by Alexey Stepin
11/18/2005 | 11:59 AM
The NV43 graphics processor has been on the market for over a year and NV43-based graphics cards have come to be loved by users due to their reasonable pricing and good performance. Two main products that use that chip are GeForce 6600 GT and GeForce 6600. We have repeatedly tested numerous versions of the former card, including such truly unique products as ASUS Extreme N6600GT Silencer (for details see our article called ASUS Extreme N6600GT Silencer: Extremely Silent, Extremely Hot ). After all the tests and comparisons we have made we can now claim that we know everything about every performance-related aspect of the GeForce 6600 GT.
The GeForce 6600 has been a less frequent visitor of our labs, yet we know quite a lot about that device, too. Unlike with GeForce 6600 GT, the design of 6600 cards varied depending on the graphics card manufacturer. The specified frequencies of GeForce 6600 being 300MHz GPU and 250 (500) MHz memory, most manufacturers equipped them with cheap DDR chips that rarely had an access time of less than 5 nanoseconds. As our tests showed, it was the slow memory with a bandwidth of only 8GB/s that was the main bottleneck in the GeForce 6600 design. As a consequence, the card was acceptably fast in modern games in low resolutions only. Using full-screen antialiasing was out of the question altogether. Overclocking a GeForce 6600 was generally an unrewarding task. The GPU could often be overclocked to the frequency of the GeForce 6600 GT, i.e. 500MHz, but the slow TSOP-packaged memory had a close-to-zero overclocking potential.
As for market competition, the GeForce 6600 was almost always slower than the ATI RADEON X700 whose reference sample clocked the memory at 350 (500) MHz. It wouldn’t be so fatal since ATI Technologies permitted its partners to use slower memory on their RADEON X700 cards and they did catch at the opportunity. For example, the PowerColor Bravo X700 card is equipped with GDDR2 memory clocked at 266 (533) MHz and its performance is like that of the GeForce 6600 as a result (for details see our article called PowerColor Bravo X700 Graphics Card Review: High-End Features at Affordable Price? ). However, the GeForce 6600 got a dangerous rival when ATI announced its RADEON X1000 series. The new RADEON X1300 PRO, working at 600/400 (800) MHz frequencies, proved to be faster than the GeForce 6600 in almost all applications, despite having only four pixel pipelines (for details see our article called ATI RADEON X1300 PRO: Entry-Level Gets a Decent Performer?). Its GDDR2 memory clocked at 400 (800) MHz and accessed across a 128-bit bus contributed greatly to that result as it ensured a bandwidth of 12.8GB/s.
GDDR2 production volumes are constantly growing and the price of that memory type is becoming ever lower, while its frequency characteristics are far superior to ordinary DDR. There should also be no obstacles to increasing the frequency of the GeForce 6600 GPU. The NV43 chip has long been in production and a high yield of chips capable of working at 500MHz has been achieved. Samples that don’t support 500MHz can still be clocked at lower frequencies, like 350-400MHz.
Thus, there appeared a simple and elegant way for NVIDIA to get out of the above-mentioned trouble. The GPU frequency of the GeForce 6600 must be made higher, and the card must be equipped with inexpensive GDDR2. This is how the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 graphics card was born. The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR we are going to examine today doesn’t differ from the reference card, except for the color of the PCB and the GPU frequency.
The XFX card came to our lab in its retail package of a most peculiar design. Most manufacturers do not dare to move aside of traditional forms and parcel their products into square boxes of varying size, from small and medium (like PowerColor’s) to huge, suitcase-like boxes with special handles (like ASUS’ and MSI’s). Besides size, the box may vary in design details like flap covers and transparent windows which allow the user to see the card without even opening the box. XFX, on its part, did not experiment with the size of the package, but invented a completely different way of attracting the customer:
It is the first time we see such an original, X-shaped box with a graphics card! The solution may be dubious as concerns the convenience of storage and transportation, but it is sure to catch the idle shopper’s eyes. A strange, bear-like creature is pictured on the face side of the cardboard cover. It must be one of the champions of the gaming world mentioned at the top. Below, you can see an XFX logo in a triangle which looks like three atomic orbits. The interface (PCI Express x16) and memory type and amount (256MB GDDR2) are indicated there, too (we tore off the sticker and saw the original text “128MB DDR” because this box is also used for ordinary GeForce 6600 cards manufactured by XFX).
There are two transparent windows in the rear side of the box. The bigger window gives you a view of the card’s central part with the cooler and memory chips. The smaller one shows you the configuration of the output connectors. We think this is reasonable enough. There’s an X-shaped box made of thick cardboard inside the external cover – you have to undo eight round stickers to pull it out. Or you can take off two such stickers and open the box from one side only. Then you take out a green cardboard container with an XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 graphics card and its accessories.
This is not to say that the package ends here. Far from that. You should next extract a flat box with the company’s logo on top – it contains accessories like CDs, adapters, manuals, etc. Under it you will see an X-shaped cardboard seal covered with ominous-looking symbols like a skull with bones, radioactivity warning, chemical and bio-hazard signs. There’s also a caption in large letters “Warning! Awesome graphics!” and some more in smaller print (like “Dangerously Reactive Material Causing You to Spontaneously Scream ‘XFX Rules!’”). People at XFX don’t seem to lack the sense of humor or self-esteem. :)
You should remove that cross piece to take out the transparent container with the card (not an easy thing as the container catches on the box’s sides). The card is firmly fixed on its bed and you again have to use some force to extract it.
We’ll examine the card in detail a bit later. Right now let’s check the box with accessories. It contains the following:
It is strange to have two DVI-I → D-Sub adapters included since the card features only one DVI connector, even though it is marked as “PV-T43P-UDS7” which corresponds to the XFX GeForce 6600 256MB GDDR2 Dual DVI XXX Edition graphics card (check out this link). There’s no S-Video → RCA adapter and cable among the accessories (probably because the product is meant for the USA market in the first place). An YPbPr splitter is missing, too, although the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 fully supports HDTV devices capable of working in 720p and 1080i modes.
The multilingual Installation Guide is a bit out of date as it does not contain any mention of PCI Express, although most graphics cards are being currently produced for that very slot. The user’s manual is more detailed. It mentions PCI Express and thoroughly describes nearly all the settings of NVIDIA’s ForceWare driver.
The accessories to the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 seem sufficient, considering the targeting of this product at economical gamers. It’s nice to have a copy of the popular game Far Cry and a well-written user’s manual here.
As we said above, the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 differs from the reference card in the color of the PCB only:
We think the color chosen by XFX looks better than the classic green, especially combined with the silvery heatsink of the cooling system. Of course, the use of GDDR2 memory called for a new PCB which differs considerably from the PCB of the GeForce 6600 despite some similarities like the placement of all the eight memory chips on the front side of the card.
This is probably one of the reasons for a rather complex wiring if compared with the GeForce 6600 GT which carries only four GDDR3 chips and whose reverse side is virtually blank. The reverse side of the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is quite a populated place. There is no seat for a VIVO chip, but you can see a curious sticker that says that the card was made in China. A little above it, the white painted letters tell us the card was “Made in USA”. So where does the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 come from, the USA or China?
The card’s parts may be manufactured in the USA and finally assembled in China, but we are more inclined to think that it is made in China. PCBs are made there and it’s not profitable to transport them to the United States for final assembly.
The power circuit looks more complex than on the GeForce 6600 GT, too. It uses more electrolytic capacitors which are high-quality components from Rubycon and Skywell. The core of the power circuit is two PWM controllers Intersil ISL6549CBZ, one of which is responsible for powering the GPU and the other for the memory chips.
An ordinary NV43 chip (GeForce 6600) of revision A4 can be found under the cooler:
Some earlier chips from NVIDIA used to be marked with a sticker on the die packaging, but now the marking is printed right on the die surface. A 27MHz quartz resonator can be seen to the left of the GPU. It is the main component of the clock generator. The GPU is clocked at 400MHz which is 50MHz higher than specified by NVIDIA and 100MHz higher than the original GeForce 6600.
Eight Infineon HYB18T256161AFL25 chips of GDDR2 memory are employed here. They work at VDD and VDDQ of 1.8V, have 256Mb capacity and 16Mx16 design. So, the total amount of graphics memory on the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is 256MB and the memory is accessed across a 128-bit bus. The access time of 2.5 nanoseconds means that the chips are rated to be clocked at 400 (800) MHz which is in fact the memory frequency on the GeForce 6600 GDDR2. Once again, this is a great step forward in comparison with the GeForce 6600 with its 250 (500) MHz memory frequency.
It would be an overstatement to refer to the cooler installed on the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 as to an advanced “cooling system”. It is just a flat U-shaped plate with some ribbing and a tiny fan under a translucent air-directing casing. The efficiency of this solution is low, but more elaborate cooling is not in fact necessary here – the 0.13-micron GPU is clocked at 400MHz, so its heat dissipation isn’t too high. The fan bears a holographic sticker with an XFX logo, but the design of the cooler is an exact copy of the reference one.
Although that tiny fan of the cooler is rotating at the full speed, the card is virtually silent even in an open testbed. You can hear a quiet hissing of air only if you are listening to it with your ear next to the card. Theoretically, you can make the card even quieter by means of the RivaTuner utility, but we wouldn’t recommend you to do so because the heatsink is very small and the card may overheat without sufficient air cooling.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 proved to be a very economical product. It consumed a mere 27.6W under maximum load, and 12.3W when idle. This is far below the numbers of the GeForce 6600 GT (47.9W and 18.5W, respectively). For comparison, the RADEON X1300 PRO consumes about 30W under load, which is natural enough, considering its high GPU frequency.
GPU overclocking was quite rewarding. We lifted the frequency of the graphics processor from the initial 400MHz to 550MHz by setting an additional 120mm fan up to blow along the card. The memory could only be overclocked from 400 (800) to 440 (880) MHz, but this is a good result for 2.5ns chips all the same.
As for the image quality in 2D applications, the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 yielded a sharp picture, without shadowing or fuzziness, on both its outputs (DVI and D-Sub) up to 1800x1440@75Hz display mode.
We installed the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 graphics card into our testbed computer:
We set up the ATI and NVIDIA drivers in the following way:
ATI CATALYST 5.9:
NVIDIA ForceWare 81.89:
We select the highest graphics quality settings in each game, identical for graphics cards from ATI and NVIDIA. If possible, we use the games’ integrated benchmarking tools (to record and reproduce a demo and measure the reproduction speed in frames per second). Otherwise we measure the frame rate with the FRAPS utility. If it is possible, we measure minimal as well as average fps rates to give you a fuller picture.
We turn on 4x full-screen antialiasing and 16x anisotropic filtering in the “eye candy” test mode from the game’s own menu if possible. Otherwise we force the necessary mode from the driver. We don’t test the “eye candy” mode if the game engine doesn’t support FSAA.
Since the described product belongs to the entry-level sector, we only tested 1024x768 resolution when FSAA and anisotropic filtering were turned on – the performance of the card was just too low for comfortable play in higher resolutions.
Besides the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2, the following graphics cards took part in this test session:
The GeForce 6600 and the RADEON X700 graphics cards were emulated by down-clocking the GeForce 6600 GT and the RADEON X700 PRO, respectively.
These games and applications were used as benchmarks:
First-Person 3D Shooters:
Third-Person 3D Shooters:
Simulators:
Strategies:
Semi-synthetic benchmarks:
Synthetic benchmarks:
Having obtained 256 megabytes of fast memory, the new incarnation of GeForce 6600 doesn’t look as bad against the RADEON X1300 PRO as the older one. The GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is even faster than the X1300 PRO as well as the RADEON X700 in 1600x1200 resolution, but the frame rate of 27fps may not be enough for comfortable play. The XFX card is faster than the reference sample due to the higher GPU clock rate, but not too much in applications (Battlefield 2 is among them) that mostly load the graphics memory subsystem. Graphics cards from this price range do not allow playing Battlefield 2 in resolutions above 1024x768 because there’s a very small speed reserve in high resolutions and the frame rate may bottom out below comfortable level in some very complex scenes.
The GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is 20-30% faster than the ordinary GeForce 6600 depending on the resolution. The XFX is 10% more ahead of the reference card. The graphics cards on ATI’s chips fall behind since the game not only uses dynamic stencil shadows, but also the OpenGL API.
The new model enjoys an impressive 40% advantage in Doom 3, leaving no chance to ATI’s solutions even in the “eye candy” mode – this game is an OpenGL application and uses rendering techniques optimized for UltraShadow II technology. The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is still about 10% ahead of the reference sample of GeForce 6600 GDDR2.
The GeForce 6600 GDDR2 passes this test at the same speed as the RADEON X700 and leaves it behind in high resolutions due to faster memory. The RADEON X1300 PRO with a very efficient memory controller joins them in the “eye candy” mode. The XFX graphics card is only second to the GeForce 6600 GT here. Both versions of GeForce 6600 GDDR2 and the RADEON X700 ensure a comfortable frame rate in resolutions up to 1280x1024, while the GeForce 6600 and the RADEON X1300 PRO in 1024x768 only.
Graphics cards with Shader Model 3.0 support have a certain advantage on the Research map, and the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is beyond competition in all the modes and resolutions. Its advantage over the reference sample isn’t very big, though, and amounts to 4-5% in high resolutions of the “pure speed” mode and to 1% in the “eye candy” mode.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 wins this test, too, but F.E.A.R. is such a heavy application that the owner of an entry-level graphics card has to reduce the level of detail. At the maximum settings the frame rate is not higher than 20-30fps. We guess this is not enough for comfortable play.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is slower than the RADEON X700, although the latter has a lower memory frequency. The “eye candy” mode is an exception – the XFX card is 2fps faster. The speed gain from the GPU overclocking done by XFX is still within 10%. Half-Life 2 is not a very demanding application even at the maximum graphics quality settings, so all entry-level graphics cards let you play this game normally – the frame rate is higher than 44fps.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 matches the performance of the RADEON X700, while the RADEON X1300 PRO is slower and competes with the reference sample of the new GeForce with the exception of 1600x1200 resolution of the “pure speed” mode where the latter nearly overtakes the RADEON X700.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is almost 50% faster than its predecessor GeForce 6600 in Pariah and gives you a comfortable frame rate in 1280x1024. The rest of the cards, except the reference GeForce 6600 GDDR2 and the GeForce 6600 GT, perform much worse in this test.
The NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is faster than the RADEON X700 and RADEON X1300 PRO (compare the numbers for 1280x1024 resolution where the cards are close to each other: the GeForce’s 35fps against 32 and 31fps, respectively). Obviously, the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is a much better purchase, having a recommended price of $119 against the new ATI card’s $149. The overclocked version from XFX gives you somewhat more speed, but it can’t yield a comfortable frame rate in 1600x1200, either.
Although the RADEON X1300 PRO and the RADEON X700 look much better in Quake 4 than in Doom 3, they still have not a single chance against the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2. For some unclear reason the performance of the RADEON X1300 PRO goes down dramatically in 1600x1200 resolution. It is, however, a little faster than the RADEON X700 and just 2fps behind the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 in 1024x768 with enabled 4x FSAA and 16x AF, all these graphics cards, except the GeForce 6600, giving you a playable frame rate in the latter mode.
Not supporting Shader Model 3.0, the RADEON X700 sinks down to the last place, while both versions of GeForce 6600 GDDR2 are in the lead with their 8 pixel pipelines. On the other hand, even the more advanced GeForce 6600 GT cannot ensure a playable speed in Serious Sam 2, so the numbers are of purely theoretical interest.
The new product from NVIDIA is good in Unreal Tournament 2004, too. It is not slower than the RADEON X1300 in low resolutions and faster than it, and than the RADEON X700, too, in high display modes. The speed of the game is above 65fps on the NVIDIA card even in the “eye candy” mode, so you can play with all possible comfort. The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 shows its best here, outperforming the reference sample by more than 10%!
The XFX card is not so much better than the reference GeForce 6600 GDDR2 on the Metallurgy map – the difference is a standard 9-10% and even zero at the “eye candy” settings. The fact that the GeForce 6600 GT is not the best in low resolution must be due to some measurement errors provoked by the game’s engine. The numbers for high resolutions as well as for the “eye candy” mode agree with our statement that the memory subsystem performance is not important on this map.
The game features a complex geometry, so the RADEON X700 with its 6 vertex processors outperforms the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 in high resolutions. The latter has only 3 such processors and clock them at the same frequency, 400MHz. Well anyway, the speed of the game never goes below 36fps even in the hardest mode.
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory abounds in rather complex pixel shaders and supports Shader Model 3.0, so the RADEON X1300 PRO has a chance to show its best here. The NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GDDR2 follows closely behind, however, having a 250MHz lower core frequency but two times the number of pixel processors. The device from ATI Technologies is a little ahead of its opponent in the “eye candy” mode due to the more efficient memory controller, even though not of the RingBus design.
The extra 50MHz of GPU frequency helps the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 win the “pure speed” mode and have the same speed as the RADEON X1300 PRO at the “eye candy” settings. As usual, the effect from a higher core frequency is not so obvious in higher resolutions where the amount of graphics memory plays the main role (the cards from NVIDIA and XFX have the same amount of memory).
Just like in Serious Sam 2, the numbers are purely theoretical. You have to reduce the resolution or level of detail to achieve a playable frame rate in this game on the participating graphics cards (except the GeForce 6600 GT).
Colin McRae Rally 2005 used to run very fast on ATI’s previous-generation graphics cards which were unrivalled at executing simple pixel shaders. The GeForce 6600 GDDR2 challenges the leadership of the RADEON X700 in this game, however. We mean the XFX card with its overclocked GPU – it is slower than the ATI card in the “eye candy” mode only, by about 7-8%.
This is an OpenGL application which is the same as saying that the GeForce 6600 series is victorious once again. Even the ordinary GeForce 6600 is two times faster than the RADEON X700 as well as the newer RADEON X1300 PRO. The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 easily yields 60fps in 1280x1024 at the max graphics quality settings, so this card suits well for all gamers who want to take an economical flight, i.e. without paying more than $100-120 for the graphics card.
The GeForce 6600 GDDR2 cannot give you more than 24fps in this game notwithstanding its good frequencies, eight pixel processors and Shader Model 3.0 support. Well, you don’t get a frame rate of 30fps even with the more advanced GeForce 6600 GT, so you may want to find a more expensive card for playing this game.
Having two times fewer pixel pipelines, the XFX card still keeps ahead of the RADEON X700 thanks to its UltraShadow II technology which the ATI card lacks, and to the fast memory, too. 1024x768 is the maximum resolution you can play Dawn of War comfortably in on entry-level graphics cards.
Having good results in the “pure speed” mode, the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GDDR2 lacks an efficient memory controller to do well at the “eye candy” settings. The XFX card, however, is capable of doing no worse than the RADEON X700.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 and the ATI RADEON X1300 PRO deliver nearly the same performance in this benchmark, while the RADEON X700 is on top due to its 6 vertex processors.
The performance score of the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 can raise no doubts. Three tests out of this benchmark’s four are better suited for NVIDIA’s GPUs and the frequency increase over the older GeForce 6600 is enough for the XFX card to reveal its full potential. We think 7000 points is just an excellent score for a $119 device.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is victorious in all resolutions, while the ordinary GeForce 6600 is impeded by its very slow memory in high resolutions and when enabled full-screen antialiasing is turned on.
The new graphics card wins the second test, too, thanks to its high frequencies and UltraShadow II technology.
It’s overall similar to the second test, but ATI’s cards are not so far behind the leader. The gap between the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 and the reference version of the card is bigger than in the second test because vertex processor performance, directly dependent on the GPU frequency, is very important here.
The reference GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is at first slower than the RADEON X700, but their results become similar in higher resolutions – the fast memory of the new GeForce 6600 says its word. The same memory helps to win the “eye candy” mode. This test requiring high computational capacity from the card, the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 profits from its increased GPU clock rate. The extra 50MHz make the XFX card competitive against the RADEON X700 which is overall better suited for this test.
Processing complex pixel shaders is what 3DMark05 requires from a graphics card. The RADEON X1000 family is strong at that, but the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2, with its 8 pixel pipelines and increased GPU frequency, scores even more points than the RADEON X1300 PRO. It’s a real achievement for such a cheap graphics card to score 3,000 points in 3DMark05!
The XFX successfully passes this shooter-like test. It is ahead of both ATI RADEON X1300 PRO and RADEON X700 irrespective of the test mode.
The second test looks like a 3D role-playing game. The scene is limited in space, but contains a lot of vegetation. The memory bandwidth is not as important here as in the previous test, while the performance of the vertex processors and the execution of complex pixel shaders become the main speed-determining factors. Notwithstanding its increased core frequency, the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 with its 3 vertex processors is no match for the RADEON X700 which has 6. The XFX can only overtake the RADEON X1300 PRO, whose architecture is optimized to execute complex pixel shaders, and even leave it behind in the “eye candy” mode.
The third test doesn’t look like a scene from a game of a particular genre, but it is the most sophisticated of all 3DMark05 tests both in computational and in texture load. The expedient combination of increased GPU frequency, fast memory and 8 pixel pipelines help the XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 pass this test and never fall behind the RADEON X1300 PRO even in the “eye candy” mode.
The XFX GeForce 6600 GDDR2 is a good product all around, with a minor drawback of scanty accessories. From other aspects, including those of price and performance, this device surpasses the RADEON X1300 PRO and is an excellent buy for all users who don’t want to spend much for a graphics card.
The GPU frequency of the XFX card is higher than on the reference sample. This results in a speed bonus of about 10% over the reference GeForce 6600 GDDR2 in many applications. Overclockers may be disappointed at the inefficient cooler, but other users should be satisfied with it just because it is very, very quiet.
Generally speaking, NVIDIA’s GeForce 6600 GDDR2 seems to be a highly competitive product. The GeForce 6600 card profits much from the increase of the core frequency from 300 to 350-400MHz and of the memory frequency from 250 (500) to 400 (800) MHz. The new card can now challenge the RADEON X1300 PRO as well as the RADEON X700 clocked at the frequencies originally recommended by ATI Technologies.
In some cases, like in Doom 3, The Chronicles of Riddick, Pacific Fighters and Serious Sam 2, the GeForce 6600 GDDR2 gave no chance to its opponents. Considering that its recommended price is only $119 against $149 for a RADEON X1300 PRO, the market perspectives of the latter card seem very gloomy unless ATI Technologies drops the price of its RADEON X1300 series in near future. Moreover, recalling the aggressive price policy NVIDIA has adopted recently, we won’t be surprised to see GeForce 6600 GDDR2 selling for less than $100.
This money not only buys you appropriate performance in modern games, but also good overclocking opportunities. Most samples of GeForce 6600 GDDR2 will probably be able to reach 500-550MHz core and 450 (900) MHz memory frequencies.
We also want to give you one warning. Be careful as you’re shopping for a GeForce 6600 GDDR2 and make sure you don’t get an ordinary GeForce 6600 instead with its slow memory and much lower performance. It’s easy to tell these cards apart by taking a look at the memory chips. The GeForce 6600 GDDR2 carries GDDR2 chips in FBGA packaging without external pins, while the ordinary GeForce 6600 carries TSOP-packaged DDR chips which are square-shaped and have two rows of pins along the longer sides of the chip. Take note of the access time, too: if the last two digits in the memory marking is the number 25, then it’s all right – the frequency is 400 (800) and you do hold a GeForce 6600 GDDR2 in your hands! Good shopping to you!
Highs:
Lows:
