A Retrospective Review and Benchmarks

• RRP: £110
• Release date: August 12th 2004 (for the PCI-E version)
• Purchased in June 2026
• Purchase Price: £16.00 (plus p&p)
• Form Factor: PCI-E
• Available as AGP: Yes
• Windows Compatibility: 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7

Introduction

Many of the cards in my collection are ones I barely noticed when they were new. During my uni years, I wasn’t particularly deep into the PC hobby. Without regular PC builds or stacks of magazines to follow, a lot of hardware simply passed me by.

That cannot be said of the GeForce 6600 GT

This was a hugely popular and, I’d argue, genuinely iconic card of its era. Gamers loved it for its price-to-performance ratio. For around £110, you could get performance in the same league as Nvidia’s higher-end 6800 cards.

Compared to the high-end Radeon X800 series, the 6600 GT also offered a much richer feature set. The X800s were still limited to DirectX 9.0b and Shader Model 2.0, while the 6600 GT brought Shader Model 3.0 and full DirectX 9.0c support to the mainstream.

Factor in its predecessor, the much-maligned FX 5600, which was a very poor performer, and this really did feel like a return to form.

At that same price point, you could suddenly play the “modern” games of the time—Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3—properly, with the eye candy turned on, rather than being stuck with cut-down DX8 paths or reduced feature modes. For many people, this was their first taste of what felt like true next-gen PC graphics without paying high-end prices.

A typical budget gaming setup might pair a 6600 GT with an Athlon 64 or Pentium 4. You could build a sensible mid-range rig and, if you later found yourself with a bit more cash, simply drop in a second 6600 GT and link them with an SLI bridge. At the time, the idea of “just add another card for more performance” felt new and genuinely exciting.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this was the recommended mid-range card of the mid-2000s, so I’m genuinely glad to have picked up this tidy-looking MSI version. They’re surprisingly rare now, considering how common they once were. I rarely see them in the sub-£10 bracket anymore, which makes this one feel that bit more special to have in the collection.

The Nvidia 6000 series

The NVIDIA GeForce 6 series, launched in April 2004, brought Shader Model 3 in a year before ATi got around to it with their X1000 series cards

The series also introduced NVIDIA PureVideo, a hardware-accelerated video decoding feature that improved video playback quality and reduced CPU usage during multimedia tasks.

Another key innovation was the introduction of Scalable Link Interface (SLI), which enabled users to combine two compatible GeForce 6 cards in a single system for increased graphics performance.

The GeForce 6 family covered a wide range of market segments, from entry-level integrated solutions like the 6100 and 6150, through mainstream models such as the 6200 and 6600, up to high-end enthusiast cards like the 6800 Ultra.

The 6000 series supported DirectX 9.0c and OpenGL 2.0.

Here is a list of the mid-tier NV43 cards that includes my MSI version:

As you can see, there sure were a lot of 6600 series cards, so not a whole lot of room for board partners to tweak each model. My MSI card has the faster memory option, so that’s good, but still ‘stock’ with no factory overclock.

Here is what GPU-z has to say about my MSI Card:

Card Stripdown

Just two push-through pins to release the heatsink and fan assemble. Not a whole lot going on beneath, the thermal paste was dry but easy to clean, reassembling posed no issue.

The heatsink did extend to cover the RAM chips using thermal pads, quite rare for a mid-range card of the era.

The Test System

Details are as follows:

• CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2Ghz Black edition
• 8Gb of 1866Mhz DDR3 Memory (showing as 3.25Gb on 32bit Windows XP and 1600Mhz limited by the platform)
• Windows XP (build 2600, Service Pack 3)
• Kingston SATA 240Gb SSD
• ASUS M4N75TD Mainboard.
• Foreceware version 93.71

Let’s see how the card compares against others tested previously, the most interesting comparison would be against the 6800GS and replacement 7600GT.

Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell (2002)

Game Overview:

Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell launched on November 19, 2002, developed by Ubi Soft Montreal. Built on the LithTech Jupiter engine (Unreal Engine precursor), it pioneered tactical stealth gameplay with groundbreaking light/shadow mechanics and realistic audio design. The game set new standards for immersion through dynamic lighting where visibility literally shaped gameplay.

Known for its revolutionary light-based stealth, Splinter Cell remains the ultimate benchmark for early 2000s GPUs. The game’s real-time shadows, particle effects, and high-poly environments brutally stress fillrate and shader performance even on modern retro hardware.

I have the GOG version of the game which has an internal benchmark that can be used.

Performance Notes:

At 640×480 The 6600GT sits well below both comparison cards, roughly 30 percent behind the 6800GS and a similar gap to the 7600GT. Early‑title fixed‑pipeline workload keeps things smooth, but shader dips are more visible here than on the bigger cards.

At 800×600 The gap widens slightly. The 6800GS stays comfortably above 150 fps while the 6600GT drops under 100 fps. The 7600GT maintains a clear generational lead, showing that NV43’s shader limits are already the bottleneck.

1024×768 This is where the 6600GT’s architecture shows its age. It falls into the mid‑70s while the 6800GS and 7600GT remain well into triple digits. Heavy shadow passes and overdraw push minimums down more sharply than on the 256 MB cards.

1280×1024 The 6600GT halves its framerate again, landing under 50 fps. Both the 6800GS and 7600GT stay around the mid‑90s, highlighting the NV43 fill‑rate and ROP limitations. Memory size still isn’t a factor; it’s pure throughput.

Overall, the MSI 6600GT performs exactly as expected. A competent mid‑range NV4x part that cannot match the 6800GS’s raw strength or the 7600GT’s later refinements.

Its scaling is clean, its behaviour is predictable, and its position in the stack is where it should be expected to be.

Unreal Tournament 2003 (2002)

Game Overview:

Released in October 2002, Unreal Tournament 2003 was built on the early version of Unreal Engine 2. It was a big leap forward from the original UT, with improved visuals, ragdoll physics, and faster-paced gameplay.

The engine used DirectX 8.1 and introduced support for pixel shaders, dynamic lighting, and high-res textures all of which made it a solid test title for early 2000s hardware.

Still a great game and well worth going back to, even if you’re mostly limited to bot matches these days. There’s even a single-player campaign of sorts, though it’s really just a ladder of bot battles.

The game holds up visually and mechanically, and it’s a good one to throw into the testing suite for older cards. The uncapped frames are pretty useful (and annoyingly rare) on these old titles.

I play a full match of DM Plunge for each run, not exactly replicable as every match will be different but the length of the match means a lot of data is collected and the average should be pretty reliable.

Performance Notes:

With everything switched on at 1280×1024 this 6600GT is achieving 121 Fps and a decent 65fps 1% low.

This is a considerable achievement for a mid-range card at the time, I can imagine upgrading to a PCI-E system with this card included from an old Geforce2 or similar and being blown away.

X2: The Threat (2003)

Game Overview:

Released for Windows in December 2003, with later ports to Mac OS X and Linux, X2: The Threat is a space trading and combat simulation developed by Egosoft. It continues the story from X: Beyond the Frontier, placing players in the role of Julian Gardna, a former pirate drawn into a conflict with a new alien threat known as the Khaak

While not tied to a widely licensed engine like Unreal, X2 introduced a new in‑house graphics engine built specifically for the X‑Universe. This engine delivered Improved ship and station models, More detailed sectors with nebulae and environmental effects, Dynamic lighting and particle effects and Support for DirectX 8.1‑class hardware, aligning it with early‑2000s GPU capabilities.

This made X2 a solid benchmark title for PCs of the era, especially for players testing mid‑range and high‑end GPUs from the GeForce 3/4 and Radeon 8500/9000 families.

This is the GOG version again and it does have an internal benchmark.

Performance Notes:

A respectable result in X2 with an average framerate of over 76fps with everything on at 1280×1024 resolution.

The 6600GT is not a long way behind the later generation card and has a nice lead over the budget Ati offering from the generation later – the X1300 pro and the very poorly performing HD2600Pro.

The game would have been a pleasure to play on a 6600GT

FarCry (2004)

Game Overview:
Far Cry launched in March 2004, developed by Crytek and built on the original CryEngine. It was a technical marvel at the time, with massive outdoor environments, dynamic lighting, and advanced AI. The game leaned heavily on pixel shaders and draw distance, making it a solid stress test for mid-2000s GPUs. It also laid the groundwork for what would later become the Crysis legacy.

I use HardwareOC FarCry Benchmark to get these results with three runs at each setting.

Performance Notes:

At minimum settings the 6600GT reaches 230 fps, which is below the ~265 fps CPU ceiling, so its lower score reflects genuine GPU limitation rather than the processor flattening the chart. Ultra quality drops it to 84.9 fps, and 6×AA brings it to 75.9 fps. The 6800GS and 7600GT sit closer to the CPU cap at this resolution, widening the gap even though all three remain comfortably smooth.

The 6600GT’s 177 fps minimum‑quality result is well under the CPU limit, showing the NV43 architecture doing all the work here. Ultra quality reduces it to 65.5 fps, and 6×AA lowers it to 56.7 fps. The 6800GS and 7600GT stay noticeably higher, but none of the cards are CPU‑bound at this resolution, so the differences are purely architectural.

At minimum settings the 6600GT delivers 126 fps, far below the CPU cap and clearly GPU‑limited. Ultra quality drops it to 46.5 fps, and 6×AA pushes it to 40.2 fps. The 6800GS and 7600GT maintain stronger numbers, but all three scale cleanly with resolution and none approach CPU‑limited behaviour at this point.

Far Cry launched the same year as the 6600GT, and the card handles it exactly as a mid‑range 2004 GPU should. At minimum settings it only brushes against the CPU limit at 800×600, and everywhere else it is GPU‑bound with stable, predictable scaling. Even at Ultra quality with 6×AA, the 6600GT stays above 40 fps at 1280×1024, making the game fully playable across all tested settings.

Doom 3 (2004)

Game Overview:
Released in August 2004, Doom 3 was built on id Tech 4 and took the series in a darker, slower direction. It’s more horror than run-and-gun, with tight corridors, dynamic shadows, and a heavy focus on atmosphere. The engine introduced unified lighting and per-pixel effects, which made it a demanding title for its time, and still a good one to test mid-2000s hardware.

The game engine is limited to 60 FPS, but it includes an in-game benchmark that can be used for testing that doesn’t have this limit.

Performance Notes:

The 6600GT reaches 88.8 fps, sitting just behind the HD2600XT cards and a little below the 6800GS at 106 fps. The 7600GT holds a clear lead at 140 fps, showing its stronger shader throughput in id Tech 4. The 6600GT remains smooth, but its NV43 limits appear in heavy shadow scenes where the bigger cards maintain higher consistency.

Anti‑aliasing hits the 6600GT hard, dropping it to 42.4 fps. The 6800GS stays at 67.8 fps and the 7600GT at 71.2 fps, widening the gap. Doom 3’s AA path leans heavily on memory bandwidth and ROP throughput, areas where the 6600GT trails both comparison cards. Still playable, but clearly mid‑range behaviour.

At 60.3 fps, the 6600GT remains usable but falls well behind the 6800GS at 77.8 fps and the 7600GT at 91.9 fps. The higher resolution exposes NV43’s fill‑rate limits, and the 256 MB cards maintain stronger stability in shadow‑heavy rooms. The 6600GT’s result is still respectable for its class.

AA at this resolution pushes the 6600GT down to 27.5 fps, marking the point where the card drops below comfortable fluidity. The 6800GS holds 44.3 fps and the 7600GT stays at 47.3 fps, showing their stronger ROP and bandwidth capabilities. This is the only configuration where the 6600GT clearly struggles.

The 6600GT runs Doom 3 smoothly at 1024×768 High, hitting 88.8 fps with no AA and staying comfortably playable even with 4×AA at 42.4 fps. At 1280×1024 it remains fine without AA at 60.3 fps, but 4×AA drops it to 27.5 fps, which is where fluidity starts to slip. Overall, Doom 3 is fully playable on the 6600GT as long as AA is kept modest, with 1024×768 High being the sweet spot.

F.E.A.R. (2005)

Game Overview:
F.E.A.R. (First Encounter Assault Recon) launched on October 17, 2005 for Windows, developed by Monolith Productions. Built on the LithTech Jupiter EX engine, it was a technical showcase for dynamic lighting, volumetric effects, and intelligent enemy AI. The game blended tactical first‑person gunplay, horror elements, and cinematic slow‑motion combat, creating an experience that stood out sharply from other shooters of the era.

The engine supported per‑pixel lighting, soft shadows, volumetric fog, and advanced particle effects, all of which pushed mid‑2000s hardware hard, especially when maximum shadow quality was enabled. F.E.A.R. became a popular benchmark title thanks to its combination of heavy GPU lighting workloads and CPU‑intensive AI routines, which were among the most advanced in any shooter at the time.

The 6600GT reaches 26 fps here, well behind the 6800GS at 35 fps and far below the 7600GT at 46 fps. FEAR’s heavy shadowing and soft‑particle effects expose NV43’s shader limits sharply, and minimums drop to 14 fps in busy scenes. Playable only in a technical sense, but noticeably slower than the stronger mid‑range cards.

Anti‑aliasing pushes the 6600GT down to 15 fps, with lows of 8 fps. The 6800GS holds 25 fps and the 7600GT stays at 46 fps, widening the gap dramatically. FEAR’s AA path is extremely demanding, and the 6600GT’s limited ROP and bandwidth resources make this setting impractical.

FEAR is a tough match for the 6600GT at 1024×768 Max. Without AA it hovers around the mid‑20s, dipping into the teens during combat, and with 4×AA it falls into the low teens. The game can run, but it never feels fluid at these settings. To achieve comfortable playability, the 6600GT needs reduced shadows or a drop to medium‑quality presets.

Battlefield 2 (2005)

Game Overview:
Battlefield 2 launched on June 21, 2005, developed by DICE and published by EA. It was a major evolution for the franchise, introducing modern warfare, class-based combat, and large-scale multiplayer battles with up to 64 players. Built on the Refractor 2 engine, it featured dynamic lighting, physics-based ragdolls, and destructible environments that pushed mid-2000s hardware.

Performance Notes

Battlefield 2 puts the 6600GT in the lower mid range of the chart. At 1152×864 on High with no AA it averages 52 fps with lows of 27. This places it behind the 7300GT, the HD2600Pro and the HD2600XT cards, and well behind the 7600GT and 8600GT which sit in the mid nineties to low hundreds. The 6800GS is also clearly ahead with an average of 66. The 6600GT does not collapse, but it sits a tier below the stronger mid range parts.

With 4×AA enabled the gap widens. The 6600GT drops to an average of 31 fps with lows of 17. This matches the X1300Pro and the HD2600Pro almost exactly. The HD2600XT cards stay in the low fifties and the 7600GT holds the mid sixties. The 8600GT remains well ahead. The 6600GT stays functional but loses the headroom it had at no AA.

Battlefield 2 is playable on the 6600GT at High settings without AA. The average of 52 fps and the lows in the high twenties give a smooth experience in most situations. Enabling 4×AA pushes the card too far. The average drops into the low thirties and the lows fall into the teens. This is still usable but no longer comfortable. The sweet spot for the 6600GT is High settings with AA disabled.

Need for Speed: Carbon (2006)

Game Overview:

Need for Speed: Carbon released on October 31, 2006, developed by EA Black Box and published by Electronic Arts. It continued the street‑racing direction established by Underground and Most Wanted, shifting the series toward canyon duels, crew‑based racing, and a darker, more stylised presentation. Built on an enhanced version of the EAGL engine, it featured motion‑blur effects, HDR‑style lighting, depth‑of‑field, and detailed night‑time environments that pushed mid‑2000s GPUs far harder than earlier entries. Its mix of open‑city racing and narrow mountain passes made it a demanding benchmark for lower‑end hardware, especially when post‑processing and texture quality were set high.

Performance Notes:

The 6600GT reaches 38 fps here, sitting behind the 6800GS at 46 fps and well below the 7600GT at 61 fps. Carbon’s early shader load and motion‑blur effects expose NV43’s limits, and minimums of 28 fps show occasional dips in busy street sections. Still playable, but clearly mid‑range behaviour compared to the stronger cards.

At 28 fps the 6600GT trails the 6800GS at 35 fps and the 7600GT at 45 fps. The heavier resolution pushes the card into the high‑20s, with minimums of 20 fps during dense traffic or heavy post‑processing. Usable, but noticeably slower than the competition.

Max settings drop the 6600GT to 11 fps, with lows of 8 fps. The 6800GS holds 14 fps and the 7600GT stays at 30 fps, showing how much NV43 struggles with Carbon’s full shader and lighting load. This setting is not realistically playable on the 6600GT.

AA pushes the 6600GT down to 9 fps, with minimums of 7 fps. The 6800GS sits at 13 fps and the 7600GT at 27 fps, widening the gap further. This is the least playable configuration for the 6600GT, falling well below fluidity.

Medieval II: Total War (2006)

Game Overview:

Released on 10 November 2006, Medieval II: Total War was developed by Creative Assembly and published by Sega. It’s the fourth entry in the Total War series, built on the enhanced Total War engine with support for Shader Model 2.0 and 3.0. The game blends turn-based strategy with real-time battles, set during the High Middle Ages, and includes historical scenarios like Agincourt.

I run the intro to the Agincourt battle, this is in-engine so does render as if you are playing the game and will give like-for-like results in all scenarios.

Performance Notes:

The 6600GT reaches 41 fps here, sitting behind the 6800GS at 54 fps and well below the 7600GT at 73 fps. Medieval II’s SM1.0 path is still fairly light, but large armies and heavy unit shadows push minimums down to 18 fps. Playable, but clearly mid‑range behaviour compared to the stronger cards.

AA barely changes the 6600GT’s result, landing at 40 fps with lows of 18 fps. The 6800GS holds 53 fps and the 7600GT stays at 68 fps, widening the gap slightly. Still usable, but the card shows the same shader‑limited pattern seen in other titles from this era.

The SM2.0 path is much heavier, dropping the 6600GT to 9 fps with lows of 3 fps. The 6800GS manages 16 fps and the 7600GT reaches 21 fps, but all three cards struggle here. This setting is not realistically playable on the 6600GT.

AA on the SM2.0 path pushes the 6600GT down to 6 fps, with lows of 2 fps. Even the 6800GS only reaches 16 fps and the 7600GT sits at 20 fps. This is the least playable configuration for the 6600GT, falling far below fluidity.

Medieval II is generally playable on the 6600GT at 1024×768 Medium, where it reaches 41 fps with lows of 18 fps and behaves similarly with 2×AA applied. The SM2.0 Best presets are far heavier, dropping the card to 9 fps with lows of 3 fps, and even lower with 4×AA, making those settings impractical. Overall, the 6600GT handles the SM1.0 Medium path well enough for smooth battles, but the advanced SM2.0 options fall outside its comfortable range.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Game Overview:
Oblivion launched on March 20, 2006, developed by Bethesda Game Studios. Built on the Gamebryo engine, it introduced a vast open world, dynamic weather, and real-time lighting. The game was a technical leap for RPGs, with detailed environments and extensive mod support that kept it alive well beyond its release window (it’s just had a re-release recently).

Known for its sprawling world, Oblivion remains a benchmark title for mid-2000s hardware. The game’s reliance on draw distance and lighting effects makes GPUs struggle.

The benchmark run involves a run to the top of the hill opposite the sewer entrance, killing the two bandits on the way. The weapon is kept out for the duration (which costs about 5fps if you can believe it).

Performance Notes:

At 800×600 the 6600GT delivers mid‑range results that track cleanly with its NV43 limits. Medium settings land at 51 fps with lows of 24 fps, making general exploration smooth but showing dips in foliage‑heavy outdoor areas where Oblivion’s alpha blending and shader load spike. Ultra High pushes the card down to 26 fps with lows of 8 fps, clearly stressing its limited shader throughput compared to the 6800GS and 7600GT, both of which maintain noticeably higher averages. Adding 4×AA keeps the 6600GT in the mid‑20s but doesn’t improve consistency, as minimums remain in single digits. Overall, 800×600 is playable on the 6600GT at Medium, borderline at Ultra High, and visibly strained once AA is applied.

At 1024×768 the 6600GT drops into a lower performance tier, reaching 41 fps at Medium with lows of 22 fps. This preset remains usable, but the gap to the 7600GT and 8600GT widens as Oblivion’s shader and shadow workload scales with resolution. Ultra High reduces the card to 21 fps with lows of 8 fps, making combat and dense outdoor scenes noticeably sluggish. With 4×AA applied, the 6600GT stays at 21 fps but minimums fall to 6 fps, leaving the card well below fluidity. The stronger mid‑range cards maintain playable results at this resolution, but the 6600GT sits firmly in the “compromised” zone unless settings are reduced.

Across 800×600 and 1024×768 the 6600GT delivers solid mid‑range performance at Medium settings, landing around 51 fps at 800×600 and 41 fps at 1024×768 with minimums in the low‑20s. These presets remain comfortably playable, with dips mainly in foliage‑heavy outdoor areas. Ultra High is far tougher: the card falls into the mid‑20s at 800×600 and low‑20s at 1024×768, with single‑digit lows that make combat noticeably sluggish. Adding 4×AA doesn’t change averages much but pushes minimums even lower. Overall, Oblivion is smooth on the 6600GT at Medium, borderline at Ultra High, and not viable with AA on the higher presets.

Test Drive Unlimited (2006)

Game Overview:
Released on September 5, 2006, Test Drive Unlimited was developed by Eden Games and published by Atari. It marked a major technical leap for the Test Drive franchise, built on the proprietary Twilight Engine, which supported streaming open-world assets, real-time weather, and Shader Model 3.0 effects. The game ran on DirectX 9, with enhanced support for HDR lighting and dynamic shadows, optimized for both PC and seventh-gen consoles.

At launch, TDU was praised for its ambitious scale, vehicle fidelity, and online integration, though some critics noted AI quirks, limited damage modelling, and performance bottlenecks on lower-end rigs. The PC version especially benefited from community mods and unofficial patches that expanded car libraries and improved stability.

I do a high speed run up and down the same streets in a loop for each run, traffic density is medium but still will add an element of randomness but it still gives a good reflection of the performance you can expect.

Performance Notes:

At 1024×768 High the 6600GT lands at 22 fps with lows of 11 fps, well behind the 6800GS at 32 fps and the 7600GT at 41 fps. The game’s heavy post‑processing, HDR‑style lighting and long‑distance road rendering expose NV43’s limited shader and fill‑rate resources, causing noticeable dips during dense traffic or fast‑moving scenes. Enabling 4×AA drops the 6600GT to 18 fps with lows of 9 fps, widening the gap further as the stronger cards maintain mid‑20s to low‑30s. Overall, 1024×768 High is borderline on the 6600GT, and AA pushes it into clearly unplayable territory.

At 800×600 the 6600GT lands at 30 fps on Medium with lows of 12 fps, placing it above the X1300 series but behind the 7300GT and far below the 7600GT, which reaches 54 fps. TDU’s long‑distance road rendering, heavy post‑processing and HDR‑style lighting expose NV43’s limited shader throughput, causing dips during fast driving or dense traffic. The 6600GT behaves consistently across the Medium‑tier cards, but once AA is applied the gap becomes obvious: the 7300GT holds 32 fps at High + 4×AA while the 6600GT would fall well below that, making High‑tier visuals unrealistic. In this resolution group the 6600GT sits firmly in the lower mid‑range bracket, playable only at Medium and clearly strained at High.

TDU is somewhat playable on the 6600GT at 800×600 Medium, where it reaches around 30 fps with acceptable consistency. High settings — especially with 4×AA — push the card into the teens and single‑digit lows, making the experience noticeably sluggish. Overall, the 6600GT can handle TDU at 800×600 Medium, but anything above that falls outside its comfortable range.

Crysis (2007)

Game Overview:
Crysis launched in November 2007 and quickly became the go-to benchmark title for PC gamers. Built on CryEngine 2, it pushed hardware to the limit with massive draw distances, dynamic lighting, destructible environments, and full DirectX 10 support.

The Run is down into the first occupied village taking out the bad guys, it’s not an identical run each time.

Performance Notes:

At 800×600 Low the 6600GT reaches 34 fps with lows of 22 fps, putting it ahead of the X1300 series but behind the 7300GT and well below the HD2600Pro, which hits 75 fps. Crysis’s dense foliage, alpha‑heavy vegetation and deferred lighting expose NV43’s limited shader throughput, causing dips whenever multiple AI units or heavy jungle scenes appear. The card behaves consistently within the lower mid‑range group, staying playable but without much headroom. This preset is the only one where the 6600GT maintains broadly acceptable fluidity.

At 1024×768 Low the 6600GT drops to 28 fps with lows of 16 fps, falling behind the 7600GT at 48 fps and the HD2600XT at 62 fps. The resolution increase pushes NV43 into a heavier shader and bandwidth load, and Crysis’s lighting model amplifies this, producing dips during firefights or large open areas. The 6800GS sits at 36 fps, showing how the older NV40 architecture handles Crysis slightly better at this tier. The 6600GT remains technically playable, but minimums in the teens make the experience noticeably compromised.

Medium settings at 800×600 push the 6600GT down to 11 fps with lows of 2 fps, making this preset entirely unplayable. Even the stronger mid‑range cards struggle here — the HD2600XT only reaches 45 fps and the 7600GT sits at 20 fps — showing how sharply Crysis ramps up shader load once Medium is selected. For the 6600GT, the increased lighting complexity and heavier vegetation shading overwhelm NV43 immediately, leaving the card far outside its comfortable range.

Crysis is playable on the 6600GT only at 800×600 Low, where it reaches mid‑30s with acceptable consistency. At 1024×768 Low it becomes noticeably sluggish, dipping into the teens often enough to affect fluidity. Medium settings, even at 800×600, drop the card into single‑digit lows and are not viable. Overall, the 6600GT can run Crysis at 800×600 Low, but anything above that falls outside its realistic performance envelope.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl (2007)

Game Overview:
Released in March 2007, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl was developed by GSC Game World and runs on the X-Ray engine. It’s a gritty survival shooter set in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, blending open-world exploration with horror elements and tactical combat. The engine supports DirectX 8 and 9, with optional dynamic lighting and physics that can push older hardware to its limits.

The Benchmark run is through the first village and out into the wilderness.

Performance Notes:

The 6600GT lands at 38 fps with lows of 18 fps, placing it behind the 6800GS at 44 fps and well below the 7600GT at 64 fps. STALKER’s static‑lighting path is still fairly heavy on alpha effects, shadow volumes and foliage density, and NV43 shows its limits whenever multiple NPCs or outdoor firefights stack up. The HD2600XT cards sit comfortably in the mid‑60s, widening the gap further. The 6600GT behaves consistently within the lower mid‑range group, staying above the X1300 series but clearly outpaced by the stronger mid‑2000s cards. Overall, 1024×768 Static Lighting is playable on the 6600GT, but dips into the high‑teens appear often enough to remind you it’s working hard.

STALKER is just about playable on the 6600GT at 1024×768 Static Lighting, where it reaches 38 fps with lows of 18 fps. Admittedly, there is no combat in my test run but we are also on Max settings including a little AA, so easy to bring things back another notch or two.

Assassin’s Creed (2007)

Game Overview:

Assassin’s Creed launched in November 2007, developed by Ubisoft Montreal and built on the Anvil engine. It introduced open-world stealth gameplay, parkour movement, and historical settings wrapped in sci-fi framing. The first entry takes place during the Third Crusade, with cities like Damascus, Acre, and Jerusalem rendered in impressive detail for the time.

The Benchmark run is up to the top of the town and back down again to the gate at the beginning of the game after the tutorial part is finished.

Performance Notes:

At 800×600 with the lowest quality preset the 6600GT averages 51 fps with lows of 11 fps, putting it behind the 7300GT at 72 fps and the 6800GS at 57 fps, but ahead of the X1300 series and the 7300SE. Assassin’s Creed’s early DX9 renderer leans heavily on alpha effects, crowd density and post‑processing, and NV43 shows its limits whenever multiple NPCs or heavy geometry overlap. The card’s high difference value (40 fps) reflects sharp dips during traversal and combat, but overall fluidity remains acceptable. In this preset group the 6600GT behaves like a lower mid‑range part: playable, but clearly outpaced by the stronger cards.

At 1024×768 with mid‑range settings the 6600GT drops to 23 fps with lows of 8 fps, falling well behind the 7600GT at 42 fps and the 8600GT at 60 fps. The HD2600XT cards sit in the mid‑50s to mid‑60s, widening the gap further. Assassin’s Creed’s shader load scales sharply with resolution, and NV43’s limited throughput becomes obvious in busy city areas, rooftop traversal and combat sequences. The dips into single‑digit lows make this preset noticeably compromised, and the card struggles to maintain consistency even in quieter scenes.

Max settings at 1024×768 push the 6600GT down to 19 fps with lows of 10 fps, placing it far behind the 7600GT at 36 fps and the 8600GT at 52 fps. The HD2600XT cards remain in the mid‑40s, showing how much heavier the full shader and detail load becomes. Once post‑FX is enabled, the 6600GT collapses to 7 fps with lows of 3 fps, making traversal and combat effectively unplayable. This preset is well outside NV43’s comfort zone, with the renderer’s heavy post‑processing overwhelming the card immediately.

Assassin’s Creed is playable on the 6600GT only at 800×600 with the lowest quality preset, where it averages 51 fps and maintains acceptable consistency. At 1024×768 mid settings it becomes noticeably sluggish, dipping into single‑digit lows often enough to affect fluidity. Max settings — especially with post‑FX — drop the card into the teens and single digits, making them entirely impractical. Overall, the 6600GT can handle Assassin’s Creed at 800×600 low, but anything above that falls outside its realistic performance envelope.

Synthetic Benchmarks

3d Mark 2001SE

The 6600GT scores 25,635, putting it in the middle of the chart: clearly above the X1300XT, X1300Pro and the low‑end 7300SE/6500 group, but behind the 7300GT and the HD2600 series, which sit in the high‑20k to low‑30k range. The stronger mid‑range cards — 7600GT, 6800GS and 8600GT — form a higher tier in the low‑30k to mid‑35k region, with the FireGL V7200 and 7600GT SLI stretching further ahead. Overall, the 6600GT lands exactly where expected for a 2004 mid‑range part: competitive in older DX8/DX9 synthetics, but not challenging the upper‑mid cards.

3d Mark 2003

The 6600GT scores 8,579, placing it just below the 7600GS and the HD2600Pro/7300GT cluster in the 9k–10.7k range. Above that, the HD2600XT cards, 6800GS and 7600GT form a clear mid‑range tier in the 12k–14k region, with the 8600GT, FireGL V7200 and 7600GT SLI stretching further ahead. Below the 6600GT, the X1300XT sits close at 8,203 before the chart drops sharply into the X1300Pro, X1600SE, 7300SE and 6500 group. Overall, the 6600GT lands mid‑pack: competitive with the lower mid‑range cards, but clearly outpaced by the stronger SM2.0/SM3.0 parts.

3d Mark 2006

The 6600GT scores 2,042, placing it below the X1300XT and well behind the 7300GT and 7600GS, which sit in the 2.9k–3.2k range. Above that, the 6800GS and 7600GT form a mid‑range tier in the 3.4k–4.4k region, with the HD2600XT cards, the 8600GT and the FireGL V7200 stretching further ahead into the 5.7k–7.2k band. At the top, the 7600GT SLI configuration reaches nearly 8k. Below the 6600GT, the X1300Pro, X1600SE, 7300SE and 6500 mark the low‑end slope. Overall, the 6600GT lands lower than in the earlier synthetics, showing the expected drop‑off as 3DMark06’s heavier SM3.0 and HDR workloads favour newer architectures.

Unigine Sanctuary

The 6600GT scores 585, placing it below the X1300XT and the 7300GT, which sit in the 670–722 range, and well behind the 6800GS at 785. Above that, the HD2600Pro and 7600GT form a mid‑range cluster around 1,065, with the HD2600XT cards, FireGL V7200 and 7600GT SLI stretching further into the 1,480–1,960 band. At the top, the 8600GT and HD6550D reach just over 2,100. Below the 6600GT, the X1300Pro, X1600SE, 6500 and 7300SE mark the low‑end slope. Overall, the 6600GT lands lower than in the older synthetics, showing the expected drop‑off as Sanctuary’s heavy shader and lighting workload favours newer architectures.

Power and Heat

Under a sustained run of Unigine Sanctuary the system draws a steady 178w, not much less than the same system running the 6800GS was using.

This was surprising considering the much lower TDP of the mid-range card, at 47 down from 70

Like the 6800, the fan runs at a fixed speed and is intrusively loud and annoying.

The GPU temperature is reported at 40 degrees at idle ramping up to a steady 80/81 Degrees celcius under a full load – 15 minutes of the Unigine Sanctuary benchmark.

Conclusions

How much slower than the 6800GS?

Averaging the gaps across all games where both cards were tested, the 6600GT comes out roughly 30 percent slower than the 6800GS. This matches the pattern seen in individual titles.

• Splinter Cell: 6600GT 74.6 vs 6800GS 136.9 → 45 percent slower
• UT2003: 6600GT 121 vs 6800GS 156 → 22 percent slower
• Test Drive Unlimited (1024×768 High): 22 vs 32 → 31 percent slower
• Crysis (800×600 Low): 34 vs 32 → slightly faster, but an outlier
• Crysis (1024×768 Low): 28 vs 36 → 22 percent slower
• Assassin’s Creed (1024×768 mid preset): 23 vs 30 → 23 percent slower

Across the whole dataset, the 6600GT consistently trails the 6800GS by around one‑third.

How much faster is the 7600GT?

Using the same averaging method, the 7600GT ends up roughly 60 percent faster than the 6600GT across the game tests.

Individual titles show the same pattern:

• Splinter Cell: 140 vs 75 → about 85 percent faster
• UT2003: 158 vs 121 → 30 percent faster
• Test Drive Unlimited (1024×768 High): 41 vs 22 → 86 percent faster
• Crysis (1024×768 Low): 48 vs 28 → 71 percent faster
• Assassin’s Creed (1024×768 mid preset): 42 vs 23 → 83 percent faster

Not a bad generational update there.

Summary

The 6600GT arrived at a time when mid range buyers were used to small steps forward. This card changed that. It delivered a clear jump in speed over the FX5600 and FX5700 generation and left the GeForce 4 Ti series far behind. Games looked better and ran better thanks to Shader Model 3 support and a far more efficient pipeline. For a mainstream buyer this was the first mid range card that felt genuinely modern.

Older DX8 and early DX9 titles show this clearly. The 6600GT handles them with ease and often feels closer to high end hardware from the previous year. This is the part of the story that modern test suites do not always reveal. The card was built for that era and it excelled in it.

The comparison with the 6800GS is more grounded. The 6600GT is about 33 percent slower on average. That sounds like a large gap until you look at the launch prices. The GS sold for £169.99 and the 6600GT for £110. That is a saving of about 35 percent.

The performance and the price match almost perfectly. Buyers who chose the 6600GT got two thirds of the speed for two thirds of the cost.

The replacement 7600GT shows how fast mid range performance was moving. It is around 60 percent faster across the games tested. This does not make the 6600GT look weak. It shows how aggressive the generational pace was in the mid two thousands.

There is one more advantage that matters for retro users. The 6600GT has full Windows 98 compatibility. This gives it a unique place in the timeline. It can run late nineties and early two thousands titles with excellent speed while still supporting newer DX9 features. For people building period correct systems this makes the card far more flexible than many of its rivals.

Taken together the 6600GT sits exactly where it should. It was a major leap over the previous generation. It matched its price bracket well. It remained useful in lighter DX9 engines for years. It also kept full support for Windows 98 which gives it lasting value for retro builds. The numbers reflect its place in the market very clearly.

Links

Some further reading:

https://uk.pcmag.com/graphics-cards/7577/bfg-geforce-6600-gt-oc

https://www.guru3d.com/review/geforce-6600-gt-reference-review

https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2004/09/4162-2

Ash