Pixel filling power
We'll kick things off with a look at theoretical peak fill rates and memory bandwidth. Theoretical peaks don't necessarily determine in-game performance, but they're a good place to start sizing up the GeForce 6200's capabilities. I've sorted the list below, which includes an array of low-end and mid-range PCI Express graphics options, according to multitextured fill rate.
|Core clock (MHz)||Pixel pipelines||Peak fill rate (Mpixels/s)||Texture units per pixel pipeline||Peak fill rate (Mtexels/s)||Memory clock (MHz)||Memory bus width (bits)||Peak memory bandwidth (GB/s)|
|Radeon X300 SE||325||4||1300||1||1300||400||64||3.2|
|Radeon X600 Pro||400||4||1600||1||1600||600||128||9.6|
|Radeon X600 XT||500||4||2000||1||2000||740||128||11.8|
|Radeon X700 Pro||420||8||3360||1||3360||864||128||13.8|
|Radeon X700 XT||475||8||3800||1||3800||1050||128||16.8|
|GeForce 6600 GT||500||8*||2000||1||4000||1000||128||16.0|
In terms of fill rate, the GeForce 6200 brings up the rear. With four pixel pipes and a 300MHz core clock, it can't even match the peak theoretical fill rates of the Radeon X300 series. The low core clock speed means that the card's shader units are going to be running slower than the competition, too.
In the memory bandwidth department, the GeForce 6200 looks a little more competitive. The card's 128-bit memory bus and effective 500MHz memory clock yield 8GB/sec of bandwidthbetter than the X300s but shy of the Radeon X600 Pro.
To see how these theoretical peaks pan out in the real world, let's have a look at 3DMark05's synthetic fill rate tests. Note that the drivers we're using for the 6200, X600 Pro and X300, and even the GMA 900 aren't approved by FutureMark for use with 3DMark05.
While we're looking at synthetic tests, let's have a peek at how the GeForce 6200 fares in 3DMark05's shader tests. I ran all the cards using 3DMark05's Shader Model 2.0 code path. Since the 6200 also supports Shader Model 3.0, I also ran it using the SM 3.0 code path.