• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Comparing 6200 and x300

Malak

Malak

Lifer
Wouldn't it be better to test the performance of these budget cards on an application these cards would be useful at? Neither of them show performance worth mentioning on games, and I don't think anyone building a machine for gaming would buy either of these.
 
What applications--other than games--will rely on a 3D video card? I'd imagine 3D workstation apps would require better than either, anyway, so what does that leave?
 
I have no idea. I just know that my 2 year old video card outperforms both of these cards, so why would anyone buy them?
 
Note that the drivers we're using for the 6200, X600 Pro and X300, and even the GMA 900 aren't approved by FutureMark for use with 3DMark05.
Click to expand...

I kinda want more details about this before I trust the review.
 
Originally posted by: klah
Originally posted by: malak
Note that the drivers we're using for the 6200, X600 Pro and X300, and even the GMA 900 aren't approved by FutureMark for use with 3DMark05.
Click to expand...

I kinda want more details about this before I trust the review.
Click to expand...

They do not use these drivers: http://www.futuremark.com/community/drivers/?approved
Click to expand...

That explains a few things, but as far as I can tell they don't specify which drivers they do use.
 
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Performance of the 6200 depends on more outside factors than the X300SE. How much system RAM do you currently have? Is it single or dual channel? What are RAM timings set at? What frontside bus speed is your system? A lot of these details will play a major part in how fast the GeForce 6200 is. That said, I think the 64-bit 6200 has the potential to be a good gaming card when placed with mass retail systems, provided they have reasonable processing horsepower and at least 512MB of RAM.

As for everyday applications? There hasn't been a card for a long time that can't do everyday apps fine. That's why business systems often have the Intel GMA 900 graphics in the first place, or similar products that came before it. Any consumer who isn't gaming doesn't need much of a graphics card. On the other hand, any consumer who even games a little would be disappointed by today's mass retail systems, and if they aren't a PC enthusiast like we are, might be disappointed after the purchase rather than before. The GeForce 6200 presents a "best of both worlds" option: The option for vendors to provide some gaming performance without having to plug a several hundred dollar card in a mass retail system, where customers in absence of good information will always choose low price. The GeForce 6200 is the first good use of the PCIe slot that I've seen.
 
Ok so you are saying then that this card is more for people who aren't gamers at all, but may game from time to time, the ultra-casual gamer?
 
Originally posted by: malak
Ok so you are saying then that this card is more for people who aren't gamers at all, but may game from time to time, the ultra-casual gamer?
Click to expand...

'The Sims' has sold over 10million copies.

The people choosing between a 6200 and x300 for their Dell are more likely to be playing this than UT2k4 or HL2. Look at the games that dominate the top 10 PC sales list every month, it's usually 5 Sims games and add-ons followed by a couple 'XYZ Tycoon' games. I am disappointed not to see any site include games such as this.

Sure, most of us in this forum are not represented in that group, but we do have to make recommendations to others such as family members and friends who are.

 
Originally posted by: malak
Ok so you are saying then that this card is more for people who aren't gamers at all, but may game from time to time, the ultra-casual gamer?
Click to expand...
That, and the person who posts on this forum "I NEEEEEED a reeeally cheap graphics card, for, like $40-60 that can play some games, d00d!"

Heck, I'd have liked to see this card benched up against the Radeon 9600 and GeForce 52xx/57xx series just for fun. Might do all right, and while system RAM is slower than graphics RAM, we all know it's cheaper. The TurboCache goes a long way to get rid of any bottlenecks of system RAM speeds and latency of information traveling from system RAM through the bus to the GPU. Might even allow some retail sales folks to be telling the truth when they tell Junior's parents that "yes, this PC can play games just fine".

 
Originally posted by: Vernor
Games != Shooters
Click to expand...

Which brings up the real point. There are games, and then there are games. Sure, minesweeper is a game, but normally when I see people that want to play "games" I think along the lines of MMO's, FPS's, and whatnot. Things that require more hardware in order to really enjoy. Playing games these days on anything lower than 1024x768 just isn't worth it, not to mention if you have to turn details down in order for it to run smoothly... I guess I just always believed if it doesn't look like it does on the box, it's not worth playing. I upgrade my stuff when that happens.
 
There are a couple of games that are more tech demos than anything else, and then there are the rest.


A 6200 would be ideal for RCT3, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR or FIFA 2005.

All highly popular games.
 
Originally posted by: malak
I have no idea. I just know that my 2 year old video card outperforms both of these cards, so why would anyone buy them?
Click to expand...
Your 9700P cost $400 at launch. These cards cost about $100 new. As fast as tech progresses, we haven't yet managed to sell $400 high-end video card for 1/4 the price in two years.

Vernor's right about the types of games people can comfortably play with these $100 cards: older, graphics-heavy (at the time) ones or newer, less demanding ones. I'd throw in RTS games, too.
 
6200 has working hardware mpeg/wmv decode for hd tv, low power requirements and can be passively cooled. If I was to build a media pc it would be perfect. It's also not that slow, running dx8 it's as fast as the old but faithful 4600Ti, and has 3 pixel shaders so still whips most of the FX line at dx9. Sure the latest games won't run at the highest settings, but turn down the detail level and you'll be fine. Older games should be no problem to one of these, and lets face it most people don't play the latest games - online stats are currently dominated by original counterstrike, day of defeat, call of duty and wolfestien:et which a 6200 can do in it's sleep.
X300 is pretty similar minus hw decode, and a little performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top