6200 would be better for games that are available right now. The 5700 Ultra would lead in older DX8.1 games like UT2004 (but the framerate would be so high with both cards that it wouldn't be an issue) but be much slower in DX9. You can also use HDR with that 6200, whereas you can't with a 5700 Ultra.
After spending some time comparing the cards on Tom's Hardware, I came up with the same results as Clements. However, the card I was looking at on there had a 128 bit memory bus, which doesn't seem to be guaranteed with that auction. See if you can talk to the person selling the card to make sure it's a 128 bit version.
If it's only 64-bit, then it's not worth it as it'll have half the bandwidth of the standard 128-bit edition. Perhaps you can hold out for a while longer until a 128-bit version comes up on ebay - it'll be about the same price (or maybe less) than the 5700 Ultra.
Definitely save for the 6600, it has twice the amount of pixel pipelines and is clocked only a little bit slower than the 6200, which means it has a lot more fillrate. It also has a decent amount of memory bandwidth. I'd go with GCFreak's suggestion, 256 MB isn't really needed on a midrange card. 128 MB would work fine and you would save some money.
Thx, i never thought it was that simple.
That guide is very simple, and direct.
Now im gonna test to see if any problems occour...hopefully not .
Heres a screen after.
Unfortunatelly, i dont have 3dmark here anymore, nor remember the scores it did when i bought the card...
But gonna try with HL2/Cs: Source for a few hours. Ill come back with the results later.
Oh and thx again!!!
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.