Wrong?
The specs I quoted above for the 6600GT and 7600GT height and length were taken from eVGA's website - under Specifications in the PDF spec sheet for both cards.
7600gt vs 6600gt Wheres the review?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
I don't know how the eVGA card looks but here's pictures of the 7600GT compared to the 6600GT, no difference in size as far as I can tell. Misprint by eVGA perhaps?
Firingsquad has prertty good picture of 7600GT and 6600GT side by side in its article.
That looks like they would be about the same size, although would be better if not at an angle.
Btw, I measured an XFX 6600GT and eVGA 6600GT and both boards measure almost 7" inches in length--just a tiny bit shy of 7" but definitely more than 6 3/4" - which coincides with the stated length of 6.88 inches on eVGA's website.
Btw, I measured an XFX 6600GT and eVGA 6600GT and both boards measure almost 7" inches in length--just a tiny bit shy of 7" but definitely more than 6 3/4" - which coincides with the stated length of 6.88 inches on eVGA's website.
I was reading the TomsHardware article and noticed the slide sowing the doubled shader ALU's under the 7600 and 7900. Several other articles stated that the new nVidia cards have stuck with one shader unit per pipeline, but this seems to be nVidia claiming a 2 shader per pipeline arrangement like ATI's 3 shader units per pipeline in the X1600/X1900.
A 24-shader 7600GT sounds like a much better deal for $200 than a 12-shader 7600GT. Kudos to nVidia if this is true.
Hmm, looking at pixel shader limited tests like 3DMark05/06 seems to indicate just 12 shaders units are working on the 7600GT.
Further research:
RightMark3D Pixel Shader Tests from Beyond3D, 1024x768 (FPS)
7600GT = 12 shader pipes x 2 units each = 24 shaders
X1600XT = 4 shader pipes x 3 units each = 12 shaders
If everything is equal the 7600GT should be anywhere from twice as fast to three times as fast as a X1600XT at shader code.
The 7600GT does look twice as fast as a X1600 on simple shaders (ie. similar to ones in current games), but begins to lose its advantage as the complexity increases. Evidently the extra shader units in each pipeline on the 7600 can't run complex shaders while those on the new ATI chips can. This may be important to you if you are looking to keep a card for a while.
The nVidia chips are going to lose their performance advantage over the ATI chips as games begin to use increasingly complex shader code.
I expect that a future 8 shader pipeline x 3 unit = 24 shader chip (X1700?) from ATI will exceed the performance of the 7600GT.
Edit: Added some other mid-range cards to the chart.
Edit: removed X800, different benchmark version.
Edit: Much more in depth analysis in the DigitLife article (scroll down to see the pixel shader tests).
A 24-shader 7600GT sounds like a much better deal for $200 than a 12-shader 7600GT. Kudos to nVidia if this is true.
Hmm, looking at pixel shader limited tests like 3DMark05/06 seems to indicate just 12 shaders units are working on the 7600GT.
Further research:
RightMark3D Pixel Shader Tests from Beyond3D, 1024x768 (FPS)
Code: Select all
7600GT X1600XT 6800GS 6600GT
PS2.0 Procedural 239.4 112.2 144.2 112.9
PS2.0 1 Light (FP) 227.0 147.5 146.2 114.2
PS2.0 1 Light (PP) 239.6 147.6 188.0 147.5
PS2.0 3 Lights (FP) 127.4 94.9 72.4 56.8
PS2.0 3 Lights (PP) 143.5 95.0 94.0 73.6
PS2.0a 3 Lights (FP) 43.8 41.0 30.2 23.8
PS2.0a 3 Lights (PP) 62.7 41.0 45.7 36.0X1600XT = 4 shader pipes x 3 units each = 12 shaders
If everything is equal the 7600GT should be anywhere from twice as fast to three times as fast as a X1600XT at shader code.
The 7600GT does look twice as fast as a X1600 on simple shaders (ie. similar to ones in current games), but begins to lose its advantage as the complexity increases. Evidently the extra shader units in each pipeline on the 7600 can't run complex shaders while those on the new ATI chips can. This may be important to you if you are looking to keep a card for a while.
The nVidia chips are going to lose their performance advantage over the ATI chips as games begin to use increasingly complex shader code.
I expect that a future 8 shader pipeline x 3 unit = 24 shader chip (X1700?) from ATI will exceed the performance of the 7600GT.
Edit: Added some other mid-range cards to the chart.
Edit: removed X800, different benchmark version.
Edit: Much more in depth analysis in the DigitLife article (scroll down to see the pixel shader tests).
well idunno where your measuring to and from. i measure just the PCB board itself. and my BFG 6600gt is exactly 6" long.JVM wrote:That looks like they would be about the same size, although would be better if not at an angle.
Btw, I measured an XFX 6600GT and eVGA 6600GT and both boards measure almost 7" inches in length--just a tiny bit shy of 7" but definitely more than 6 3/4" - which coincides with the stated length of 6.88 inches on eVGA's website.
and all the pictures of the 7600gt vs 6600gt make them appear to be identicle in lenth.
I measured just the board on both 6600GT cards - if it makes any difference, both cards are 256MB and PCI-EAris wrote:well idunno where your measuring to and from. i measure just the PCB board itself. and my BFG 6600gt is exactly 6" long.JVM wrote:That looks like they would be about the same size, although would be better if not at an angle.
Btw, I measured an XFX 6600GT and eVGA 6600GT and both boards measure almost 7" inches in length--just a tiny bit shy of 7" but definitely more than 6 3/4" - which coincides with the stated length of 6.88 inches on eVGA's website.
and all the pictures of the 7600gt vs 6600gt make them appear to be identicle in lenth.
As for the 7600GT, I quoted the specs from eVGA, and I now believe they are wrong.