8400 vs. 6600GT

8400GS
Manufacturer: nVidia
Series: GeForce 8
GPU: G86
Interface: PCI-E x16
Core Clock: 450 MHz
Memory Clock: 400 MHz (800 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 6.4 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 7200 Operations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 3600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 3600 MTexels/sec
Vertex Operations: 1800 MVertices/sec

6600GT
Manufacturer: nVidia
Series: GeForce 6
GPU: NV43
Interface: PCI-E x16
Core Clock: 500 MHz
Memory Clock: 500 MHz (1000 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 16 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 4000 Operations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 2000 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 4000 MTexels/sec
Vertex Operations: 375 MVertices/sec


The 8400GS beats the 6600GT in shader operations, so physics would run better and so would particles, but the 6600GT beats the hell out of the 8400GS in memory bandwidth.

There you go!

EDIT: The 8400GS is basically just an 8500GT but with only a 64-bit memory bus (6.4GB/s) vs the 8500GT's 128-bit memory bus (12.8GB/s). All of the other specs remain the same.

If you want a performance rating, I used to own a 6600GT (AGP version) and played HL2: Episode 1 on it. I could only play at about 1024x768 with most settings on high and 2x AA and 2x AO. With the 8500GT (in my sig), I can play it at 1280x960 with all settings on high except for water reflection (because I don't care about that) and 4x AA and 4x AO. It also has a higher frame rate with the 8500GT (around 50-60Hz+ vs 40-50Hz). Also, the HDR is amazing with the 8500GT. Couldn't really say that with the 6600GT.
 
I am looking for the cheapest possible escape to the DX10 land and the 8400GS fits that bill, but I guess I might go with the 8500 or even the 8600.
 
Why do you want a super cheap DX10 card? It won't be able to play DX10 games well, if at all.
 
The main reason I got mine was not for the extra DX10 eye candy, but for the large amount of memory (512MB) and 128-bit HDR. Having 16x AA is also a plus, but games wouldn't run well with that turned on, at least not with my card. The picture quality, hardware encoding (VC-1 and H.264), and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD HD playback were a must.

But yeah, I wouldn't plan to play many (if any) DX10 games with my card. If I did, it would be with all the DX10 eye candy turned off.

As for the 8400GS, it just doesn't have the memory bus width or bandwidth to make it effective (above 1024x768).
 
Red Falcon said:
The picture quality, hardware decoding (VC-1 and H.264), and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD HD playback were a must.
Click to expand...
Thats the only reason to own a DX10 midrange card IMO, it's the reason I bought a 8500GT as well.

Oh, NV's cards don't do VC-1 in hardware. ATI's do but it's something of a non issue since VC-1 isn't as terrible on the CPU as H264 is.
As for the 8400GS, it just doesn't have the memory bus width or bandwidth to make it effective (above 1024x768).
Click to expand...
The same could be said for all of ATI's and NV's midrange parts; they just don't have the horse power to game.
 
Actually it does use VC-1, which is in 90% of HD-DVD encoding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top