Does a 8500GT really PWN a 6600GT?

[halluc1nati0n]

Does a 8500GT really PWN a 6600GT?

Lots o' ppl who've had first hand experience with the budget 8500GT say it performs better than a 6600GT....
Is this true?
I don't need any benchmarks / charts...
But people who have really used the 8500GT .. please respond!

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

I know youre looking for people with the card but, even if it does "pwn" the 6600, its still way too expensive... You can have a 6600 for like, 30$ nowadays?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: halluc1nati0n
Does a 8500GT really PWN a 6600GT?

Lots o' ppl who've had first hand experience with the budget 8500GT say it performs better than a 6600GT....
Is this true?
I don't need any benchmarks / charts...
But people who have really used the 8500GT .. please respond!

Why not look for all the 8500gt tests and reviews on the web? I know that some of them had the 7600gt and 6600gt for comparison. Personal opinions are just that....opinions. If you want to know how the card performs read actual tech reviews.

 

[BernardP]

8500GT<7600GS=6600GT

Certainly no PWNING going on here

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: BernardP
8500GT<7600GS=6600GT

Certainly no PWNING going on here

Well.. I'd sort of have to differ here.

6600GT + Quake 4 = nearly unplayable even at 800x600 (10-15fps)

Same system upgraded to 8500GT (was like $86 I think) = totally playable at 1280x1024, most settings medium to high, no AA of course. Probably swings between 25-45 fps.

I'd say that the 8500GT is easily twice the speed of the 6600GT, if not more.

EDIT: Definitely more Check this : http://www.gpureview.com/show_...hp?card1=187&card2=513

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
EDIT: Definitely more Check this : http://www.gpureview.com/show_...hp?card1=187&card2=513

You linked an 8600GT, not an 8500GT.

The 8500GT has a faster GPU, but less memory bandwidth.

This means at higher resolutions it will perform worse than a 6600GT.

The 6600GT (which is a mid range card from multiple generations ago, in other words, it's an old card, and not anywhere close to "high end" or even "mid range" by todays standards.) has slightly more memory bandwidth, so at higher resolutions, it can usually fair better. The 8500GT will probably play better at 640x480 or 800x600 thanks to having a slightly better fill rate.

That said, I wouldn't recommend either card.

 

[Arkaign]

Well, like I said, this guy can play Quake 4 pretty smoothly at 1280, whereas before it was nearly unplayable even at 800x600

Correct link :

http://www.gpureview.com/show_...hp?card1=187&card2=514

Notice :

Fragment pipelines, 8 vs 16
Vertex pipelines, 3 vs 16
Texture units, 8 for both
Raster operators, 4 vs 8

I had a 6600GT / Athlon 3400+ system, and it was nowhere near as capable as this guys cheapo 8500GT / PD-915 system in terms of gaming.

 

[Fenixgoon]

don't forget about HD decode (if you're looking for a HTPC )

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: BernardP
8500GT<7600GS=6600GT

Certainly no PWNING going on here

Well.. I'd sort of have to differ here.

6600GT + Quake 4 = nearly unplayable even at 800x600 (10-15fps)

Same system upgraded to 8500GT (was like $86 I think) = totally playable at 1280x1024, most settings medium to high, no AA of course. Probably swings between 25-45 fps.

I knew I had not dreamed things :moon: when I wrote that the 8500GT is generally weaker than the 6600GT. Look at the benchmarks in This review.

I can't understand such low performance for the 6600GT at 800x600, as I am myself currently playing Tomb Raider Legend @ 800x600 (17-inch CRT) with all high-quality settings on (not with next-gen graphics) with puny 6150 integrated graphics, and there is no slowdown at all.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: BernardP
8500GT<7600GS=6600GT

Certainly no PWNING going on here

Well.. I'd sort of have to differ here.

6600GT + Quake 4 = nearly unplayable even at 800x600 (10-15fps)

Same system upgraded to 8500GT (was like $86 I think) = totally playable at 1280x1024, most settings medium to high, no AA of course. Probably swings between 25-45 fps.

I'd say that the 8500GT is easily twice the speed of the 6600GT, if not more.

EDIT: Definitely more Check this : http://www.gpureview.com/show_...hp?card1=187&card2=513

I call BS. I played Quake4 and Doom3 on a plain 6600 which is much weaker than the 6600gt. I played at 1024x768 on high settings with no AA and averaged around 40 fps in Quake4 and well over 40 fps in the Doom3 timedemo. Your comment about the 8500gt being twice as fast the 6600gt is so WRONG that its hilarious.



EDIT: here is just a couple reviews http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/452/7 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...article&item=695&num=4 and they clearly show the 6600gt BEATING the 8500gt at high settings in Quake4 and Doom3. This is why peoples opinions are almost useless.

 

[VinDSL]

The *new* PWN'er in this genre (Price: < $150) is the GeForce 7600 GT...

 

[halluc1nati0n]

Yo.. Thanx for all teh replies....
So, 6600GT at half the price of a 8500gt is a winner - ain't it?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: halluc1nati0n
Yo.. Thanx for all teh replies....
So, 6600GT at half the price of a 8500gt is a winner - ain't it?

NO! Not unless you like paying almost as much for half the performance of a 7600 GT. Like VinDSL said, the sweet spot these days, in price/performance (of the cheaper cards) is the 7600GT.

Originally posted by: BernardP
8500GT<7600GS=6600GT

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Bernard, but even as slow as the 7600GS is, it's ~50% faster than a 6600GT, even at low resolutions, assuming you use some AA/AF, which is pretty much a requirement at low res. 128MB of VRAM just don't stretch very far anymore.

 

[Fenixgoon]

wow i thought the 8500gt was half decent... those benchmarks show it is just shameful. seriously, when will nvidia/daamit make a half decent low end card? i mean, after 2 generations you'd think your low end would be able to match/beat a 6600GT

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: BernardP
8500GT<7600GS=6600GT

Certainly no PWNING going on here

8500GT >= 7600GS > 6600GT

tbh.

Try looking at some reviews rather than looking at specs and guessing.

 

[Arkaign]

Heh big oops. The card was an MSI 8600GT not the 8500. I have no experience with the 8500, so meh.

My old 6600GT couldn't handle Quake4 at any respectable detail/speed.

Sorry for the mix-up

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
wow i thought the 8500gt was half decent... those benchmarks show it is just shameful. seriously, when will nvidia/daamit make a half decent low end card? i mean, after 2 generations you'd think your low end would be able to match/beat a 6600GT

8500 and 8600 series are complete failures. At $120 for X1950Pro, nothing will touch that card for a while. The next step up is $160 X1950XT. ATI owns mid-range by a MILE.

 

[Arkaign]

Oh yeah, that Phoronix review seems pretty dubious to me, I mean COME ON :

Quake 4, HIGH DETAIL, 1680x1050, and the 6600GT gets 47.9FPS? On what planet????

Russian is right, the X1900 series is waaaaaay better than any 7600/8500/8600, and even most of the 7800 stuff. If you have less than $200, ATI is the only logical choice, as the midrange Nvidia stuff probably won't play DX10 games worth a crap.

 

[Arkaign]

Checked again, the Phoronix review is total crap. The 6600GT benchmarks on UT are like 1% off from 7800GTX.

LOL

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Checked again, the Phoronix review is total crap. The 6600GT benchmarks on UT are like 1% off from 7800GTX.

LOL

The numbers are accurate. They are testing without AA.

Remember that UT2004 is a game designed for the GeForce 3. When I played UT2004 with the 6600GT and AMD 64 3200+, I was getting the same frame rates from 1024x768 all the way to 1600x1200.

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh yeah, that Phoronix review seems pretty dubious to me, I mean COME ON :

Quake 4, HIGH DETAIL, 1680x1050, and the 6600GT gets 47.9FPS? On what planet????

You're forgetting that the 6600GT was a card that could easily handle Doom 3 at 1600x1200. Without AA, Doom 3 engine games are not taxing at all for Nvidia 6-series and up cards.

 

[Arkaign]

I had trouble getting a smooth Quake4 experience @ 1440x900 and a 256MB 7600GS on a PD-945 Quake4 seems a lot more 'heavy' than Doom3

 

[superbooga]

Quake 4 has scenes that are much more intense than whatever is in Doom 3, so frame rates are not as stable. Plus, the faster nature of the game requires higher frame rates. An average of 50 fps in Doom 3 was fine, but for Quake 4 you really need to average 65-70 fps otherwise there will be places where it drops to 30 fps or so.

 

[Arkaign]

Ah, that makes much more sense

I played Doom3 with a vanilla 6600 @ med/high 1024x768 smoothly, but Quake4 just crushed both that and the 6600GT I replaced it with. The 7600GS got me by in Quake4, but a lot of areas it would really get choppy in. Was why I was absolutely SHOCKED to see a 6600GT @ near 50fps at 1680x1050 on high detail! Seems like a bogus score, or they benched in a way that didn't reflect playable gameplay/sustainable framerate.

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ah, that makes much more sense

I played Doom3 with a vanilla 6600 @ med/high 1024x768 smoothly, but Quake4 just crushed both that and the 6600GT I replaced it with. The 7600GS got me by in Quake4, but a lot of areas it would really get choppy in. Was why I was absolutely SHOCKED to see a 6600GT @ near 50fps at 1680x1050 on high detail! Seems like a bogus score, or they benched in a way that didn't reflect playable gameplay/sustainable framerate.

Yeah, if you look at Firingsquad's Quake 4 High-end graphics shootout, you'll see that the 7800GTX scores like 65fps at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF. From personal experience with the 7800GTX, the setting is too much for the card.