9800 Pro v 6800 GT BENCHMARKS

[PacFu]

Ok, let me start off by saying that I am in NO WAY a professional tester, so take these benchmarks with a grain of salt. Also, I'm sad to say that 3DMark03 crashes for both cards consistently in the same spot, so I cant post results for that. Without futher ado...

The SETUP...
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2, v.2149
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 3.2GHz (Prescott)
Memory: 1024MB RAM 5:4
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

Card name: RADEON 9800 PRO
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6458 (English)
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT (eVga)
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6134 (English)

The GAMES, all games set to MAX DETAILS, all 1280x1024, ran with BenchEmAll...
Far Cry - Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo
Unreal Tournament 2004 - dm-rankin, as-convoy, br-colossus
Call of Duty - Timedemo1
Return to Castle Wolfenstein - checkpoint.dm_60
Quake III Arena - four.dm_67

The MARKS...
Aquamark3
3DMark01 SE
3DMark03 3.40 - N/A

Here we go...
The Results...

IMO, everything here as expected, but the 9800 pro really surprised me in UT04. Also, CoD was doing some funny stuff, so I guess you can disregard that bench.

So, there it is.

 

[Fern]

Nice Job!

 

[Regs]

Cool stuff. I see 4x AA kills FC frame performance @ 1280x1024

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: Regs
Cool stuff. I see 4x AA kills FC frame performance @ 1280x1024

Well, it still runs better 4xAA then 9800 pro no AA, so still a nice tradeoff. Plus the new Far Cry patch should help the performance, as well as official drivers.

 

[PacFu]

Oh by the way, if anyone is planning on getting a 6800, I hope you have lots of free space in your case, because this card takes up some SERIOUS real estate. To give an example, the molex connector on the card is 1/3 of the way ontop of one of my harddrives. I thank god that I have sata drives and the cable is tiny. I have a Chenming full tower case too.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Looks like the 9800 Pro is still going strong.

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Looks like the 9800 Pro is still going strong.

Agree, I never realized how good of a card the 9800 is. Well, at least I'll be able to play Doom 3 on the 5th with high settings.

BTW, I did try to bench the HL2 beta, but it was too buggy (and by the way looks NOTHING like the tech demos @e3 texture and model wise). It is a beta, so I wont hold it against them. Or maybe I'm dumb and dont know how to bench it properly.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You must not be overclocking at all eh? the card that is, Because those GT scores are terribly low.

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
You must not be overclocking at all eh? the card that is, Because those GT scores are terribly low.

You are correct...we'll see tonight

 

[gururu]

even the 9700pro won more best bang for buck tests than the GT in anand's review

 

[Megatomic]

Comparative benchmarks should be done at stock speeds. No two cards overclock alike, even if they were made on the same day using components from the same batch.

 

[Regs]

The GT does take up some space. It should fit in any ATX case with a mobo that does not skip out the AGP slot standard.

But I did have to push back my ATA cables.

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
...those GT scores are terribly low.

I dont think they are. I use all MAX settings as well as tried to find the most punnishing benches. Seems about right to me.

 

[crsgardner]

Was the 9800 overclocked?

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: crsgardner
Was the 9800 overclocked?

No, it doesnt even have a fan (6 in fan blowing in case). See sig

 

[blazerazor]

these benches make me reconsider the true value of the GT. Makes the 9800 look better, considering its half the cost.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Looks like the 9800 Pro is still going strong.

My sentiments exactly. The 6800GT made a great show in Far Cry (1280 no AA or AF), and that is probably a better indication of future performance and the (increasing) gap between the two architectures, but for the moment, the 9800 Pro is not a bad card. Not the fastest, obviously, but since you can often find it for 2-3 times cheaper than the 6800GT or X800 Pro, the 9800 Pro is (arguably) the best choice for those who don't want to spend $200 or more on a video card but still want good performance.

 

[ponyo]

9800 Pro is fine for most games up to 1280x1024. So if you're going to game at that resolution or lower, 9800 Pro is great choice.

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Looks like the 9800 Pro is still going strong.

My sentiments exactly. The 6800GT made a great show in Far Cry (1280 no AA or AF), and that is probably a better indication of future performance and the (increasing) gap between the two architectures, but for the moment, the 9800 Pro is not a bad card. Not the fastest, obviously, but since you can often find it for 2-3 times cheaper than the 6800GT or X800 Pro, the 9800 Pro is (arguably) the best choice for those who don't want to spend $200 or more on a video card but still want good performance.

That reminds me, anyone want to buy a refurbished 9800 Pro (I'll pack-in the Far Cry disks I got with GT since I already own it)?

 

[Regs]

I think the real reason why the 9800pro is still a good card is that there really isnt a CPU out there to push the limits of a new generation video card. Unreal benches as of late have been a little CPU limited but with high res and FSAA you can see where the value of the 6800 comes out.

Later this year im more than likely going to get a socket 754 2.4 Ghz A64. This should help ten fold.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: PacFu

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
...those GT scores are terribly low.

I dont think they are. I use all MAX settings as well as tried to find the most punnishing benches. Seems about right to me.

I have the BFG GT and looking at your scores I can only surmise the Prescott must beholding you back.

 

[Childs]

Maybe you can retest at 1600x1200? I tend to agree with the other that the CPU is holding you back at that resolution. If you want, you can send me your 6800GT and I'll test it on my Athlon 64 systems. :shocked:

 

[jim1976]

Nice effort thankz :thumbsup:

I don't seem to grasp how ppl seem to get exited about the performance of 9800pro.
Guys, we are talkin about a card that this very moment we are discussing, the vast majority of ppl would luv to have in their rig.
I mean cmon if 9800pro can't stand decently in a comparison with high end gpus,then what should the mainstream gamers do? Throw away their gpus in the garbage and never play a future game again?
As someone ellaborated,I believe 9800pro will be just fine for next years demanding games until 1280x1024 and low AA/AF.
Todays cards offer great perf, but they were made with main purpose of serving high resolutions and application of AA/AF.
And remember these are benches for released games not forthcoming ones. 9800pro should be comparable.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Childs
Maybe you can retest at 1600x1200? I tend to agree with the other that the CPU is holding you back at that resolution. If you want, you can send me your 6800GT and I'll test it on my Athlon 64 systems. :shocked:

WTF man? 2.8E and holdin him back? What are you waiting him to bench to? A 3.4EE or an FX53?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: Childs
Maybe you can retest at 1600x1200? I tend to agree with the other that the CPU is holding you back at that resolution. If you want, you can send me your 6800GT and I'll test it on my Athlon 64 systems. :shocked:

WTF man? 2.8E and holdin him back? What are you waiting him to bench to? A 3.4EE or an FX53?

Actually he's correct. An A64 3400+ or greater is really needed to truly push these new cards to their full potential.