Galaxy GeForce 6600 GT SmartFlash

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/07/07/galaxy_6600gt/1.html

 

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!

 

Re: NFSU2

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

www.galaxy-hk.com

 

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

 

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.