ATI (i.e. Half-Life 2) or nVidia (World of Warcraft). Your decision should be based on which games you are playing.

 

[BradAtWork]

True that. I moved from an 9800pro to a 6600gt.

HL2 performance suffered, but Doom3 was way better.

 

[VinDSL]

I know this kinda stuff is a moving target, but...

When it comes to low-end video cards:

6600 GTs eat 9800 Pros! However...

In the same low-end genre, 7600 GTs pwn both of them 2x!

So, if you're just interested in having an academic discussion, have at it...

The FACT of the matter is, 7600 GT GPUs, et al, have made 6600 GTs & 9800 Pros irrelevant!

 

[evolucion8]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: superbooga
I've used both before, and overall the 6600GT is considerably faster (20-40%) than the 9800 Pro. Although it's considerably faster, it's probably not worth the upgrading from the 9800 Pro to 6600 GT.

The 6600GT has far more efficient AA, so unless you are talking about 4xAA at 1280 or higher, where memory bandwidth comes into play, it will still outperform the 9800 Pro. 9800 Pro will only be faster in pre-2002 games where it has enough power to run 1600x1200 with 4xAA. I played UT2004 at 1280x1024 2xAA with the 9800 Pro, and 1600x1200 2xAA with the 6600GT. Even at 1280x1024 4xAA the 6600GT was faster, although neither could be considered super smooth. At 1600x1200 4xAA they were about even, but at that point both were unplayable.

In other words, only if you play 5-or-more year old games will the 9800 Pro's superior bandwidth come into play.</end quote></div>

I don't know what you mean with far more efficient AA, what really helps FSAA performance is pixel fillrate, algorithms, Z-Buffer compression etc, ATi still using the same AA since the 9700PRO until now that the Radeon HD debuted using custom filers based on shaders alongside with the regular FSAA like the GeForce 8. The 6600GT will outperform the 9800PRO in scenarios when lots of pixel shaders and textures are used like in todays games, but in FSAA or high resolution scenarios where pixel fillrate and bandwidth matters the 9800PRO will pull away slighly, but in todays games is not likely to happen. Anyway like VinDSL says; the 7600GT eat both for breakfast, also the X1650XT.