6800 Ultra VS X800 XT

[Spyder]

Begin the nVidia VS ATI war here.

I just read the PCGamer review of each card. I thought the reviews were very informative, but the scores they gave didnt make any sense when you look at the information. 6800 got a 90% and the x800 xt got a 93%.

Now, I prefer nVidia... but that isnt the reason i disagree. If you look at the scores in the mag, nVidia scored higher in every single department except Far Cry (dunno why). 3D Mark, UT2k4, etc, nvidia was higher...but not by much. The only reason they stated for giving ATi the higher score was the fact that the 6800 requires 2 12v plugs. People whine about that, but i dont see the problem. Power supplies are getting larger and larger anyway....

From what i read, If you have the power supply for it (which all of you should ;)) then go with the 6800. Its core architecture is faster, and it supports DX 9.0c (not even released, and the x800 doesnt fully support it). PCGamer hinted at the fact that the 6800 would probably perform better if they actually had DX 9.0c to test it with, but that will just have to be seen in the future.

Keep in mind: Both of these cards are AMAZINGLY fast. PCGamer had to use the highest end Athlon 64 FX-51 CPU just to be able to get noticable differences. In most of their "lower" end PC's (P4/Athlong XP/64's around 3ghz) the cards looked identical. The only real reason to choose one over the other at this point is like choosing a baseball hat. They all serve the same purpose, it just depends on which name you want to show off ;)

[@gent-Orange]

Nvidia...6800 Retarded power consumption\uses up 2 slots\High heat output\LOUD.

Radeon X800 pro\XT... far Lower power consumption than 6800\uses one slot \smaller heat sink and fan than the 9800XT\Runs cool\close to noiseless output\performance equivalent to the 6800.

The choice is clear...Fresca! :P

[ferret]

@O beat me to it. ATI > nVidia.

[nOOB]

well, from what i have heard the new nvidia card isnt all that loud and it doesnt run as hot as the oldermodles(From the screen savers when they reviewed the card but they just switched their site and i cant find the artical). PCgamer gave it a 90 because of the Power need. Now the card will run on a smaller power supplie but that means you are playing with fire. It may lock up it may not.

As for the nvidia over ATI or ATI over nvidia. That is all personally preferance.

For example i like nvidia because of some bad device conflicks and bad drivers. I am told that the drivers are fix but I still see driver issues with my friends card. Just about ever nvidia i have touch or used has been flawless.

Now i know a lot of people have had the same expirence i have had but flipped.

Once hardware has proved them self, as nvidia and ATI have, then it is all based personally prefrence. Just read the debats from the past.

[Spyder]

@O, the point is that its not equivalent to the 6800. Thats like saying the FX is equivalent to the 9800. When it comes to stats, nVidia won this round. If you want to choose the card over cosmetic differences, go ahead. I know that my computer can handle the power it needs, so its not really that retarded.

[ferret]

I haven't seen any benchmarks where nVidia had higher scores. On a hand full of OpenGL "nVidia - The Way Its Meant To Be Played" games that are optimized to nVidia I saw that the 6800 scored better, but on everything else I've seen the 800XT in the lead.

[Spyder]

GeForce 6800 Ultra

3DMark03: 11,394
Aquamark3: Score: 57,765; GFX: 8,724
Quake III: 1280x960: 368, 330 fps
UT2k3: 1280x960: 222fps
Splinter Cell: 1280x960: 65fps
Halo: 1280x960: 69fps
Far Cry: 1280x960: 54, 37 fps


Radeon X800 XT P.E.

3DMark03: 11,361
Aquamark3: Score: 55,320; GFX: 7,854
Quake III: 1280x960: 351, 291 fps
UT2k3: 1280x960: 222fps
Splinter Cell: 1280x960: 63fps
Halo: 1280x960: 63fps
Far Cry: 1280x960: 55, 52 fps


thats from PCGamer. Like i said, 6800 scored higher on everything other than far cry. I can scan the articles if you want to read it.

[ferret]

Go look at image quality benchmarks. 6800 can pull ahead in 'stock' benchmarks, but as has been the case for 2 years, once you turn anti-aliasing and anisotropic filters on, the 800X smashes the 6800, sometimes by a huge amount.

With full filtering on and super high image quality, the 800XT Pro (The cheap version) can beat the top tier 6800s.

Since with a card this powerful with so much speed to spare, I'd be using the image filters and quality settings, my vote goes to ATi still.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index.html

Oh, the thing about Farcry.. No nVidia cards work well on Farcry. No one seems to know why, they have issues with the Shader for some reason. Its a driver issue, one that's been plaguing nVidia for some time with multiple games. Its mainly because they don't adhere to DX9 standards in some regards, and use their own internal language, which they then translate back to DX9, etc.

[Spyder]

Hmm, those benchmarks do show the x800 having higher scores... but i'd wait until dx 9.0c comes out. Those stats also show how big a difference drivers make in the performance, so i'm just going to wait.

[@gent-Orange]

@O, the point is that its not equivalent to the 6800. Thats like saying the FX is equivalent to the 9800. When it comes to stats, nVidia won this round. If you want to choose the card over cosmetic differences, go ahead. I know that my computer can handle the power it needs, so its not really that retarded.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Cosmetic differences? Maybe you need to rephrase that. Insane power consumption is not cosmetic. Taking up 2 PCI slots is not cosmetic. High heat output is not cosmetic.Noise levels are not cosmetic.Having a reduced heat sink is not cosmetic,it only illustrates the fact that the X800 runs cool.

I choose a card on it's performance,price, and quality. Three thing that Nvidea have, to date, failed in over the last 2+ years. As for your view of the 2 cards performance, You are wrong.

There have been many reviews on these cards and a good number of benchmarks. Both cards are similar in performance, BUT the ATI wins every time due to the same details in my first post. So you go out and buy the 6800 and enjoy it. I'll get the ATI and not worry about upgrading my power supply and adding 3 more fans to keep my case cool.

[Spyder]

thats what i mean. I already have 7 case fans and a 550w psu. I wouldnt have to upgrade anything. I dont mind the noise, i'm used to it.

[ferret]

thats what i mean. I already have 7 case fans and a 550w psu. I wouldnt have to upgrade anything. I dont mind the noise, i'm used to it.

Yes, but the majority of people DON'T. For you, those issues don't matter, but for the rest of us, those considerations, on top of the 800X's higher performance when image quality settings are on, puts ATi way ahead.

[Spyder]

Well as of right now i would probably go with the X800, but i'm going to wait for 2 reasons. I'm going to wait until the next batch comes out (like the 5950 + 9800 XT did) so that the prices drop on these new cards. I also want to see how the 6800 performs when dx9.0c is released. I have no idea what sort of difference it will make, but if we find out that all the things that nvidia did under the hood for 9.0c compatability means that for 9.0c games the 6800 absolutely dominates, then i would go with it.

[ferret]

You may find that it makes almost no difference ;p nVidia still doesn't follow DX standards, 9.0b or 9.0c, in their texturers. They have their own language that they then translate back to something DX understands. That step will always slow them down.

[Scurvey Dog]

just wait untill DxX!!!

ohh and ATI sux

[nOOB]

You may find that it makes almost no difference ;p nVidia still doesn't follow DX standards, 9.0b or 9.0c, in their texturers. They have their own language that they then translate back to something DX understands. That step will always slow them down.

Umm bet yet is is 9.0c complitent.

[ferret]

I think you meant "But yet it is 9.0c complient"?

Of course it is, externally. Internally, it has to do extra steps in order to translate from 'nVidia code' to 'DirectX code' .. ATi simply follows the DirectX standard, and as a result, gets better performance.

[nOOB]

once again it is just about the same in every aspect so it comes down to personally preferance.

[ferret]

No, its not. Have you read anything we posted? GF6800 scores better by a hair when all performance options and no image quality options are on. When full image quality is on, X800 stomps GF6800 flat, no questions asked.

It may be "personal preferance" since no games exist that can stress either card (Until Unreal 3, anyways), but by the numbers, the X800 is better both performance wise and hardware requirement wise.

[nOOB]

once again it is just about the same in every aspect so it comes down to personally preferance.

[@gent-Orange]

Me smacks head against wall.

I see some people can read but have a difficult time understanding :(

[nOOB]

@O - Once again this comes down to personall opinons. I dont think 10fps hell even 20 fps is any big deal running a game at 1600x1200 and all the effects on. I dont have the money nor the box to handle that, hell i dont even have a monitor to handel it. But to some of you it seems that it does matter. to you i say more power to you but in the end remember that the avg. gamer hell even the more advance gamer wont use AA or anything because they want the performence boost from not running it. Here is where you think i am nuts right? All i need to ask is when you play/played CS didnt every one tweak the hell out of the game for more FPS? thats what i thought. One other major key. you will NEVER see the same benchmark scores or performence as the people who reviewed the card or as ATI and nvidia claim. The only way to do it is reinstall XP, run the driver updates and load the game. every piece of software, drivers, hardware installed thus after WILL effect you proformence. You can agure it till ur blue in the face i dont really care, it does effect the profmence of the computer. Why? because the OS needs to use cpu cycles to deal with it all.

Oh, you bang ur head against the wall because I wont drop the point of it all being a matter of opinon. To me the cards are the same. nvidia does somthing to boost proformence over here and ATI does somthing different to boost profomence over there. If they were the same card then why the **** would the be compateing? they would have the same benchmarks the same everything. The point is they are trying to get an edge over each other. Personally i dont gave 2 cents whos is faster, all i care is that when i put the card into my computer i get zero problems. nvidia has property IMHO, ATI does not. Though the key is i havnt tried any of the newer ATIs so maybe it is different now but ATI screwed me once so until nvidia scwers me i will stay with them.

I could set here till i am blue in the face. this debate is never going to end. It is just like the debates over mobo, HD, soundcards, ect.

BTW, the poke at my intellect was umm, to put it simple, false. My spelling may suck but there is a reason for that. That is a different topic that i am not going to even go to.

FUN FACT: ATX will be replaced sometime this summer too BTX i believe is the name. Bigger better form facter. Kinda like ATA is being replaced by SATA. So it doesnt matter what these two cards can do because you may not be able to use them after the new top of the line hardware comes out later this summer becaues the connecters are different. At least the one to the mobo.

[ferret]

I dont have the money nor the box to handle that, hell i dont even have a monitor to handel it.

This is one thing we've pointed out, nOOB. The X800 will run on a lower end system with a regular old power supply, while the 6800 REQUIRES a 450watt PS and two molex connectors.

[nOOB]

.....I ment i dont have the CPU to handle a 400 dallor card. hell i got my 450 watt AMD approved PSU with my case for a bit over 100 bucks. works freaking great.

oh btw, the nvidia card can run on lower systems. Many people have ran them on 300watt psu and it ran fine as i pointed out before. The 450watt is a recommend spec, u know like on game how there is a recommended spec and required?

one last thing, i looked through the Toms hardware review and at all the pics. It may just be my eyes but I dont notice any difference between ATI and nvidias screens.

damn it i keep finding stuff to reply too... With FryCry, my Ti4200 128mb ran the game fine at medium settings for the most part. particals were set to low. FPS was fine, game still looked great.

FUN FACT #2: nVidia would have gotten the HL2 seal had it not been for on minor rule that value put into see who gets it. Value was leaning towards nvidia but when they put the cards up against each other, they had to use the lastest public version of their drivers. nVidia hadnt release thier updated dx9 drivers so it got its ass kicked. Later test showed that it was about 10 or so FPS of ATI with the non-released drivers witch oddly would have had Value going with nvidia over ATI. I dont have any sources for where i read this but at the time i read it more then once. Hell even nvidia had parts of their site release to support HL2 and has taken it down due to the loss.

[@gent-Orange]

I have to say that I have a close friend of mine that is a comp tech and was always a BIG Nvidea fan, as was I. He always put ATI down for the same reason as you do. He wouldn't go near ATI because they always gave him problems. He now owns a 9600 and has told me that he will never go back to the all mighty Gforce. ATI had problems at the beginning, but today you will be hard pressed to find ATI owners bitching about how their cards suk. I had an 8500 and upgraded to the 9600Pro. I have had a total of "0" problems with both cards and the picture quality was always light years ahead of Nvidea. They have tried everything to compete with ATI, including "tweaking" their drivers to get more fps, but at the price of picture quality. It was laughable.
Now they put out a product that is "IN MY OPINION" a joke. WOW IT"S FAST. That's the only positive thing I can say about the card. To say these cards are "just about the same in every aspect" is ludicrous. Performance may be similar but at what cost? My fist post here pointed out just how different these cards are. Did you read it? If so then you should realize why I'm beating my head against the wall. Understand that these cards are no where near being similar.
As for running the card with only one connector, forget it. But they will release a few "lower line" 6800s with one power connector, but the difference in speed will be noticeable.

And I couldn't care less how bad your spelling is. My good friend S.e.V.e.N cant spell for S***. Try IeSpell
it integrates itself into your browser. Just highlight what you typed and check it.

http://download.com.com/redir?pid=10220980&merid=6196966&mfgid=6196966&edId=3&siteId=4&oId=3000-2378-10220980&ontId=2378&ltype=dl_dlnow&lop=link&destUrl=%2F3001-2378-10220980.html

Fun Fact #3 AGP will be replaced with PCI Express which will allow for twice the band with and full duplex.

[nOOB]

ur reason for liking ATI over nvidia is the same reason i like nvidia over ATI withc i think i pointed out in my first post. no? prooly i typed it but i think i did =D

[@gent-Orange]

Actually no. I have owned both Nvidea and ATI cards and haven't had any problems with either. I prefer ATI because their cards are superior to Nvidea. As I said , I used to be a nvidea lover untill I switched over to ATI. Then I saw the light. :idea:

[nOOB]

alright now we are getting somewhere ;) well, i will agree the old top of the line ATI card are better then the nvidia cards. nVidia released a sub par card. These new cards though, the next batch of cards for PCI express will be interesting because that will be about the time i am looking to upgrade.

I dont know if you have seen the Alienware demo at E3 but it was friggin cool. To sum it up, it has 2 video cards and a controler card. One video card renders the top half of the picture and the 2nd vid card renders the bottom. and the controller card well controls what video card does what. Aleinware claims that this method improves proformence by 50-70% So personally, now isnt a good time to go top of the line upgrades with all this new stuff coming out. If you are going to upgrade i wouldnt blow ur wad now. I would spend a few to get by and wait 6months if you can.

[Spyder]

This thread just set off the TEAL DEAR alarm, so i this is the only response i'm giving right now

I dont have the money nor the box to handle that, hell i dont even have a monitor to handel it.

This is one thing we've pointed out, nOOB. The X800 will run on a lower end system with a regular old power supply, while the 6800 REQUIRES a 450watt PS and two molex connectors.

Actually, someone asked about that in the pcgamer letter area. Someone wanted to know whether or not they could get away with running it on a 300w psu. PCgamer tried it and said it still worked fine, although they werent getting top performance out of it.

[@gent-Orange]

You hit it on the head nOOB, my next upgrade will be another SATA drive so that I can raid it. I'm wating for the next generation Athalon64 and Pci Express before considering an upgrade. I give it a minimum of 6 months to a year. For now all is good.

[nOOB]

Yeah my system will be golden for about that long with some minor upgrages. I am hoping by that time they will have dual AMD 64bit mobo =P I am thinking about it form my next system if i have the money at the time. A freind on mine swears by 2 cpu systems and said he will never go back. So i am thinking what do i have to lose =D. that is if i have the omney

[ferret]

BTX will not be invaliding these cards. AGP will still be a part of BTX. The only difference between ATX and BTX is how some components are arranged in order to provide more logical locations for RAM, CPU, north/south bridge, cable connections, etc, to provide for best usage of space and airflow where needed.

PCI-Express will eventually replace AGP and normal PCI, but that won't be fully under way for at least another year, and you'll still see AGP based boards for at least two more, BTX or not.

[Scurvey Dog]

ATI Sux

[Spyder]

....someone help me! i just got $1000 from my aunt for graduation!!! HELP ME NOT SPEND IT!!

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHh

[Scurvey Dog]

send some to scurvey_dog@hotmail.com for my paypal account. THANKS!!!

[Spyder]

um, that would constitute spending it.

[Spyder]

actually, my parental unit says that as long as i save most of it it will be ok. I'll probably buy dual 120gb sata's... i'll wait until prices drop and new tech comes out for the graphics card :D

[Scurvey Dog]

its not spending it, its just letting me hold on to it for ya, like a bank. only better than a bank, cuz banks get knocked off. and nobody knocks of old scurvey

[nOOB]

Ferret, that isnt tottally true. If you get a BTX mobo you will need to get an new power supplie and caes. That is if you dont try to convert ur old PSU to BTX.

[ferret]

Ferret, that isnt tottally true. If you get a BTX mobo you will need to get an new power supplie and caes. That is if you dont try to convert ur old PSU to BTX.

Perhaps the PSU, but last I read the BTX form factor uses the same amount of space as ATX

[nOOB]

well, i have read/heard differently. so i guess well see. The BTX form factor is suppose to be bigger then ATX thus allowing better airflow and more devices.

[[NAKED] sidark]

IM gonna wait for that 2 vid card thing.

Its kinda like when Voodoo Monster did the same thing and you could put 2 vid cards together.

BTW for unreal 3 it will come out somewhere in 2006.
Like Atari said, by then Videocards will have 1gb of memory and teh game will run at 2xxx X 2xxx .


And theres a feature I would like to see on ati cards, 3 screen compatible, like the matrox. Unreal support thsi feature and its amazing but matrox sucks for gaming.

[cr0nick]

k x800> 6800 stfu

[[gh]Spurty]

very scientific ;-)

What I would like to see is a plain and simple (yeah right, like thats going to exist) benchmark of all the cards lined up with their scores for game benchmarks. X800 and 6800 look the same to me in what I've read on Toms Hardware, but one review/test doesn't secure that for me. I need 3 or 4 reviewers to concure first.

[nOOB]

GeForce 6800 Ultra

3DMark03: 11,394
Aquamark3: Score: 57,765; GFX: 8,724
Quake III: 1280x960: 368, 330 fps
UT2k3: 1280x960: 222fps
Splinter Cell: 1280x960: 65fps
Halo: 1280x960: 69fps
Far Cry: 1280x960: 54, 37 fps


Radeon X800 XT P.E.

3DMark03: 11,361
Aquamark3: Score: 55,320; GFX: 7,854
Quake III: 1280x960: 351, 291 fps
UT2k3: 1280x960: 222fps
Splinter Cell: 1280x960: 63fps
Halo: 1280x960: 63fps
Far Cry: 1280x960: 55, 52 fps


thats from PCGamer. Like i said, 6800 scored higher on everything other than far cry. I can scan the articles if you want to read it.

[[NAKED] sidark]

So the resumé For performance only:

For regular graphics with no modes on both cards are good.
As soon you're demanding something more (games like farcry and AA mode, etc...) the x800xt will out perform.

BTW your eyes can only see 60fps. So if your getting 60-100fps its all good.

[nOOB]

yes this is true you can only see 60fps, but there are tons of people that will argue that the more FPS they have the better they play. This is true some what, you x-hairs will always be in the place it should be and not behind a few frams.

[sexyownage]

damn thats insane... 11k 3dmark03 stock

[ThriKreen]

No, the eye can only see 60fps thing is a myth.

[nOOB]

proof? more explanation? somthing?

[ferret]

No, the eye can only see 60fps thing is a myth.

You are correct. THis is because the human eye doesn't see FPS at all. Its completely and purely realtime input. There is no frames.

But your brain has a limit on how many FPS it can process before it can't tell the difference.

[ThriKreen]

What ferret said - our brain's "clock rate" determines how fast the persistance of vision is. Film is 24fps, TV is 30fps interlaced, your average video games ranges to ~100fps or so (depending on the max your monitor can handle).

But we generally don't notice much over 30-60. When we do notice, and what we should concern ourselves with, is how stable the computer and video card can maintain an average FPS. Sharp increases and decreases is what we notice.

I'd rather have a system that like always averages 60fps, than one that can peak at 200fps but can have a extreme hit in intense scenes. This is why the visual effects of the ATI Radeon's shine, as enabling anti-aliasing and aniscopic filtering don't impact the average fps of the card that much, compared to Nvidia's.

There's no denying that both greatly improve the visual impact of the game. Heck, even NWN and HL looks good with them on, so I always force it to be enabled on my 9700Pro.

Therefore: X800 > 6800.

[nOOB]

hehe, the reason more FPS on a computer is importent is because there is no moition blur. Say someone in a movie moves really quick there will be motion blur in a game you dont get that so our brain needs the FPS to make it clear wtf is going on.

My KVM only allows 60fps to pass through it i think because i havnt found a way to get it higher then that. and yes fram sync is off.

[HaloEight]

hehe, the reason more FPS on a computer is importent is because there is no moition blur. Say someone in a movie moves really quick there will be motion blur in a game you dont get that so our brain needs the FPS to make it clear wtf is going on.

My KVM only allows 60fps to pass through it i think because i havnt found a way to get it higher then that. and yes fram sync is off.

Change your refresh rate.