6800 ultra or x800xt?

[WhOdInI]

i am going to get a new card soon and i cant decide between the two.i dont mind about power or slot consumption.just raw performance.i read that the x800xt is currently faster than the 6800u, but the 6800u is more technologicaly advanced with ps 3 and its supposed to shine with the new dx9.0c. note that in a few months i will change to an fx55 amd with a soket 939 mobo.when they booth become available

[Cadmium77]

Personally I'm planning to get the NVidia 6800. Though my dilemma is whether or not to go for the NV6800 or the NV Quadro Pro FX 2000.

I'll want to run Maya Unlimited with OpenGL drivers and I want Directx 9 games like Stalker too.

Which to choose?

[Juiblex79]

Looks like we're all on the same boat, my Asus Geforce 3 just isn’t hacking it anymore, it was a good overclocker but even maxed it cant handle some of the newer games even at normal settings without getting choppy.
Both of these cards seem very good, with the ATI doing a little better in the benches that I have seen. My only reservation about the ATI card is that is still is using the same GPU just tweaked heavily as the 9 series while the nVidia is a completely new core. This would lead me to believe that the nVidia card would have more potential in the overclocking end even though it seems to need much more power then the ATI.
So if anyone has some insight or recommendations please speak up. I am curious as to how noisy these cards are, doesn’t anyone know? I might just put a water block on it if its too loud. Has anyone tried these cards with water cool?
Thanks in advance for any advice.

[Voodoo Rufus]

It's really too early to tell since both the cards you are looking at are not on the street yet. Drivers and performance will evolve between now and then, and so will prices. In current games both cards are about even overall. Focus on the games you plan to play and make your decision based on those.

[Steven4563]

i agree with Voodoo Rufus

altho i would look at the IQ ive seen some messed up stuff in Farcry who knows if Nvidia will do that with other games ?

[hUMANbEATbOX]

as far as i've heard, the x800pro and x800XT are nearly silent, that a NB fan is probably noisier.

sure the x800 is a revision of the old core. but you cannot argue with all the 10k+++ 3dmark03 scores that started popping up, the DAY it was released. give the users who have them already some more time, and i'm sure you will see some insane OC's outta them. people are already hitting 550/550.

the 6800, who knows untill it ships.

[Chowdy]

Yea.. revision of an old core or not, nearly twice the 3dmark'03 scores of 9800's... that's amazing.

[Grov]

X800XT. Better with AA and AF, and your dam straight gonna use a lot of it! PS3.0??? lol, wake me out of my comma in 2006 when it's used properly. Also the 6800Ultra is 50quid more expensive.

Even Far Cry uses mostly PS1.1.

[jkb2198]

Wiat till both the ultra and the xt come out and read the reviews form the poeple at this forum then base your decision on that. The only reason i got a x800 pro was because it was only 330 dollars and i needed to sell my 9800 pro before the cost of them sink to 100-150. I was able to get rid of it for 210 cause it was almost brand new and retail.

Keep clockin

[Albuquerque]

Through nearly all of the reviews, the x800's came out equal or (in the XT platinum) on top. Only in "older" games did the 6800U throw down better numbers, but at that point, we're debating between like 150fps and 180fps at 1600x1200 -- does it really matter at that level?

I've opted to pre-order an x800xt for basically the same reason that jkb described: I was able to get rid of my 256mb 9800 "XT" (R360-cored 9800 pro that will do XT speeds) for $250 locally and was able to sell a hardmodded 9500np (at 9700 pro speeds) for $150. Fifty bucks later and I've got the cash for the fastest thing around; can't argue with that!

None of this means I'm right or You're wrong or Nvidia = teh losER, it just means to me that ATI still had a more compelling product this round

[bobmanfoo]

well as some of you may know, i upgraded to x800pro from fx5900@fx5950. i have to say im very pleased with the upgrade, also mainly because was able to sell my fx for 200$. any short falls that the ati have compared to the FX, and there are, IQ makes up for it. if the new NV's have better IQ i'd probably go back to NV

[jo3]

I've always been an nvidia fan simply because they have been the kings of the video card industry for so long and have always been such a sturdy card maker. ive had my ti4600 since the day they came out and it still does its job more than well for how old it is. The biggest reason ive always shied away from ati was in my earlier computer days i had rediculous amount of trouble with the driver support for their cards-thus contributing to me switching to nvidia. now that they have gotten their act together and have been doing much better than anyone could have thought back in '98 or before my attitude has changed.

When the 6800 reviews and benches came out i was floored, and also very happy nvidia had made a seemingly unbeatable next-gen card. Watching it trounce on all the competition including other cards in their lines was more than impressive. But its lack of efficient power use, and ofcourse the ever present full sized heat sink capable of cooling the pIII in an xbox caused me to snicker. Looking at double benches of everything else, there was no way ati could beat it in my mind. but then the x800pro/xt stuff bloomed from websites and once again made nvidia fans question loyalty(not that there should be loyalty in the consumer). i personally am getting the x800 next. not sure xt or pro yet, they both are more than double the performance of my card and have dx9 compat. The single slot single molex design is much more form fitting than the duel duel design nvidia is pushing. and honestly, who has 2 molex on a tru 480 watt ps to spare?


just another bang for the buck question that ati answered a little better than nvidia.

[djs488]

here's a review that compares the two in a bunch of benchmarks...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2044&p=1

[yazz88]

only game i care about until the new unreal comes out in 2006 is Doom 3. 6800 series will run doom 3 25-40% faster than x800 is my guess.

[David Coleman]

Originally posted by yazz88
only game i care about until the new unreal comes out in 2006 is Doom 3. 6800 series will run doom 3 25-40% faster than x800 is my guess.

but who cares if the X800 is running 15fps and the 6800 25fps. Both will be unplayable. It's like making a card now that has DirectX 17 compatibilty: yeah, maybe technically it can run it, but how much more advanced will stuff be when it's actually implemented in games [or even released officially for that matter]?

[Albuquerque]

Originally posted by yazz88
only game i care about until the new unreal comes out in 2006 is Doom 3. 6800 series will run doom 3 25-40% faster than x800 is my guess.
Where exactly do you get "25-40% faster"? Given all of what Carmack has recently said combined with the benchmarks we've seen, I'd wager five bucks that the X800's and the 6800's will be a basic tie in basically any of the future games using PS2 or equivalent.

Remember, the pixel shaders used in Doom3 are only version 2; I believe even HL2 is using only pixel shader 2. The GFFX may pull ahead when rendering without AA because the NV35+ can do double Z ops per pipe and ATI cannot. But when AA is enabled, it flips around: ATI is able to pull double Z ops per pipe and NVIDIA isn't. It results in an essential tie if you ask me...

[Cadmium77]

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1845416#post1845416

It's getting nasty. Scroll down.

[David Coleman]

Originally posted by Cadmium77
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1845416#post1845416

It's getting nasty. Scroll down.

Strangely reminiscent of the reactions of a cornered, wounded animal....

[I.M.O.G.]

Originally posted by Albuquerque

Where exactly do you get "25-40% faster"? Given all of what Carmack has recently said combined with the benchmarks we've seen, I'd wager five bucks that the X800's and the 6800's will be a basic tie in basically any of the future games using PS2 or equivalent.

Remember, the pixel shaders used in Doom3 are only version 2; I believe even HL2 is using only pixel shader 2. The GFFX may pull ahead when rendering without AA because the NV35+ can do double Z ops per pipe and ATI cannot. But when AA is enabled, it flips around: ATI is able to pull double Z ops per pipe and NVIDIA isn't. It results in an essential tie if you ask me...

Agreed. There has been no material that should make anyone expect, or hope for a 25-40% performance difference between these two cards at any point. There is just nothing to give that indication. That is his opinion, but I do not know either what could possibly give him that expectation.

[Gregory_WE]

Isn't Doom 3 Open GL? If so, there are no PS X.X involved. NVidia's cards (even NV30/NV35) are superior in Open GL so NVidia will probably have a clear margin over ATI's in Doom 3.

[Albuquerque]

Pixel shaders are pixel shaders are pixel shaders; they are indifferent to the underlying API used to describe them. It's not a DirectX term, it's not an OpenGL term, just like T&L wasn't and just like Multitexture or AA or AF isn't.

While NVIDIA may be showing a small lead in certain OGL applications, NONE of those applications use PS 2 or VS 2. And historically, NVIDIA has been doing better in "older" games anyway. I'm going to stick to my $5 bet and say that ATI vs NVIDIA on "new age" games are going to be basically even -- NV pulling ahead with AA off, ATI pulling ahead with AA on.

[jo3]

Originally posted by IMOG


Agreed. There has been no material that should make anyone expect, or hope for a 25-40% performance difference between these two cards at any point. There is just nothing to give that indication. That is his opinion, but I do not know either what could possibly give him that expectation.





its "nvidia - how its meant to be played" for a reason




and the fact that both half life 2 and doom 3 have been in the making for 6 years+ and i was hearing about doom 3 being out in 2000-2001 means it will be playable on the new cards, and the old ones(to comment on David Coleman's comment about the cards being "unplayable")

and from what tom said at toms harware the graphics in halflife 2 dont hold up tp farcrys when its on high and high res and what not and farcry runs fine on my ti4600