The Test
Our test system is the same setup that we used in our 11-card Geforce 6600GT roundup.| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition |
| RAM: | 2 x 256MB Samsung DDR2 (4:4:4:11) |
| Hard Drive(s): | Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 120GB PATA |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel Chipset INF v6.2.1.1001 |
| Video Card(s): | ABIT Radeon X700 Pro (128MB) HIS Radeon X700 Pro PowerColor Radeon X700 Pro Sapphire Radeon X700 Pro NVIDIA Geforce 6600 GT |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 67.03 Beta ATI Catalyst 4.11 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ PowerStream 520 PSU |
| Motherboards: | Intel D925XECV2 |
We are using the 4.11 version of Catalyst and the control panel rather than the Catalyst Control Center and .NET framework.
The ABIT card is the only 128 MB card that we tested. With the amount of extra memory needed for high resolution normal maps and multiple render targets used in current and future games, lower frame buffer sizes are impacting performance more and more.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
View All Comments
cosmotic - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
Your text ad thing turns "Unreal Tournoment" into a link thats the same color as the table header background so it looks like "2004 Performance". Why do some Anand articles use pretty graphs and some use these relitively harder to read tables?MAValpha - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
I dunno. I have one of these cards (Retail Built-By-ATI 256MB Radeon X700 Pro), and I didn't even try to push it too far. I set it up to run at XT speeds, and it does it with no problems. Performance at these settings isn't anything to sneeze at either, since it more or less matches my 6800 vanilla (within 5%, off the top of my head). Remember that preliminary benchmarks position the 6800 vanilla almost on par with the 6600GT, also.Granted, the two PCs are different, but they are both fairly close to top-of-the-line. One is a Prescott-775 running at 3.8 on i915P, the other is an AXP running 2.4 on NF2 Ultra. While they are understandably different processors, games turn in comparable framerates on both. Everything else is the same in both rigs, right down to the RAM and hard drives.
nserra - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
"For those out there who are die-hard ATI fans and absolutely need to have an X700 Pro solution, we can recommend that you simply head out and find the cheapest X700 Pro available."I do a better one, buy the basic X700, only 25Mhz lower clock and 150Mhz memory, and over clock it. And save 50$.
One thing must be pointed out, if X700 Pro is worst over 6600GT, "regular" X700 is better over "regular" 6600.
#9 My point answer your question or doubt?
ChineseDemocracyGNR - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
What I'd like to see is the $149 non-PRO non-XT X700, which is also non-existant.skunkbuster - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
can anyone tell me why ati's open GL drivers continue to suck? when are they ever going to catch up to nvidia in this regard?stelleg151 - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
I assume that the ATI cards should be considered identical to the Powercolor cards because of same look?bloc - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
Bang for the buck especially in the mid range.If ati priced the x700 accordingly and had some cards to sell, I'd consider it. Cripes I'm waiting for the 9800 pro to come down to $150 US to the 6600 GT's $200. I'd then go for the 9800 pro.
overclockingoodness - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
All I have to say is that NVIDIA's 6600 solutions are to get for mid-range setups.DerekWilson - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
The icon should be fixed -- I'm not sure what happened there :-)slurmsmackenzie - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
did anyone else stop reading after the head to head with the 6600GT?.... i just assumed everything else was just superfluous details.