6600 vs 9700 pro

[Blinkme323]

I can get a used 9700pro made by ati for $90 or a new 6600 non-gt for $125. Which one do you think is a better deal?

 

[fstime]

Probably the 6600.

 

[RaNDoMMAI]

BlinkMe323

where did you find a 6600 for 125, i only found a asus one at ZZF for 135, the chaintech one for 124 is 64bitmemory which sucks

~RaNDoM

 

[gobucks]

actually, the 9700 pro might be a hair faster. If i remember correctly, the 6600 is about as fast as a 9600XT, which is a bit slower than the 9700 pro. Plus the 9700 Pro is cheaper.

 

[daveybrat]

I'd take the 6600. You'll get newer features such as SM3.0 support and Hardware video acceleration (purevideo) that actually works on the 6600 series.

And from the benchmarks i've seen, it's as fast or faster than the 9700pro if you use the latest official (71.84) drivers from Nvidia's website.

 

[Blinkme323]

I found the 6600 on CheifValue. I am upgrading to pcie eventually, so I will just buy the 9700 and wait a year or two until I can get a r520 at a decent price, unless you have other suggestions?

 

[n7]

If they are around the same price, you might as well go for the 6600.

I'm not a fan of used cards is all.

Really though, both cards are gonna be close.

 

[BFG10K]

The 9700 Pro will easily be the faster card; the vanilla 6600 has less than half of its memory bandwidth.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The 9700 Pro will easily be the faster card; the vanilla 6600 has less than half of its memory bandwidth.

:thumbsup:
9700pro is in pretty much in the same league as the 9800pro... in fact, it's only about 5%-10% slower than the 9800pro in most cases. I would go with it hands down.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The 9700 Pro will easily be the faster card; the vanilla 6600 has less than half of its memory bandwidth.

I lub you

 

[imported_Hi]

9700p

 

[hans030390]

no, 6600, but make sure its 128bit...its should easily outperform a 9700...and if you're gonna get another card in a couple years, the 6600 will last, the 9700 will not work good for games in late 2005

 

[imported_Kensai]

The 6600 is usually faster than the 9700 Pro is most applications. My own 6600 is OC'ed like a mofo with just the stock HS and gives 6800s a new contender.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: Kensai
The 6600 is usually faster than the 9700 Pro is most applications. My own 6600 is OC'ed like a mofo with just the stock HS and gives 6800s a new contender.

That makes no sense what-so-ever, the 6800 has more than twice the memory bandwidth and uses faster RAM modules

 

[Pete]

If you're willing to OC the 6600, then it'll probably be faster in newer, shader-heavy games. Otherwise, the 9700P should be faster, especially with AA.

Anyone have a link to a review of the 6600 with 71.xx drivers? I'd be surprised it if were faster than a 9700P at stock speeds.

 

[imported_dragon119]

definitely 6600, it suports latest SM3.

 

[ScrewFace]

I'd go with the 9700 Pro. You get more memory bandwidth and better driver support (every month) instead of every six months as with the 6600. And, by the time SM 3.0 games come out en masse the 6600 won't be able to run them very well and the R520 and the G70 (NV50) will be out. Go with the 9700 Pro for now. I had one and it rocked!

 

[Appledrop]

The 9700 is 8pipe, 256bit and 325\310. The 6600 is 8pipe, 128bit, 300\275. And its $35 cheaper.

 

[UzairH]

Get the 6600, but make sure its memory bus 128 bit. In Doom 3 it kicks the 9700 and even 9800 XT's behinds. In almost all newer games its faster. Look at the benchmarks:

 

[StrangerGuy]

From what I have read, the 9700 Pro wins by a small margin. Anyway the 6600 is a nice buy ($109 @ Newegg) for folks who wants a cheap but decent PCI-E card.

 

[Blinkme323]

Ok, I am going with the 9700. It was like 55/45 here and 80/20 on Hardforum. Thanks!

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: Blinkme323
Ok, I am going with the 9700. It was like 55/45 here and 80/20 on Hardforum. Thanks!

good idea