Gigabyte 6600 256 Mb Turbo Force Video Card review

Videocards/VGA Reviews by piotke @ 2005-08-30

With the introduction of PCI express only a few high end VGA cards were available, now that we have low/mid range it?s time to see how they stack up to their big brothers. The 6600GT is a mid-range card, let?s find out if it is worth the asking price. Be prepared, because here comes the Gigabyte 6600 256 Mb Turbo Force !

  • prev
  • next

Test setup & 3D mark

Test setup & Methodology :

Piotke's Test Setup
CPUAMD Athlon 64 3000+ "Venice"
MainboardAsus A8N SLI
Memory2*512 Mb DDR600 Adata
  • Asus 6600 GT 128Mb
  • Asus X800XT 256 Mb
  • Gigabyte 6600 256 Mb

  • The CPU was running at ~2.6 Ghz (9*290 Mhz, with the memory in 1:1 (synchronous)) I had some power under the hood. I installed windows two times; once for the NVIDIA based VGA cards, and once for the ATI card.

    The installed software was:
  • Windows XP Professional
  • Service pack 2
  • Direct X 9.0c
  • nForce4 NVIDIA Drivers, version 6.66
  • ATI Catalyst Drivers, version 5.8 / NVIDIA VGA drivers, version 77.77

    The applications I used to test were:
  • 3D mark 05
  • 3D mark 03
  • 3D mark 01 Se Pro
  • UT 2004
  • Call Of Duty

    If it was possible, I ran tests in both 1024*768 and 1280*1024 resolution. This was made easy thanks to a very handy tool: benchemall.

    We have a mix of games and syntehectic tests for you, let’s start with the first one, 3D Mark 2005.

    3D mark 2005

    Madshrimps (c)

    Madshrimps (c)

    The first charts and I have almost a hit. The 6600 GT performs ~1,5 times as fast as the vanilla 6600. This is very close to the price difference. The X800XT doest the job "only" 2,5 times as fast.

    3D mark 2003

    Madshrimps (c)

    Madshrimps (c)

    In this case the 6600 GT is also 1.5 times faster. The X800XT shows its power in higher resolutions where it's 2,2 times as fast. When using a 1024*768 resolution, it's almost exactly double the performance.

    And finally the oldest version of 3DMark that is still supported by Futuremark

    3D mark 2001 Se

    Madshrimps (c)

    You can directly see that it's a rather old benchmark. Almost none of the newer rendering technologies is used, this causes the performance differences to be only factor 1,3 and 1,6.

    Time for the games ->
    • prev
    • next