6800GT preview up at guru3d, link inside

[Pete]

I skimmed the benchmarks in this review a week or two ago, and I don't recall any smoking (despite the hype to the contrary around the link that I followed). Cainam's posts appear to corroborate my shaky memory.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to see GTs sold in B&Ms and the Cat 4.7s released before I look to a more realisitically "final," or at least accurate, comparison between the two $400 cards.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Ackmed
This review has some wierd anomolies in it. They dont have AF scores for the X800 Pro in Splinter Cell. And they claim the AA "problems" are a known "issue". Its not a issue, the game doesnt support AA.

Im not sure how anyone can cliam the GT is "smoking" the Pro. Most benches are within a few frames in 1280x1024 with some AA/AF. UT2004 is in the teens faster on the GT than the Pro though.

Another review that makes no mention of the bugs in Farcry with NV hardware.

fanboys will be fanboys.... :disgust:

where in this review did the gt "smoke" anything? :shocked:

i've only seen 1 title where, with the lastest fw drivers, the gt has a pretty commanding lead: CoD (and it wasn't included in this review), but even then the slower PRO runs it at 55fps @ 2048x1536 4xaa/8xaf... hardly what one would consider anywhere near 'slow'.

but rather than argue further, i'll let the fanboys have their fun. it's a safe bet that these cards will go back and forth regarding performance with future drivers. they're close enough that the differences are minimal, and there is plenty of room for driver improvements on both sides, even the "old" r420 architecture - during the "trilinear" optimization PR chat (and it's PR as imo ati was clearly attempting to "get away with one" in this matter) one of the ati engineers stated the new memory architecture of r420 was only running around 70% efficiency.

the only real trump card nvidia has is sm3, which may or may not prove to be of any benefit in this generation of cards.

CaiNaM, do you really care which one is faster? Or slower?

 

[James3shin]

i'd say the onchip encode/decode of mpeg and co. is another "trump card" with sm3.0

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: James3shin
i'd say the onchip encode/decode of mpeg and co. is another "trump card" with sm3.0

Untill we see it working, its not alot different though. Its a "potential" feature advantage that has yet to be enabled (or at least from what I've seen) ATI's encoding/decoding excepting WMV already works, and has worked since 9700 using the shader pipeline. Its not nearly as robust as the NV solution is "supposed" to be, but where is it?

 

[James3shin]

that is a good question, i would like to see a review site do benches of the aforementioned encoding and decoding. guru did a snippit of a temp comparison which was nice, but where are the benches for the encoding/decoding?!

 

[BFG10K]

The GT is certainly turning up the heat. It'll be interesting to see the final Catalyst 4.7s squaring off against the final 6x.xx drivers.

 

[ChkSix]

wow it even beats the x800xt in some benchmarks! (default settings) :beer:

 

[dajo]

Looks great...where the heck are they?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
CaiNaM, do you really care which one is faster? Or slower?

honestly? given the speeds these cards run at, not really.. frankly the only reason i even get into these "debates" has more to do with accuracy of statements than whether i care which card "wins"

the only reason i don't have a GT right now is they're just not available, and even tho i could, out of principle i wouldn't pay over msrp for either card (i jumped early only because i got this PRO for $350). i'm hardly aligned with either ati or nvidia; since the days of radeon 32DDR i've had competing product from both camps every generation. besides, it's fun having both products to do your own comparisons with

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: James3shin
i'd say the onchip encode/decode of mpeg and co. is another "trump card" with sm3.0

while i don't personally consider it a "deal breaker", it is a nice feature - or perhaps i should say it "could" be a nice feature when it's actually working

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
CaiNaM, do you really care which one is faster? Or slower?

honestly? given the speeds these cards run at, not really.. frankly the only reason i even get into these "debates" has more to do with accuracy of statements than whether i care which card "wins"

the only reason i don't have a GT right now is they're just not available, and even tho i could, out of principle i wouldn't pay over msrp for either card (i jumped early only because i got this PRO for $350). i'm hardly aligned with either ati or nvidia; since the days of radeon 32DDR i've had competing product from both camps every generation. besides, it's fun having both products to do your own comparisons with

Ok, just checking, thanks for the reply. If I could manage it, I would also like to acquire both an X800pro and a 6800GT. I will end up keeping the GT, but it would be nice to play around with the X800pro.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
CaiNaM, do you really care which one is faster? Or slower?

honestly? given the speeds these cards run at, not really.. frankly the only reason i even get into these "debates" has more to do with accuracy of statements than whether i care which card "wins"

the only reason i don't have a GT right now is they're just not available, and even tho i could, out of principle i wouldn't pay over msrp for either card (i jumped early only because i got this PRO for $350). i'm hardly aligned with either ati or nvidia; since the days of radeon 32DDR i've had competing product from both camps every generation. besides, it's fun having both products to do your own comparisons with

Ok, just checking, thanks for the reply. If I could manage it, I would also like to acquire both an X800pro and a 6800GT. I will end up keeping the GT, but it would be nice to play around with the X800pro.

i can respect that choice

 

[Axon]

Card looks real nice. It's a good time to be a gamer, we've got 4 cards you can't really go wrong with.

 

[Rage187]

Beyond 3d and the word "Trusted" should never appear in a sentence together, including this one.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: Rage187
Beyond 3d and the word "Trusted" should never appear in a sentence together, including this one.

Nice opinion

 

[Rage187]

If they weren't so slanted(biased) towards their handlers (Ati) I might have a better opinion of them.

until that day.....

 

[Ackmed]

Please show me where B3D has been bias towards ATi in their reviews.

 

[Genx87]

Ohh looks like my comments got the ATI faithfuls panties all up in a bunch

FarCryefault
1600X1200:22% advantage GT
1600X1200 16xAF: -5% for GT
OC GT:27% advantage

UT2K4:
1600X1200:7% GT advantage
1600X1200 4AA,16AF:11% GT advantage

RTCW:
1600X1200:6.5% GT
OC same. Game is CPU limited even at high res.
1600X1200 4AA,8AF:24% GT advantage. GT is also 10% faster than the X800XT.

Splinter Cell:
1600X1200: 7.5% GT advantage
OC: 17% advantage

Avgs out to about 10.2% on avg faster. That is smoking in my book. You cant even upgrade a few speed grades in CPUs and realize that kind of performance gain.

If you throw in the overclocks which I am 99% sure can be attained the avg advantage will jump upwards of 20%. For the same money it just doesnt make sense to buy an X800.

 

[Ackmed]

Do you think everyone plays at 1600x1200?

Why dont you take into consideration of the X800 Pro overclocks, when saying the GT will overclock and be 20% faster?

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Ohh looks like my comments got the ATI faithfuls panties all up in a bunch

Wow, what an utterly idiotic analysis. Comparing an overclocked GT to a stock x800 Pro in your handpicked benches?

Turn on AA/AF and the x800 Pro would likely win the splinter cell benchmark. The Pro also offered better aquamark 3 performance.

Do you think everyone plays at 1600x1200?

A lot of people who'd buy these cards do. If you only play at 1280x1024 do you really need one of these?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ohh looks like my comments got the ATI faithfuls panties all up in a bunch

FarCryefault
1600X1200:22% advantage GT
1600X1200 16xAF: -5% for GT
OC GT:27% advantage

UT2K4:
1600X1200:7% GT advantage
1600X1200 4AA,16AF:11% GT advantage

RTCW:
1600X1200:6.5% GT
OC same. Game is CPU limited even at high res.
1600X1200 4AA,8AF:24% GT advantage. GT is also 10% faster than the X800XT.

Splinter Cell:
1600X1200: 7.5% GT advantage
OC: 17% advantage

Avgs out to about 10.2% on avg faster. That is smoking in my book. You cant even upgrade a few speed grades in CPUs and realize that kind of performance gain.

If you throw in the overclocks which I am 99% sure can be attained the avg advantage will jump upwards of 20%. For the same money it just doesnt make sense to buy an X800.

it's amazing the lengths some people go thru to claim superiority...

even if 10% is accurate, 55 fps is 'smoking', but 50 fps is not? and i love overclocking one but not the other in order to showcase it's alleged 'superioriy' lol....

and my panties are not in a bunch at all.. if the ati was 5 fps faster and you stated it 'smoked' the nvidia, i'd say the same thing: nothing more than exagerrated conclusions by a fanboy....

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Do you think everyone plays at 1600x1200?

i think it's fair to compare highend cards at this resolutions - my x800pro certainly plays all of the games tested at that resolutions well.

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
A lot of people who'd buy these cards do. If you only play at 1280x1024 do you really need one of these?

well, yea.. as last gen cards won't play farcry very well at that res with hi af/aa. plays ok @ 1024 with aa/af tho.

 

[Genx87]

Do you think everyone plays at 1600x1200?

Why dont you take into consideration of the X800 Pro overclocks, when saying the GT will overclock and be 20% faster

Now if I owned a 400 dollar video card why in the hell would I play at anything less? Especially if I can get playable framerates with 4xAA, 16AF?

Hell I have a 5900 and play nothing less than 1600X1200.

Wow, what an utterly idiotic analysis. Comparing an overclocked GT to a stock x800 Pro in your handpicked benches?

You see that part where I put the two letters "OC"? Ya, that is the overclocked cards performance deifference. Everything else is the standard GT. And these werent handpicked. These are all the gaming benchmarks from the review that started this thread.

it's amazing the lengths some people go thru to claim superiority...

Yes, I know comparing the benchmarks in the link provided. /gasp, what lengths

even if 10% is accurate, 55 fps is 'smoking', but 50 fps is not? and i love overclocking one but not the other in order to showcase it's alleged 'superioriy' lol....

Do the math and it is correct.

and my panties are not in a bunch at all.. if the ati was 5 fps faster and you stated it 'smoked' the nvidia, i'd say the same thing: nothing more than exagerrated conclusions by a fanboy....

I think the three people who responded in fashion proved my point about how much their panties are in a bunch

 

[reever]

I think the three people who responded in fashion proved my point about how much their panties are in a bunch

Even if their replying to one of your inflammatory posts? How are you not getting excited about this? I would say going through reviews to find something to prove your point qualifies as being quite concerned with the topic yourself

 

[GeneralGrievous]

You see that part where I put the two letters "OC"? Ya, that is the overclocked cards performance deifference. Everything else is the standard GT. And these werent handpicked. These are all the gaming benchmarks from the review that started this thread.

And you are using those OC values to compute the 10.2% difference you got.

Especially if I can get playable framerates with 4xAA, 16AF?

Good luck with that. The GT is unplayable at 1600x1200 4x/16x in several games already. Note how that card only gets 40 fps at 1600x1200 with only 8xAF and both optimizations on.

My overclocked XT, otoh, handles Farcry at the above setting quite nicely.

 

[Genx87]

And you are using those OC values to compute the 10.2% difference you got.

Wrong but try again.

Good luck with that. The GT is unplayable at 1600x1200 4x/16x in several games already. Note how that card only gets 40 fps at 1600x1200 with only 8xAF and both optimizations on.

My overclocked XT, otoh, handles Farcry at the above setting quite nicely.

Personally I have never been interested in any of the af or aa settings. The point was if you can do it why not?

I play far cry on my 5900 at 1600X1200 with little issue.

Even if their replying to one of your inflammatory posts? How are you not getting excited about this? I would say going through reviews to find something to prove your point qualifies as being quite concerned with the topic yourself

Yes saying the GT is smoking the X800 sure is inflamatory. If you think giving my opinion on the matter is inflamatory I suggest getting out a little.

Showing the results to back up my claim of the GT smoking the X800 does show I am quite concerned about the topic at hand. If I wasnt, then there would be no reason for me to calculate the performance difference.