by Alexey Stepin
05/10/2005 | 11:26 AM
Graphics cards based on the NVIDIA NV43 (GeForce 6600) graphics processor and equipped with a HSI converter and an AGP connector enjoy a well-deserved popularity today. They are small and not too hot, consume little power and deliver an excellent performance, being generally faster than RADEON 9800 XT/PRO cards.
<%BANNER[article]%>The GeForce 6600 GT AGP doesn’t yet have dangerous rivals since ATI’s Rialto bridge has been announced just recently. So, our today’s review is about Leadtek’s version of the GeForce 6600 GT AGP. The card is called Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH.
The device in many aspects resembles another product from the same company, the WinFast PX6600 GT TDH card we reviewed some time ago (for details see our article called Leadtek WinFast PX6600 GT TDH Graphics Card Review). Leadtek uses the letter A to mark its AGP-interfaced cards and the letters PX for its PCI Express solutions, so in fact we’ve got the same product but with a different interface.
It comes in the same package and has similar accessories. The contents of the box:
The adapter for attaching TV and HDTV display devices is different, and there’s also a Molex splitter enclosed for connecting additional power because the AGP 8x slot cannot supply enough power to the GeForce 6600 GT TDH and all versions of this graphics card are equipped with a 4-pin Molex connector. The splitter then allows to give power to the card and yet spare you one PSU output.
The TV/HDTV adapter isn’t as technically advanced as the one included with the PX9900 GT. Here, it is an ordinary splitter with a round 9-pin connector on one end and three RCA connectors and an S-Video output on the other end. Since it’s impossible to use S-Video/Composite and HDTV display devices simultaneously, one of the RCA connectors – the blue one – can serve not only to output one of the components of the YPbPr signal, but also as an ordinary composite video output.
By the way, the VIVO-supporting chip from Philips is missing in this product. Otherwise the card would have “MyVIVO” in its name.
These are all the points of difference between the contents of the packages of the WinFast PX6600 GT and A6600 GT cards. We’ll see more of them if we compare the PCBs of the cards.
This is an implementation of the reference PCB design, but with an original cooling system:
The PCB layout has been changed because of the AGP interface. The GPU is located closer to the top edge of the card. The GPU and memory chips are placed at an angle of 45 degrees. By placing them this way it became possible to free some space for the HSI bridge near the AGP connector (as you know from our reviews, the GeForce 6600 natively supports the PCI Express bus only). This imparts a rather queer appearance to the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH as well as to all GeForce 6600 GT AGP cards.
The cooler had already received our praises for its high efficiency and little noise. It is the same round heatsink with slightly curved ribs abound the perimeter; a 60mm low-speed fan is mounted on it. The fan is very quiet. The cooler’s sole has a protective frame made of some soft material; ordinary white-color silicone thermal paste is used as an interface. The springs of the clips the cooler is fastened to the PCB with are rather tight, thus eliminating the risk of misalignment of the cooler or damage to the GPU core.
Two more such clips are used to fasten the heatsink that cools the HSI bridge. The fan is designed in such a way that its blades don’t compress air under them but rather spread it around. So a portion of the air stream passes through the ribs of the GPU heatsink and cools the ribs of the HSI heatsink, too. These facts all contribute to the highest efficiency of the cooling system deployed on the WinFast A6600 GT TDH graphics card.
The onboard graphics memory is manufactured by Samsung. The K4J55323QF-GC20 GDDR3 chips have an access time of 2.0 nanoseconds and a rated frequency of 500 (1000DDR) MHz, but they are clocked at 450 (900DDR) MHz due to the more complex wiring of the AGP version of the GeForce 6600 GT. The GPU is clocked at the expected 500MHz frequency and contains 8 pixel and 3 vertex processors.
Like the WinFast PX6600 GT TDH, the reviewed card doesn’t hurt one’s ears. Although the cooler isn’t absolutely noiseless, it produces a soft rustling sound that is not irritating at all. We noticed no overheat; moreover, the HSI heatsink remained just warm, while it is hot on the reference GeForce 6600 GT AGP.
We could only speed the card up to 560/520 (1040) MHz in our overclocking experiments. At higher frequencies image artifacts would appear. That’s a sufficient gain considering that the memory overclocking is impeded by the complex wiring on the GeForce 6600 GT.
The quality of the 2D image outputted by the card was sharp in all resolutions up to our monitor’s maximum of 1800x1400@75Hz. Well, the overwhelming majority of graphics cards today deliver an impeccable 2D quality. You can only have a “blurry” 2D image with some cheapest no-name devices.
We performed our tests on a testbed configured like follows:
Software:
We compared the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH with the following graphics cards:
Following our standard procedure, we enabled the ForceWare optimizations, except the Anisotropic mip filter optimization. The Image Settings slider was set to “Quality”. In ATI’s Catalyst driver we set the Catalyst A.I. option to “Standard” and the Mipmap Detail Level to “Quality”. The VSync option was disabled for both ATI Catalyst and NVIDIA ForceWare.
If the game allowed turning full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering on, we used this option. Otherwise we forced the necessary mode from the driver. We didn’t edit any configuration files. We selected the highest graphics quality settings in games, the same for cards from ATI and NVIDIA. The following games and applications were used:
First Person 3D Shooters:
Third Person 3D Shooters:
Simulators:
Strategies:
Semi-Synthetic Benchmarks:
Synthetic Benchmarks:
Being an AGP solution, the described card from Leadtek faces competition from the RADEON 9800 XT in the market, but the WinFast A6600 GT leaves no chance to this opponent in Doom 3 which generally runs faster on NVIDIA’s GeForce6 architecture. The Leadtek card makes resolutions up to and including 1280x1024 comfortably playable.
The card from Leadtek beats its opponent, the RADEON 9800 XT, with enabled full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering even despite its 128-bit memory bus. Yet, the speed of the WinFast A6600 GT hardly hits the 40 frames-per-second mark even in 1024x768.
It’s roughly the same on the d3dm4 map, but the absolute frame rates are higher here due to the lack of monsters. Resolutions up to 1280x1024 are playable on the WinFast A6600 GT, just as is necessary for today.
The Leadtek card feels upbeat even after we enable FSAA and anisotropic filtering, but we wouldn’t say there’s a comfortable frame rate in high resolutions. On the other hand, the RADEON 9800 XT can’t boast high performance in Doom 3, so there’s practically no competition here.
This shooter is nothing serious for a modern graphics card, so the participating devices are all similarly fast in the “pure speed” mode. You may note, however, that the WinFast A6600 GT TDH is ahead of the RADEON 9800 XT in 1600x1200.
We can see the differences between the participating cards more clearly after we enable full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. The Leadtek card heads the race, but the RADEON 9800 XT comes closer in higher resolutions, profiting by its 256-bit memory bus. So, there’s only 2fps between these two cards in the highest display mode. Note that the performance of the WinFast A6600 GT TDH is quite high even in 1600x1200.
The new architecture from NVIDIA is better than the old architecture from ATI in high resolutions on the Metallurgy map. But the gap is rather small here, too.
We witness the same situation in the “eye candy” mode: the Leadtek A6600 GT TDH outperforms the RADEON 9800 XT in all resolutions and is close to the 50fps mark in 1600x1200.
The speed of the Pier record depends heavily on the overall performance of the computer, so it’s hard to say what graphics card is better in the low resolutions of the “pure speed” mode. In 1600x1200, however, the WinFast A6600 GT is slightly faster than the RADEON 9800 XT, this resolution being quite playable.
The RADEON 9800 XT looks better in the “eye candy” mode, though. The gap between it and the WinFast A6600 GT TDH amounts to 10% in 1600x1200, but both cards are too slow to ensure a comfortable frame rate.
The demo recorded on the Research map depends more on the GPU performance due to its numerous light sources and complex geometry. It is not to be wondered then that the WinFast A6600 GT TDH that supports Shader Model 3.0 and has a nearly 100MHz higher core frequency, wins this test. Its advantage over the RADEON 9800 XT is about 20% in high resolutions, and the frame rate is high enough for comfortable play.
The Leadtek card cannot repeat the same sparkling performance in the “eye candy” mode. It is faster than the RADEON 9800 XT in 1024x768, but the gap comes to nought in 1280x1024, and then the ATI card wins 1600x1200 resolution. On the other hand, mainstream cards like GeForce 6800, GeForce 6600 GT and RADEON 9800 XT can’t run this demo in 1280x1024 and higher resolutions at an acceptable speed.
This game can make a good use of the advantages of the GeForce6 architecture as the diagrams are a clear proof of: the WinFast A6600 GT outperforms the RADEON 9800 XT by about 30% in all resolutions. But of all the tested resolutions 1024x768 is the only really playable mode on the inexpensive cards.
The WinFast A6600 GT TDH is as fast as the RADEON 9800 XT in the “eye candy” mode. The difference is no more than 1fps between them. The Leadtek card’s 128-bit memory bus prevents it from being faster.
The sequel to the original Painkiller is more dependent on the GPU frequency than on the number of pixel pipelines, so the WinFast A6600 GT TDH outperforms the GeForce 6800 GT even! The Leadtek card is also faster than the RADEON 9800 XT, by up to 15%.
It’s all roughly the same in the “eye candy” mode, except 1600x1200 resolution where graphics cards with a 256-bit memory bus take the lead. The WinFast A6600 GT TDH is fast enough in the highest resolution, but cannot vie with the RADEON 9800 XT anymore. The gap between them is about 20%.
The performance on the Canals map depends mostly on the graphics card’s ability to execute complex pixel shaders. Here, the WinFast A6600 GT TDH and the RADEON 9800 XT both do their job equally well. The latter is a tiny step ahead, but it doesn’t matter much. Both cards run our demo quite fast.
As we enable full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT slows down in comparison with the RADEON 9800 XT, but not too much. The Leadtek’s device is again impeded by its narrower 128-bit memory bus.
The Leadtek card is somewhat slower than the RADEON 9800 XT on the d3_c17_12 map: from 5% in 1024x768 to near 20% in 1600x1200.
The WinFast A6600 GT TDH is further behind the RADEON 9800 XT in the “eye candy” mode: up to 40% in 1600x1200 resolution.
The visual effects you enjoy in Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow are created with pixel shaders, and the game is somewhat predisposed towards GPUs from ATI Technologies. The RADEON 9800 XT is 20% faster than the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH here, and overclocking helps the Leadtek card but very little. Due to the specifics of its engine, the game doesn’t work correctly with enabled full-screen anti-aliasing, so we don’t test it in the “eye candy” mode.
The A6600 GT TDH is slower than the RADEON 9800 XT in Prince of Persia, too. The overclocked Leadtek performs somewhat better, but not to overtake the opponent. Like Splinter Cell, this game doesn’t support full-screen anti-aliasing, so we only test the “pure speed” mode here. Both third-person shooters are tested manually, with the FRAPS utility, so the results should be regarded as approximations.
The efficient OpenGL driver helps the WinFast A6600 GT TDH to succeed in Il-2 Sturmovik. The Leadtek card leaves the RADEON 9800 XT far behind and is on the same level with the RADEON X800 PRO!
The WinFast A6600 GT is fast in the “eye candy” mode, too. Here, it only fails to win 1600x1200 resolution but overtakes the RADEON X800 PRO at overclocking. But the frame rates are so low at such settings that there’s no talking about a practical advantage of the GeForce 6600 GT.
The Leadtek card is capable of competing with the RADEON X800 PRO in this flight simulator, too.
It’s true in the “eye candy” mode, too! But as we have repeatedly said, Lock On is rather a capricious game and sometimes yields quite incomprehensible results – you should keep this fact in mind.
Colin McRae Rally 2005, like Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, prefers cards on ATI’s chips that have a higher pixel shader performance. It’s not that the NV43 executes pixel shaders badly, but the WinFast A6600 GT TDH is slower than the RADEON 9800 XT in this test, and rather considerably so.
It looks strange but the gap between the RADEON 9800 XT and the WinFast A6600 GT TDH becomes smaller in the “eye candy” mode and even vanishes completely when we overclock the Leadtek card, except in 1280x1024 resolution.
Both mainstream products with the AGP interface – the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH and the RADEON 9800 XT – have the same frame rate in this strategy game. Overclocking adds 2-6fps to the Leadtek card, the absolute speeds being about 40-70fps.
Against expectations, the WinFast A6600 GT doesn’t drop behind the RADEON 9800 XT in the “eye candy” mode. On the contrary, the Leadtek looks even better here than in the “pure speed” mode.
The WinFast A6600 GT TDH is ahead of the RADEON 9800 XT and a little, by 10%, behind the RADEON X800 PRO. The Leadtek card even manages to overtake the 12-pipelined solution from ATI Technologies in high resolutions.
But when we turn on FSAA and anisotropic filtering, the WinFast A6600 GT finds itself lagging behind the RADEON 9800 XT. The load on the graphics memory subsystem must be very high in this game, and the width of the memory bus plays an important role. But anyway, Perimeter is rather a hard application for mainstream graphics cards.
The WinFast A6600 GT TDH scores 469 points less than the RADEON 9800 XT in this test. The graphics memory bandwidth seems to be important for a successful completion of Final Fantasy XI Official Benchmark 3, since the considerable core frequency gain doesn’t add much to the performance of the card – only a paltry 100 points.
Aquamark3 doesn’t present a difficulty for modern graphics cards, having few complex pixel shaders. Complex geometry of the scenes and a high overdraw coefficient are the main problems here. The Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH is quite fast in this test and, despite having three vertex processors against the RADEON 9800 XT’s four, outperforms the latter by 5-10%.
The graphics card from Leadtek feels less assured in the “eye candy” mode, but its performance equals that of the RADEON 9800 XT, except in 1600x1200. But when overclocked, the Leadtek A6600 GT TDH outperforms its main rival in this resolution, too.
The Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH easily beats the RADEON 9800 XT in 3DMark03, at least one would say that looking at their total scores. The difference amounts to 2,000 points almost. Futuremark didn’t certify ForceWare 71.84 at the time of our tests, so we used the approved ForceWare 66.93.
The reviewed card performs admirably in the first test. It is natural since this test uses only fixed T&L functions all current-generation GPUs from NVIDIA are optimized to work with.
The WinFast A6600 GT TDH loses its ground in high resolutions, falling behind the RADEON 9800 XT in 1600x1200. The reason is the same – the narrow 128-bit memory bus of the Leadtek card. The overclocked Leadtek is on top, however.
The rendering techniques employed in the second game test work better with GPUs from NVIDIA, and the WinFast A6600 GT TDH feels at ease here, being about 25% faster than the RADEON 9800 XT. The overclocked Leadtek’s performance approaches that of the 12-pipelined GeForce 6800.
The Leadtek card is still ahead of the RADEON 9800 XT in the “eye candy” mode, despite the higher load on the graphics memory subsystem. The WinFast A6600 GT TDH seems much more preferable to its opponent even in 1600x1200.
The third test doesn’t differ much from the second one, so we have similar results here. The WinFast A6600 GT is ahead of the RADEON 9800 XT at its default frequencies and approaches the GeForce 6800 – its GPU is clocked at 325MHz only – at the overclocked frequencies.
The “eye candy” mode of the third test produces analogous results to what we have seen in the second test.
The fourth test makes an intensive use of version 2.0 pixel shaders to render the water, so the pixel shader performance of the graphics card is vitally important here. The WinFast A6600 GT TDH doesn’t feel it to be a problem and is marching ahead of the RADEON 9800 XT and abreast to the GeForce 6800. The smaller number of the pipelines is compensated by the much higher GPU clock rate in the latter case. Thanks to the more advanced memory subsystem the RADEON 9800 XT overtakes the Leadtek clocked at its default frequencies.
The Leadtek card is somewhat less successful in the “eye candy” mode, but it’s anyway no worse than the RADEON 9800 XT. Thus, the overall victory of the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH over the RADEON 9800 XT in 3DMark03 seems well-deserved.
The WinFast A6600 GT TDH has a higher score than the RADEON 9800 XT in 3DMark05, too. The difference is about 900 points, and that’s quite a lot with the scores being around 4000-4500 points. Let’s view the results for each of the tests.
The Leadtek is noticeably quicker than the RADEON 9800 XT in the first test already. The GPU frequency is important here – just consider the performance gain the WinFast A6600 GT TDH gets from overclocking and the results of the GeForce 6800.
3DMark05 doesn’t support full-screen anti-aliasing with graphics cards equipped with less than 256MB of memory in resolutions above 1024x768. But in this single resolution the WinFast A6600 GT TDH is about 20% faster than the RADEON 9800 XT.
The advantage of the WinFast A6600 GT over the RADEON 9800 XT is observable in all the resolutions of the second test, too.
The same it true for the “eye candy” mode with enabled full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
The third test uses maximum-complexity pixel shaders, and there’s no doubt as to the winner. The WinFast A6600 GT TDH is 10-15% faster than its main competitor.
The Leadtek is the same 10% ahead of the RADEON 9800 XT in the “eye candy” mode, too. On the whole, like in 3DMark03, the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH gains a deserved victory over the RADEON 9800 XT, at least in the tested modes (i.e. without FSAA+AF modes in resolutions above 1024x768).
The Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH graphics card left us just as highly pleased as its PCI Express incarnation, the WinFast PX6600 GT TDH, did earlier (for details see our article called Leadtek WinFast PX6600 GT TDH Graphics Card Review). We do like its compact yet efficient cooling system as well as its rich accessories. We also have no complaints about the build quality and the quality of the 2D image as outputted by the card. So here’s another practically blameless product from Leadtek for you.
The performance is up to the mark, too. The card proved itself capable of challenging the RADEON 9800 XT in many games. The latter feels more confident in FSAA+AF modes thanks to having two times more memory accessed across a 256-bit bus. This is a not very frequent situation, however, and hardly matters for real gaming.
So, the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH is fast enough to play modern games without full-screen anti-aliasing. When you enable this option, the narrowness of the card’s memory bus becomes an annoying bottleneck. But the good news is that the card, like all modern devices on NVIDIA’s chips for that matter, delivers a high performance in games that use the OpenGL API where some modern shooters and many flight sims belong. So, if you like such games as Doom 3 and IL-2 Sturmovik but don’t want to spend a small fortune for a GeForce 6800 Ultra, then the Leadtek WinFast A6600 GT TDH might be an optimal choice for you.
As for the future perspectives, we’re now waiting for the new generation of ATI RADEON X800 cards with the Rialto bridge and the AGP connector to arrive. It means the GeForce 6600 GT AGP is likely to meet a dangerous rival soon. Having a comparable price, the RADEON X800 features much more impressive technical characteristics.
Highs:
Lows: