Galaxy GeForce 6600 GT SmartFlash - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 7th Jul 2005, 19:47

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._6600gt/1.html

Da Dego · 7th Jul 2005, 20:16

Eh? Seems a bit off to me. For a minute, I thought you might be saying we could soft-mod it. Got me all excited. Dumb gimmicks!

Good job debunking the hype, though, biggles.

By the way, this may not be the spot for it, but I have started to really hate that the last page still has a forward arrow (the "Discuss >" link). When I'm done reading an article, I'm done. I'd prefer to do like the news pages and have a link on the last page that says "Discuss this in our forums." I always end up wandering inadvertently into the forums because I'm not paying too much attention and habitually click forward!

TMM · 8th Jul 2005, 04:32

Quote:

Anisotropic Filtering was controlled via the driver control panel, as the game does not feature in-game controls for Anisotropic Filtering.

Texture Filtering = AF

no?

btw: i like the "apples to apples" comparison - its is nice to have both this and the max playable settings results to compare the cards

Da Dego · 8th Jul 2005, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM

btw: i like the "apples to apples" comparison - its is nice to have both this and the max playable settings results to compare the cards

Agreed. I'm sure it's a LOT more work, but it really does make things nicer.

Stephen Brooks · 9th Jul 2005, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Dego

By the way, this may not be the spot for it, but I have started to really hate that the last page still has a forward arrow (the "Discuss >" link).

My personal gripe is that when it says "Next page >", immediately to the right of that is the title of the CURRENT page! But I don't really see how this could be corrected without messing up the nice minimality of the current navbars.

Why was the FX-55 underclocked for a review that was supposed to be comparing graphics cards, by the way?

Tim S · 10th Jul 2005, 03:05

because the idea of the 'best-playable' settings is that they are relatively realistic... there's no point in coupling an FX55 with a 6600 GT - how many people are going to have that kind of combination?

I reckon that a 2GHz FX55 is roughly 3400+ - about the middle of AMD's processor lineup, matches up with the mid-range graphics cards tested.

Da Dego · 11th Jul 2005, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Brooks

My personal gripe is that when it says "Next page >", immediately to the right of that is the title of the CURRENT page! But I don't really see how this could be corrected without messing up the nice minimality of the current navbars.

Why was the FX-55 underclocked for a review that was supposed to be comparing graphics cards, by the way?

The drop-down could be moved in between the next and previous markers, that could fix it...I definitely see what you mean.

As for the FX-55 underclock, most people buying a $700 chip are going to buy a graphics card to match, as opposed to a 6600gt. This card is more for someone with a ~$200-300 processor.

Since you can drop the multiplier on an FX series, it's great for estimating a midrange system, too, without having to have another chip on hand.

/EDIT: Sorry biggles, just saw your post above me. I need to read to the end before posting!

Stephen Brooks · 12th Jul 2005, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigz

because the idea of the 'best-playable' settings is that they are relatively realistic... there's no point in coupling an FX55 with a 6600 GT - how many people are going to have that kind of combination?

I reckon that a 2GHz FX55 is roughly 3400+ - about the middle of AMD's processor lineup, matches up with the mid-range graphics cards tested.

That's what I was wondering. Yes, it's a sensible thing to do for those tests. But did you put the multiplier back up again for the apples-to-apples?

Tim S · 12th Jul 2005, 20:44

No, settings were left the same across the whole review because it doesn't make sense to say that video card X is faster than video card Y on a processor that they are not likely to be coupled with.

cpu121 · 14th Jul 2005, 23:11

Do Galaxy have a website? Haven't managed to find one in Google yet.

Tim S · 15th Jul 2005, 04:01

www.galaxy-hk.com

Stephen Brooks · 24th Jul 2005, 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigz

No, settings were left the same across the whole review because it doesn't make sense to say that video card X is faster than video card Y on a processor that they are not likely to be coupled with.

I actually disagree with this (for the apples, not the "best playable"), but I'll leave it for you to figure out why.

Tim S · 24th Jul 2005, 02:00

Why? What is the point in showing which video card is fastest with a processor that nobody is going to combine the said video card with?

Sure, you remove the 'CPU limitation' in some titles, but people are not going to remove that CPU limitation when they have that video card in their system. Video card X might be faster than video card Y when limited by the CPU, but it could be the other way around when not CPU limited - I think that is giving out potentially false information.

7th Jul 2005, 19:47	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Galaxy GeForce 6600 GT SmartFlash http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._6600gt/1.html __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

7th Jul 2005, 20:16	#2
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	Eh? Seems a bit off to me. For a minute, I thought you might be saying we could soft-mod it. Got me all excited. Dumb gimmicks! Good job debunking the hype, though, biggles. By the way, this may not be the spot for it, but I have started to really hate that the last page still has a forward arrow (the "Discuss >" link). When I'm done reading an article, I'm done. I'd prefer to do like the news pages and have a link on the last page that says "Discuss this in our forums." I always end up wandering inadvertently into the forums because I'm not paying too much attention and habitually click forward! __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

10th Jul 2005, 03:05	#6
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	because the idea of the 'best-playable' settings is that they are relatively realistic... there's no point in coupling an FX55 with a 6600 GT - how many people are going to have that kind of combination? I reckon that a 2GHz FX55 is roughly 3400+ - about the middle of AMD's processor lineup, matches up with the mid-range graphics cards tested. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

12th Jul 2005, 20:44	#9
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	No, settings were left the same across the whole review because it doesn't make sense to say that video card X is faster than video card Y on a processor that they are not likely to be coupled with. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

15th Jul 2005, 04:01	#11
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	www.galaxy-hk.com __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

14th Jul 2005, 23:11	#10
cpu121 Supermodder Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: UK Posts: 323	Do Galaxy have a website? Haven't managed to find one in Google yet.

24th Jul 2005, 02:00	#13
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Why? What is the point in showing which video card is fastest with a processor that nobody is going to combine the said video card with? Sure, you remove the 'CPU limitation' in some titles, but people are not going to remove that CPU limitation when they have that video card in their system. Video card X might be faster than video card Y when limited by the CPU, but it could be the other way around when not CPU limited - I think that is giving out potentially false information. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)