Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/12/2005 7:19:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 7:20:50 PM EDT by mjohn3006]
So my GeForce FX 5200 with 128 on board is really starting to suck with newer games.
So I am starting my search. I am seeing prices such as:

$94 - GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$77 - GeForce 6200 256MB

Question...what does the FX have that makes its lower model number more expencive than the higher model number without the FX prefix?

Full specs on the competing cards. I am not really deciding between these two, just asking why the "better" model number is cheaper.

Nvidia GeFORCE FX 5700LE AGP 256MB 128bit 8X AGP. W/DVI Tv*Fan *RETAIL BOX Dual Head with DVI and TV out--4ns 500Mhz DDR

XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail PVT44AWAMG XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:25:05 PM EDT
FX was just a name for that generation of cards. The GeForce 6 series do not have the FX prefix.

The reason that the previous generation card costs more, is because it was a mid-range card of that gen, whereas the 6200 is the lowest of the low of the current genreation.

IF you really want to make the games go good, look for a 6600GT, or a GeForce FX 5900XT. Anything less than that is just inadequate for gaming anymore.

Also, stay away from any LE or SE cards. I see that the 5700 you listed is an LE card. Avoid it like the plague. It would be like a normal 5700, only with down syndrome.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:30:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
Also, stay away from any LE or SE cards. I see that the 5700 you listed is an LE card. Avoid it like the plague. It would be like a normal 5700, only with down syndrome.



Yea, those LE cards fuck with your gaming experience. Randomly in the middle of Counterstrike dogs will appear and it will force you to draw down on the pooch.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:33:15 PM EDT
Marketing.

The higher model number just indicates that it's newer, not necessarily better.

The newer budget cards still haver higher model numbers than the older gaming cards.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:07:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
Also, stay away from any LE or SE cards. I see that the 5700 you listed is an LE card. Avoid it like the plague. It would be like a normal 5700, only with down syndrome.



Yea, those LE cards fuck with your gaming experience. Randomly in the middle of Counterstrike dogs will appear and it will force you to draw down on the pooch.



Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:15:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 8:16:28 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
So my GeForce FX 5200 with 128 on board is really starting to suck with newer games.
So I am starting my search. I am seeing prices such as:

$94 - GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$77 - GeForce 6200 256MB

Question...what does the FX have that makes its lower model number more expencive than the higher model number without the FX prefix?

Full specs on the competing cards. I am not really deciding between these two, just asking why the "better" model number is cheaper.

Nvidia GeFORCE FX 5700LE AGP 256MB 128bit 8X AGP. W/DVI Tv*Fan *RETAIL BOX Dual Head with DVI and TV out--4ns 500Mhz DDR

XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail PVT44AWAMG XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail




$145 Gforce 6600 GT Best AGP card for the money
Going to a 6200 or 5700 wont bea big enough difference to justify another card. the 6600gt is though.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:35:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
So my GeForce FX 5200 with 128 on board is really starting to suck with newer games.
So I am starting my search. I am seeing prices such as:

$94 - GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$77 - GeForce 6200 256MB

Question...what does the FX have that makes its lower model number more expencive than the higher model number without the FX prefix?

Full specs on the competing cards. I am not really deciding between these two, just asking why the "better" model number is cheaper.

Nvidia GeFORCE FX 5700LE AGP 256MB 128bit 8X AGP. W/DVI Tv*Fan *RETAIL BOX Dual Head with DVI and TV out--4ns 500Mhz DDR

XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail PVT44AWAMG XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail




$145 Gforce 6600 GT Best AGP card for the money
Going to a 6200 or 5700 wont bea big enough difference to justify another card. the 6600gt is though.




Hell yes...

The 6600GT will last you for awhile... a GeForce FX 5700 256MB or GeForce 6200 are going to have in the same boat in 3-6 months... maybe from day one depending on the game.

The 6600GT cards are the most bang for the buck.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:43:18 PM EDT
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:49:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
So my GeForce FX 5200 with 128 on board is really starting to suck with newer games.
So I am starting my search. I am seeing prices such as:

$94 - GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$77 - GeForce 6200 256MB

Question...what does the FX have that makes its lower model number more expencive than the higher model number without the FX prefix?

Full specs on the competing cards. I am not really deciding between these two, just asking why the "better" model number is cheaper.

Nvidia GeFORCE FX 5700LE AGP 256MB 128bit 8X AGP. W/DVI Tv*Fan *RETAIL BOX Dual Head with DVI and TV out--4ns 500Mhz DDR

XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail PVT44AWAMG XFX nVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB DDR DVI/TV-Out AGP 8X Retail



That is what I have, and it does purty damn good.
Although I would take it a step up if I were you. A huge difference is the fact that you will be going from a direct X 7 card, to a DX9 card.

The 5700 256MB is nice, but dig a little deeper if you want REALLY good performance.
The 5700 can't do a few of the DX 9 tricks on newer games for some reason. Well, it can, but it involves tricking some stuff, and you take a big hit in performance anyway.

What kind of processor do you have?
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:51:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:52:15 PM EDT
Heck, I'm still running on my trusty GeForce 4 Ti 4400...
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:59:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZootTX:
Heck, I'm still running on my trusty GeForce 4 Ti 4400...



That 64MB P.O.S. is what I had before I got the 5700. You can trust it to let you down every time.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:03:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 9:04:04 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



Nobody said the 6600 was a 6800 what we did say was the 6600GT is the best bang for the buck. The 6600GT is not far off from the low end 6800s and is MAJOR step up from the 5700.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:04:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By ZootTX:
Heck, I'm still running on my trusty GeForce 4 Ti 4400...



That 64MB P.O.S. is what I had before I got the 5700. You can trust it to let you down every time.


Huh!?!
Mines the 128 mb version and I've had it almost since they released them.
Its handled everything I've thrown at it.
Granted its getting a little slow and the image quality isnt close to what the new ones do, but its a 3 year old video card in a sector where hardware is outdated within 6 months.
I'm happy with it.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:14:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



Nobody said the 6600 was a 6800 what we did say was the 6600GT is the best bang for the buck. The 6600GT is not far off from the low end 6800s and is MAJOR step up from the 5700.



Best bang for the buck

www.pwv5.magicmicro.com/pmoreinfo.asp?iid=852

the new catalyst drivers are supposed to be pretty good, but you can get 3rd party drivers that are even better.

Top this

Although i would throw in a little extra cash for the 9800 if I were you.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:15:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZootTX:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By ZootTX:
Heck, I'm still running on my trusty GeForce 4 Ti 4400...



That 64MB P.O.S. is what I had before I got the 5700. You can trust it to let you down every time.


Huh!?!
Mines the 128 mb version and I've had it almost since they released them.
Its handled everything I've thrown at it.
Granted its getting a little slow and the image quality isnt close to what the new ones do, but its a 3 year old video card in a sector where hardware is outdated within 6 months.
I'm happy with it.



Handled everythign you've thrown at it???

Pac-man doesn't count.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:20:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 9:21:22 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



Nobody said the 6600 was a 6800 what we did say was the 6600GT is the best bang for the buck. The 6600GT is not far off from the low end 6800s and is MAJOR step up from the 5700.



Best bang for the buck

www.pwv5.magicmicro.com/pmoreinfo.asp?iid=852

the new catalyst drivers are supposed to be pretty good, but you can get 3rd party drivers that are even better.

Top this

Although i would throw in a little extra cash for the 9800 if I were you.



The 6600GT runs circles around the 9600XT and out preforms the 9800XT in many if not most tasks.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:21:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By ZootTX:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By ZootTX:
Heck, I'm still running on my trusty GeForce 4 Ti 4400...



That 64MB P.O.S. is what I had before I got the 5700. You can trust it to let you down every time.


Huh!?!
Mines the 128 mb version and I've had it almost since they released them.
Its handled everything I've thrown at it.
Granted its getting a little slow and the image quality isnt close to what the new ones do, but its a 3 year old video card in a sector where hardware is outdated within 6 months.
I'm happy with it.



Handled everythign you've thrown at it???

Pac-man doesn't count.



MS FS2004 and Counter Strike: Source run fine.
Now the newest games it wont run (BF:2)
I really don't game as much as I used to, and what I play now, it runs fine.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:32:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



Nobody said the 6600 was a 6800 what we did say was the 6600GT is the best bang for the buck. The 6600GT is not far off from the low end 6800s and is MAJOR step up from the 5700.



Best bang for the buck

www.pwv5.magicmicro.com/pmoreinfo.asp?iid=852

the new catalyst drivers are supposed to be pretty good, but you can get 3rd party drivers that are even better.

Top this

Although i would throw in a little extra cash for the 9800 if I were you.



The 6600GT runs circles around the 9600XT and out preforms the 9800XT in many if not most tasks.



I'm going to bed , but just for the fun of it. Post the specs for both cards would ya?
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:40:14 PM EDT
Be like me and get one of these:

Of course, you'll have to buy a new motherboard, processor, probably new RAM, etc...

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:01:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



Nobody said the 6600 was a 6800 what we did say was the 6600GT is the best bang for the buck. The 6600GT is not far off from the low end 6800s and is MAJOR step up from the 5700.



Best bang for the buck

www.pwv5.magicmicro.com/pmoreinfo.asp?iid=852

the new catalyst drivers are supposed to be pretty good, but you can get 3rd party drivers that are even better.

Top this

Although i would throw in a little extra cash for the 9800 if I were you.



The 6600GT runs circles around the 9600XT and out preforms the 9800XT in many if not most tasks.



I'm going to bed , but just for the fun of it. Post the specs for both cards would ya?



Okay.

Radeon 9600XT
Core clock 500MHz
PixelPipelines 4
Memory
Memory Clock 600MHz
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type DDR

Geforce 6600GT
Core clock 500MHz
PixelPipelines 8
Memory
Memory Clock 1000MHz
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type GDDR3


The 9600XT doesnt even come close to a 6600GT. The 6600GT is easily twice as fast as any 9600XT there is, and will annihilate it in every game you test them in. <----that is a period.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:06:06 PM EDT
Wow, I'm shocked that what I was going to recommend is in agreement with most of the posts. Get a 6600GT.

I'm running a 6800 on my machine, lots of my friends use 6600GTs (for shit like Counterstrike: Source and Half-Life 2). They're good cards, definitely a good value. I only bought a 6800 because a friend had it used (was upgrading), otherwise I would have got a 6600GT.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:08:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spitfire75:
Be like me and get one of these:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/ocsk8brdr/Random%20Crap/BFG2.jpg
Of course, you'll have to buy a new motherboard, processor, probably new RAM, etc...




My 7800GTX will be here on monday, hopefully. Then on the first (payday), I will be adding a second one for SLi. I got rid of my 6800 Ultras in Sli to get the first one.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:13:53 AM EDT
ATI X800XL PCI-e x16. I cant bog this thing down no matter what I throw at it. Everything on full, and AA and AF no problem.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:22:56 AM EDT
I am running a 6600GT PCI and it works great for everthing I have tried it with. BF2 runs good, although I don't run it with all the settings maxed out. When the price drops further in a few months, I'll probaby get a second one and run both in SLI mode... my PC should really smoke then!

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:01:13 AM EDT
Right now, if you don't spend at least $150 on a card your wasting your time.

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:03:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



Nobody said the 6600 was a 6800 what we did say was the 6600GT is the best bang for the buck. The 6600GT is not far off from the low end 6800s and is MAJOR step up from the 5700.



Best bang for the buck

www.pwv5.magicmicro.com/pmoreinfo.asp?iid=852

the new catalyst drivers are supposed to be pretty good, but you can get 3rd party drivers that are even better.

Top this

Although i would throw in a little extra cash for the 9800 if I were you.



The 6600GT runs circles around the 9600XT and out preforms the 9800XT in many if not most tasks.



I'm going to bed , but just for the fun of it. Post the specs for both cards would ya?



Okay.

Radeon 9600XT
Core clock 500MHz
PixelPipelines 4
Memory
Memory Clock 600MHz
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type DDR

Geforce 6600GT
Core clock 500MHz
PixelPipelines 8
Memory
Memory Clock 1000MHz
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type GDDR3


The 9600XT doesnt even come close to a 6600GT. The 6600GT is easily twice as fast as any 9600XT there is, and will annihilate it in every game you test them in. <----that is a period.




The 6600GT sure as hell better run circles around the 9600XT, it costs twice as much and is in the newer generation of cards.

Unfair comparison.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:25:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By StarAtari:

The 6600GT sure as hell better run circles around the 9600XT, it costs twice as much and is in the newer generation of cards.

Unfair comparison.



Read the whole thread...

It was someone boosting the 9600XT that made a claim it could compete with a 6600GT… what do you suggest, that be ignored.

As stated before the best bang for the buck is the 6600GT and well worth the extra $60 over a 9600XT.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:35:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:42:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 12:57:15 PM EDT by sixgunsblazing]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By StarAtari:

The 6600GT sure as hell better run circles around the 9600XT, it costs twice as much and is in the newer generation of cards.

Unfair comparison.



Read the whole thread...

It was someone boosting the 9600XT that made a claim it could compete with a 6600GT… what do you suggest, that be ignored.

As stated before the best bang for the buck is the 6600GT and well worth the extra $60 over a 9600XT.


I was looking at a 6600GT to replace my 9600XT, then just went for it and got a X800XT AIW instead
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:31:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 12:33:07 PM EDT by madman_kirk]
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:56:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By StarAtari:

The 6600GT sure as hell better run circles around the 9600XT, it costs twice as much and is in the newer generation of cards.

Unfair comparison.



Read the whole thread...

It was someone boosting the 9600XT that made a claim it could compete with a 6600GT… what do you suggest, that be ignored.

As stated before the best bang for the buck is the 6600GT and well worth the extra $60 over a 9600XT.



He never made any comparison to the 6600GT. He just offered the 9600XT as alternative.

I'm not disputing the 6600GT as the better buy, I'm just don't see why we're comparing it to the 9600XT instead of a more worthy ATI product.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:57:38 AM EDT
* GF5200...this would not be a good gaming experience for today's games....at all .
* GF6200 - very similar to the 5200, the 6200 is a non-starter. And the "TurboCache" model...think of it of having a cool name, but slower speed.
* GF5700 - I wouldn't go with this one either for today's games...better than the above cards, but think of having a 27 foot boat and pulling it with a Chevy S10 pickup.
* 9600 Pro/XT - Now we're getting somewhere. I had a 9600XT for a couple years and it was a good bang-for-the-buck card at the time...I retired it last year.
* X600 - I believe it's a reworked 9600 card...performance is..well...middling at best
* 9800 Pro/XT - This was the King of the Hill until a little over a year ago. It'll do ok, but for the same money, you could get a 6600GT and more power
* 5900 (and 5950) - same story as the 9800...the 6600GT makes more sense

I don't recommend any of the above. Sure the 9800's and 5900's are fast, but you'll be getting the tail end of last generation chips.

* 6600GT - Easily the bang-for-the-buck card right now. Good power, fair price, and wipes the floor with any of the cards above
* X700 - Supposedly ATI's answer to the 6600GT, but I favor the 6600GT over the X700
* 6800 (non-ultra/non-GT) - Every once in a while, they are found for close to the same price as the 6600GT...the 6800 is a faster card
* X800 Pro/XL/XT - Getting into some seriously good gaming experience here
* 6800GT - Again, very excellent gaming experience
* 6800 Ultra/X850XT - For rich people who love excellent gaming experiences
* 7800 series -***drools***


Last, memory size is a measurement of capacity, not speed. It helps the overall equation, but something like a GF5200 with 256MB is a cruel joke.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:23:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Robbie:
Last, memory size is a measurement of capacity, not speed. It helps the overall equation, but something like a GF5200 with 256MB is a cruel joke.



Sometimes it can matter significantly. Some cards will use different types of memory. For example, a friend of mine has a 6600 (not GT) and thought his card was the shit since it had 256MB and a 6600GT had 128MB. Then I looked on Newegg.com and informed him that his used DDR memory, whereas the GT uses DDR3.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:14:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Robbie:
Last, memory size is a measurement of capacity, not speed. It helps the overall equation, but something like a GF5200 with 256MB is a cruel joke.



Sometimes it can matter significantly. Some cards will use different types of memory. For example, a friend of mine has a 6600 (not GT) and thought his card was the shit since it had 256MB and a 6600GT had 128MB. Then I looked on Newegg.com and informed him that his used DDR memory, whereas the GT uses DDR3.



That would be memory type instead of memory size. But yeah, it's helpful on the higher end cards.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:39:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By killswitch:
ATI X800XL PCI-e x16. I cant bog this thing down no matter what I throw at it. Everything on full, and AA and AF no problem.



These bad boys have 16 pipelines for more pleasure!

I bought an ATI Radeon X800XL 256mb board for a build I'm doing and I bought the wrong one.

I need a PCI Express board and I didn't get it.

I'll sell it for $225.00 shipped.

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 10:50:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 1:09:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By madman_kirk:
Well since my MB for my socket A project came DOA. I decided to drop the 6600GT in place of the fx5200 in one of my other computers. in 3DMARK05 the FX5200 got a 268, with the 6600GT it got a 3423. this is just FWIW and YMMV. mmk



That's right along the scores I've seen
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 1:24:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By gazukull:
+1 on the 6600 GT, if you are still running an AGP board it is the route to go.

- G



Just because the 6600 is close to the number 6800 doesn't mean it is close in performance to the 6800 card.

The 6600 is a very slight step up from the 5700.

While the 6800 is in a whole other catagory of badassness.



6600GT is a different animal than the regular 6600. Actually the 6600gt does better than the regular 6800 in many benchmarks.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 1:27:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By StarAtari:

The 6600GT sure as hell better run circles around the 9600XT, it costs twice as much and is in the newer generation of cards.

Unfair comparison.



Read the whole thread...

It was someone boosting the 9600XT that made a claim it could compete with a 6600GT… what do you suggest, that be ignored.

As stated before the best bang for the buck is the 6600GT and well worth the extra $60 over a 9600XT.




Heck it dances circles around Radeon 9800 which is the same price
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 12:11:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 12:13:27 AM EDT by ARDunstan]
You can get an AGP 6800GT 256MB video card for $269 at Newegg.
I have one.
It is better than the 6600GT.
My 3dMark 05 score was 4975.


Albatron 6800GT 256MB AGP





Top Top