eVGA FX5500 or XFX GeForce 6600?

[cTTbLaKeMAn]

I found two video cards that meet my needs and it seems as though the eVGA card is better.

eVGA: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...Tab=2&NoMapp=0

XFX:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=1776106

I had an XFX 5200 in the past and it died on me.
But in general which one is better for gaming here? (I have a 65 dollar budget, or else I would be looking at 6600gt's do doubt!)

[BobGunderson]

I don't really know the answer, but Circuit City has the eVGA for $39.99 after rebates, so I'll probably pick one up. The computer I'm building doesn't need to be able to play high-end games. Just has to handle light video editing, if possible and a decent screen resolution. I think the days when 800x600 was appropriate are over.

[Kiwi]

The message thread Subject Line reads: "eVGA FX5500 or XFX GeForce 6600?" I did not check the message writer's accuracy. I don't care to follow silly links.

MY message title says it all "The GF 6600 makes the FX 5500 look like a snail!" THOSE TWO are what the OM asked about.

Originally Posted by cTTbLaKeMAn I found two video cards that meet my needs and it seems as though the eVGA card is better. I had an XFX 5200 in the past and it died on me.

The 5500 is incrementally faster than a vanilla 5200, but not enough to really see it subjectively, and the 5200 Ultra wasn't as fast as a Vanilla 5600, and all four are extremely slow VGA cards. Go to www.gpureview to compare the FX's against each other.

But in general which one is better for gaming here? (I have a 65 dollar budget, or else I would be looking at 6600gt's do doubt!)

The first FX to get into a Radeon 9600's speed range is/was the FX 5600 Ultra, and that was "on paper" only. There were serious problems with how the FX series handled graphics, such that the raw numbers didn't tell the entire tale between those and the ATI competition. Then, the Vanilla Radeon 9600 isn't a speedy card, just a barely acceptable one.

The 9600 Pro is supposed to have been the bottom end of the VGA range when it came to playing the early Dx9 games of its release period (roughly 2 1/2 to 3 years ago now). An FX 5700 Ultra supposedly had as much overall speed, but was in effect a glorified Dx8 card (it claimed more than it delivered). You can get a 9600 Pro for about $75-80 by shopping around.

A plain GF 6600 should have 128 MB's of RAM, and 128 Bits of band width, not 64 Bits. {The OM asked about a 6600, that's what I answered about.} It should cost closer to $95 than $65 right now. If you can get one for $65, I'd say grab it. But it's not going to handle the current year's fast action type games (shooters, anyway) particularly well; the 6600GT is supposed to meet that qualification, but just barely.

[cTTbLaKeMAn]

Thats all dandy, but maybe I was not clear enough. I am debating between this (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...Tab=0&NoMapp=0) and this (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...EdpNo=1010681).

And 65 dollars is the absolute most I can spend. Now which one of the two listed above is better?

Thanks

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by cTTbLaKeMAn Now which one of the two listed above is better?

The XFX GeForce 6200.

Cricket

[Kiwi]

I won't waste time following links to hardware I already know about. Maybe you should edit the title of your original question? I've owned and used almost all of the older cards referred to in my longer message. The 6600's do not fall in that group; seemingly you chose to confuse the issue on two different nVidia Geforce GPU's.

FX 5200's are super slow. FX 5500's are nearly that slow also. FX 5700 se's are very slow. FX 5600 U's are less slow, like a Radeon 9600 Vanilla.

The FX 5500 is junk. Plain enough? Anything else other than an MX 4000 (or any of its relatives), or another junk FX 5200, is better than the 5500. If the REAL QUESTION really involves a Geforce 6200, some of those (64 Bit) are poor, just not quite as horrible as a FX 5200/5500. The 6200 should have 128 Bits of bandwidth and 128 MB's of RAM (the crummy version is worth about $50, the good one is actually worth about $75). But all versions are too slow and have too narrow of a bandwidth for more than 128 MB of RAM to actually be accessed when a fast- running action game might want to do so.

[glc]

I'd take this over either one of those:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102408

Radeon 9600 pro.

[cTTbLaKeMAn]

Originally Posted by glc I'd take this over either one of those: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102408 Radeon 9600 pro.

Its not 256mb like the XFX GeForce 6200 though. Does that make a difference?

[cTTbLaKeMAn]

Never mind. I found a benchmark (http://www.ixbt.com/video2/over2k4-hs20-1024.shtml) the Radeon 9600 pro is almost twice as good. Thanks man. I appreciate it!

[glc]

For $65, you can't be too fussy. A 128mb card that's faster will eat up a slow 256mb card.

[USMDude]

Originally Posted by glc For $65, you can't be too fussy. A 128mb card that's faster will eat up a slow 256mb card.

Yeah, take speed over size. If you can't access the 256MB nearly as fastly as the 128MB, then the money spent on the extra size is wasted. For your money the XFX would be a better buy, listen to glc, he's smart.

[glc]

No, I'm suggesting a Radeon 9600 Pro, not the XFX.