CrazyCrusher
05-04-2004, 01:42 PM
Close but looks like Nvidia has it.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710/
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710/
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : ATi Radeon X800 XT, the new King of the Hill?
ShadeZeRO
05-05-2004, 07:09 PM
... ATI 4 Life :)
dont worry, just wait till the cards get some REAL DRIVERS, then you can see how it turns out. These are jsut the prelims.
The real game has yet to begin :cool:
dont worry, just wait till the cards get some REAL DRIVERS, then you can see how it turns out. These are jsut the prelims.
The real game has yet to begin :cool:
CrazyCrusher
05-05-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by ShadeZeRO
... ATI 4 Life :)
These are jsut the prelims.
The real game has yet to begin :cool:
my Point EX: Prelims it is, but look what Nvidia have done in the "Prelims" we shall see, I can see an Upset on the Horizone:)
... ATI 4 Life :)
These are jsut the prelims.
The real game has yet to begin :cool:
my Point EX: Prelims it is, but look what Nvidia have done in the "Prelims" we shall see, I can see an Upset on the Horizone:)
Yoshi
05-05-2004, 11:58 PM
Prelims? The card has already shipped out, and will be in shelves in 1-2 weeks tops, that is pretty final to me.
Rugor
05-06-2004, 12:39 AM
From what I've seen Nvidia has the edge in features, but ATI seems to have the performance advantage, especially at higher resolutions and with higher levels of AA and AF.
So I'd vote for ATI because right now I see more need for better AA than SM3.0. Besides with all the Gf4MX cards out there it's not like being limited to SM2.0 will mean there are games you can't play.
So I'd vote for ATI because right now I see more need for better AA than SM3.0. Besides with all the Gf4MX cards out there it's not like being limited to SM2.0 will mean there are games you can't play.
iceblue
05-06-2004, 01:24 AM
As long as frame rates float around 60 with high quality settings and 1024x768 res., I'm more than satisfied.
Vampiel
05-06-2004, 01:57 AM
Here's another review, looks pretty close for both cards. I would have to say that it's pretty much a close tie. ATI has it's advantages, but so does NVIDIA. This is the analysis from tom's...
the new performance leader is ATi's Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index.html
the new performance leader is ATi's Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index.html
CrazyCrusher
05-06-2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Rugor
From what I've seen Nvidia has the edge in features, but ATI seems to have the performance advantage, especially at higher resolutions and with higher levels of AA and AF.
\can't play.
No pun intended DDR but Nvidia Beat ATI on 1200X1600 with AA and AF on DX9 games, Nvidia stated that there goal was to improve and focuse on DX9 and they did a great job as you can see by the bench marks, ATI beat them in one or two of the higher end games. but as said it this article any of these two cards are a good pick, its hard to decide they both whop *** big time.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710.6/
From what I've seen Nvidia has the edge in features, but ATI seems to have the performance advantage, especially at higher resolutions and with higher levels of AA and AF.
\can't play.
No pun intended DDR but Nvidia Beat ATI on 1200X1600 with AA and AF on DX9 games, Nvidia stated that there goal was to improve and focuse on DX9 and they did a great job as you can see by the bench marks, ATI beat them in one or two of the higher end games. but as said it this article any of these two cards are a good pick, its hard to decide they both whop *** big time.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710.6/
ShadeZeRO
05-06-2004, 08:49 AM
about the prelims stuff. I know that they are going to releas the cards on shelf (you can actually order it from gameve.com)
but, ATI and NVidia are going to have to come out with a REAL driver release. None of this beta junk. NVidia actually had a DECREASE in performance when they sent in a 2nd version of their beta drivers.
I read this at Toms Hardware...
-I would post the link, but im in class and i dont wanna get busted. Posting in a rush!!! ;)
but, ATI and NVidia are going to have to come out with a REAL driver release. None of this beta junk. NVidia actually had a DECREASE in performance when they sent in a 2nd version of their beta drivers.
I read this at Toms Hardware...
-I would post the link, but im in class and i dont wanna get busted. Posting in a rush!!! ;)
Rugor
05-06-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by CrazyCrusher
No pun intended DDR but Nvidia Beat ATI on 1200X1600 with AA and AF on DX9 games, Nvidia stated that there goal was to improve and focuse on DX9 and they did a great job as you can see by the bench marks, ATI beat them in one or two of the higher end games. but as said it this article any of these two cards are a good pick, its hard to decide they both whop *** big time.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710.6/
You make good points, and I have to admit that's a review I didn't read all the way through, partly because I've never really been that fond of Sander Sassen's work as a journalist. I tend to trust [H]ardOCP's reviews more, especially since they now focus on end-user playability, and they gave the crown to ATI.
However, I did look at that link you posted, and you're right, it does show higher speeds for Nvidia. It also shows him benching with 4xAA/8xAF when I'd want to see 16xAF at the very least. Both cards support higher levels of AA as well, though since they handle them differently Nvidia takes a much bigger hit from AA over 4x, since they use a hybrid MSAA/SSAA mode as they don't currently support multi-sampling above 4x. ATI's 6xMSAA has no direct competitor and runs faster than Nvidia's 4xMSAA/2xSSAA hybrid mode.
They also used the 'spoiler' version of the 6800 Ultra with the 450MHz core (what other sites are calling the Ultra Extreme) wtihout indicating that on the graphs. Finally, this card shipped with drivers that removed the ability to disable trilinear optimizations.
No pun intended DDR but Nvidia Beat ATI on 1200X1600 with AA and AF on DX9 games, Nvidia stated that there goal was to improve and focuse on DX9 and they did a great job as you can see by the bench marks, ATI beat them in one or two of the higher end games. but as said it this article any of these two cards are a good pick, its hard to decide they both whop *** big time.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1710.6/
You make good points, and I have to admit that's a review I didn't read all the way through, partly because I've never really been that fond of Sander Sassen's work as a journalist. I tend to trust [H]ardOCP's reviews more, especially since they now focus on end-user playability, and they gave the crown to ATI.
However, I did look at that link you posted, and you're right, it does show higher speeds for Nvidia. It also shows him benching with 4xAA/8xAF when I'd want to see 16xAF at the very least. Both cards support higher levels of AA as well, though since they handle them differently Nvidia takes a much bigger hit from AA over 4x, since they use a hybrid MSAA/SSAA mode as they don't currently support multi-sampling above 4x. ATI's 6xMSAA has no direct competitor and runs faster than Nvidia's 4xMSAA/2xSSAA hybrid mode.
They also used the 'spoiler' version of the 6800 Ultra with the 450MHz core (what other sites are calling the Ultra Extreme) wtihout indicating that on the graphs. Finally, this card shipped with drivers that removed the ability to disable trilinear optimizations.
Bigjakkstaffa
05-06-2004, 04:32 PM
See my comments here:
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162311
On the balance of things the X800 XT seems to be the overall fastest card when comparing performance across a dozen or so applications, though the 6800U is faster in a few applications (funnily enough quite often those based on older technology such as CoD).
That said i dont paticularly thing either card is the massive step forward many were expecting (indeed the R420 is an interim card to keep pace with Nvidia - or was that oupace? - while the R5xx is under development), while the issue of the NV40's added chipset features remains a contentious one which we probably wont see the result of for a good few months now (afterall, most new games arent even fully utilising DX9 hardware graphics yet), however i suspect the extent to which these features come into it will depends upon how many developers Nvidia can "persuade" to adopt the new features, which arguably arent much of a step up over PS2.0.
In conclusion, for the here and now, with the X800 XT Ati has retained the crown in terms of performance across a range of gaming applications, albeit with a much tighter margin than before, this may or may not change in the coming months depending upon how drivers mature, wether feature sets are taken up by the gaming community etc. However the 6800U is by no means inferior, the only thing which strikes me is that Nvidia may be pricing themselves out of their market (from what ive read the 6800U is $100 more expensive than the faster X800 XT).
However, both cards have failed to deliver in terms of makign great advances and living up to the tag of 'next gen' and for those with current relatively high end solutions (which we are yet to see anything push) to buy either of these cards, would be a wasted investment in terms of performance boost returns
--Jakk:t
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162311
On the balance of things the X800 XT seems to be the overall fastest card when comparing performance across a dozen or so applications, though the 6800U is faster in a few applications (funnily enough quite often those based on older technology such as CoD).
That said i dont paticularly thing either card is the massive step forward many were expecting (indeed the R420 is an interim card to keep pace with Nvidia - or was that oupace? - while the R5xx is under development), while the issue of the NV40's added chipset features remains a contentious one which we probably wont see the result of for a good few months now (afterall, most new games arent even fully utilising DX9 hardware graphics yet), however i suspect the extent to which these features come into it will depends upon how many developers Nvidia can "persuade" to adopt the new features, which arguably arent much of a step up over PS2.0.
In conclusion, for the here and now, with the X800 XT Ati has retained the crown in terms of performance across a range of gaming applications, albeit with a much tighter margin than before, this may or may not change in the coming months depending upon how drivers mature, wether feature sets are taken up by the gaming community etc. However the 6800U is by no means inferior, the only thing which strikes me is that Nvidia may be pricing themselves out of their market (from what ive read the 6800U is $100 more expensive than the faster X800 XT).
However, both cards have failed to deliver in terms of makign great advances and living up to the tag of 'next gen' and for those with current relatively high end solutions (which we are yet to see anything push) to buy either of these cards, would be a wasted investment in terms of performance boost returns
--Jakk:t
CrazyCrusher
05-06-2004, 06:51 PM
The thing I find funny is that some sites are testing these cards on the same spec system, and some are coming out with ATI and top some coming out With Nvidia on top, so how is that? I see on toms hardware that ATI beat Nvidia in Ut2004 bench and a few others yet i have gone to other sites techtv and so on and they come out with Nvidia on top, now if thats not a personal thing, if you like ATI ur going to have em on top, like wise with Nvidia, me I will buy what ever one is best let it be ATI or Nvidia or TNT that was a joke, but really how do they come up with these diffrent scores? I think the best way your going to come round this is if you test the cards your self for what you want it for, me personaly I think Nvidia will have the edge in a few months with what tweaking they have done, adding more support than the Xt, but on here we could argue for months, guess its a lets wait and see thing. but for im guesing a near 600 bucks, you'd want to be of your rocker, id drop down to the ATI price of they want to keep customers from jumping ship to ATI.
Rugor
05-06-2004, 07:27 PM
Actually there is a reason why different sites are getting different scores, namely that they aren't all testing the same thing.
Let's take ATI's AF for an example. If you set performance AF in the control panel you get bilinear anisotropic filtering on all texture stages. If you set quality AF on the control panel you get trilinear anisotropic filtering on the first texture stage and bilinear anisotropic filtering on all other stages. If you set the control panel to Application Preference and then set AF within the game you get trilinear anisotropic filtering on all stages.
Now when it comes to the recent benchmarks, some sites are benchmarking the original 400MHz 6800U with the drivers it shipped with, where others are using the newer 450MHz 6800U with a different set of drivers. Not only do the newer drivers include bug fixes, but they also removed the ability to disable Nvidia's trilinear optimizations. Since most reputable sites did their first UT2004 benches with in-game AF and the optimizations disabled, those scores are going to be lower than the scores that are generated with the newer hardware released this week.
Even though they are benchmarking on similar systems, different drivers and different 6800U speeds are going to make a noticeable difference.
Let's take ATI's AF for an example. If you set performance AF in the control panel you get bilinear anisotropic filtering on all texture stages. If you set quality AF on the control panel you get trilinear anisotropic filtering on the first texture stage and bilinear anisotropic filtering on all other stages. If you set the control panel to Application Preference and then set AF within the game you get trilinear anisotropic filtering on all stages.
Now when it comes to the recent benchmarks, some sites are benchmarking the original 400MHz 6800U with the drivers it shipped with, where others are using the newer 450MHz 6800U with a different set of drivers. Not only do the newer drivers include bug fixes, but they also removed the ability to disable Nvidia's trilinear optimizations. Since most reputable sites did their first UT2004 benches with in-game AF and the optimizations disabled, those scores are going to be lower than the scores that are generated with the newer hardware released this week.
Even though they are benchmarking on similar systems, different drivers and different 6800U speeds are going to make a noticeable difference.
Vampiel
05-06-2004, 07:51 PM
OK after doing some more research on both cards from MANY different hardware sites, most said NVIDIA took the crown, and some said ATI did. I think at this moment it's a tie (dead heat), but most people dont like that word.:D
Both are exellent but the NVIDIA is more future proof with the 3.0 pixel shader so that would be the deciding factor for me b/c im not worried about the power consumption.
Honestly I think with what NVIDIA put on the card once the dust settles from a driver standpoint NVIDIA will come out on top b/c they have more muslce to work with. Though it wouldnt be enough to convert an ATI fan to their side of the fence.
Both are exellent but the NVIDIA is more future proof with the 3.0 pixel shader so that would be the deciding factor for me b/c im not worried about the power consumption.
Honestly I think with what NVIDIA put on the card once the dust settles from a driver standpoint NVIDIA will come out on top b/c they have more muslce to work with. Though it wouldnt be enough to convert an ATI fan to their side of the fence.
DozerLYP
05-06-2004, 11:13 PM
agread with you Vampiel
for me, Nvidia is the one.
i don't realy care about the fan being so big. because who need all 5 PCI slot anyway. what do you have in your system that take all the PCI slot?
i have 1 Audigy 2zs. thats all. all the USB2, firewire, joystick controler, and network are all inboards. so even if it was taking 3 slots, i will still have plenty of space for it.
and for the power, i'm ready for it too.
ATI S****
as soon the 6800 Ultra hits the shelf. i will have one of those baby in my system:r
for me, Nvidia is the one.
i don't realy care about the fan being so big. because who need all 5 PCI slot anyway. what do you have in your system that take all the PCI slot?
i have 1 Audigy 2zs. thats all. all the USB2, firewire, joystick controler, and network are all inboards. so even if it was taking 3 slots, i will still have plenty of space for it.
and for the power, i'm ready for it too.
ATI S****
as soon the 6800 Ultra hits the shelf. i will have one of those baby in my system:r
Vampiel
05-06-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by DozerLYP
as soon the 6800 Ultra hits the shelf. i will have one of those baby in my system:r
Send one my way as well!:D
as soon the 6800 Ultra hits the shelf. i will have one of those baby in my system:r
Send one my way as well!:D
MadPistol
05-06-2004, 11:45 PM
It would be really easy to buy one of those cards and then put it in my system. I have a 2.8 ghz P4C, which all in all, isn't that much slower than a 3.2 Ghz P4 EE. Since this is true, I have a very ideal system to handle the next generation card already. I can't wait to get it! :D
iceblue
05-06-2004, 11:46 PM
You can count me in also!
If that's not possible, a 6800 GT would be nice. :D
If that's not possible, a 6800 GT would be nice. :D
Vampiel
05-06-2004, 11:48 PM
Truely ATI has come a long way. I once used to see them as a card only to buy for their exellent video out/in cards (the all-in-wonders). They still surpass NVIDIA in that aspect. Then the 9800's hit the market and I was like, wow, that came out of nowhere! Ive had both brands throughout the years, and both are pretty stable and well made cards. Therefore I really have no brand name loyalty to either brand.
Im glad to see ATI coming out right when we needed them b/c voodoo (bleah) bit the dust. It's always nice for us modders/gamers/enthusiest's for there to be good competition so the prices stay down.
(nvidia still sucks for video out/in!!!!!!) thats my only complaint about there cards.
Im glad to see ATI coming out right when we needed them b/c voodoo (bleah) bit the dust. It's always nice for us modders/gamers/enthusiest's for there to be good competition so the prices stay down.
(nvidia still sucks for video out/in!!!!!!) thats my only complaint about there cards.
Yoshi
05-07-2004, 12:04 AM
I will also grab one seeing as I waited and saved for it, either 680 Ultra or X800 XT, if the Pro or GT arent tooo far behind I might save the $100 and go with them:t
DozerLYP
05-07-2004, 02:32 AM
why do you need TV in for?
if you really want it. all i would give ATI is $50 for this TV Wonder VE (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=275162&pfp=SEARCH) and not a penny more...;)
if you really want it. all i would give ATI is $50 for this TV Wonder VE (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=275162&pfp=SEARCH) and not a penny more...;)
Vampiel
05-07-2004, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by DozerLYP
why do you need TV in for?
if you really want it. all i would give ATI is $50 for this TV Wonder VE (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=275162&pfp=SEARCH) and not a penny more...;)
The all-in-wonders are very nice for video output/input, and now they hold there own for games. They are a bit more expensive but very nice cards if your into video capture/output and play games.
why do you need TV in for?
if you really want it. all i would give ATI is $50 for this TV Wonder VE (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=275162&pfp=SEARCH) and not a penny more...;)
The all-in-wonders are very nice for video output/input, and now they hold there own for games. They are a bit more expensive but very nice cards if your into video capture/output and play games.
CrazyCrusher
05-07-2004, 08:00 AM
It's important to remember that NVIDIA's cards offer full SM30 support and FP32. It's just that games with these features won't be out for quite some time. but if your thinking toward the Future I would put my money down on Nvidia, but if your going to go for a now, I would hit an ATI, even though I had a Nvidia, this lot hear at sysopt made me change to ATI, and trust me that was a hard thing to do, but owning my 9800Pro, man do I love this card.
And more important consideration is one you may not expect. To run both the GeForce 6800 Ultra and Ultra Extreme, NVIDIA recommends a 480W power supply (PSU). While I'm lucky enough to have very high-end stuff and a power supply that powerful, these things are not common. I looked through the May issues of popular computer gaming magazines, and not a single "über extreme ultra high-end maximum" gaming machine came with anything over a 425W PSU. If you've got an OEM machine like a standard HP, Dell, Gateway, or other "mass-market" brand, chances are you have a 350W PSU at best, and it may be proprietary, meaning you can't just replace it on your own. This means that you may be required to update your PSU along with your video card, a task that many haven't the first clue how to do. In contrast, both the new Radeon X800 cards have a recommended PSU of 300W, as does the GeForce 6800 GT.
And more important consideration is one you may not expect. To run both the GeForce 6800 Ultra and Ultra Extreme, NVIDIA recommends a 480W power supply (PSU). While I'm lucky enough to have very high-end stuff and a power supply that powerful, these things are not common. I looked through the May issues of popular computer gaming magazines, and not a single "über extreme ultra high-end maximum" gaming machine came with anything over a 425W PSU. If you've got an OEM machine like a standard HP, Dell, Gateway, or other "mass-market" brand, chances are you have a 350W PSU at best, and it may be proprietary, meaning you can't just replace it on your own. This means that you may be required to update your PSU along with your video card, a task that many haven't the first clue how to do. In contrast, both the new Radeon X800 cards have a recommended PSU of 300W, as does the GeForce 6800 GT.
MadPistol
05-07-2004, 08:42 AM
You have a point. However, Anyone willing to chunck $500 for a video card must be a pretty hardcore gamer and will more than likely know how to upgrade their PSU and their video card as well. It really shouldn't be a problem. We'll just have to wait and see though.
ShadeZeRO
05-07-2004, 10:37 AM
I already have a 500w PSU (ANTEC). I think i will be ready for the upgrade in cards. But i dont know if my processer and the new vid card will be too much of a strain on my video card.
I mean, ill just buy a new PSU if that is the case. Changing the PSU is a simple chore that takes no more than 15 minutes (while watching tv:D )
Athlon64 3400+
and a
X8xx - XT with r5xx (comin out late this year)
I mean, ill just buy a new PSU if that is the case. Changing the PSU is a simple chore that takes no more than 15 minutes (while watching tv:D )
Athlon64 3400+
and a
X8xx - XT with r5xx (comin out late this year)
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.