GeForce 6200 vs. 6600LE? Why does the latter cost more?

[Eug]

If the 6200 is very similar to the 6600LE, why does the 6600LE often cost so much more?

Is it just the 128-bit memory, and faster memory? ie. Are they pretty much the same thing, with the 6600LE just clocked faster, with more memory bandwidth?

 

[imported_Kiwi]

At the start, in the PCI-e versions, the 6200 and 6600 used the same core. Anyway, you need to study up on video. Google will help you. Your comment "just the 128-Bit" shows you aren't putting enough emphasis on that value. The original 6200 was also 128-Bit and was a reasonably good card for the cost. The current 6200 is pure and total crap. The 6600 LE is merely ordinary crap (clocked slower than the 6200, in fact).

That ought to put things in perspective, and this will put the cap on it:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=352&card2=194

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
At the start, in the PCI-e versions, the 6200 and 6600 used the same core. Anyway, you need to study up on video. Google will help you. Your comment "just the 128-Bit" shows you aren't putting enough emphasis on that value

Thanks. I'm aware that 128-bit memory speeds it up quite a bit, but I was wondering more about the rest of the specs of the cards.

The reason I ask is because I may be getting a flashed 6200 for my ancient backup Mac, and I'm wondering why the OS supports it in the first place, cuz no Mac has ever shipped with a 6200. The card has been modded I believe (in addition to the flash), and I'm guessing that they've targeted the mods so that the OS treats it like a 6600LE (which shipped in some Macs).

I have since found this GeForce 6xxx wiki:

6600 LE NV43
Core 300
Memory 500 128-bit
Pipes 4
Vertex 3

6200 AGP NV44a DDR
Core 350
Memory 500/400 64-bit DDR
Pipes 4
Vertex 3

or

6200 AGP NV44a DDR2
Core 350
Memory 532 64-bit DDR2
Pipes 4
Vertex 3

Will there be a significant difference between a 500 MHz 64-bit DDR version and the 532 MHz 64-bit DDR2 version of the 6200 NV44a?

Originally posted by: Kiwi
That ought to put things in perspective, and this will put the cap on it:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=352&card2=194

This is the one I'm looking at, except with DDR2.

In case you're wondering why such a low-end video card... Cuz it's a low end machine (released in 2000) with AGP only, and it's one of the few cards that will actually fit in the machine. Plus it's passively cooled.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

My impression of the member community here at AT is that very few are Macintosh oriented. I have taught classes using Macs at various times, but never paid any attention to the hardware components in a Mac box. The 32 MHz difference in RAM speed and the DDR vs. DDR2 between the two 6200"A" parts is probably a rather smaller part than involved in giving up half of the memory system Bit-wiidth, but on a Mac, who knows how it will work? I'd suspect that the best place to ask would be a Mac-oriented forum.

 

[hans007]

well heres the main thing.

the nv44a is basically the turbocache chip 6200tc without turbocache. so its 64bit , and has no hsi bridge. the nv43 based ones are the same core a s a full 6600 with half the pipes turned off and a 128bit bus etc.

6600 nv43 based is probably better. the first bunch of 6200s also were nv43 based and were more or less exactly the same as the 6600LE. but now that the nv44 based 6200s are out , those have been renamed 6600LE it seems.