Galaxy GeForce 6600 GT SmartFlash

Overclocking:

Galaxy's GeForce 6600 GT didn't overclock quite as well as BFGTech's, despite both video cards using the same cooling solution. We managed to achieve 572/1180MHz. The core clock is slightly lower than the BFGTech 6600 GT OC that we reviewed here, but the memory clock that we achieved is exactly the same.

However, we doubt this is because the space is a little more limited due to the smaller PCB - we believe it is due to the core not being quite as susceptable to overclocking as the one on our BFGTech 6600 GT. We found that the reported temperatures on both video cards were very similar, with 1'C between the two cards at their stock clock speeds.

Final Thoughts...

As we mentioned at the start of this review, the GeForce 6600 GT has been relatively unchallenged in the mainstream for some time now. The direct competitor for the GeForce 6600 GT - the Radeon X800 128MB - is hampered by its limited availability.

Galaxy's GeForce 6600 GT Smart Flash is an interesting concept, but one that doesn't work quite as well as it should do. The buzzer alarm is supposed to turn on when the core reaches a temperature of 70 degrees C - we heated our test lab up, overclocked the video card and then fired Half-Life 2 up while monitoring the core temperature. We achieved a temperature of 71'C as reported by the BIOS and did not hear the buzzer alarm sound.

It may be that the buzzer is not configured correctly, or that the driver is reading the wrong core temperature - in all honesty, there could be any number of reasons why the buzzer failed to work during our testing. Thus, we cannot confirm whether the buzzer works or not - it seems like an interesting idea, though.

The dual BIOS is another interesting implementation, but we feel that Galaxy are catering for a market that does not exist at the moment. If there were two different BIOS configurations with different clock speeds, in a similar way to what ABIT have done with the vGuru series of video cards (we reviewed the RX600Pro-Guru here for reference purposes) then we could see the reasoning.

However, Galaxy have chosen to use the second BIOS as nothing more than a 'backup' BIOS. It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me - I mean, how many times do you flash your video card BIOS? I would class myself as a hardware enthusiast, and I enjoy the hardware modding and overclocking scene, but I've only ever flashed one video card BIOS. It would make a lot more sense if the dual BIOS was implemented on a video card like the GeForce 6800 LE, where there are additional pixel pipelines to unlock.

The NV43 GPU doesn't have anything for enthusiasts to unlock, so flashing the VGA BIOS would only be useful for increasing the default clock speeds or voltage. You can do the former with software, and the latter with a soldering iron. Maybe I'm being too sceptical, but I fail to see the need for a dual BIOS implementation on a video card. Although it has many similarities to a motherboard, regular BIOS updates are one thing that motherboards and video cards do not have in common.

Galaxy's increased clock speeds do not have any effect on the best-playable settings that could be achieved in game, but we reach the same conclusion as we did in last week's video card review: getting something extra for nothing can often tempt consumers to purchase this card over similar models, and it can usually guarantee that the GPU is more susceptible to overclocking.

In general, the card is a very capable performer for around £145, but there could be some improvements made to the bundle to allow consumers to make use of the additional features more effectively without a certain degree of guesswork. There are no issues with the card, more with the documentation that could do a better job of telling the consumer how their latest purchase works. We are not too sure whether there is a market for the dual BIOS implementation on this particular video card, but it would be a welcomed addition to a card that is favoured by the BIOS modders - such as the GeForce 6800 LE.