Ge Force 6800 Ultra

[DozerLYP]

this card should be out today...

the chip which can do 16 pixels per clock Color & Z or 32 pixels per clock Z-only, 64-bit FP Frame Buffer Blending & Display, Lossless Color & Z-Compression and a new Antialiasing approach called High Quality AA - Rotated Grid full MTR (multi target rendering I guess), and accelerated shadow rendering.

Geforce 6800 Ultra has two power connectors and is, surprisingly a one slot card for its reference card.

It uses GDDR3 memory clocked at 550MHz but some partners might go even higher.

And as a dual DVI connection....
my monitor is a AVG... is there a special connetor that do DVI to AVG?
and why is there DVI on video cards now?
i never seen a monitor that take DVI. or it's just me.
i payd $1200 for my monitor and it dos'nt take DVI...

can't wait to get one of those card though. :r

[Vitalka]

ViewSonic is going to release new monitor that takes DVI and soon many of them will take DVI. It's cheapier to make 2 DVI connectors on video bord than VGA and DVI. :t And as far as i understand DVi is better in some ways, don't know which ways though. Oh and those cards that have only DVI will have DVI-VGA connector with them

[Someone Stupid]

I'm not getting "excited" about any card as I've done it before to only be extremely dissapointed. I'll wait for side by side comparisions and a few generations of drivers before making any purchase. Ati's card could be horrible, as could nvidia's, then there could be driver or power issues with each. Just too many variables to pick one without seeing raw performance, IQ, and driver sets.

[Yoshi]

Sohow can buy one

[RamonGTP]

I haven't seen DVI on CRT monitors, but most mid and every high end LCD monitor i've seen has DVI. But to answer your question, yes the card should come with an adapter.

[DozerLYP]

so anybody as any result on this card?

[cusimar9]

The inquirer has found some leaked pictures from a review that should be out later today:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15325

[cusimar9]

i've just noticed I was looking at the benchmarks wrong!

It looks like typically the 6800 Ultra at 1280 x 1024 and 8 x AF runs at about the same framerate as both the FX5950 Ultra and Radeon 9800XT at 1024 x 768 and 0 x AF.

Would that be a fair assessment to make?

Lets wait till the reviews come out.

[DozerLYP]

this start to look pretty good :x

but i guess it wont hit the shelves till May...
:(

[cusimar9]

OMG Toms Hardware have done themselves proud with the most in-depth review I've seen in ages!

I'm still reading it... 20+ minutes later... :D

OMG This thing is amazing! Literally faster in every single test and up to 3+ times faster in some cases!

This is what the industry needs - to be shaken up a bit.

Come on ATi, lets see some competition :D

[Bigjakkstaffa]

While the FX6800 does look impressive, i wouldnt bothe rbuying one yet, as the R420 will be being released in gradual stages over the next three months, as will the other NV40 cards. One thing i have noticed in the 6800 benches is that in some of the non-syntehetic tests (i.e. games) at certain resolutions it was not THAT much faster than the 9800XT, which makes me thnk that it might be worth waiting to see what the more powerful cards to be released in forthcoming months have to offer

--Jakk:t

[Vampiel]

The results are in!

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/feforce_6800-29.html

Very nice!

However in FarCry the difference wasnt as big but still impressive.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

I've been pokign around [H] again on my daily rounds and they benched both cards using Far Cry, UT2004, CoD, SC:PT, FS2004, BF:Vietnam, in all but for CoD (in which the 6800 enjoyed a good 40FPS lead) the 6800 was only really marginally faster (nothing a bit of overclocking couldnt overturn on the behalf of the 9800XT), indeed in SC:PT and Far Cry the 9800XT was even marginally faster on average.

As such, while the synthetic benches may look impressive and there is no doubt the 6800U is the fastest card money can but at this moment in time, im not sure the 6800U, in the context of 'next gen' cards is much of a step forward, indeed it seems to be to the 9800Xt as the 9800XT is to the FX5950U in terms of speed.

That said its nice to see Nvidia finally tackling the image quality issue.

--Jakk:t

[causticVapor]

The thing that's incredible is it's MASSIVE scaleability at high res and high AA/AF. The IQ is theoretically better than ATi's current r3xx implementation as well. At low resolutions, its low clock speed keeps it only slightly ahead of the rest but at high ones....the 16pipes really start flexing their muscle.

Note that performance gains exponentially drop with exponential increases in parallelization. So not seeing 200% performance increase in all modes is fine.

This is a beta card with beta drivers and the very first core stepping AND at running at a low clock speed. The only real disappointment so far IMHO is the cooler - perhaps forthcoming steppings will run cooler and allow the single-slot design to be used.

[bob05]

Wow, I'm glancing at the Tom's article Vampiel showed, and boy, they show the NV40 doing very well! I will read it more in depth when I come back from track practice. :t

[Vampiel]

In responce to Bigjakkstaffa, that was my initial thought as well until I took a closer look. Especially with all the eye candy turned on that most gamers want.

Here are the average fps in Far Cry

Overall
61.275 6800
39.075 9800
36.2% Faster

High Quality
51.8 6800
28.1 9800
45.8% Faster

Thats a pretty big % increase by any standard, and it looks like Nvidia hit their mark of a double FPS increase. Im pretty impressed with these benchmarks, though I agree to wait to see ATI's competitive product. I can say they are scrambling to do something though.

[bob05]

Quoted from Tom's website
While NVIDIA is loudly and proudly advertising the new shader model, ATi is attempting to downplay it. A wonderful and quite humorous example of this tactic is a developer presentation titled "Save the Nanosecond" by ATIs Richard Huddy which was accidentally leaked on the internet. The trouble was, the presentation still sported some personal notes which made it clear that the presenter was trying to convince developers to stay away from Flow Control in PS3.0, as it incurs a very tangible performance hit. Quote:

"Steer people away from flow control in ps3.0 because we expect it to hurt badly. [Also it's the main extra feature on NV40 vs R420 so let's discourage people from using it until R5xx shows up with decent performance...]"



Wow, that speaks volume from the ATI camp. :rolleyes:

Another thing worth noting was that during 3D gaming, the 6800 only used 27 watts more than the 9800XT (and actually, during boot and 2D mode used less than the 9800XT). :t

[Vitalka]

But lightning quality in Far Cry is better on 9800XT.

[Rabbitrunner51]

well I am glad someone startred a thread on this as I was about ready to.....

I know I am excited about these cards..although I don't know when I would be able to afford another card...but I am sure I will get one down the road soon...

1100MHZ is pretty impressive and the NV40 engine i
has gotten good reviews....

The prices as outlined for are $299.00 for the 6800 and $495.00 for the ultra ,which is in keeping with standard prices..I suppose....

It might be wise to see about the NV42 coming out though ..as we all know about how the computer industry changes so fast so often.....

By the time the cards come down in price a bit..I might be able to get one...

I sure would like to have a sytem with a 64 bit chip and one of these to run on plus some higher memory to go along with it..... Just alot of money spent all over again.....
Can't we just trade our systems in like a trade in for a new car....you wish!

I've only had this computer for about eightmonths and it is almost out of date already

Just a note about the Far Cry benchmarks as the game company is coming out with a update for the game to take advantage of these cards withsome updated grahical settings...and other things.....

[Yoshi]

Originally posted by Vitalka
But lightning quality in Far Cry is better on 9800XT.

When you are playing what are you going to notice, a minimal change in light or 30-40FPS

[Vitalka]

That's the problem i find with myself i always look at the picture quality(very destarctive when playing deathmatch in UT2004), and if i get 100 fps and bad picture then i better get 40 fps and quality picture. :t

[cusimar9]

Originally posted by Vitalka
But lightning quality in Far Cry is better on 9800XT.

In Tom's Hardware they stated that Far Cry wasn't picking up the Pixel Shader 3.0 and was still using the old routines....

Don't worry about this, I think this is just driver update.

Rick

[RamonGTP]

I have no doubt that nVidia will fix the IQ issues with far cry. The card tested was merely an engineering sample, not a production model, and the drivers were also beta. I'm definatly looking forward to seeing ATI's new line up. They've got their work cut out for them this time, thats for sure. As far as first impressions are concerned, it looks like nVidia has a winner on their hands.

I personally am very satisfied with my 9800Pr @420/380. I can run farcry at 1024 with maxed details perfectly smooth. So I can't justify an upgrade. However, this is perfect for those looking to upgrade from a DX8 card or slower DX9 ones, if of course, its in the budget to do so.

[cusimar9]

Well said RamoGTP

Don't ignore the fact that the samples sent out for review had post-production modifications (ie the wire to slow down the fan) The hardware, let alone the drivers, is not yet complete, and I dare say we'll see a fair hike in IQ and performance when the card finally hits the shelves.

One thing I noticed is that for the card to be taxed you have to bump the resolution to 1600x1200.

I tend to play most of my games at 1024x768 with 2 or 4x antialiasing, as I find that gives the best IQ/Performance ratio on my system.

I don't think my monitor could even take 1600x1200!

Then again it will certainly make a difference to those lucky few who have wall projectors and will be enjoying Doom3 at 3m x 2m! Imagine that! :x

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by Yoshi
When you are playing what are you going to notice, a minimal change in light or 30-40FPS

Probably the quality, as anything above 24FPS is invisible to the human eye ;)

--Jakk:t

[cusimar9]

Yeah we learned that at school too, but I think there's some other effect going on that allows us to notice higher framerates.

I CAN tell the difference between 30 and 60fps, and my mate CAN tell the difference between 60 and 100hz monitor refresh rate.

So... higher fps is noticeable, but I'd stick my neck out and say that anything above 60fps is probably NOT noticeable to the average person.

Don't understand how people can tell if the monitor refresh rate is 60 and not 100 though... :confused:

[Bigjakkstaffa]

The refresh rate is a biggie, its all about eye strain, 60Hz is a lot more strenuous on the eyes than 100Hz

--Jakk:t

[Rabbitrunner51]

How about 75hz thats what I use...at 1024 x768 32 bit.....

I run my Ge Force 5900 at 2x and 2x and it looks real good to me ......its like night and day with the extra AA and AF on....

Far Cry looks real sweet enough for me....

It would be real cool to see in person what the 6800's do .....all this talk is fine ..but its like a movie preview and no movie..

If Vampiel is right about the FPS increase,then it sure looks like a big jump to me.......

There are alot of good games I play with the graphics looking just amazing....with this so so higher end card I have now....I have a good eye for art and visual and when you get such a good quality as this..an average person could not tell the difference...

[Someone Stupid]

Vamp: Only 50% faster isn't what was hyped. Not to mention you still can OC a Pro (and quite a bit if you really want) to make up for some of the gap.

Bob: Considering all that nvidia has done, that is actually paltry. Still not something I consider great, but not horribly bad either.

I don't intend on getting either as the 9800 Pro with a slight OC comes through surprisingly strong in FarCry for me. Doom 3 and HL 2 can't push it that much more I wouldn't think.

[causticVapor]

Originally posted by Vampiel
In responce to Bigjakkstaffa, that was my initial thought as well until I took a closer look. Especially with all the eye candy turned on that most gamers want.

Here are the average fps in Far Cry

Overall
61.275 6800
39.075 9800
36.2% Faster

High Quality
51.8 6800
28.1 9800
45.8% Faster

Thats a pretty big % increase by any standard, and it looks like Nvidia hit their mark of a double FPS increase. Im pretty impressed with these benchmarks, though I agree to wait to see ATI's competitive product. I can say they are scrambling to do something though.


48% and 84% are the real values, don't know what happened to your percentages

[cusimar9]

I think some of you might be missing the point:

not ONLY is the 6800 Ultra almost 100% faster in a lot of applications, but it can be overclocked as well.

The GDDR3 Modules used are rated at 600mhz, yet the card's memory is running at 550mhz (x2 = 1100mhz).

The Clock speed is 400mhz, but you can bet your *** it'll run at 450 without too much effort because that's what nvidia was going to clock it at.

So although you could overclock a 9800 PRO to close the gap, you can overclock the 6800 U to further increase it :D

AND you're forgetting that the main advantages haven't been taken full advantage of!

The Scaleability of the 6800 is amazing, switch on AA and AF and it leaves the previous ATi and NVidia cards standing.

The shadow technology is not being used to its full potential yet, we'll have to wait until newer games are released.

Pixel Shader 3.0 and a host of other features are included which make it a much more powerful tool once the games that support it are released.

So... it's not just about the numbers in UT2004 (which is a DX7/8 game) but its about the effects you'll be able to see.

Its not so much about FPS anymore, but IQ, and I think that's the way things are going to go from now on.

Most games will run quite happily at acceptable FPS, so the question is which card offers the best visual effects support?

[cusimar9]

But I agree with your point "Someone Stupid", I'm quite happy with my GF4Ti4600 and I won't be upgrading until I see my card start to get really bogged down by the latest games.

[SantiClaws]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Probably the quality, as anything above 24FPS is invisible to the human eye ;)

--Jakk:t

A common misconception. At 24 FPS, the human eye begins to perceive a series of still pictures as motion. That doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between higher FPS. Most people can distinguish differences up to about 100 FPS.

[Someone Stupid]

My frames are way above that so that's why I have no problem waiting. I fortunately have no need.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Probably the quality, as anything above 24FPS is invisible to the human eye ;)

--Jakk:t

Not true. I personally (20/20 vision) notice a HUGE difference between 24FPS and 60FPS. Anything above 80 I cant tell. So if I want to see a countinues flow of frames w/o any choppiness I want it to have a min. of 80 or so FPS.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Imagine you look at a shining white wall. Now this wall turns totally black for 1/25th of a second. Would you notice it? You surely would. 1/50th of a second, well maybe harder.

BTW : If I posted 10 screen shots of an ATI and an NVIDIA could you point out the 10 ATI shots? I doubt it. I think your being a little to biased for ATI here. Ive had both cards and like both. We will just have to wait and see what ATI releases.

So your saying that you would rather have an ATI9800pro than the 6800Ultra? Keep in mind these are all beta drivers and pre-release tests which will improve over time.

If money was no object that is.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by Someone Stupid
Vamp: Only 50% faster isn't what was hyped. Not to mention you still can OC a Pro (and quite a bit if you really want) to make up for some of the gap.

Bob: Considering all that nvidia has done, that is actually paltry. Still not something I consider great, but not horribly bad either.

I don't intend on getting either as the 9800 Pro with a slight OC comes through surprisingly strong in FarCry for me. Doom 3 and HL 2 can't push it that much more I wouldn't think.

Caustic vapor thanks for the correction. Oops I did the calculation backwards, kind of screwed me up.

That's an 84.3 percent increase on high quality sorry not a 50% increase.

Saying "you can still OC a pro" doesnt really have much weight as an argument about closing in the speed gap, b/c you can OC the 6800 as well.

If you like image quality then the AA and AF and ALL the settings on VERY HIGH, the 6800U would probobly almost TRIPLE the speed of the 9800PRO, and the quality would be BETTER.

Faster and better quality... hmm. Not worth $450 though.:D

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by Vampiel

BTW : If I posted 10 screen shots of an ATI and an NVIDIA could you point out the 10 ATI shots? I doubt it. I think your being a little to biased for ATI here. Ive had both cards and like both. We will just have to wait and see what ATI releases.


Probably not, but of the two, increased FPS and increased image quality, the image quality is more noticable, while the 24FPS rule may not be applicable, without the assistance of an image counter i would defy anyone to see a noticable difference between say 30-40FPS and 400FPS, wheras IQ wise differences are more noticabel to the human eye.

As for taking the 6800 over my 9800 Pro, even if money was no object at this moment in time, no. It doesnt represent enough of a leap upover, and in a couple of months time im sure Nvidia or Ati could both offer me something much better, i would rather call in the credit and use it later when we see how the playing field really evens out, that said i still wouldnt take either Ati or Nvidia's newest offerings in a real world circumstance, costs being as they are.

As for bias to ATi, not paticularly, ive already admitted in several threads that the 6800U is the fastest card money can buy at present, however i take whats better for me, and at the moment that's still ATi.

What we have at the moment are people (paticularly the fanboys) getting over-excited over what is, in the context of the here and now, a very small step forward (if PS3.0 was currently availiable in more applications then it probably would have made the release more impressive - as would the benchmarks have been if more people played at resolutions above 1024x768), and not the leap promised. For anyone currently with a 9800/5950 to upgrade to the 6800U at present, would be a wasted investment for what little gains it will bring you and the fact it'll probably be blown away in a couple of months by the newer Nvidia chipsets if not the R420.

These are only reference cards at present, so we cant fully say what they will be like when released en masse, however, on the basis of the preview models these cards dont live up to the hype of being 'revolutionary', offer little in terms of performance gain to persuade those with existng mid/high end DX9 cards to upgrade (afterall - there isnt even anything that fully pushes the likes of the 9800/5950 to their limits yet), while those with older DX8/7 cards would be advised to hang fire for a couple of months for something which will hopefully represent a really big step forward,

--Jakk:t

[RamonGTP]

I will agree that its not worth spending $500 if you've already got a card like a 9800Pro or similar, since even on the tests where the 6800Ultra beat it by like 50, or even 100%, the Radeon still had playable framerates. However, I wouldn't call the performance gain the 6800U has "very little" either.

I do however wholeheartedly disaggree with this statement:

Considering all that nvidia has done, that is actually paltry. Still not something I consider great, but not horribly bad either.

You're right, its not horribly bad. However, its not bad AT ALL. How you consider 50-100% performance boost "paltry" I don't understand. The only time that the performance difference wasn't that great was when it was being CPU limited. Keep in mind that neither the card, nor the drivers were final releases.

I don't consider myself an ATI or nVidia fanboy, but I will give credit where credit is due. nVidia has what initially seems to be a very impressive product. I think i'm pretty fair in my assessment, and when I need to upgrade, I purchase the card that I feel gives me the most for my money. Back in the DX8 days, nVidia I felt had the superior product, so I got a Ti4400. DX9 I felt ATI had the upper hand so I got a 9800Pro.

I think some people take product loyalty too seriously. Its not like a sports team where its frowned upon to jump on a different bandwaggon if your team isn't doing to hot. This is YOUR money where jumping ship when needed is encouraged to get the other guy to get their act together. Looks like nVidia did just that this time around. It still remains to be seen however if they can best ATI's new line-up.

[Vampiel]

would defy anyone to see a noticable difference between say 30-40FPS and 400FPS

I do it everyday. Anything over 80FPS I cant tell. Ive played games for over 10 years, and YES I can tell you 100% honestly that I can tell the difference between 30-40 and 70-80FPS.

I agree with RamonGTP how can you say a double speed increase is paultry?

As I said before, with the 6800U, you can increase all the quality settings to very high in FarCry along with the AA 32bit and 1280x1024 and still see a smooth framte rate. I challenge you to do that with your 9800pro.

Thus bumping up all of the details to as high as they get with a resolution of 1280x1024 I think this would make it LOOK better than the 9800pro.

That's an 84.3 percent increase on high quality

So you admit then that the image quality is marginal... Plus the NVIDIA would be better quality b/c of higher settings anyways.
Probably not

[iceblue]

The $500 price tag was a given for a video card that is not only new but outperforms the latest Radeon and incorporates more features than you can name. The 9800 XT and 5950 Ultra were all priced the same at launch. Now the cheapest 9800 XT is more expensive than the lowest priced 5950 Ultra.

[Yoshi]

People People please, Nvidia has just released a new card that sofar has taken all the FX aftertaste out of my mouth, it is FAST and the new technology implemented in it is amazing. ATi made a great card in the 9x00 series but that time is up, you can't compare a 9800 Pro or XT to a new generation card. The Nvidia beet it hands down and plus that was a pre-manufactored card with not yet completed drivers and such. I am very exited about
Nvidia's new card, and might get one myself as I waited for the new generation cards, but ATi is also releasing new cards so we all have to wait and see.:t

[ShadeZeRO]

I agree with Happy man up their :)

Just wait for the new Ati cards
-Codenamed: R420 (or Rxx) they'll call it the X800
X meaning 10000? X800 sounds better than a ATi Radeon 10800.

They'll have 3 models from what i hear.
High : X800-XT (not for a while)
Mid : X800-(PRO?) Starting release.
Low: X800-SE (Much lower clock).

All will have different piplines
XT: 16 Piplines ( 8 Extreme piplines )
Pro: 12 Pipelines ( Unsure of extreme )
SE: 8 Pipelines ( Low clock speeds )

Also, they will start with a 256mb model. After words they'll come out with the 512 model.

But not even my computer now ( Amd Athlon64 3400+ ) can use the card to its full potential. Which makes me feel bad about building this new comp :x

So we can't tell until ATI comes out with their cards.
I also suggest waiting to buy a new computer until PCI Express (PCX) is more widely available, and the new generation of processers come out.

Because these new cards are already helled back due to the CPU. It's being limited even by a 3.2ghz P4, and also my Athlon64 3400+ (OCed 2.35ghz)

-------------------------------------------------
Personally, ill stick with ATI just because they have been good to me in the past.
-------------------------------------------------

Thats my 2 cents, If there is any error of my information, please feel free to correct me :)

[Someone Stupid]

I think I was taken a bit too literally there. Yes, it is impressive, but when the second generation D8 card from nvidia came out it offered a nice performance boost as well, so this was about what was expected to me. It wasn't shocking seeing the transistor counts they were talking along with pipelines and core speeds. If your upgrading because you have a G4 or some other lower card, then one of these two new cards is for you, the current crop of 9800 Pro's and 5900 Ultra's are to buy only if you need a card immediately and cannot wait for some odd reason and need a high end solution.

My card passed the first real D9 test with flying colors so I'm not seeing this as an upgrade worth looking at. Honestly this is one of the few launches from either company that I really am not that interested in as it isn't like we are looking at Direct X 10 hardware, just an evolution of the current cards.

[Vampiel]

I agree, I just dont agree that a 9800pro would be a better choice than the 6800U if money was not object.

[cusimar9]

We're certainly going in the right direction though eh? Its difficult to imagine where graphics processing will be in 10 or even 5 years time.

I mean, just look back 5 years... or just look back at the original Doom! We've come a long way since then so as far as I'm concerned, any improvement is a big deal. :D

[Rabbitrunner51]

A logical question is that suppose a game is made with the graphics and everything.....I was just thinking about the fact that the graphics can only be as good as the person or tools to make them....take a tree for instance..in some games the trees look really lifelike and in others they do not look so good ......as pertaining to the detail of....
A better graphics card will onlu make the graphics as good as the product is....does that make sense in a roundabout way?

Like I said before....I would like to be able to see and play with one of these in person ..vs all this talking and theory about them...I am sure I would notice a big difference..the speed of the cards is also very important...as there are some games ..but really not many at all where I can tell my card ( FX5900 ) could use a boost...
The graphic part is awesome....

Also...its funny as I went into my card settings under properties and looked at the bus settings ..ect...and only when I select the auto overclocking feature ..does it show as 400 clock frequency ..vs 350 as default settings....the core frequency is at 850.... I have the FX5900 card
The 5950ultra card is 50 higher on both...which isn't al that much.

It will be interesting and quite exciting to see what they come up with next ....
If I had bought my computer today with the same amount tof money...I could get alot better system and faster too...

If we all keep on having to update all the time..then It is going to cost us a pretty penny to do so......so.....I guess we will have to make do for awhile ..as I know I cannot afford another &1500.00 or so for another.... and selling or trading in is out of the question.

[DozerLYP]

see here's the problem. if you wait for the next generation, or the competition to come out. you'll never get one because every other month there is a new one coming out. so if you're always waiting to see what is going to come out next month, in 3 years from now, you still be stuck with the card you have now, because lets wait and see what the next one as to offer...
as soon my motherboard gets back from ASUS, i'm going to get what is the best card, at this moment in time, because i don't have time to wait 8 years just to make sure i have the best card they will ever make...)-|

[cusimar9]

You have a good point DozerLYP, but you're exaggerating a little I think.

I don't intend on waiting 8 years to upgrade!

But everyone (when making any purchase, in fact) weighs up the following to make their decision:

1. What do they have now compared to what's currently available
2. What will be available in the near/not so near future
3. Cost
4. Desire

We score everything we buy pretty much on a set of facts like those listed above, and its a balance of what we class is most important to us as to whether or not we upgrade.

I WANT (4) an NV40, but 1, 2 and 3 counter balance it enough to make me think I'd rather wait another year or so.

Rick :D

[ShadeZeRO]

Only thing holding me back is ATI.

I wanna see how the R420 looks (XT MODEL)
and also i want to see how easily i can soft mod the Pro.

Even though, unless ATI comes out something last minute, 6800 might end up better.

ATI hasn't failed me yet, hope they dont loose this battle.

I just want a good card that can keep up with my a64 3400+.


Is the x800-XT going to be Agp 8x-PRO?

[SantiClaws]

Given the experience with previos new generation video cards, when do you think the prices of the current generation cards will dip as a result of the new ones coming out? I'm thinking of getting a 9800pro, but I'm wondering if I should wait for a month or so. If it drops 10% three months from now, it's not really worth it, but a 10-15% drop a few weeks from now might be worth the wait.

[cusimar9]

Current gen will dip as soon as the new gen hits the shelves, then they'll lower in price gradually literally every week/month

[Vitalka]

Originally posted by cusimar9
We're certainly going in the right direction though eh? Its difficult to imagine where graphics processing will be in 10 or even 5 years time.

I mean, just look back 5 years... or just look back at the original Doom! We've come a long way since then so as far as I'm concerned, any improvement is a big deal. :D

Yeah, and we all will need 1000wt PSU for that. lol :D :t

[cusimar9]

Yeah. I think we're going to see some quite major changes to overcome the heat/power struggle we seem to be having these days. You can keep tweaking here and there and keep improving the cooling etc but pretty soon we're going to need a new approach to computing.

Like you said, we can't keep increasing the power of PSU's just to accomodate C/GPU's

[tantone]

I am just a bit annoyed that everyone is patting nVidia on the back for simply bringing the standard visual quality of their cards--finally now seeing decent performance with AA and AF enabled--to the level it SHOULD have been a long time ago. And, honestly, it's STILL not where it should be.

It's a next-gen level card. If it DIDN'T show the performace increases it shows, I'd be shocked. I think ATI will best them with their release, and I'd even be willing to consider the idea that ATI will beat them to release.

I was an nVidia man ever since I got rid of my ATI All in Wonder Rage Pro back in like 98. Until I just recently bought a 9800 Pro. Never been happier and more stable.

In addition, I find it hard to get behind a company that tried to make up for lesser quality/performance by working with the game title companies to tilt things into their favor a bit.

So, let's not HOORAY for nVidia because they're finally doing their jobs!

[Someone Stupid]

Someone who understands my point.

[DozerLYP]

like i said, some of you are complaining about price of Nvidia, and wants to wait for ATI to come out with there new card.
but if you look back ATI's card always bean and will always be more expensife then Nvidia.
ok, it mike be a little better, but only by a fraction % and the price is a lot for the little more you get.
i don't think this is worthed the extra money.
then again, i had noting but problem with ATI, and not intended to buy an other one, ever...

[Rabbitrunner51]

Lets face it..they are both good video card companies and it is OK to have a preference or loyalty to certain card makers....

I have always .to date had Nvidia cards and like them just fine....but it wouldn't be out of the question to try and use a ATI card.....only for the simple fact that I did not choose one....the 9800 Pro seems to be getting enough rave reviews by all you users to warrant a judgement that yes I might have gotten this card..if not for the price involved at the time.... I am open now to try anything that is a bettr product...but also keep in mind the underlying aspects of each..and not just eye candy.....

What should also be taken into account are the technical aspects..so being the cards quality and materials..of makeup and driver issues ..and compatibility with all games.....

This little war..so to speak is enabling a influx of ideas and healthy competition for better advancement of the products involved.....it is all good...

If a person has the money and does their homework ..then it would be wise to check into future trends and developements in processors and other things related to the future...before leaping too quickly....that is unless you are like the guy that has to have the better of the new kid on the block......and that is pretty lame and not too practical...
The cards we have now..run most all games just fine if not exceptional...so please..look at the near future before deciding to spend alot of money needlessly...

[tantone]

BunnyJogger--
I think you still fail to admit that, at their base designs, ATI and nVidia have had very different goals.

It's a fact that ATI has been very interested in quality. It's a fact that nVidia has been very interested in beating ATI, even if that means using the FPS alone, or teaming with the game manufacturers to unbalance the equation.

Not saying that those aren't good sales tactics. But, looking at the benchmarks alone (the screenshots are a MAJOR part of that) nVidia isn't really breaking a mold here, as you would normally expect with a next-gen card like this.

So, still being rather impartial, I've got to say that nVidia is no better than the husband who does nothing around the house, then cleans the kitchen from top to bottom one day and expects praise and admiration for doing something that he should have been doing all along.

[Someone Stupid]

The only thing that has bothered me about nvidia is the FX series cards and the Forceware Drivers. They seem to have fixed both problems. I don't want to see one company completely stomp the other one round after round as eventually that will leave one company, and that wouldn't be good, period.

[Rabbitrunner51]

tantoner....that is a very bias viewpoint I must say......do you think Nvidia lacks quality.....I think not or I wouldn't be using one....the picture quality iis quite excellent....and its only a natural course to try and outdo he competition..but I am sure all competition is not geared solely on beating some aspect from ATI.....and...what is really wrong with teaming to the game manufacturers..its just good business.....I am sure and have seen ATI do the same thing...for certain games....

IN benchmarks...ATI is not always the winner in everything...and the two cards..the top for each company are almost dead even.....

Again the bias for each user is apparent..and I am glad that you seem to prefer ATI cards over Nvidia.....that is your right...
To pooh pooh the latest cards they came out with and make them seem like a small upgrade is ludicris and shortsighted.....after all they came out with these first didn't they..although that point does not matter much as what it does......and I just read some impresssive reviews about it and it is the biggest step so far as to graphics ..ect...and what a card can do...

I can be impressed by whoever makes what....and that is true objectivity..I just look at the positives and the needs meant at the time.....

Some specs here: Ge Force 6800

Transisters = 200 million ( more transisters than is found in a P4 EE )

Core Clock= 500-600MHZ

Memory Clock= 600 MHZ

Memory Type: 256G-DDR3

Double the amount of Pixel pipelines found in the ATI 9800 Pro....each being available to use for every graphic application within a game ( has to do with shader efffects.. AA and AF )

That doesn't seem like a pretty BIG small jump? You are dreaming....

[tantone]

do you think Nvidi lacks quality.....I think not or I wouldn't be using one Have you seen past, and current, screenshots???????????????
No bias needed. It's a fact.

nVidia had AA and AF but if you enabled them, you risked compromising the speed nVidia loved to rave about. Even ENABLED the quality (let's forget the speed for now) was far less than the same setting with an ATI card.

I pooh pooh the HYPE, not the card. nVidia's next-gen card beats ATI's current gen. SO WHAT?? It's SUPPOSED TO!

And they're trying to match quality of a next-gen nVidia with a current-gen ATI and they STILL LOSE! How is that biased!? Check the screeshots!

I gotta say that if nVidia was looking for a public spanking, they failed.

I guess we'll wait and see what ATI offers up, and then nVidia for the 2nd iteration of the 6800 Ultra and the 2nd iteration of the ATI next-gen.

[Rabbitrunner51]

I just do not get your ananlogies at all..

The currrent 6800 is four times a better quality picture with and with out the AA and AF added on ( then anything ATI has to offer )....the latter is exactly the issue they were addressing.....spees and the other goodies ( AA and AF )

You are very biased and it shows....I think you need to read your literature and specs a little more and the best reviews ..

I am not going to argue with someone who thinks they know all....you really do not...

Maximum PC has a good article on it in their latest issue....read it!.... and the outcome compared to the ATI cards...

[Bigjakkstaffa]

He's right, for years now, even when ATi werent a viable alternative for most users, ATi has had markedly higher image quality than Nvidia, who have always been identified within the industry as being primarily concerned with FPS speed while image quality was a very secondary consideration (as shown by Nvidia willingness in the past to decrease IQ and use half-way house filtering methods to give a slight bump in FPS speeds). Thats not to say the image quality is ****, indeed most hardcore FPS players dont care, the first thing they do is minimise all visual detail to prevent lag/fps slowdowns, however it has lagged well behind Ati's until now.

Heres the specs for the R420's attached too:



http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1081819095xDxNGnqwG1_1_1_l.gif

--Jakk:t

[Rabbitrunner51]

I must say that those are impressive numbers also....in some cases a little better but with the plus and minus core speeds..ad a few less transisters..which I don't think means that much right now....

We will all have to wait until these come out and see which card is the clear winner I guess....the numbers I gave were for the regular 6800 and they have an ultra also...with higher numbers...

Where did you pull this sheet out of..? a ATI home site?

I will be real honest and say if I had a choice....I am not as bias as some may come to think as I would get the best card out there if I decided to upgrade from what I have now.....it really is too bad we are al spoiled a bit..but I know my finances cannot handle what some people spend..on things over and over again....
If i were to buy another system ..it would have to last me at least ten or more years..into the future....

I take it you have the 9800 pro card now..Jak? and what is your take on it..as you probably said this before..but I now you also have had a Nvidia card.before also.
I am a scientific minded person..and the statistics show that if so many people are so happy with these cards ( ATI) then they must be quite OK....

May is just next month ..so thart is not far off for people to wait and see is it? Then the comparisons begin....and the video card wars rage on and on...with no end in sight.... OH BOY!

[Someone Stupid]

He got the above pick from HardOCP. Those numbers are what is recognized by ATi at the moment IIRC.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by Rabbitrunner51
I must say that those are impressive numbers also....in some cases a little better but with the plus and minus core speeds..ad a few less transisters..which I don't think means that much right now....


Clock speed wise, the R420 looks as though it will be faster, however as we know clocks ont means much and the number of pixel pipelines on all but the X800 XT's look like NV may have the upper hand, that said it depends if these are 1x8/12/16 or 2x8/12/16 though if im right in what ive heard, they will be 1x.

This sheet was leaked a few days ago and tunred up at [H], as such its probably not as specific as we would have liked (detaisl of PS3.0 implementation for example), as its not from an ATi official source. Indeed im curious to find out more now, as a few people in Tech circles i keep an eye on who are 'close' to ATi are sounding very smug with themselves and going on in a very 'i know something you dont know' manner.

As for the 9800 Pro, really impressed me. The first card i ever had was an Ati Rage Pro and i hated it with a venom, vowed never to buy anything from them again, and indeed, with 3Dfx and Nvidia being the giants they were, for five years i didnt have to. However cards from the R8500 and onover represent something of an upturn in Ati in terms of card and driver performance and quality, before, to me, they were always the poor man's choice with horribly written drivers, with the 8500 however much of this changed (ironically in recent months ive had much more trouble with Nvidias driver packages than Ati's).

Even so despite the steps forward with the 8500, the Gf4ti series blew them away in terms of performance (and in the case of the ti4200 - value for money) and i wasnt going to be budged from NV.

Then the R9500 and upover arrived last year, and while the FX series was a huge dissapointment, take nothing away from ATi, their last generation was a huge step up, pushing them well up to Nvidia's level and in most peoples minds (my own included) well beyond in terms of that present generation of cards. Their own long running strength's, such as IQ remained (i was absoloutley stunned by the difference in IQ between my ti4200 and R9800, it was one of the first things that hit me about my then new card), while they had managed to simultaneously steal Nvidia's crown for pumping out the highest FPS out there.

That said the R9xxx arent great across the board, a lot of it depends upon what machine your putting them in. In lower end cirucmstances and for non-gaming machines for instance, when reccomending specs to people i have tended to lean towards the FX5200 rather than the R9000/9100/9200.

However, this is only one generation, the real challenge for ATi is going to be keeping up the good work and proving this wasnt just a blip in form aided by Nvidia's inability to deliver with the FX, while its virtually certain that the R420 is going to continue the trend of good quality and performance cards established by the R9xxx series (and to a lesser extent the 8500) and not be a tumble back to the dark old days of the "Rage" series, whether they can still hold the performance crown, while maintaining their long running hold over superior IQ we'll only see when the R420 actually arrives.

--Jakk:t

[tantone]

The currrent 6800 is four times a better quality picture with and with out the AA and AF added on ( then anything ATI has to offer )I still have to take issue with that because the screenshots in the reviews linked from this very forum show otherwise.

I always bought nVidia and still buy them for our entire company at work (currently both the FX 5200 and the ti 4200's--long story as to why we need them...). They are great cards. BUT, to say that they a 4x better in visual quality than ATI is just plain wrong.

Like I said, they are finally adding the quality to a the speed, which is something they should have been doing a long time ago.

[Yellowpez]

The currrent 6800 is four times a better quality picture with and with out the AA and AF added on ( then anything ATI has to offer )....the latter is exactly the issue they were addressing.....spees and the other goodies ( AA and AF )

That is completely rediculous!!!!!!!! Look at the screenshot below. It compares a 6800 Ultra with a 9800XT. Not to mention the SS is taken in one of the "The way it's meant to be played" nvidia games. The AF isn't working correctly in the circled portion. AND! Look at the ceiling in the SS. The NV card is BLOCKY!!

Your statement of 4X better quality is ludicrous! The SS speaks for itself!

Have a good day!

http://www.pcgameforce.com/haha423/FX6800looksPrettyShyte.png

[SocialChaos]

Great, another card released by nVidia that runs twice as hot, takes up more space, and sounds like a lawnmower. I'll stick with my Radeon 9800 Pro that costs $200 less and performs as advertised. :rolleyes:

[Yoshi]

MSI unveils it's 6800 Series (http://www.msicomputer.com/pressrelease/6800.asp)

And to the person above me, I have not heard any one say the words BIGGER, LOADER, and HOTEER with these cards, just look at the pics, that is one slot looking to me. STOP MAKING UP COMMENTS

[Bigjakkstaffa]

With the cooler attached the card does still take up two slots, however it is supposed to be much much quieter than its predecessors, and according to [H] never once needed to go right the way up to it's full spin speed even under-load, which sould suggest that the card does not run massively hot (at least within the paramaters of its cooling system anyhows)

--Jakk:t

[Neo316]

everyone here argues that the 6800 still isnt better, even though it killed in benchmarks, and everyone says that aa and af arent great. well you all forget one thing that the drivers issued with the cards for review arent final. im sure nvidia will fix any issues when they get a final driver out. just admit that nvidia came back from past mistakes and fixed their S**T. also who cares about aa and af you CAN ONLY NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU SCREESHOT AND ZOOM IN. honestly everyone has their own preference to what they like i like nvidia of course and i always will. ati isnt bad either. they do what you pay for them to do play the games you like with good graphics, and exceptable frame rates

[Vampiel]

OMG look at the quality in that screen shot, its so horrible! OK thats the deciding factor, I dont care if my games get choppy, im not getting that card b/c look at that awful screenshot! Come on gimme a break.:rolleyes: I think the ATI fans are just scraping the bottom of the barrell for excuses, just like the Intel fans right now.

[RamonGTP]

The ATI side is SLIGHTLY better quality. However, as mentioned, these are beta drivers. Not just that, but the card itself is an engineering sample only.

I personally will not make any final conclusions until I see the results from a production card and drivers. As well as seeing what ATI has to offer for there next gen cards.

[Vampiel]

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/geforce_6800-48.html

Compared to the GeForce 6800 Ultra, the former high-end models Radeon 9800XT and FX 5950 Ultra often seem like nothing more than cheap mainstream cards...

you'll also see that, in addition to the outstanding performance, the new card finally offers very good FSAA quality as well as outstanding texture filtering, which will satisfy even quality purists, thanks to its ability to turn off the trilinear optimizations. Technologically, NVIDIA also takes the lead, owing to a full DirectX 9.0c and ShaderModel 3.0 implementation with unrestricted 32 bit floating point performance.

we are all waiting with bated breath for ATi's answer in the shape of the R420

[Yellowpez]

WOW! People love to assume things around here huh.

Never said ATI was the better card. Simply pointing out that the
claim of 4X better quality was ludicrous. Now that claim is fanboism. ;)

How do you know i don't have an NV card in my machine right now huh? ;) I actually have cards in machines built by BOTH! And both run fine and do what i need them to do. And i will continue to make my purchase on what gives me the best for my buck when i'm making said purchase. Simple!

LOVE competition. If it wasn't for ATI showing up NV for the past 18 months we wouldn't be witnessing what we are with the 6800.
It's too bad that fierce competition hasn't dropped prices tho. :(

[Yellowpez]

BTW. There is only one category that i show my fanboism.

Sound! CREATIVE BABY!!

[Rabbitrunner51]

Ther is a absolute fact that Nvidia 's quality and the way it runs ( which is the overall spped with anything over 2X is sliding downhill...for whatever reason..and maybe ATI 's cards are a bit ahead on this.

One of the more interesting aspects overall is the fact that users want the quality of picture and the speed at the same rate...with little slowdown....

I have A Nvidia FX5900 card and it is just fine if not exceptional in most all areas and any game I play....but....if you push the AA and Af up any more than 2X it tends to slow down a bit....don't know why .....maybe these are some areas that are being addressed at this time.

I really wish I could stick a 9800 Pro in my machine ..just to be able to get a on hands look and dmonstration for comparison to see what I see......

What is tricky is putting all this technology together and balancing the forces with in the framework to run everything smoothly.....probably much harder than our critical reviews allow.

My opinion is that $500.00 is and has always has been way too much to pay for any card.....should be no more than $300.00 tops....Heck, you can get a whole motherboard (best! ) and a very good processor for less than these cards...give a little break here.....I think they are somewhat taking advantage of us ..and that insenses me alot.

Don't you think that they are playing us a bit......? Greedy monkeys...they are.

[causticVapor]

Compared to the GeForce 6800 Ultra, the former high-end models Radeon 9800XT and FX 5950 Ultra often seem like nothing more than cheap mainstream cards...

hey, don't damage MY ego now... :p

On a side note I must agree with most of the previous statements - the performance does get well over 2x in most games, especially at incredibly high resolutions - the fillrate of the card is just that monstrous. I'm hoping the new driver series, which show IQ improvements for the 6800, will trickle down into the FX cards as well. Perhaps the "special" rendering for performance reasons won't be needed anymore because the FX series will be pretty much as forgotten as the GF4's in the coming months. :rolleyes:

Still though, it represents a huge leap forward in generational technology... the reason it doesn't massively outperform other cards at low resolutions is part because of the clock speed... see new steppings come out at 500-600MHz and it'll pull well ahead of the current gen in practically everything.

As for the cooler, I have a mixed impression. It doesn't look as sleek even as the 5900 series coolers, and a lot worse aesthetically than the slimline single-slot solution shown in the PR shots. It seems a temporary afterthought, though - the card doesn't even have a fused slot bracket. Maybe the reference coolers for actual release cards will be the same as those in the PR shots - who knows. Either way, the fact that the card can run quiet at that speed with such rich power consumption is a testament toward the good - in fact, the card looks more like the geforce3s and 4s than any other nvidia card - returning them to where they were, just with current gen tech and current gen performance.

PS3.0 is a nice thing, it can do some incredible effects and allows for swifter computation with traditional effects. It's not a bad idea to "test" somewhat future-gen tech on a current-gen card - as long as it doesn't jeapordize the card otherwise.

nvidia learned some things from ATi this time around. Instead of putting all the volatile eggs into one basket like they did with NV30, they analyzed what could be repaired with the previous gen. and formed nv40. They tested GDDR-3 on the 5700 Ultra, perfecting it on that card before bringing it to the behemoth. They saw what they did wrong earlier in the nv3x cores and repaired them - AND bruteforcedly equipped the core (massive parallelism) to prevent any kind of cataclysmic performance degradation down the road.

R4xx is going to pose quite some hefty competition if thought out properly. The way things have gone the past year, it looks as if ATi did the smart things and nVidia finally started dropping its ego and followed their suit of thinking.

[causticVapor]

Originally posted by Yellowpez
BTW. There is only one category that i show my fanboism.

Sound! CREATIVE BABY!!

:rolleyes:

[Rabbitrunner51]

causticVapor......

You state things very well and articulately....nice dialog......the most well read and informed of the bunch on the whys and where tos of things......nice job!

You obviously work for a company thqt deals with technical data and it shows....

And....I wholeheartedly second the Creative..plug....Yeah Baby! ( Audigy ZS and 7.1 surround speakers..

:D :cool:

[tantone]

I NEVER once said that the 6800 wasn't the "better" card. I mean, after all, IT IS next-gen right? It's SUPPOSED to be better. My point, which apparently is going misunderstood (not sure how you CAN'T get it) is that nVidia FINALLY incorporates a quality image with the speed they've always tried to use to leverage out the poorer quality (something they should have been doing all along), and people want to pat them on the back.

The 6800 is a very impressive card and in no way does it suck. BUT, you do have to admit how dumb it looks to see a screenie like the one above when that game comes with a nice big "nVidia: The way it's meant to be played" logo.

I dont care if my games get choppy, im not getting that card b/c look at that awful screenshot! Come on gimme a break. I think the ATI fans are just scraping the bottom of the barrell for excusesTalk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have a 9800 Pro. I defy you to find any more choppiness in my gaming than a 5950 would see with identical visual quality settings (not saying the quality would be identical anyway).

Oh, and at least the ATI users here can SEE the bottom of the barrel clearly and it's not all pixelated. :D

[Vampiel]

My only beef with creative is their support is virtually non-exsistent and they only supply updgrades to their drivers not the FULL driver on their web site, so if you lose the driver disk, or it doesnt come with one its a big hassle to find the drivers sometimes b/c the upgrade alone doesnt work.

Other than that their cards sound great, esp. EAX2.

[Yellowpez]

My only beef with creative is their support is virtually non-exsistent and they only supply updgrades to their drivers not the FULL driver on their web site, so if you lose the driver disk, or it doesnt come with one its a big hassle to find the drivers sometimes b/c the upgrade alone doesnt work.

That's not true. The last 2 releases have been stand alone fully functional drivers. No cd needed.

[Vampiel]

Thats funny, I bought an audigy2 about a year ago. I lost the cd about 3 months ago and I re-installed windows. I couldnt find the full driver off of soundblaster.com and even emailed tech support about it. I wish I still had a copy of the email but this is almost exactly what they said.

"You need the driver cd for the full installation of the audigy 2 drivers. We do not supply them on our website because of the large size. Please order another cd, they are $5 and you can get them xxxxx".

I had to goto download.com to finally get them.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by Yellowpez
WOW! People love to assume things around here huh.

Never said ATI was the better card. Simply pointing out that the
claim of 4X better quality was ludicrous. Now that claim is fanboism. ;)

How do you know i don't have an NV card in my machine right now huh? ;) I actually have cards in machines built by BOTH! And both run fine and do what i need them to do. And i will continue to make my purchase on what gives me the best for my buck when i'm making said purchase. Simple!

LOVE competition. If it wasn't for ATI showing up NV for the past 18 months we wouldn't be witnessing what we are with the 6800.
It's too bad that fierce competition hasn't dropped prices tho. :(

The way you were saying the SS speaks for itself with the yellow circle made it sound like it was such a bad quality picture that actually looked pretty good. Thats what you implied. I still dont see what the big deal is about that picture.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Come on people..its just one lousy picture and not a rep. of anything.....how about the overall picture .....(of things)

Tantone....I hear ya.... Nvidia probably was lacking in these characteristics...and unless you are very tech minded and dwelve into the workings,( which most users don't ), then its just a preference and personal choice....as long as a card does its job....and you are happy.....

We all get so uptight and too serious abou these things...as they will work themselves out and the makers and techies for the two companies are trying to do this ..and we should take our hats off to for addressing issues as they come up..and keeping up with the industry..

If you wer going to spend money for this card ..(esp. the $500.00 ) for the Ultra..then its wise to do some research and read ALL the reviews on the positives and negatives of it ..before shelling out .$$$

As the officiotto connoisieres that we all seem to be..we are getting increasingly picky about our gaming experiences..and thats alright...our eyes get more accustomed to finer details and workings of our cards..and the result is that the manufacturers have to address things...be patient and enjoy what you have ....be thankful and heres to happy gaming..... Hooya!

[Someone Stupid]

It is blocky. I saw that from a glance at the screen. The fact that you consider that good is true, just not for a card for the R3xx and NV3x generation and especially not for what power is available now in new cards. Probably was running it with bri-linear and didn't even know it.

[Yellowpez]

Thats funny, I bought an audigy2 about a year ago. I lost the cd about 3 months ago and I re-installed windows. I couldnt find the full driver off of soundblaster.com and even emailed tech support about it. I wish I still had a copy of the email but this is almost exactly what they said.

As i said....

The last 2 releases
;)


The way you were saying the SS speaks for itself with the yellow circle made it sound like it was such a bad quality picture that actually looked pretty good

SIGH :mad:

I've cleary stated my argument as pertaining that there is NO WAY that the NV card has 4X the quality. Didn't say either one had better. Just pointed out that the 4X claim was ludicrous. WTF is so hard to understand about that??

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA4MTc0NzQ0ODZxTE1PbWV1dFNfNV80X 2wuanBn

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA4MTc0NzQ0ODZxTE1PbWV1dFNfNV82X 2wuanBn

More to show the 4X claim is ludicrous.....

[Vampiel]

Yes, I think it was ludicrous as well.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Let me apologize and clarify that I misquoted a part of a good review that I read.....It was my mistake to quote this as it does seem pretty far fetched.....just don't have a cow over it......at least I admit my mistakes....

Some eaxact quoting..per batum..:

Nv40 uisng MIMD (mutiple instructions,Mutiple data sets) is a parallel processor ,each pipeline can run different instructions on different data sets at the same time.....meaning an increaseed 3D performance gain.....faster framerates,and eventualy better looking games as 3D programmers learn to take advantage of the new technology....
That is double the number of pipelines in a 9800 Pro and four times that in the Ge Force 5950.....in use with the above details..you might get a clearer pictiure of what it is capable of.....

[Yellowpez]

http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/driverIQ/

NV at it again...lol.

I found this quote from the article to be a pretty good statement for how i feel about it too.

You’d be hard pushed to say which image is optimised with the mipmap square. To me though, its not a matter of what I can see so much as the fact that this changing of textures is happening behind the users back. I have selected maximum quality on my £400 graphics card and I fully expect it to have Max Quality…not lesser quality than a much cheaper competitiors product.

I pay 500 bucks. I better get 500 bucks worth of performance.

[DozerLYP]

GF 6800, is it out yet???

[Neo316]

the 6800 ultra is due around memorial day and others on june 4th maybe earlier thats what i have been hearing

[DozerLYP]

is there anybody that can confirm if the 6800 Ultra is coming out next weekend, or they mouved the date again???

i have my system allmost ready, and i will need one of those:r

[Vampiel]

http://www.gameve.com/gve/Store/Category.aspx?catid=23 There ya go.
5/27 is the release date.

[DozerLYP]

they mouved the date again:mad:
now is June 7th

and what's the diferance between:

AOPEN GeFORCE 6800 ULTRA 256MB

AOPEN Aeolus 6800Ultra-DVD256

AOPEN Aeolus 6800GT-DV256

:confused:

and witch one will be the most compadible with a 64bit system???

and money is not an issue. i just want the best...:r

[Yellowpez]

June is release. PERIOD! Funny how NV does press release WAY before ATI yet ATI has cards out WAY before NV. :p

[DozerLYP]

well it was very easy for ATI, all they did is take last year card and make it better...

Nvidia as a totaly new card, a real next generation card.:D

[Bigjakkstaffa]

As the R5xx will be.

The R420 was never intended to be a next gen card, simply an extension of the R350 to keep pace in the meantime. Whats embarrasing from Nvidia's point of view is that Ati's card, built on old technology can keep pace/outpace their 'next gen' solution in just about all current applications.

Indeed, even in future applications word is that the R420 will be the faster of the two.

BTW: Theyve increased the clock speed on the 6800U up to 440MHz (if memory serves), as such manufacturers are having to update the BIOS' of their cards, which might be an explanation for the extra delays. Seems the X800 has really ruffled feathers down at NV though with the hurried clock boosting and planned "turbo-charged" - i use the words purely for descriptive purposes - 6800U release, and most recently, the cringe-worthy PR presentation.

--Jakk:t

[Vampiel]

Awsome they upped to clock speed, sweet. There's nothing wrong with adding more power, so long as it stays stable.

The R420 was never intended to be a next gen card, simply an extension of the R350 to keep pace in the meantime.
Sounds like they are aiming high for a $500+ video card.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

If beating the 'next gen' competition n the majority of benchmarks and games with a turbo charged incarnation of last years technology is anything to go by, then aiming high (and achieving it to boot) is one way of putting it yeah.

--Jakk:t

[jamil5454]

The 9800pro and 5950ultra can't even run pixel shaders in real time to their image quality potential. In other words, recent games (even HL2 & doom3) still have a ton of image quality headroom using SM2.0 features. The problem is that even the 9800pro isn't powerful enough to take full advantage of SM2.0, so ATI decided to release an over-powered R360. The x800 has almost 3x the shader performance of the R3xx series. To me, this is what needed to be done so that SM2.0 can be used to its full potential in games. Even the Ruby demo(100-200 shaders) doesn't take full advantage of the length of x800's shaders (which I think is 512). Nvidia's implementation of unlimited pixel shaders makes no sense because the card wouldn't be able to run more than 200 without lagging. It would only be helpful in non-realtime rendering for a movie or something.

[Vampiel]

Man I am sick and tired of people saying, 'sm 3.0 isnt anything'. Sorry ATI fans, it is true that sm 3.0 is not used yet for almost anything BUT it IS a big improvement no matter what information you try to cram into a post.
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_bezerker.jpg
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml
Sorry but I wouldnt pay $500 and pass up this kind of technology with the ATI.
Its not just a 'PR' hit, ITS A HARDWARE HIT! sheesh

Just looking at these pics makes me want to shoot at them!:D

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12288

[DozerLYP]

now you talking...

nice pix by the way

[Rabbitrunner51]

Yeah..details details details....Not getting into any real specifics..but improvements are just what they are and you have to appreciate it for wht it is....some kind of awesome picture....

I think the overall issue is and always will be speed with graphics design and how well they both work together....

The Pics. can be pretty..but the engine has to live up to the running processes part also....

I have alot of faith in both companies to do what is best and make some good choices...The graphics now in most games are pretty darn good and amazing to me...its just a very exciting time period right now for gamers....

Ouch! I can't affrod a new graphics card right now....but am sure somewhere down the road a bit I will get a new one to keep up with the gaming industry...

[Yoshi]

My first post ever on Sysopt was the whole 9800 Pro Vs 5900 thing, I said this an I'll say it again BOTH CARDS ARE FAST AND NOW IMAGE QAULKITY IS AROUND THE SAME, 4-5FPS WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. TAKE YOUR PICK AND STOP BICKERING.:p

[Someone Stupid]

Yes, SM3.0 has some great capabilities, but SM2.0 hasn't even been nearly pushed to the limit and also isn't UE 3 supposed to be rolling out in an actual game in a couple years from now? I think ATi made the smart play with the R420 and Nvidia is gambling. It may pay off, but nothing shows that one is going to need SM3.0. It may be tacked on a couple games and save a few FPS or they may use displacement mapping in some areas, but it won't be much. ATi may have to relenquish the IQ crown, but that's only if it can't deliver in games when SM3.0 is involved and the game looks as it should from nvidia as well.

Tech demos really are useless except to make whatever you want to shine, shine. They had the FX 5800 looking good with the dawn demo, the current users think the whole deal is BS if they bought it when it first came out at the original price, that is for sure.

Still, in the end, I think both cards will do great for this generation. I'd just like to see some from nvidia and to see how they match up in the real world and eventually how they OC.

[Vampiel]

OK, here is more immidiate uses of sm 3.0, and im sure DOOM 3 and half-life may even use it.
http://www.sysopt.com/articles/NVIDIA_Q_A/
Titles in development include Far Cry, Lord of the Rings, Battle For Middle-earth, STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl, Vampire: Bloodlines, Tiger Woods 2005, Madden 2005, Grafan, Painkiller and many more.

[Someone Stupid]

Vamp: Please read up on shaders a bit more, try beyond3d. With SM2.0b ATi essentially destrpyed all but one useable advantage of SM 3.0, displacement mapping. Unlimiting length would be nice, but if it is to long it will drag up time being ran, regardless of SM3.0 or not. Keeping it compact is what keeps it fast. HL2 last time I heard was using PS2.0 shaders of only 40 to 50 in length generally, so unlimited is useless. Those titles you mentioned wil have token SM3.0 shaders added similar to farcry with the latter titles possibly giving you a bit more than nothing as farcry did. There was no speed or IQ difference when doing 2.0 to 3.0 - not nvidia's of 1.1 (as 2.0) vs. 3.0 which wasn't even properly implemented 3.0 IIRC,

[Vampiel]

Yes, I understand your point, but if you are so paper orientated, then the choice would be clear ati vs. nvidia.

[jamil5454]

The only thing SM3.0 has going for it is displacement mapping. Even then SM3.0 seems kinda worthless, until games are optimized for it (at least a year or so). Has anyone seen the HL2 wall video? If not, then download it:

http://downloads.gamezone.com/demos/t10370.htm

^If they can do this with SM2.0, then I can wait a little longer for SM3.0.

[Vampiel]

Ive never seen so many techie's so resistant to new technology.

[DozerLYP]

yes but if no one comes out with a sm3 card. game maker will not use it. if we went better looking game, someone has to make the card.
Nvidia did first.
this is why you "ATI fan" are mad. if ATI would of think of it first you'll be "SM3 is awsome"
sorry you got beat to it...

[Rugor]

Ok here is the BIG question

Why is SM3.0 so important right from the get go but SM2.0 wasn't and PS1.4 wasn't?

How is the step to SM3.0 bigger and better than those other steps?

No one has ever managed to answer these questions to my satisfaction. Yes, SM3.0 is a good thing, but it is not the be-all and end-all of the new cards.

I want to digress right now with a little history lesson.

ATI introduced Pixel Shaders in their hardware with the original Radeon, which supported PS1.0. It was designed to compete with the GeForce 2 which had no pixel shader support at all. ATI was betting this would give it a leg up when the next generation of DX came out requiring shader support, especially since the Gf2 was selling much better. Unfortunately, when DX8 came out, it required PS1.1 which was supported by Nvidia's GeForce 3 but not by ATI's Radeon.

ATI's next step forwards was the R200, or Radeon 8500 which brought PS1.4 to the table. PS1.4 was a significant improvement over previous versions and allowed for greater performance because it could do things in a single pass that versions 1.1 through 1.3 had required multiple passes to achieve. Unfortunately, once again ATI's product was eclipsed by by an Nvidia product with weaker shader support. Even though the Gf4Ti was limited to PS1.3 support it still outperformed and outsold the technically superior (in terms of shader hardware) Radeon 8500.

When ATI introduced SM2.0 on the R300, developer takeup was still very slow, despite the large number of cards shipped. Nvidia's SM2.0 part shipped later and with much lower shader performance, but it was higher AA and AF performance that was really selling cards for ATI more than better shader support. Meanwhile, Nvidia was busy evangelizing the use of PS1.1 whenever possible, even on some of their newest PS2.0 capable cards.

When the choice was between the Radeon 8500 with its PS1.4 support and the Gf4Ti with PS1.3 support, I, like most on this forum, suggested that people go for the Gf4Ti as a better gaming card. Shader support was less important than overall performance.

All the information that is out there indicates that 90% or more of the benefits of SM3.0 are in terms of performance not image quality. In many ways it's akin to the jump from PS1.3 to PS1.4 where the later version allows for single pass rather than multipass functions.

So it all comes back to the question why is SM3.0 support so much more important to jump on immediately than PS1.4 support or SM2.0 support. I can see why it's important for Nvidia to say it is, but other than that I don't see why it's qualitatively different than the previous jumps where ATI was first.

If I could say a Gf4Ti was a better choice than a Radeon 8500, despite its having less advanced shader hardware I can say the same thing about the X800 XT over the Gf6800U.

In the end it will come down to game performance and image quality, not Shader Model.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Healthy competition is whats making the card changes possible..don't forget that fact....

They should just both merge into one big conglamerate..so all that technology could benefit from added resources and aslo to stop this bickering war....:D

[Vampiel]

Rugor, apparently you know alot of paper facts, all I know is I look at sm 1.1 screenshots and sm 2.0 screenshots and am like wow look at the difference. Then I look at sm 2.0 screenshots and sm 3.0 screen shots and am like wow look at the difference.

I could care less how much information someone can cram into a paragraph, with a bunch of mumbo jumbo spec's, just give me the screenshots and the frame-rate, some basic spec's, then I can decide, I dont need alot of technical facts and details to make up my mind.

[Rugor]

Originally posted by Vampiel
Rugor, apparently you know alot of paper facts, all I know is I look at sm 1.1 screenshots and sm 2.0 screenshots and am like wow look at the difference. Then I look at sm 2.0 screenshots and sm 3.0 screen shots and am like wow look at the difference.

I could care less how much information someone can cram into a paragraph, with a bunch of mumbo jumbo spec's, just give me the screenshots and the frame-rate, some basic spec's, then I can decide, I dont need alot of technical facts and details to make up my mind.

Ok then fine, answer this one question.

Why is it so important to jump to SM3.0 immediately, but it was ok to delay the jump to SM2.0?

What changed?

I agree that SM3.0 is important and that it will make a difference. However what I don't know is if it makes that big a difference right now. Until we know whether the Gf6800 will support SM3.0 the way a Ti4600 supported PS1.3 rather than the way an FX5200 supported SM2.0, it's too early to tell if it's a killer feature.

Also, I would really like to see any screenshots that show a difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0. The new model is much more about improving performance than image quality.

The biggest example out there of SM3.0 vs SM2.0 is a set of FarCry screenshots. People were using those to say how much better SM3.0 was going to look. Unfortunately it turned out that what they were comparing was a PS1.1 path on one side with a PS2.0/3.0 path on the other. SM2.0 and 3.0 provided exactly the same visual quality.

It all comes back to the same question:

Why the about-face? Why was Nvidia pushing to use PS1.1 rather than 2.0 whenever possible, but now feels it's necessary to push PS3.0. Until there's an answer to that I can't see why it's a must-have for this generation.

[Rugor]

Another question:

If the highest shader technology is what matters, why did so many people go for a GeForce 4 Ti over a Radeon 8500?

The Radeon had more advanced shaders.

[DozerLYP]

Originally posted by Rugor
Another question:

If the highest shader technology is what matters, why did so many people go for a GeForce 4 Ti over a Radeon 8500?

The Radeon had more advanced shaders.

BECAUSE ATI S****:rolleyes:

[Rugor]

Sadly Dozer, that doesn't answer the question.

However, it's obvious to me that for you at least the level of technology doesn't matter, since from the sounds of things you'd be buying Nvidia even if ATI had SM4.0

I guess it means the true answer to why SM3.0 is so important is because Nvidia says so and there's no point to any discussion since the mighty "Nv" is and must always be right.

[DozerLYP]

and i guess, because most game maker will go with Nvidia over ATI...

[Rabbitrunner51]

Ok! OK!..stop all this bickering ..its fine for people to like what they lean towards....if it makes them happy...we do not all have the same level of tech. knowledge ..nor does it matter to the average buyer....only those who keep track of things

When I bought my current card ..which is a FX 5900 ..I knew less then ,then i do now..andif given the price and choice I might have purchased a ATI card ..esp. the 9800 Pro model...

Rugor..I like your more in depth expertise on the facts as they are needed to know...in making a choice or for just being welll informed....
I tend to think more like Vanpiel though, as some of this is more added hype and garbage ..and i would base my decision on more general stuff ..like performance and graphics....

They can post two or three pictures side by side and my thinking is that they are all good and what is the real difference anyway...some detail being a tinge better in quality? Who cares?

And,this comes from myself as a very technical minded person...who has the sense to be grounded in all this debate.

I would tend to base my decisions upon reviews from ordinary users .as well as from the experts..and leave the other tech. things for them to dance around with....

[Rugor]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is wait three months after both the 6800 and the X800 XT are both out, and then decide.

I think it's too early to do anything else.

That's why I'm not so concerned about SM3.0. It's too early to tell yet.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by Rugor
However what I don't know is if it makes that big a difference right now.
Well that's the $500 question now isnt it? The fact is the differences between the 2 cards are so small right now, that if I spend that much money on a card, I would want sm 3 support b/c im going to be playing games that support it on the card cause im not going to throw it away 6 months from now. Seeing as to how the other differences are so minor. Thats all im trying to say.

Show me an sm2.0 picture that looks as good as the ut3 pic's. Im sure if epic released pics with there ut3 engine using sm2.0 then we would see a clear difference.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by Rugor
Personally, I think the best thing to do is wait three months after both the 6800 and the X800 XT are both out, and then decide.
I agree.

[morpheus kain]

Vamp you can't be sure it'll have the horsepower to run PS3.0 well though!

[Vampiel]

Yes I can, epic said it ran ut3 with at a good frame rate with the 6800u, im sure it was prob. using an athlon64 of some sort as well. http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004May/bch20040511025101.htm
Both nVidia and Epic are claiming that the Unreal Engine 3, which can realistically portray subtle lighting and shadows as well as realistic textures, will set a new standard for gaming graphics.
Plus the x800 has about the same FPS so why even argue that point?

[Rabbitrunner51]

I still find it hard to believe that you'll spend as much for a video card as almost a whole system would cost....

Aren't these cards out right now??

[DozerLYP]

because if you want the newest technology. you must pay the price for it.

and i don't have a problem paying $500 for a video card that will work with the comming soon games, for the next couple of years.

i would not pay $500 for last year technology though...:rolleyes:

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by Vampiel
Yes I can, epic said it ran ut3 with at a good frame rate with the 6800u, im sure it was prob. using an athlon64 of some sort as well. http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004May/bch20040511025101.htm

Plus the x800 has about the same FPS so why even argue that point?

Unreal 3 ran at E3 on an FX6800U correct, at a good fram rate? Incorrect. 5-10FPS @ 640x480 was the reported speed. Far from playable i think you'll agree. Quite simply, by the tiem U3 arives, the FX6800U and the X800 will both be middle of the road, low end/mid range cards.

(There are also rumors flying around that Epic have shown of U3 running on the X800 in their offices and its actually quicker than the 6800U, though im not sure the people making such comments are entirely trust-worthy)

--Jakk:t

[jamil5454]

Originally posted by DozerLYP
because if you want the newest technology. you must pay the price for it.

and i don't have a problem paying $500 for a video card that will work with the comming soon games, for the next couple of years.

i would not pay $500 for last year technology though...:rolleyes:

If last year's technology is just now being barely tapped into, why not? Especially if it's faster?

Oh, and, this might clear up some questions for you Dozer:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA5

[DozerLYP]

ok that look verry good. but then again, Nvidia was showing screanshot from the "demo" and ATI was using the actual game with a patch. witch i'm prety sure as a lot to do with image quality...

if you want to show me some thing to make me think ATI card is much better. at least use the same thing Nvidia was using for there sceanshot. not a better version of the game...:rolleyes:

[Plaster]

Originally posted by DozerLYP
ok that look verry good. but then again, Nvidia was showing screanshot from the "demo" and ATI was using the actual game with a patch. witch i'm prety sure as a lot to do with image quality...

if you want to show me some thing to make me think ATI card is much better. at least use the same thing Nvidia was using for there sceanshot. not a better version of the game...:rolleyes:

I believe that "demo" is a demo of the Far Cry engine using SM3.0. It's not the downloadable demo of Far Cry. It's a tech demo. In other words, the ATi shots are from the actual game while the nvidia shots are from a tech demo that's actually newer than Far Cry.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
(There are also rumors flying around that Epic have shown of U3 running on the X800 in their offices and its actually quicker than the 6800U, though im not sure the people making such comments are entirely trust-worthy)

--Jakk:t
I would like to see some screen shots of that if it's true. So I can compare the sm2 to sm3.

[jamil5454]

I'm sure that eventually a review site will compare screenshots from the 1.1 version of FarCry (since this is the version that supports SM3.0 on NV40). The problem is that we can only compare ATI's SM2.0 to Nvidia's SM3.0 in this game because Nvidia either runs the game in SM3.0 or 1.1; never SM2.0. Hopefully the 1.2 patch will force Nvidia to run in SM2.0.

[bob05]

I really want to see a game engine truly built for SM 3.0 screenshots to be compared against the same engine just using SM 2.0. I dunno if FarCry was really made with SM 3.0 (or if it was patched in much like the way Aquamark did when they upgraded DX 8 to DX 9 shaders). :t

[jamil5454]

Yep, that's true. I guess it would be kinda like running an Itanium in 32-bit mode versus an AMD64 in 32-bit mode. One is emulated (in the case of FarCry probably) and the other is built for it. However, some screenshots would still be nice.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

AFAIK the "SM3.0 upgrade" for Far Cry will not bring a massive amount of additional IQ over the SM2.0 render of ATi, it's mostly being used to speed up the shader operations.

--Jakk:t

[jamil5454]

We'll see if it even does that, I'm kind of having my doubts. Maybe newer games written explicitly for SM3.0 (if they ever do make them) will show more of a shader speed improvement. Of course, FarCry could run awesomely with SM3.0 and I'd be wrong, but I think it's gonna be more like the performance jump from AGP4x ----> AGP8x.

[morpheus kain]

I wonder if Mr. C will use SM 3.0 to speed up the shaders in Doom3...

[Rabbitrunner51]

This is getting to be so cool at how they are making such strides and effort ot better the graphics in things... its very exciting..but the price I am afraid may break the bank for alot of users...

It will be quite awhile..before I can afford to spend $500.00 on a video card... I spent $200.00 for a good card I have now..which in some places still sells for $270.00..and it does an exceptional job with all the games I have played so far...including the latest....

At least another year for me..till I get one of these or a later card.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by morpheus kain
I wonder if Mr. C will use SM 3.0 to speed up the shaders in Doom3...

I doubt it this late in the development stage. That said, i wouldnt be suprised to see a patch or addon later in the day similar to Far Cry or the way in which Valve intends to roll out DX10 graphical updates to Source

--Jakk:t

[morpheus kain]

Yeah that's what I was thinking Jakk but you never know if Carmack feels it would add to the game enough and make it more accessible then it very well may get done. Despite that I'm with you I wouldnt' be surprised at all to see a patch come out for it.

[DozerLYP]

Ok, lets stop fighting between ATI and Nvidia for one minute.

nobody anser the question i ask about this...

what's the diferance between:

AOPEN GeFORCE 6800 ULTRA 256MB

AOPEN Aeolus 6800Ultra-DVD256

AOPEN Aeolus 6800GT-DV256

and witch one will be the most compadible with a 64bit system???

and money is not an issue. i just want the best...

:r

[Rugor]

If you go to AOpen's site you should be able to find the difference between the cards. They all sound like slightly different models of the same basic card. They'll probably differ in things like bundle, core and memory clock, and possibly features like dual DVI and/or ViVo functionality. All should be about the same for A64 compatibility.

[DozerLYP]

The GeForce 6800 Ultra was releast today.

http://www.gameve.com/gve/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?sku=VC-EVGA-6800

but it is back order on this site.

is there anybody that know any other site that as it in stuck???

[Magua]

Is there any screenshot evidence that shows SM 3.0 with an IQ advantage over SM 2.0? All I have seen is SM3.0 compared to SM1.1, which is irrevalent because neither ATi or Nvidia's new cards are SM 1.1.

I find it interesting that SM 3.0 is being touted as a must have feature, when I am still unsure of its actual benefits.

[Vampiel]

It's not a must have feature, get sm2.0. Youll just miss out on all the fun!:D

And no there is no real comparison shots, b/c sm3.0 is virtually non-existant at the moment. We will have to wait a few months (or longer) before any kind of real comparison's can be made.

There do exist some awsome sm3.0 shots with the unreal 3 engine, and I doubt sm2.0 would look nearly as good b/c the models are insanely detailed. By then though, the X800 and 6800 will be budget cards at best.

[Rugor]

99% of the benefits of SM3.0 are performance related not IQ related. It's going to help IQ by allowing a card to maintain a playable framerate with more eye-candy enabled more than anything else.

[Vampiel]

I have to agree and disagree. Although for current games the difference will be almost nothing, in the not to distance future sm3.0 will make a large impact on graphic's. Not only in speed but in detail. Only time will tell, but sm3.0 will surely add alot to gaming in the near future and become a 'must have' option.

http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=4136&head=1&comments=1
As we've explored, the potential for 'cool eye candy' is generally greater with the improvements made in Vertex Shader 3.0 than those seen in Pixel Shader 3.0. Certainly, if some of these features are put into effect in future titles, and performance is up to scratch, then we have something to be excited about.

[Magua]

There do exist some awsome sm3.0 shots with the unreal 3 engine, and I doubt sm2.0 would look nearly as good b/c the models are insanely detailed. By then though, the X800 and 6800 will be budget cards at best.

Excatly why I am holding off on this wave of cards and will probably upgrade after examining ATi's 'next gen' card.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Personally..I would hold off until they make games that make the most use of these cards..as the high end cards alot of us have will do just fine for most of the gaming coming out in the near future.... The cost is very high for any real avaerage computer user to purchase....and if money is not an issue and you like throwing it away...on the top end prices .then get it by all means.

I know that I am a practical person by nature with a concerning eye on things...and it just makes more sense to wait a while until the dust settles and facts and new technology takes the next big turn....

If I had the money to spend right now..I would much rather get a new motorcycle or something..now that summer is underway....

Not only that ..but alot of people would also need to upgrade their computers..with a bigger power supply and more power related hardware to take full advantage of this these cards...

On the positive side...$300.00 for the plain 6800 is alright and that might be in line with alot more peoples budget..

[DozerLYP]

i finaly got my card in my system last night. :D

if you look at my first post on this thread, you'll see how long i've bean ready for it.:rolleyes:

i started building this system in mid March. and it took this long to get it finish, because i was waiting for one of these video card to come out. it was a long wait, but now i see that it was all worted. even know i have the 6800GT instead of the Ultra. witch i'll probably get the 6800 Ultra Extrem, when it comes out. but for now my system is officialy done. ;)

and i'm prety happy with it. :x

this how it banch

3dmark03 score = 11562

3dmark01 score = 23324

aquamark3 score = 64683

GFX 9591

CPU 9928

find me an ATI that can come up with these numbers:D

[Plaster]

Originally posted by DozerLYP
find me an ATI that can come up with these numbers:D

http://www.digital-daily.com/video/ati-radeon-x800xt/

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by DozerLYP
i'll probably get the 6800 Ultra Extrem,

You'll be have to be lucky, going to be a limited quantity release from what i've heard.

--Jakk:t