• 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.

Why can't I find an AGP 6600GT w/256MB?

Originally posted by: MisterChief
Are/will there be any 6600s w/ 256mb of memory in AGP format? Not ready to go PCI-e just yet.
Click to expand...

There probably won't be a 256MB 6600GT because, as Melchior said, the 6600GT has too little memory bandwidth (because of the relatively skinny 128-bit memory bus) to even take advantage of it. Also, even if there is one made, it is highly unlikely that it will be AGP, as both ATI and NVIDIA want to force the whole PCI-E thing (which in my opinion, PCI-E is completely unnecissary at the moment). So, for now, you're stuck with 128MB 6600GTs, the only way to get 256MB is to spend more to get a 6800-series card, or buy a Radeon 9200 PCI card with 256MB of memory 😛
 
Originally posted by: geforcetony
Originally posted by: MisterChief
Are/will there be any 6600s w/ 256mb of memory in AGP format? Not ready to go PCI-e just yet.
Click to expand...

There probably won't be a 256MB 6600GT because, as Melchior said, the 6600GT has too little memory bandwidth (because of the relatively skinny 128-bit memory bus) to even take advantage of it. Also, even if there is one made, it is highly unlikely that it will be AGP, as both ATI and NVIDIA want to force the whole PCI-E thing (which in my opinion, PCI-E is completely unnecissary at the moment). So, for now, you're stuck with 128MB 6600GTs, the only way to get 256MB is to spend more to get a 6800-series card, or buy a Radeon 9200 PCI card with 256MB of memory 😛
Click to expand...

i hope you guys are kidding...the 6600GT could use that memory so much.
link
The GeForce 6600GT takes a nosedive at 4XAA/8XAF, but do keep in mind that there is only 128MB of RAM on the GeForce 6600GT, while all the other cards here have 256MB of RAM
Click to expand...
when they put it on 4xaa 8xaf 16x12 the card runs out of video memory and has to swap from the main RAM. this kills your FPS.
but to awnser your question, no the 6600GT only comes in a 128MB flavor while the regular 6600 comes in 256 but is much slower. not sure why that is 😕
Nick
 
Well, based on on previous experience.
6600GT = a bit better than a 9800 Pro.

9800 Pro does not benefit because the core is simply too slow that increasing Res/FSAA beyond a certain point, more memory will not help it.

I'm assuming the 6600GT is about the same, though there might be some differences, since the core is newer but the memory is weak. I wonder why they dont make some atlesat 256bit memroy 6600GTs, I'm not so concerned about the 256mb though.
 
yeah you can only really see the difference at 16x12 4x 8x. thats when it requires massive ammounts of video memory.
 
Even if there was a 256MB 6600GT, its 128-bit bus kills it at those high of resolutions with AA and AF on, because the card simply doesn't have the memory bandwidth to keep up. While I do agree that there MAY be a slight performance increase with an additional 128MB of RAM, the impact would be minimal, because of, as I said, the limiting 128-bit memory bus.
 
look at the resolution scaling on that graph. it dosnt scale right at 16x12, there is a sharp dropoff in performance. i would THINK that its because of the lack of memory; i dont think the memory bus would cause werid performance scaling like that.
 
Originally posted by: zakee00
look at the resolution scaling on that graph. it dosnt scale right at 16x12, there is a sharp dropoff in performance. i would THINK that its because of the lack of memory; i dont think the memory bus would cause werid performance scaling like that.
Click to expand...

Ah, you are incorrect my friend. I know from personal experience, that a narrow memory bus affects performance at these kinds of resolutions. It happened to me with my GeForce FX 5700U. It had a HUGE dropoff in performance after 1280x1024, even with no AA or AF. Now, while this isn't the fastest card in the world, you would think, that even though it had only 128MB of RAM, it would still have some life left after 1280x1024. No, I wasn't playing shader games either, as those games were worse. I was playing games like UT2004, and MVP Baseball 2004. Even on the net, most people will agree, 128-bit bus is the single most limiting factor for a card, not the amount of memory it has. This is why the 6800NU still performs halfway decently, even compared to a 6600GT, with 128MB of RAM.
 
Originally posted by: zakee00
oh, thanks for the clarification :cookie:
Click to expand...

Hey, I know my stuff, and aside from that (ahem) "comment" I made on the "New, secret spin of NV40?" thread, I try to be as informative as possible. Your point was valid, and it does hold some truth, its just that there is a bigger reason that all 128-bit bus cards hit a wall at high resolutions, thats all 🙂 🙂
 
its just that there is a bigger reason that all 128-bit bus cards hit a wall at high resolutions
Click to expand...

128bit bus isn't a reason in itself. You need to compare numerous different factors- bandwidth(a combination of RAM speed and bus width- either by themselves is useless information), memory requirements and interface(PCIe can help mask smaller mem shortfalls fairly well).

You can have 128MB of THZ memory running on a 1024bit bus, if you only have 128MB of it and need 192MB and you are stuck on an AGP bus then odds are extremely high a board with a 128bit bus running @1GHZ with 256MB of on board RAM will be faster, and likely considerably so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top