PDA

View Full Version : 6600 or 6800



zorlac000
02-22-2005, 04:26 PM
I need some advice/opinions. Which card do I choose? 6800 is full spec but pricey, 6600 is cheaper. The 6600GT model sounds well rounded and affordable. Question is, will I get 'water = 3' prettiness with 6600? Pixel shader 3?

Thanks
Zorlac

SlickStick
02-22-2005, 05:37 PM
The 6600GT has Pixel Shader 3.0 and will run Water=3. The main difference between the 6800 and the 6600GT basically comes down to number of texel pipelines, memory bus width and Fill Rate.

Compare the two here with clickable links to reviews on most cards listed:

http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

ddsflyer
02-22-2005, 05:40 PM
You will never get Water=3 at any playable framerate at any decent screen resolution with a 6600 card. Even the 6800Ultra is barely playable at that setting. Perfect Water=3 REALLY slows down your machine, even asuming you have a very fast processor as well.

DHC2Pilot
02-22-2005, 05:55 PM
It doesn't really matter....no matter which card you decide they will both work nicely....however it will be "obsolete" in 6 months. These manufacturers keep raising the bar every day - makes it next to impossible to keep up.

zorlac000
02-22-2005, 05:57 PM
Thanks for the input.
Slick, I'll check out those links when I've got more time. Okay, so maybe I can settle without the pretty water. Is the 6600 worth it overall, price VS performance? Or should I wait a bit and save more $$$? I've been upgrading my sytem recently and so far have:
P4 3.4GHz LGA 775 (Northwood I think)
Gigabyte GA-8IPE775-G (GT model, if that's anything special)
2 GB 400MHz generic RAM (I had to overkill the amount - 4x 512MB sticks - for dual channel)

All I need now is a good graphics card. Currently I'm running an FX5600, and other bits salvaged from my last system.

So ddsflyer, you say 6800Ultra is porked for frames on 'water=3', how does your X800XT shape up. I know they don't go cheap but my specs are similar to yours - at least CPU - , so if you've got reasonable frames should I wait to purchase something of similar ilk?

Thanks
Zorlac

Kapt_A
02-22-2005, 06:07 PM
I'm pleased with mine and glad i spent the cash.

R_Target
02-22-2005, 06:28 PM
Water=3 is a pretty moot point until the next generation cards come out. It's good for screenshots, but it's not playable at the settings I like-1280x960, 4xAA, 16xAF, perfect landscape, water=1. My specs:Athlon64 3200+ @ 250x10, 1GB OCZ Platinum, 6800GT@405/1100. I'm still struggling to keep the minimum fps above 45 with max planes and flak and all the other goodies.

fordfan25
02-22-2005, 06:50 PM
i would not wast money on the 6600. the 6600gt and 6800 are good cards. from what iv read there very close in performnce. from bench marks iv seen the 6600gt does a little better at lower res and AA AF settings while the 6800 has a edge in higher res and AA AF. i think do to it haveing more Pipes ect but the 6600gt is clocked faster. i have the bfg 6800oc and i like it how ever i would recomend if you can find one get the 6600gt its normaly 50 bucks less. how ever if the warrenty does not matter to you get a 6800. alot of people have had good luck unlocking the 4 extra pipe lines as well as overclocking the speeds . the bfg card has the same heat synch fan combo as the 6800gt. i had the BFG 6800gt for a while. if you plan on keeping your current MOBO for a long while then it might be worth the extra 100 to 150 bucks.if your planning to upgrade that MOBO in the next year or so then maby save the money seeing as PCIe seems to be the new standerd.

ElAurens
02-22-2005, 06:52 PM
I run a 6800GT and would not even think of trying water=3.

I have "Perfect" selected and in the conf.ini I have water=0 and trees=1, and on the Guadalcanal map online with a full server (50 planes) I get 65~70 fps average in the cockpit of the A6M2-21, and with the canopy rolled back and looking up at a clear sky I get over 100.

Those numbers totally justify not running at "3".

SlickStick
02-22-2005, 06:54 PM
As have posted, seeing Water=3 and using Water=3 are two different things.

6600GT for the price conscious, 6800 for the better-than-price conscious. The 6800 has a 256-bit memory bus width, which helps when action gets crazy hot, as well as the fill rate and extra pipelines.

About only a $70.00 difference between them and for about $260.00, the 6800 is a d*a*m*n*ed good card.

The_Pharoah
02-22-2005, 07:51 PM
sorry not trying to play devil's advocate here but, why do you need perfect water? unless you're planning to ditch and admire the view? Remember, this is a combat flight sim, and if you're flying around admiring the 'perfect' water on a public server....you'll be assuming the above position (in your dinghy) before too long.

Okay, apart from that, the 6600GT is awesome and cheap compared to 6800 which has more grunt. I'm going the way of the 6600GT Leadtek. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

psychobabbler
02-22-2005, 08:03 PM
i'm running a 6600gt. very good bang for the buck
IMO. water 3 slows it to a crawl and fps gets down
into the teens when the action is very heavy.
In classic FB/AEP scenarios it's butter smooth.
I can play PF in perfect with acceptable framerats
be aware though that a LOT of people have had problems with this card. i lucked out and got a good one.

EnGaurde
02-22-2005, 08:17 PM
i bought mine a few motnhs ago, i ran half life 2 at full everything + aa and af around 4 for each, and it was like quiksilver.

i upgraded my old machine with mobo / ht 3ghz cpu / gig ram / 6600, and it runs opengl PF with water on 1 ( which i think is excellent for my eyes anyway ) and everything set right up with a touch of aa and af perfectly well.

as for keeping up... pfft sif youd wate so much money on getting all the excess performance that you dont use till later anyway.

set your sights on a good system , not excellent, and youll play for 18 months at least.

frame rate geeks make me laugh.

Heartily. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

we can only see 35 odd frames per second, of course 120 frames per sec in whatever is great, means when lots happens you have much up your sleeve but its utterly overkill for current games and frankly, bone stupid from a money point of view.

ive found $300 is a magic number for value / performance. Go dig up some graphs online and determine what $300 range card is best for you.

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-22-2005, 09:10 PM
If you can play a game and never drop below 30fps the you are golden. So if some of you fellas are well above that like say never drop below 45 or 50 then by all means crank up the settings! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
02-22-2005, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kapt_A:
I'm pleased with mine and glad i spent the cash. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have the exact same rig.

fordfan25
02-22-2005, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
i bought mine a few motnhs ago, i ran half life 2 at full everything + aa and af around 4 for each, and it was like quiksilver.

i upgraded my old machine with mobo / ht 3ghz cpu / gig ram / 6600, and it runs opengl PF with water on 1 ( which i think is excellent for my eyes anyway ) and everything set right up with a touch of aa and af perfectly well.

as for keeping up... pfft sif youd wate so much money on getting all the excess performance that you dont use till later anyway.

set your sights on a good system , not excellent, and youll play for 18 months at least.

frame rate geeks make me laugh.

Heartily. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

we can only see 35 odd frames per second, of course 120 frames per sec in whatever is great, means when lots happens you have much up your sleeve but its utterly overkill for current games and frankly, bone stupid from a money point of view.

ive found $300 is a magic number for value / performance. Go dig up some graphs online and determine what $300 range card is best for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


i kinda feel the same way. If you have the extra cash that you can blow on PC and not miss it then its great to buy stuff like 6800 ultras ect. really it comes down to pay now or pay later. you can spend 1200 bucks on a real good pc and with out upgradeing it should last you 2 or so years. or pay 2000+ for a great pc and it will prob last an extra year or so. to my way of thinking when it comes to stuff like say GPU's is this. buy a 200 to 250 doller card instead of a 400 to 450 doller card. now it might only last you say half the time BUT in that half amount of time the next gen of cards come out and in that gens 200 doller range of cards will out perform the last gen's higher end cards. so it kinda evens out a bit. also you run less of a risk in that you have less a chance of something going wrong with the card in two years as oposed to 4 years. not to mentune that as that mid range card starts to show its age you can some times OC it with out haveing to worry about killn it and being out as much cash. thats just the way i see it in my current cash position. if i had a sweet job makeing tons of cash or if i was a rich kid with no worries then yea the high end would be the only way to go lol.

with my 6800 i run perfect water=1 forist=2 4XAA and no AS on 1024/768. in normal flight with no action i get about 80fps in heavy combat with lots of ship AAA and fighters comeing outa every wear some times it dips in the low 30's but mostly in the 40's its very rearly a problem. in water 3 i can play but its normaly in the mid 20's with nothing much going on and in the low teens with any combat. with my 6800gt i had i would say in water 3 i avg about 15 fps higher wich does make a deffernce.
now thats running on a amd 64bit 3000 cpu. wich is nothing at all great.

Maple_Tiger
02-22-2005, 10:51 PM
At there very least, buy the 6800GT.

altstiff
02-23-2005, 10:09 AM
I agree with the above poster. The 6800GT rocks.

ddsflyer
02-23-2005, 10:11 AM
zorlac000,

My framerates are very good at 1200x1600x32 4XAA, 4XAF, but forget about Water=3. I use Water=0 which looks very good and use atigloxx.dll from Catalyst 4.11 in my IL2 folder. My ATI card doesn't support Shader 3.0 so Water=3 doesn't matter anyway. If I were you I would get the best video card I possibly could i.e. GF6800Ultra adn overclock it. IL@ is not set up for SLI yet so that is not an option.

ddsflyer
02-23-2005, 10:14 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ddsflyer:
zorlac000,

My framerates are very good at 1200x1600x32 4XAA, 4XAF, but forget about Water=3. I use Water=0 which looks very good and use atigloxx.dll from Catalyst 4.11 in my IL2 folder. My ATI card doesn't support Shader 3.0 so Water=3 doesn't matter anyway. If I were you I would get the best video card I possibly could i.e. GF6800Ultra and overclock it. IL@ is not set up for SLI yet so that is not an option. The water=3 is a total framerate hog for any card even the Ultra, just ask anyone who has one. You might get decent framerates out of 800x600 resolution but who wants to play at those low resolutions and anyway, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of having a high end system?

ddsflyer
02-23-2005, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ddsflyer:
zorlac000,

My framerates are very good at 1200x1600x32 4XAA, 4XAF, but forget about Water=3. I use Water=0 which looks very good and use atigloxx.dll from Catalyst 4.11 in my IL2 folder. My ATI card doesn't support Shader 3.0 so Water=3 doesn't matter anyway. If I were you I would get the best video card I possibly could i.e. GF6800Ultra and overclock it. IL2 is not set up for SLI yet so that is not an option. The water=3 is a total framerate hog for any card even the Ultra, just ask anyone who has one. You might get decent framerates out of 800x600 resolution but who wants to play at those low resolutions and anyway, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of having a high end system? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual
02-23-2005, 10:37 AM
I've owned a couple of 6600gt PCIX cards. Run them on an intel lga775 system and an amd nforce 4 system. First off - if you are still looking - the amd systems offer more bang for the buck. My xp 3200 system was a solid 10-15% faster in PF than my intel system running at 3.2 gig. The amd was an nforce 4 939 board. With 2 gig ram each and the same vid card - amd significantly quicker. (maybe they are designed to work better with nvid cards ? - nvid chipset and all)
Next - the 6600gt is fine - you won't get playable water 3 - if you like framerates at all go with water 0 or 1. Also - as far as I know the problem with some objects having white shadows with the 6600gt is unresolved. That said it's a great bang for buck pcix card. I allways seem to have to do alot of sorting out to get amd systems running - so I tend to stick with INtel just because other family types use (abuse) my PC.

current system
abit aa8 lga775 board
2 gig ddr2
p4e 3.0@3.4
audigy
Sapphire X800xl

zorlac000
02-24-2005, 06:18 PM
Thanks everyone for your feedback.

Well, the waitings over! I got the 6600GT for $350NZD as opposed to $700+ for 6800GT, 6800 Ultra...
I'm absolutely blown away, the performance inrease is amazing. Real value for money. I haven't noticed any graphical anomolies - yet, touch wood.
I've always been a bit of an eye candy sucker. After cranking the water up to 3, landscape up to perfect I created a simple carrier takeoff/landing mission with 'thunder' weather conditions. The water looked great (peaked caps and all) and I had a blast trying to get my F4U back on the deck. Not sure of the framerate (need to run the cosole command, can't remember it) but it was certainly bearable. Although I'm sure/aware that if I populated the sky with bogies I'd get a slideshow.
God that water looks good and I don't care.

IL2 rocks!
Thanks again
zorlac