PDA

View Full Version : BFG Tech 6200 OC 256MB DDR AGP



diamond-optic
06-20-2005, 05:22 AM
right now I have a PNY FX5200 ultra 128mb card.. running at agp4x cuase thats as high as I can go.. and of course its not that good of a card.. yet I can play just about anything I throw at it, tho HL2 was a bit rough in some parts of the game...

but anyways... I see that best buy has the BFG Tech 6200 OC 256MB DDR AGP card on sale at $150, plus is also says free pc game up to $50 when you purchase it... so I was thinking that this might be a good chance for me to step up to the 6* series cards, cuase $150 for a new card plus a game doesnt sound too bad.. (was thinking that I could wait till later in the week and pick up battlefield 2 with it...)

but anyway.. would anyone recommend me getting this.. especially to upgrade from my 5200u.. and I dont have the money (or the desire) to spend a lot of money on a new card..

I just want something for newer games.. Like I know my 5200u isnt going to play dod:source good when it finally comes out..

relic2279
06-20-2005, 07:09 AM
I actually bought this card in may from best buy for $175. The card is absolutely fantastic for the price. I can play Doom 3 & Halflife 2 without any trouble or problems and been cracked out on the battlefield 2 demo which they say won't play on anything less then a 5700.

Obviously, with everything on high and high resolution it's jittery, but 99% of the time, I'm sitting at 1024x860 anyways which the card can run perfect with every setting on high. So it's perfect for me.

I used rivatuner and have my memory overclocked at 451 and the chip is overclocked 415... No problems at all. Could probably take it alot higher. Supposedly the chips in these cards are made extremely well. I'm extremely happy with my purchase.

EDIT:::
On a side note, battlefield 2 (which is fantastic) requires a minimum of 128mb of ram on your video card. And recommends 256mb, Games coming out now are starting to take advantage of the higher ram amounts on cards, so I would advise getting no less then 256. Thats one of the main reasons I bought my BFG 6200OC 256mb AGP

diamond-optic
06-20-2005, 08:09 AM
oh nice.. thanks for the reply...

best buy says bf2 is avail. on thursday.. which is good cuase thats my other day off this week.. so I'll have time to get over there and then pull my pc out and put the card in and etc etc...
but i mean its got to be way better then my 5200u, tho it seems that a lot of ppl complain about the 5200u performance and I really dont have much trouble with it at all.. but then again my card and system are completely tweaked out..

and I just remembered that I got a $50 gift card thingy.. so it's gonna actually cost 'me' even less.. so I dont see any reason that its not worth it...


thanks once again...

Yawgm0th
06-20-2005, 09:56 AM
On sale at $150? That's rediculous. A 6600GT isn't even $170, and it's a much better card. A regular 6600 will be around $115, and that's also a much better card than the 6200. A Radeon 9800 Pro is in between those two in price and performance, as well. There are much, much better optiond than that over-priced Best Buy card. That's a really high price for a really low-end card. Sure, it'll run all the latest games at 800x600 and some at 1024x768. You know what else will do that? A $40 card from two generations ago. A $60 last-generation card will handle almost all games at 1024x768. The cards I mentioned will all do that and higher with higher image quality settings than a 6200.

Get a 6600GT, 6600, or 9800 Pro. If Best Buy doesn't have them priced around what I mentioned for them, go with Newegg.com.

And BTW, your 5200 will play DoD: Source just fine. Don't expect it to be much, if any more demanding than Half-Life 2, which a 5200 will play (not at the highest quality, but a 6200 won't play it at high quality either).

relic2279
06-20-2005, 11:39 AM
No offence,

But there is a reason the BFG 6200OC 256mb AGP cards are priced higher then some 6600's. Even on newegg and pricegrabber.

It's because it's a better card. Sure, you can get a 6600 128mb card that will score similar to a BFG 6200OC for 50$ less, but what your paying for is the ram. And if you read my sidenote, why play a game with 'minimum required' specs?! Future games going forward are going to require 256mb+ as recomended ram. Supposedly f.e.a.r is going to 'require' 256mb of ram on your video card.

I'd rather purchase a card that will last longer. Over on guru some people are complaining that their 5700 can't play BF2, and the reason being is ram. My brothers 5500 plays it quite nicely, and he has 256mb of ram on his card.

So, it's no longer an issue of 'excessive' ram on a video card. Games are using it now. BF2 is the first and foremost example.

(as the old saying goes: 'You get what you pay for')

---EDIT
I'm unsure what you are talking about, my BFG 6200OC 256mb agp plays half-life 2 at 1024x860 on high flawlessly...

06-20-2005, 11:59 AM
Yeah...My ATI 9600 mobility (64 meg AGP) plays BF2 at 1024x768...ram? I think not. It mostly depends on your shaders, core/mem speeds, and cpu speeds as well as system ram and it's speed. Yawg is most certainly right. Their 5700's couldn't play solitair without some lag I bet. The geforce 5 series weren't the most noteable geforce cards out there. Trust me...I still have one. You are much better off with the 6600s or the 9800 pro. Especially for what you want to pay. And on high, do you have your AA and AS settings turned up?

relic2279
06-20-2005, 12:10 PM
Sure.. yeah.. I'll take your word for it over EA games word, that video ram isn't needed.

There is a reason they say 128mb ram is 'minimum amount' required and 256mb 'recommended'. Have you played the game yet? And yes, I play it with 4x AA. I have everything on high except dynamics.

Your right about one thing though, games for the most part did depend on cpu, core & mem speeds. Looks like that is changing though, and it's been overdue. Finally, games like BF2 are taking advantage of the higher ram amounts. Us 'higher ram' users are now going to start getting a return on our investment.

Again, you get what you pay for.

EDIT-------

Quote from [email protected] - "And on high, do you have your AA and AS settings turned up"

I just noticed. I doubt you have ever played BF2, there IS NO AS setting in the game. If your going to come, come correct.

Yawgm0th
06-20-2005, 01:32 PM
There are no games that need 256MB and none will for quite some time. There are a few that can make use of it, and a few more coming that will, but that card will not last. It's already low-end. By the time a game comes out that needs 256MB, it will be unusable because it's so weak. My 128MB 9800 Pro can handle any game out there at 1024x768 or higher with high settings on. Most can be handled at 1280x960 with the highest settings on. It will probably last through the next generation of games before it becomes truly low end. A 6200 is already low end, regardless of how much RAM it has on it.

I'm unsure what you are talking about, my BFG 6200OC 256mb agp plays half-life 2 at 1024x860 on high flawlessly...Try something more intensive... Half-Life 2 isn't the strongest or most intensive game graphically. Try FarCry, or even Doom 3. I guarantee a 6600 or better with only 128MB of memory will play the game on higher settings.

As for BF:2, my Radeon 9600 (128MB) handles it at 1024x768 with mostly high settings. I would actually expect a 256MB 6200 to do better or at least about as well, but then a 128-bit 9550/9600 shouldn't cost more than $100. That's without overclocking it, and on a machine that's limiting it with CPU and RAM (2200 T-Bred with 512MB of RAM).

Regardless of the 256MB debate, you can get a 256MB 6600 for less than $150. A 256MB 9800 Pro is only about $160. So even if you truly think you need a 256MB card, a 256MB 6200 is still a very, very bad purchase. There's simply no argument that it's better than a more powerful card with the same amount of RAM. There's also no argument against the fact that 256MB 6200s cost less than $100. Really, regadless of the whole 256MB thing, the fact that you can get the same card for about $60 less than Best Buy wants is pretty significant, as is the fact that you can get a better card (256MB even) for $20 less than what Best Buy wants.

relic2279
06-20-2005, 01:53 PM
QUOTE="There's simply no argument that it's better then a more powerful card with the same amount of ram'

If you read my posts above, that's not what I'm arguing at all.
What I'm saying is, given a choice, between a plain 6600 128mb vs BFG's 6200 with 256mb, the BFG is a smarter choice, because it will last longer. And thats 'exactly' why it's more expensive.

Games don't require 256mb of ram? According to EA Games website, BF2 recommends 256 megabytes of video ram.

---Sidenote:
At computex this year, they had a 6800 with 1 gig of video ram (according to AnandTech). Obviously that much ram is overkill but the trend is setting, starting with fear and BF2, games will be using & taking advantage of the higher ram if not outright requiring it like BF2.

Yawgm0th
06-20-2005, 02:47 PM
If you read my posts above, that's not what I'm arguing at all.
What I'm saying is, given a choice, between a plain 6600 128mb vs BFG's 6200 with 256mb, the BFG is a smarter choice, because it will last longer. And thats 'exactly' why it's more expensive.Why isn't that what you're arguing? This isn't a topic about 256MB video cards. It's about whether or not diamond-optic would be wise in getting a 256MB BFGTech 6200 OC.

I actually bought this card in may from best buy for $175. The card is absolutely fantastic for the price.This is what I'm arguing with. That's a terrible price, as is $150. We could argue about a weaker 256MB card vs. a stronger 128MB card for quite a while, but that's not what this thread is about.

Granted, I do disagree with your insistence on 256MB cards. As I said, a more powerful 128MB card will do better, and this is a proven fact, not just in benchmarks. Take a 128MB 9800 Pro or 6600GT for yourself and compare it your current card. There's no way in hell it will outperform them/run at the same settings comfortably in any games, regardless of EA's silly recommendations. My recommendation for this user would be a 128MB 6600GT unless he's got some money to spend on something better, bu, more importantly I wouldn't let him consider a 256MB 6200 for $150 when a 256MB 6600 is cheaper.

relic2279
06-20-2005, 03:03 PM
Ok. I'll give you that. A 6600 will outperform my card. Not by a landslide or anything, but it will. (With the OC'ing ability of the 6200, thats even arguable)

What I won't give you is the fact that it's not worth buying. Looking toward the future, which is what everyone should do when buying something, you have to take into account what will be the standard say, 9 months to a year from now. If you don't, then your just ignorant.

Now what exactly will be more valuable in a year from now?

Considering the video ram requirement trends of video games (and if you say their recommendations are silly, well, I'm gonna have to disagree) the 256mb video card wins out.

As I said, on guru, some people with 5700's can't even PLAY BF2, yet those with 5500 and 256mb's of ram can? Obviously the 5500 is more valuable. Same scenario with the 6200 vs 6600.

To the orginal poster, go with more ram on your card, it's different then it was 2 years ago. Games are starting to require it more. If you can afford a 6600 with 256mb, go for it. But definately get a 256mb card. You won't regret it.

Yawgm0th
06-21-2005, 02:29 AM
What I won't give you is the fact that it's not worth buying.
I'm not saying that, so you certainly shouldn't give me that. I'm saying it isn't worth buying for $150. The 6200 isn't a bad card for a sub-$100 purchase. in fact, it's the only viable choice for PCI Express systems (BTW forget about any posts here in which I recommended the 9800 Pro, as it's obviously not PCI-E).

As for where games go with RAM usage, we'll see. I think the next year's worth of games should be able to play fine on the more powerful 128MB cards. Why do I think that? Quite simply, developers won't release games that nobody can play. A year from now the majority of all gamers, and possibly even the majority of those more knowledgeable with what sort of sytem they're running, will still be using 128MB cards. Only recently have games started coming out that are practically unplayable on 64MB cards. BF:2, if I'm not mistaken, is the first to "require" a 128MB card, and pretty much anything but maybe Doom 3 can be played on one. At this point, the majority of the user base has switched to 128MB cards, so this is no problem. But 256MB is a different story, and IMO it won't be necessary for at least a year, at which point it will become like 64MB was last year: the bare minimum. I wouldn't expect it be below minimum requirements for even longer than that.

06-21-2005, 06:47 AM
And for arguments sake; I do play bf2 on my 9600, and you turn AA and AS on through Nvidia control panel or ATI catalyst or any third party tweaking software. Yes it does not run very well, but it runs. EA's remarks on requirements are to boost graphics card sales as always. Hince the "Nividia" logo before the game starts. Best Buy prices are marked up so high and they don't even market products that are a better choice. Trust me, I've worked there for 3 years. You are much better (price and performance) with a 6600.

Example. I can buy a Belkin firewire cable for $30. With our discount (5% above invoice) it costs us $1.50. The fact that a 6200 costs more than a 6600 somewhere else (both 256MB) should be obvious enough. That's why you don't "get what you pay for". I hope that information helped. I'm also not trying to be obnoxious, just telling you why that statement was wrong. Third party retailers rape you with markups so bad.

diamond-optic
06-21-2005, 07:26 AM
well one main reason i was looking at that was cuase it would be easier for me to goto a store and buy it lol.. plus the bfg's OC card is clocked faster then most 6600s... plus if its 150 plus I can get a game (bf2 - $50) with it, thats like 100 for the card...

but anyway I was looking on newegg...

and I was looking at this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814145112
CHAINTECH SA6600 Geforce 6600 256MB 128-bit DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card - Retail

but im not sure what will work in my pc.. becuase it says under 'Interface' that its agp 4x/8x, but then under requirements it says you need an 8x slot..

well my mobo is only agp 4x.. so IDK...

i wish I could just afford a whole new pc...

Spriggan X
06-21-2005, 07:41 AM
Diamond i would get that 6600, if you are not that bad in a tight budget, i would go for a 6600gt. But to solve your question, i think it will work on your agpx4, it is saying so itself on the name.

diamond-optic
06-21-2005, 07:58 AM
i was looking at the GTs..

would it be better to have a normal 6600 256mb DDR
or a 6600GT 128mb GDDR3 ?

Yawgm0th
06-21-2005, 09:00 AM
well my mobo is only agp 4x.. so IDK...
Any AGP 4/8x card will work just as well as if you had 8x.

I must be out of it, though... I hadn't even realized they had AGP 6200s now. I'd recommend against it for AGP, though. There are more powerful (even more powerful 256MB) cards in the same price range, but then that's irrelevant at this point...

So now you have the choice of 256MB 6600, 6600GT, or 9800 Pro. The 9800 Pro is kind of an irrelevant in-between point, so I'd say not to consider that. Though, if you wanted to mix the benefits of 256MB with having a more powerful card, something like this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102515) could be a decent choice, with the only problem being that 9800 Pros don't have Pixel Shader 3.0. That said, I'd suggest a 128MB 6600GT, but I'm sure you'd be happy with a 256MB 6600, which would also be about $20 cheaper. The 6600GT will perform better in any existing game and probably any future one, but if games in the near future do indeed end up being reliant on having 256MB of RAM, then the 6600 would theoretically be longer-lasting, but I really doubt that is the case. More likely, by the time 256MB is necessary, both cards will be in the low end and it won't matter if the 6600 has 256MB.

relic2279
06-21-2005, 09:03 AM
I would suggest the higher ram, it provides your card with more longivity. People have been saying for years that there are no games that can take advatage of higher amounts of video ram, but that has since changed (see BF2 benchmarks).

I believe ram on video cards will play a more important role going forward. Nvidia showed their 6800 with 1 GIG of ram off at computex, I'm sure there was a reason.

In this day and age, to me, longivity is more valuable then performace. I learned first hand. The hard way.

Darthtanion
06-21-2005, 09:34 AM
Before you jump on the 6600 or 6600GT bandwagon, pull out your motherboard manual and verify the supported voltage levels of your AGP port. Many older AGP4x boards still pushed 3.3v through the AGP port. Speeds are moot but the voltage is critical. I'd be willing to bet a cold beer that the video boards you're looking at require voltage levels of 1.5v or 0.8v. If your mainboard can only pump 3.3v through the port, you'll have burned out your new toy before you even get the chance to witness its graphical prowess.

diamond-optic
06-21-2005, 09:38 AM
Any AGP 4/8x card will work just as well as if you had 8x.

The 9800 Pro is kind of an irrelevant in-between point, so I'd say not to consider that.
yeah.. Ive read in plenty of places online that there isnt really much of a noticable difference in 4x and 8x.. cuase the speed there is mainly dependent on the card itself...


and also.. not really looking at ati.. Ive had geforce as far back as I remember.. heh I remember my old geforce2 gts/pro 32mb card.. I used that thing for years and years.. and didnt replace it till the 5*00 series came out, and it was still giving me really good fps in everything that I played.. plus Ive been tweaking my geforce cards constantly for as long as I can remember too.. idk.. i feel more comfortable with nvidia, dont want to start over lol.. and plus theyve never really gave me any trouble.. except for a fan dying, but that was PNY's fualt but i put a better one on afterwards anyway lol..

but thanks for all the replys... I'm gonna probably keep looking about at details of different makes but I want to at least buy/order a new card by the weekend...

06-21-2005, 11:03 AM
Voodoo 4 life

Spriggan X
06-21-2005, 10:27 PM
If i were you diamond, i would go for the 6600gt.

diamond-optic
06-22-2005, 07:06 AM
Before you jump on the 6600 or 6600GT bandwagon, pull out your motherboard manual and verify the supported voltage levels of your AGP port. Many older AGP4x boards still pushed 3.3v through the AGP port. Speeds are moot but the voltage is critical. I'd be willing to bet a cold beer that the video boards you're looking at require voltage levels of 1.5v or 0.8v. If your mainboard can only pump 3.3v through the port, you'll have burned out your new toy before you even get the chance to witness its graphical prowess.
well now this has got me all confused lol...
i cant find anything bout voltage of my board.. plus having a packaged pc (dell) seems to make hardware info a bit harder to find anyway...

knowing what my cards insert keys look like (or whatever theyre called)

my 5200u's little tabs look like this I believe:
http://images10.newegg.com/productimage/14-145-112-02.JPG
( ^ thats the 6600 card I was looking at anyway)

while just about every other card.. looks like:
http://images10.newegg.com/productimage/14-135-160-02.JPG
( ^ thats a GT, but I couldnt see any GTs that had the keys like the one above)

and Im pretty sure the different keys have to do with voltage...

I might have to open my damn pc up and pull out my card and check to see if there is any blocks or whatever in the slot..

or am I totally wrong here?

06-22-2005, 07:11 AM
Yours uses the extended AGP. The newer cards use the smaller ones. They will fit into the same slot. Make sure you check the voltage output on your board to see if it can put the requirements for the newer cards. Like Darth said, you'll burn out your card before anything.

Darthtanion
06-22-2005, 07:37 AM
Yes, mainboard and video board manufacturers added in a key for voltage reasons to help prevent exactly what we're talking about. Last I heard, Dell still had pretty decent customer support so you might shoot them an email. If you provide them with the service number (located on a tag usually on the back of the machine), they should be able to let you know if the board is compatible with a modern 1.5v AGP video card. Make sure you refer to the maximum 1.5v voltage requirements of the video card so there won;t be any confusion. Otherwise you'll be looking at replacing the mainboard and most likely the PSU also since they use a proprietary 20-pin power block for their motherboards.

diamond-optic
06-22-2005, 07:41 AM
well i already have put in a better psu..

but anyways I couldnt find anything bout voltage on dells spec info page bout my machine.. I might have to try to email them like you said...

if i goto the setup thingy on bootup and look at the bios settings or whatnot, might it tell me voltage in there?

Darthtanion
06-22-2005, 07:46 AM
It might, but Dell generally neuters their BIOS settings to the point where you have next to no control in there. You might try something like SiSoft Sandra... it may give enough information to tell you supported voltages but I don't recall offhand.

diamond-optic
06-22-2005, 08:19 AM
i'm thinking maybe this page will help me a bit...

http://www.ertyu.org/~steven_nikkel/agpcompatibility.html

i think i might need to look at my slot and compare it to the chart thingy at the bottom.. man this voltage stuff is confusing lol

diamond-optic
06-22-2005, 09:04 AM
ok.. what ive found.. i think this is what Im looking for..

I finally found the book that came with the pc.. and it says runs 2x/4x agp @ 1.5v...

then also on dells page for the dimension 8100 (what i got.. tho who knows if they all have the same mother boards.. but good chance they are the same or at least very similar and same agp slot specs) it says:

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=327 height=20>AGP connector</TD><TD vAlign=top width=539 height=20>one</TD></TR><TR><TD width=327 height=20>AGP connector size</TD><TD width=539 height=20>172 pins</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=327 height=20>AGP connector data width (maximum)</TD><TD vAlign=top width=539 height=20>32 bits</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=327 height=20>AGP bus protocols</TD><TD vAlign=top width=539 height=20>4x/2x modes at 1.5 V</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
so I'm guessing that means its 1.5volts lol.. and thats what Im looking for correct? at least I hope so lol.. I want to order a new card asap lol

Darthtanion
06-22-2005, 11:02 AM
It sounds like it but I'd go ahead and pull the video board and compare the slot architecture to the picture from the site you linked to above. If everything jives then you should be safe to start playing.

relic2279
06-22-2005, 09:53 PM
Here is a quote from Anandtech in regards to Video ram on graphics card (taken from today's post about Nvidia's 7800):

"We don't feel that ATI's 512MB X850 really brings anything necessary to the table, but with this generation we could start to see a real use for 512MB of local memory. MRTs, larger textures, normal maps, vertex textures, huge resolutions, and a lack of hardware compression for fp16 and fp32 textures all mean that we are on the verge of seeing games push memory usage way up. Processing these huge stores of data require GPUs powerful enough to utilize them efficiently. The G70 begins to offer that kind of power. For the majority of today's games, we are fine with 256MB of RAM, but moving into the future it's easy to see how more would help. "

You heard it from me first. Go with a card that has more video ram. If you have to choose a lower end card to get more ram, I would seriously consider it depending on price and the type of card itself. I would choose BFG's 6200OC 256mb for $150 over a plain 6600 with only 128mb for $109. Again there is a reason the price is higher, and it's not "just to make more money of dumb consumers".
It's because your card will have a longer, more versitile life. ...nfm

06-22-2005, 11:22 PM
"We don't feel that ATI's 512MB X850 really brings anything necessary to the table, but with this generation we could start to see a real use for 512MB of local memory. MRTs, larger textures, normal maps, vertex textures, huge resolutions, and a lack of hardware compression for fp16 and fp32 textures all mean that we are on the verge of seeing games push memory usage way up. Processing these huge stores of data require GPUs powerful enough to utilize them efficiently. The G70 begins to offer that kind of power. For the majority of today's games, we are fine with 256MB of RAM, but moving into the future it's easy to see how more would help. "
Without a power GPU, you're not pushing crap through that memory. In order to utilize the ram efficiently, you need something that's going to push data in it like a hoss. That's why you are better off with a more power GPU than larger memory.

relic2279
06-22-2005, 11:50 PM
Again thats why I say depending on the card.

BFG's 6200OC is, for lack of a better description, a monster of a low end card. It's chipset is fantastic and the overclocking ability is phenomenal. A few tweaks here and there, and the decision isn't hard.

diamond-optic
06-22-2005, 11:58 PM
well.. still looking around.. but I think I might get a msi gt..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127150

either way it should be good enough for a year or so.. and by that point I really would need a whole new PC anyway...

AsianBatman
06-23-2005, 03:39 AM
Again thats why I say depending on the card.

BFG's 6200OC is, for lack of a better description, a monster of a low end card. It's chipset is fantastic and the overclocking ability is phenomenal. A few tweaks here and there, and the decision isn't hard.

Laff, for the stake of arguement. Yawg is once again right. ^_^. 6200 is probably more $$ because of the ram..as you stated, and i didn't bother reading anything else about your post, but thats like saying i paid for this computer system over the other one because it has more Ram while the other system may have a faster chip. Anyway..i see the person made the choice of a 6600. Good choice. While this may i say...6200 fan boy can stick to his BFG card.

Btw: old pc you say? what are you specs? your comp might not even use msot of that card.

relic2279
06-23-2005, 10:08 AM
Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

Obviously you didn't read my above post before posting your useless dribble. If your going to say someone is right and criticize anothers post and/or claim they are wrong, at least use 2% of your limited brain power and provide some kind of argument and perhaps a brief explaination.

If you can show me a better low end card that outperforms & overclocks higher, I'd like to see it.

And by the way, I told him to get whatever he could afford, so long as it had 256mb of ram, because if he didn't, he'll be upgrading his card again at the end of the year. That is, if he wants to play any newer games that come out at a resolution above 800x600.

Yawgm0th
06-23-2005, 12:54 PM
If you can show me a better low end card that outperforms & overclocks higher, I'd like to see it.

And by the way, I told him to get whatever he could afford, so long as it had 256mb of ram, because if he didn't, he'll be upgrading his card again at the end of the year. That is, if he wants to play any newer games that come out at a resolution above 800x600.
I'm not advocating him flaming you, but...

I guess you've never heard of a 9600 or 9550. It'll overclock great and outperform a 6200 in most games. It's also cheaper than even the models with less than 256MB of RAM. They also come in 256MB models. The only advantages the 6200 has is Doom 3 in and of itself, because nVidia 6xxx cards generally perform much better than 9xxx and Xxxx cards from ATI in the same price range, and the fact that the 6200 has Pixel Shader 3.0, which can greatly improve image quality in several existing games and most upcoming ones. Other than that, a 9600/9550 will overclock amazingly and outperform a 6200 in pretty much everything from Doom 3.

As for playing a game at 800x600, the 6200 can't handle most newer engines above 1024x768, so I wouldn't expect it to handle better engines in the near future at anything but 800x600, and then 640x480, while plenty of 128MB cards will handle them at 1024x768 well into 2007 and maybe longer.

AsianBatman
06-23-2005, 02:52 PM
Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

Obviously you didn't read my above post before posting your useless dribble. If your going to say someone is right and criticize anothers post and/or claim they are wrong, at least use 2% of your limited brain power and provide some kind of argument and perhaps a brief explaination.

I did say that i did not bother to read your post didn't i? Ignorance is bliss...therefore i am who i am. People have there opinions and i will blunting say that a suggestion for a 6200 256mb over a 6600 128mb is stupid.

EDIT: Hi yawg, its usaully us arguing against each other. =D

Yawgm0th
06-24-2005, 03:16 AM
It is? Nah, we don't argue that much... But for old time's sake...

"I'd recommend a 6800 non-ultra non-GT. It's a good card for the money and fits nicely between the 9800 Pro and 6800GT. blah blah blah..."

I actually would recommend it if it's in the budget, though that'll near $200, while a 6600GT is closer to $150.

BTW, where have you been lately? You haven't posted much here or at Beefy's in a while.

AsianBatman
06-24-2005, 06:52 AM
Actaully,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102290
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814133148
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102299
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102286
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814131213
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102362

Its from high to low. I threw in a 6600 256mb just to satify relic.
To answer your question yawg, i don't post at beefy cause half the time i am always late for the posts..and i to lazy to read through all of em and knowing what is going on.

CaptNaughty
06-25-2005, 11:25 PM
I just bought the BFG 6200 from BestBuy for $149.99 - $20 MIR - $49.99 Free game (BF2, was gonna buy it anyway) = $80

So far I like it, I have max'd out my settings in COD: UO, Counter Strike: Source, Half Life 2 and BF2... So far so good

Eaglee
06-25-2005, 11:59 PM
How do you max out bf2 with that? I have a 9800pro (same as your card) and can only run bf2 on medium with 4x aa and af. Even then I get crappy fps in some places (center of dagin oilfields).

Yawgm0th
06-26-2005, 12:37 AM
Easily if he runs it at 800x600 or is just incorrect in his information. He could probably even run it at 1024x768 and have the settings up pretty high. I can max out setting on pretty much any game, but that's because I can't run at resolutions higher than 1280x960 because of my monitor.

As for your 9800 Pro, sounds like something else is wrong. Either you are using bad drivers (update to the latest Catalysts right away), don't have enough system RAM, have a CPU too slow, or have a system that's running way too many programs.
Edit: well never mind the CPU and RAM part, I just saw your signature.
Here's what I play BF2 on with my 9800 Pro:
Athlon XP 2400 Mobile, not overclock ATM
512MB of [email protected] 2-3-3-7
Crappy motherboard I'm replacing next week when my NF7-S v. 2 comes
Settings:
1024x768 (for lack of monitor support for higher resolutions, also fixing that next week)
The "high" choice.. I found manually changing the two options that don't go when I select "high" causes performance to just die, so I left them at low and medium where the game puts them.
After I get my current motherboard and cooling issues fixed, the Mobile will be overclocked and the 9800 Pro will be, too. I'll see if it's still playable at 1280x960 (or 1280x1024 if EA was stupid and doesn't allow both).

This is very easily playable and I don't get any lag in 64 player games, even when lots of shooting or large explosions are going on right in front of me. I haven't even thought about AA or AF, and I can probably afford to throw one or both on at a lower level.

CaptNaughty
06-26-2005, 09:42 AM
All in BF2 is set to high but only at 1024x768 res (haven't tried anyting higher), forgot about the res... : /

AMD XP3200 (400) / 2gb Ram (PC3200)

relic2279
06-26-2005, 11:33 PM
i will blunting say that a suggestion for a 6200 256mb over a 6600 128mb is stupid.
Really? Wow.

So for instance, the people who can't play BF2 with thier cheapo 5700, and others having no issues with a 5500 with 256mb ram means nothing? In my opinion, I'd rather have the 5500. I'm arguing longevity, not performace. If your on a low budget, thats what counts.

Yawgm0th
06-27-2005, 03:29 AM
Really? Wow.

So for instance, the people who can't play BF2 with thier cheapo 5700, and others having no issues with a 5500 with 256mb ram means nothing? In my opinion, I'd rather have the 5500. I'm arguing longevity, not performace. If your on a low budget, thats what counts.
A 5500 can't play BF:2 at all... It's below minimum requirements. While a 5700 will play it fine. It won't run with very high settings, but it will run.

AsianBatman
06-27-2005, 08:48 AM
I haven't experince BF2 yet, and yet have i owned a 5500...for obvious reasons. Had a 5700, but can't really say anything about it compared to a 5500..cause yet i did not own one. I think yawg pretty much got my arguement covered with his comment.

Eaglee
06-27-2005, 10:39 PM
Oh, so that's how you can run it at high. I like my smooth edges, so I prefer keeping the settings lower and turning on the aa. I ran at 1024x768. I'm not running the latest drivers because I heard they had some rendering issues with textures in bf2. Sound is on high btw (hardware). Does the sound quality decrease performance at all if you have a sound card? My fps can be high when I'm playing the Songhua map, but when I go play Zatar Wetlands where there are around 16 players in the center base my fps goes to ****.

Yawgm0th
06-28-2005, 02:03 AM
Use the latest drivers. They work fine for me.

Try it without AA and with higher settings. The higher settings improve quality a lot more, AA is just for when you can handle more but not a full resolution bump.

The CPU overhead does increase with improved sound quality, even if you have a nice sound card, but I wouldn't worry about it. Your GPU is the limitation so you should probably be able to have the added overhead without noticing it.

Eaglee
06-28-2005, 06:11 AM
Use the latest drivers. They work fine for me.

Try it without AA and with higher settings. The higher settings improve quality a lot more, AA is just for when you can handle more but not a full resolution bump.

The CPU overhead does increase with improved sound quality, even if you have a nice sound card, but I wouldn't worry about it. Your GPU is the limitation so you should probably be able to have the added overhead without noticing it.
Well I tried the 5-6 drivers and I must say, it looks like a piece of **** to me. With aa/af at 4x, it didn't even look like I had aa or af on at all. Jaggies everywhere. Jaggie here, jaggie there, jaggie shadows, jaggie wires, jaggie everything. I don't get what I'm doing wrong. I uninstalled the previous drivers with the ati unisntall utility, then used driver cleaner. All the settings are the same and it looks like total crap.

Yawgm0th
06-28-2005, 06:34 AM
Did you check the setting? The game can revert all the settings to the default, sometimes for little or no reason.

Looks fine to me with the 5.6s.

Eaglee
06-28-2005, 06:44 AM
Did you check the setting? The game can revert all the settings to the default, sometimes for little or no reason.

Looks fine to me with the 5.6s.
Yes, I checked the settings. Still getting jaggies. For some reason I get this with every driver after around the 4-5 drivers, which is why I stuck with the old drivers. However I get this in different games for each driver release.

Yawgm0th
06-28-2005, 09:11 AM
That's screwed up. I guess you could try the Omegas... They're a couple releases behind, but 5.4 isn't too bad, even for BF2.

AsianBatman
06-28-2005, 11:45 AM
What resolution? Higher resolution is better than lower resolution with AA/AF on.

Eaglee
06-28-2005, 10:38 PM
What resolution? Higher resolution is better than lower resolution with AA/AF on.
My monitor can't handle any resolution above 1024x768.

Yawgm0th
06-29-2005, 01:01 AM
I feel your pain, though I won't this time tomorrow. :D My advice: Make that the next upgrade. I wish I had gotten a new one a long time ago, instead of putting other stuff first.

AsianBatman
06-29-2005, 03:24 AM
Not like it matters for me cause my 17' already support 1280x1024, but i am gonna get a 19' from parents soon as a grad gift. It supports 1280x1024 also and no higher.

KBar
06-29-2005, 03:30 AM
I just bought that Video card from Best buy last week. I'm realizing now that BF2 asks for higher end cards in order for it to work. 2 questions, will my card work and will I enjoy the expereince without it locking up. Also, is BF2 online only, can I play it in single player mode. Thanks.

Yawgm0th
06-29-2005, 07:55 AM
Yes; yes; no; yes, but it's much more limited and not altogether than enjoyable on singleplayer. Singleplayer is mostly for practice and learning the game IMO.

Eaglee
07-10-2005, 11:44 PM
I feel your pain, though I won't this time tomorrow. :D My advice: Make that the next upgrade. I wish I had gotten a new one a long time ago, instead of putting other stuff first.
Nah, I'm thinking of getting an X800XL instead.

Yawgm0th
07-11-2005, 03:13 PM
That would an utter waste of money. There's no game a 9800 Pro can't handle at 1024x768 with all of the highest settings. An X800XL of any kind would let you throw a little more AA on, and that's it. If you can't run games at 1600x1200, no card more powerful than a 6600GT is really worth it, and anything over a 6800 non-GT/Ultra is overkill.

Eaglee
07-11-2005, 11:36 PM
That would an utter waste of money. There's no game a 9800 Pro can't handle at 1024x768 with all of the highest settings. An X800XL of any kind would let you throw a little more AA on, and that's it. If you can't run games at 1600x1200, no card more powerful than a 6600GT is really worth it, and anything over a 6800 non-GT/Ultra is overkill.
Post a video with your 9800 pro in Dalian plant with 63 other players in the server running around on the screen, with 40+ fps, and all the highest detail at 1024 X 768, at least 2X aa and af. Or the same scene, but in the town in Gulf of Oman, with constant fighting and explosions going off. Maybe it's my cpu, but my system can't handle anything sort of like that. I've tried the new drivers, too.

Yawgm0th
07-12-2005, 08:47 AM
Even if I weren't too lazy to do that, and most cetainly am, it would take quite a bit of bandwidth to get it somewhere, and then that place would have to be willing to shell out that kind of bandwidth fo free.

Take my word for it. I play 64 player games, with my 9800 [email protected]/385(790DDR), 768MB of RAM, and [email protected], with 1280x960 (screw 1024x768) with 2xAA and everything but textures and lighting on high (those are on medium, have you tried lowering them?). I don't know that it stays at 40+ FPS in heavy fighting, but I can tell you it hasn't dropped below the mid-thirties, because I would have noticed and been irritated.

Eaglee
07-12-2005, 10:59 PM
Even if I weren't too lazy to do that, and most cetainly am, it would take quite a bit of bandwidth to get it somewhere, and then that place would have to be willing to shell out that kind of bandwidth fo free.

Take my word for it. I play 64 player games, with my 9800 [email protected]/385(790DDR), 768MB of RAM, and [email protected], with 1280x960 (screw 1024x768) with 2xAA and everything but textures and lighting on high (those are on medium, have you tried lowering them?). I don't know that it stays at 40+ FPS in heavy fighting, but I can tell you it hasn't dropped below the mid-thirties, because I would have noticed and been irritated.
Well how do you do it? :ponder:

Yawgm0th
07-13-2005, 12:11 PM
Divine intervention?

Let's see... Lots of tweaking, overclocked as said, and that's about it. If you can't handle it, I'd guess either you have some sort of software overhead problem (poor tweaking, spyware, virus, too many background apps, etc.) or one of those 128-bit 9800 Pros. A 128-bit 9800 Pro would definitely explain the problem. It was quite a while ago when they sold them as 128-bit, and it wasn't a long period of time, but it's possible.

But like I said, what settings have you tried, exactly? Have you tried everything but Textures and Lighting on high?

Eaglee
07-13-2005, 10:42 PM
Well, I check for spyware everyday (adaware, spybot, ms antispyware). Most of the time adaware finds one cookie, the rest don't find anything. I have no background progs running while gaming. I've used the "reformat to relax" guide, so I think I have a good amount of tweeks. Also, I'm sure it's the 256 bit 9800pro, it's a built by ATI card, and it says right on the box. I tried playing with the settings you suggested. It was fine when barely anyone was in the server, but when there was some action going on, it wasn't smooth anymore (below 40 fps). Also, I don't have anything o/ced. BTW, you mentioned you have 2X AA. Is that AA only or AF too?

Yawgm0th
07-14-2005, 03:36 PM
AA only. AF would have to be turned on in the Catalyst Control Panel, which would take 30 seconds (assuming the system could still handle it) out of my life tha it could never get back. Actually, I'll probably force some AF in the Panel after I upgrade, but for now I don't think I can afford anymore quality.

How many processes do you have running when you open Task Manager, not including your web browser (which will be open since you'll be reading this post)?

At what clock speeds are your CPU and GPU? Have you tried overclocking them? I haven't played the game at anything below 2.2GHz, but I know that I couldn't handle the current settings if the card were at stock speeds.

Are you using the 1.01 patch, or is the game unpatched? (just answer the question; don't go patch it if it isn't already)

What settings do you have under sound? Different settings can hurt performance a lot.

And finally, are you positive that it's not just lag? Even good servers that are close to you can lag in this game. The lag can make it look like you're getting framerates in the low 30s or even the 20s.

Eaglee
07-14-2005, 10:54 PM
AA only. AF would have to be turned on in the Catalyst Control Panel, which would take 30 seconds (assuming the system could still handle it) out of my life tha it could never get back. Actually, I'll probably force some AF in the Panel after I upgrade, but for now I don't think I can afford anymore quality.

How many processes do you have running when you open Task Manager, not including your web browser (which will be open since you'll be reading this post)?

At what clock speeds are your CPU and GPU? Have you tried overclocking them? I haven't played the game at anything below 2.2GHz, but I know that I couldn't handle the current settings if the card were at stock speeds.

Are you using the 1.01 patch, or is the game unpatched? (just answer the question; don't go patch it if it isn't already)

What settings do you have under sound? Different settings can hurt performance a lot.

And finally, are you positive that it's not just lag? Even good servers that are close to you can lag in this game. The lag can make it look like you're getting framerates in the low 30s or even the 20s.

I have 19 procesess, if I remove my mouse's process then I can't use the extra buttons on it.

Everything is at stock settings. CPU is at around 2.08ghz, don't remember what the vidcard clock speeds are. I can't overclock, my ****ty cooling barely handels my current system (largely due to the psu, which I will be replacing in the coming months).

I'm using 1.01, wish I didn't because after an hour in the server my fps goes to **** (unplayable, below 30). I have sound set to High, Eax turned on, and using hardware. I didn't buy my sound card for nothing, so I don't want to lower these. And I know its not lag. If I get lag it's still smooth, just that everyone around me warps around.

Yawgm0th
07-15-2005, 05:45 PM
I guess 19 isn't too bad, though I have 13 with Folding at Home taking up two.

Your mouse's extra buttons? Pshh... you don't need them. As soon as I figured out how Logitech's implementation of their extra buttons work I said "Well, I guess the buttons on the side of my MX1000 will never be used."

I'd say 1.01 will cause you problems until the get a new patch or you resintall the game. The memory leak problem is fairly bad, though I usually stop playing before I notice, and I have some pretty long gaming sessions.

In any case, don't expect my settings. Your CPU is slower, your video card is slower, and you have much more software overhead (6 processes and your sound, which I certainly agree you should take advantage of). If you overclock the video card and remove some of the software overhead, you ought to at least be able to handle mosly high at 1024x768 with some very smooth playing. More likely, you could handle mostly-high settings on 1280x960 without AA.

Eaglee
07-15-2005, 11:03 PM
What's so bad about how Logitech handels extra buttons? I haven't noticed any performace decrease when I got the mouse. :uhh:

Yawgm0th
07-17-2005, 01:50 AM
Two processes for soemthing that should just use a processless driver. I don't like human interface devices taking up processes for drivers, because they shouldn't need to. A single process won't make a huge difference, but they add up.

zaqwsx
08-03-2005, 11:57 PM
how do u overclock the bfg geforce 6200 oc 256 mb agp
cause i just got it and i want know how

Classlessmetal
08-16-2005, 11:29 PM
Download a prog called coolbits this will open up new options in the Nvidia control panel increase memory and core on the 3d setting, increase slowly benchmark after say each 5mhz increase stop when see artifacts on screen or system locks up turn down settings when this happens

zaqwsx
09-03-2005, 12:05 AM
thanks classlessmental