9800xt vs. nVIDIA 6800ultra
I dont know if you guys say this already but ill post it here anyways. Looks like {H}ardOCP has snagged a 6800 ulstra and tested it against a 5950 and a 9800xt.
This topic was started by dredlock,
I dont know if you guys say this already but ill post it here anyways. Looks like {H}ardOCP has snagged a 6800 ulstra and tested it against a 5950 and a 9800xt. Its great to know that nVIDIAS next gen card still cant dominate the 9800xt lol....serious..in Far Cry it only gets 6 FPS better than 9800xt you guys can go check it out here
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Those benchmarks show the highest playable resolution for each card. The Geforce6 was at a higher resolution and AA/AF level than the FX and 9800xt in most of them. There are also a couple benchmarks where the Geforce6 beats the 9800xt by ~100%. That said, resolution and AA/AF don't hurt FPS as much as in older cards, and I was expecting higher results.
I used to love nvidia but their FX line's performance swayed me to get a 9800 Pro. Now that ATI's drivers aren't beta quality, I'll take whoever can play Doom3 the fastest.
I used to love nvidia but their FX line's performance swayed me to get a 9800 Pro. Now that ATI's drivers aren't beta quality, I'll take whoever can play Doom3 the fastest.
1. this is stupid .... then you can also go an say whooooooooooo Ati beats nV numerous times ... just look at the TNT compared to 9800XT
.... when ATi releases next gen card THEn you can start discussion !!!
this only thing to say now is .... its an awesome improvement now (mainly in high resolutions and full AA / AF stage ...
if ya play in 1024 and no AF/AA the 6800 will bring around 10% more performane!!
.... when ATi releases next gen card THEn you can start discussion !!!
this only thing to say now is .... its an awesome improvement now (mainly in high resolutions and full AA / AF stage ...
if ya play in 1024 and no AF/AA the 6800 will bring around 10% more performane!!
Why, when do you think Nvidia's card, will be out publicly? Most of the people out there say at least in 45 days. ATI will have their card out in about the same time(Unless something really bad happens to ATI). Nvidia, right now has the psychological advantage, of having their hi-end card reviewed(At least it shows a great potential). Just wait and see, the final battle. Right now the only thing anyone can do is just watch . I myself will get the card that has better, performance/features ratio (drivers quality as well). I dont believe in rumours. So ATI still has the 50 percent chance of being a better card, and another 50 to be worst.
Why dont we test the 9800XT against a geforce 4 aswell?
the 6800ultra is supposed to rival x800xt, not a product thats a gen behind.
the new radeons are supposedly out this month.
but it IS odd how the nv40 beats the 9800xt with double the score in 3dmark, but in real games its still a substantial lead, but nowhere near 100%...
the 6800ultra is supposed to rival x800xt, not a product thats a gen behind.
the new radeons are supposedly out this month.
but it IS odd how the nv40 beats the 9800xt with double the score in 3dmark, but in real games its still a substantial lead, but nowhere near 100%...
but it IS odd how the nv40 beats the 9800xt with double the score in 3dmark, but in real games its still a substantial lead, but nowhere near 100%...
This is because in normal games you have AI, and some other effects that are quite CPU intensive, thats why in games sometimes even if you have a really fast GPU and a slow CPU, the game wont run that fast, and the other way around. CPU or GPU (...and other components) can become a bottleneck in your system. In Benchmarks the most of the times the paths are fixed, and is easier for the developers to optimise that for a certain role, ex. to test the CPU or GPU. If you look closer in the 6800 Ultra revies you can see that even if they increase the resolution, the performance is not deteriorating , that means that the CPU cannot cope with delivering, the information as fast as the GPU can in lower resolutions.
if you think about it the top of the old generation cards have always been able to compete in some tests eg the ti4600 wasnt that far behind the 9700 pro when it first came out. only when advanced features were enabled the 9700 really showed what it had.
at stock speeds the average 3dmark01 score was 12000 and for a 9700 it was around 14000, which isnt that big.
also the gf3ti500 wasnt that much slower than a gf4ti 4200, it was overpriced and only did dx8.
this card is gna really pull ahead when games like doom3 finaly come.
at stock speeds the average 3dmark01 score was 12000 and for a 9700 it was around 14000, which isnt that big.
also the gf3ti500 wasnt that much slower than a gf4ti 4200, it was overpriced and only did dx8.
this card is gna really pull ahead when games like doom3 finaly come.
This is because in normal games you have AI, and some other effects that are quite CPU intensive, thats why in games sometimes even if you have a really fast GPU and a slow CPU, the game wont run that fast, and the other way around. CPU or GPU (...and other components) can become a bottleneck in your system.
dude.. not to burst your bubble, but the testsystem with 9800xt's has the same processors as in the tests of the 6800. So your argument isnt watertight as the cpu works just as good in one system as in the oter - independent of the graphics card.
What you're implying is that the processor in the 6800 test systems is worse than in the 9800xt's...
this card is gna really pull ahead when games like doom3 finaly come.
yea pull ahead in doom... a singleplayer fps
and that only because of the ultrashadows implimentation, that is based on a rather broad patent which makes the competing products unable to use the method of culling shadows. fortunately, since it's not a part of directx specifications you have to program specially for ultrashadows and hopefully games wont use it that much, so we can STICK TO STANDARDS and have all chipmanufacturers work at a equal level :P
I just finished reading the latest issue of Maximum PC that arrived in the mail today with the review of the 6800. It's VERY interesting because of the 16 rendering pipelines and DDR3 memory, among other things. I can't wait to see what ATI's counter-punch will be before seriously considering either card (actually I'm waiting for PCI-Express)...
im using doom 3 as an example. but game engines of the future (unreal 3) will have to make full use of dx10 hardware and thats where the 6800 will show that its an upgrade to the likes of the 9800; at the end of the day for all of todays games a 9600pro would give decent framerates even with AA
even if u have a old ti4600; there are very few games on the market that use dx9 shaders so u will get brilliant visual quality. granted when u have 4xAA enabled itll slow down but for the majority of fps games when you have 10*7 with 2XAA and 4xAF the image is superb.
even if u have a old ti4600; there are very few games on the market that use dx9 shaders so u will get brilliant visual quality. granted when u have 4xAA enabled itll slow down but for the majority of fps games when you have 10*7 with 2XAA and 4xAF the image is superb.
lol i think the unreal engine 3.0 would need next gen cards (ie r500/nv50). as it is on the video it's mostly appropriate for horror shooters that doesnt need the big fps
oh and im betting on that pci express wont make that much difference as most people have been hyped up to think (its excactly the same as with the 4x agp --> 8x agp transition which prodused little difference in game applications, but rather in video editing). plus that in future games the textures are supposed to be generated on the gfx card rather than transferred from the harddrive.
oh and im betting on that pci express wont make that much difference as most people have been hyped up to think (its excactly the same as with the 4x agp --> 8x agp transition which prodused little difference in game applications, but rather in video editing). plus that in future games the textures are supposed to be generated on the gfx card rather than transferred from the harddrive.
dude.. not to burst your bubble, but the testsystem with 9800xt's has the same processors as in the tests of the 6800. So your argument isnt watertight as the cpu works just as good in one system as in the oter - independent of the graphics card.
What you're implying is that the processor in the 6800 test systems is worse than in the 9800xt's...
Whatever... you didnt understant a word I said. What I said was that because the 6800 Ultra is quite powerful , it has to wait for the CPU to finish sending instructions after starting processing a new frame. The 9800XT is slower thats why in higher resolutions in some games the CPU is the one that has to wait for the 9800XT to finish processing the frame after sending new information. ...And i am talking about the same system, now relax... take a deep breath.. and give it a better thought, I am not arguing here I am just giving some information
first of all the unreal 3 engine doesent even seem it will play on a 9600pro...I mean just to demo the engine they had to use the 6800 ultra for its dx10 support and pixel shader 3.0...Im not sayin that nVIDIA is a bad card...hell I used to be a huge fan...but the r420 core will be running a 600mhz!! and for a readeon thats alot...just imagin if you think the 9800 pro is nice a 400 mhz wait till pixel shadel 3.0 with 600mhz
i dont even see the point of this card. granted its really fast but no games need this.. the 9800/5900 will play almost all games at over 60fps, which is what gamers need.
i looked at the xbit review of the 6800 ultra and to really show what a huge difference there is the settings had to be crancked up to 1600*1200; as the cpu is holding the card back.
the point im making is that by the time a cpu comes out that will drive this to the full and theres plenty of dx10 games on the market there will be no use to this card and the new improved gf7x series will be here.
directx9c hasnt even been released yet; the point of this release is just to show how fast it can go (and bury the memory of the 5800 finally); at least with the 9700pro there was a hope of playing a dx9 game within the year it was released (hl2 and doom3 ). with this there really are going to be no games to even look forward to in the forseable future that will require this card and its gimmicks
im now waiting for a nice price crash on a 5900 coz thats gna play all games released within the next 2 years :wink:
i looked at the xbit review of the 6800 ultra and to really show what a huge difference there is the settings had to be crancked up to 1600*1200; as the cpu is holding the card back.
the point im making is that by the time a cpu comes out that will drive this to the full and theres plenty of dx10 games on the market there will be no use to this card and the new improved gf7x series will be here.
directx9c hasnt even been released yet; the point of this release is just to show how fast it can go (and bury the memory of the 5800 finally); at least with the 9700pro there was a hope of playing a dx9 game within the year it was released (hl2 and doom3 ). with this there really are going to be no games to even look forward to in the forseable future that will require this card and its gimmicks
im now waiting for a nice price crash on a 5900 coz thats gna play all games released within the next 2 years :wink:
