Is the 6600GT powerful enough for my needs?

[Staz]

I am need of a new videocard. My system is a XP 3200+, 1GB Hyper-X memory, and a FX5700 256MB videocard.

I just upgraded my monitor to a Dell FPW2005 and currently run everything at it's native resolution of 1680x1050. I am a big 3D gamer and want a card powerful enough to handle this monitor's native resolution will all or most of the eye-candy turned on, but I can't afford to buy a $400+ videocard as this monitor nearly broke my bank.

The main game I currently play is World of Warcraft, but as new games come out, I will get them. Is the 6600GT fast enough for what I want, or do I need to look at a 6800nu? The 6800nu would already be streatching my budget, so don't recommend a GT or higher, I just can't afford it.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

At 1600x1200 a 6600GT will get you by on most games provided you leave AA off and AF at a lower setting.

A 6800NU will do better with AA turned on, allowing you to perhaps get away with 2X.

The NU has a 256-bit interface with DDR1 and the GT has a 128-bit interface with DDR3.

 

[Regs]

256-Bit DDR > DDR3 @ 128Bit

The irony in this is that you spent 600+ dollars on a LCD before you realized your problem. Since I don't have one, I can't tell you how worse off you'll be playing at lower then the native resolution. But im sure if you ran a quick search on the FPW2005, you could find a lot of pertinent information.

 

[Staz]

Originally posted by: Regs

The irony in this is that you spent 600+ dollars on a LCD before you realized your problem.

Sadly, you are correct. My 256MB FX5700 is able to play it at the native resolution with no eye-candy turned on and in a graphically weak game, that being WoW, so my 5700 is good enough for now. But once Xmas is over, I should have some money to spend and want a new card. Is ATI putting out a videocard that will compete with the 6600GT?

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

I hate to say it but the only cards that can play the next gen games that will come out in the future at 1680x1050 are the 6800GT/U or X800pro/XT and those are out of your budget 🙁. A 6800NU maybe but it will be pushing it but a 6600GT was not ment to run at high resolutions it was meant as budget card to do 1024x768 and 1280x1024

 

[Pnoy02]

Damn, are games really that much better at those resolutions? would seem more like an eyesore to me not to mention you'd need a high end CRT to support such, more expense, IMHO it may not be worth it, but that's from a budget consumer POV.

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

Originally posted by: Pnoy02
Damn, are games really that much better at those resolutions? would seem more like an eyesore to me not to mention you'd need a high end CRT to support such, more expense, IMHO it may not be worth it, but that's from a budget consumer POV.

IMO games look much better at 16x12 than 12x10 or 1024x768 it really up to the user to decide. And about the price for 16x12 my 19" CRT does 16x12 and I got it for $100 at Fry's

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Staz

Originally posted by: Regs

The irony in this is that you spent 600+ dollars on a LCD before you realized your problem.

Sadly, you are correct. My 256MB FX5700 is able to play it at the native resolution with no eye-candy turned on and in a graphically weak game, that being WoW, so my 5700 is good enough for now. But once Xmas is over, I should have some money to spend and want a new card. Is ATI putting out a videocard that will compete with the 6600GT?

I believe an X800 Vanillia has a retail of 200 dollars. The problem is finding one, and find it at the retail price.

 

[forpe]

I think you're all missing the point. To go above the 6600gt would be expensive and wouldn't offer that much performance gain give that the athlon xp cpu will bottleneck anything more powerful.

Get the 6600gt if you are happy to sacrafice AA and all those 'very high' settings for the resolution. If you really need them then you will need more than a gfx card upgrade. Otherwise its a waste.

 

[DaShadow]

Originally posted by: Staz

Originally posted by: Regs

The irony in this is that you spent 600+ dollars on a LCD before you realized your problem.

Sadly, you are correct. My 256MB FX5700 is able to play it at the native resolution with no eye-candy turned on and in a graphically weak game, that being WoW, so my 5700 is good enough for now. But once Xmas is over, I should have some money to spend and want a new card. Is ATI putting out a videocard that will compete with the 6600GT?

Statz, from what I'm seeing is that your current video card is handling WoW (which is the only game you are playing right now) just fine.

So instead of spending the money on a 6600GT now, put the money aside, save a little more (if possible), and when you are ready to get another game that your 5700 can't handle, then look at upgrading the video card.

Hopefully by the time you are ready to replace the video card the prices will have come down on the GT.

 

[Tiamat]

If it helps, I have a Radeon 9800pro 256MB and can play CS:S at 1600x1200 with an avg of 55fps with everything on high, no AA, no AF. I played HL2 at this resolution no problems either ~ sat in the high 40s most of the time. Towards the end, there were some parts that dipped into the high 20s.

The 6600GT outperforms the 9800pro pretty much in every aspect.

ATI should be having a X800 come out beginning of next year. This will be the competitor.

I wouldnt recommend getting any graphics card higher than these since their performance will be bogged down by the CPU.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: forpe
Get the 6600gt if you are happy to sacrafice AA and all those 'very high' settings for the resolution. If you really need them then you will need more than a gfx card upgrade. Otherwise its a waste.

The problem is that his LCD monitor has a high native resolution. And unlike a CRT monitor, a LCD does not scale as well when changing resolutions.

 

[forpey]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: forpe
Get the 6600gt if you are happy to sacrafice AA and all those 'very high' settings for the resolution. If you really need them then you will need more than a gfx card upgrade. Otherwise its a waste.

The problem is that his LCD monitor has a high native resolution. And unlike a CRT monitor, a LCD does not scale as well when changing resolutions.

Thats what I meant. If your going to run in lower resolutions using a LCD, you have to use AA to compinsate for the poor scaling. Running the native resolution will (more or less) prevent the need for AA.

 

[Staz]

So I am to understand that it would be a waste to get a higher power card(6800GT) because my system would become the bottleneck?

While my system isn't a powerhouse system, an overclocked XP-M 2500+ running at 2222MHz, hopefully to get to 2400MHz soon, on a good Nforce2 400 Ultra mobo with 1GB of Hyper-X memory is considered a "slow" system???

I am able to play WoW at my LCD's native resolution right now at low quality without any choppyness. I realize I would need a top notch card to play it at very high quality with all the eye candy turned on, but I don't need it that high. A good mid to high quality with a few of the eye candy options would suit me fine. The 6600GT should be able to handle that, I hope. Still considering a 6800nu though for a little extra $.

 

[Agamar]

Reading this post has definitely changed my mind about the 2001FP..I think I am going for a 19" panel at 1280x1024...My 5900XT can still run most games at that res.

 

[Staz]

Don't get me wrong, I love my 2005FPW, but in hind sight, might have opted for that Sony 19" XBRITE LCD deal at CompUSA instead.

 

[ShockwaveVT]

I'm in the same boat as you Staz, upgraded to a 2005 FPW and now I'm weighing my video card options. I even play WoW like you... sheesh.

I have a GeForce 4 Ti4200 128MB (on a P4 prescott 3.0/1GB DDR) and I'm getting anywhere from 20-30 FPS with AA off, AF off, and detail settings about 3/4 of the way up. It only really chokes in large PvP battles.

Right now I'm leaning toward the 6600GT.

6600GT
pros: price, lower heat & noise levels
cons: performance

6800GT
pros: performance
cons: price, heat, power, noise

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

Originally posted by: Staz
So I am to understand that it would be a waste to get a higher power card(6800GT) because my system would become the bottleneck?

While my system isn't a powerhouse system, an overclocked XP-M 2500+ running at 2222MHz, hopefully to get to 2400MHz soon, on a good Nforce2 400 Ultra mobo with 1GB of Hyper-X memory is considered a "slow" system???

He's wrong there would be no major bottleneck in your system if you put in a 6800GT and there would be a huge difference in performance between that and a 6600. Athlon XP may not be as fast as A64's but they still pack a punch

 

[cmdrmoocow]

Either jump on the 6600GT now, or wait until the 6800GT's come down in price.

A 6600GT is roughly on par with a 6800nu, but cheaper.

On top of that, since the 5700 of yours is doing you justice for now, keep it as is until you save up some more money.



Or get a used 9700/9800 pro off of ebay...

 

[SickBeast]

Is there not a way to force that monitor to run at 1280x1024 w/ black bars on the sides w/o any "pixel stretching"? You'd lose some screen size, but at least you could get by with a midrange graphics card. :light:

 

[housecat]

I run 960x600 on my 2005. Make sure you select "display adapter scaling" in your video options. Seems to do alot better job for me than the panels scaling.
This way it upscales 960x600 (or whatever you choose to play in) to 1680x1050.. I havent noticed any performance loss either.

I run this in HL2/Doom3 and it looks/works great. Could use some AA/AF, but beggers cant be chosers. I wouldnt trade this panel though. Its still extremely nice for Windows@1680, and I spend most of my time there or in CS (original)@1680x1050 on my 4200 128mb.

For WS games (HL/HL2/Doom3/UT4) i use 960x600 or 1680x1050
FS games (Pirates!) i still use 1024x768 and it looks fine. It is in the video card and panel options to use no stretching.. but i'd recommend stretching FS resolutions.. it looks fine unless your going to take screenshots and nit-pick..
but if your like me and just trying to have some fun in some games.. you won't notice.

I think if you are the type that something like this would bother, I'd stick with a CRT. Personally, I think you'd have to be pretty picky.
Most people that picky wouldnt be buying this kind of hardware and not supplying it with a 6800GT or faster. CRTs are still nice fall-backs for those who dont need the benefits of a LCD and want a perfect image.
Not for me though, I'm never going back.

 

[Staz]

If I were to scale my monitor down, it would be to 1280x800. 960x600 is way too low for my tastes.

 

[Edward Lee]

Originally posted by: cmdrmoocow
Either jump on the 6600GT now, or wait until the 6800GT's come down in price.

A 6600GT is roughly on par with a 6800nu, but cheaper.

On top of that, since the 5700 of yours is doing you justice for now, keep it as is until you save up some more money.



Or get a used 9700/9800 pro off of ebay...

6800 about the same as a 6600GT...

Me thinks you're on crack. I would go with a 6800 NU for next Gen gamming at an affordable price. It'll last you 3 years mininum.

 

[Pnoy02]

Guess I'll have to go with the Chaintech 6600GT then, it comes with PAINKILLER!!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Computer MAn

Originally posted by: Pnoy02
Damn, are games really that much better at those resolutions? would seem more like an eyesore to me not to mention you'd need a high end CRT to support such, more expense, IMHO it may not be worth it, but that's from a budget consumer POV.

IMO games look much better at 16x12 than 12x10 or 1024x768 it really up to the user to decide. And about the price for 16x12 my 19" CRT does 16x12 and I got it for $100 at Fry's

Yup. I am still gaming on my 17in Trinitron I bought with my 800mhz Dell system about 4-5 years ago. Unreal picture quality at 16x12, never hurts my eyes.