A 9800 pro question (256 vs. 128)

[dtrostli]

I would really like to know if the extra 128 mb of RAM is worth the extra cost, also sincve i would like to flash the bios to 9800 xt and oc it. Some guys have told that in order for a 9800 pro to behave like an XT it has to have 256. True?

Well anyways please post ur thoughts.

 

[VIAN]

I has to be 256MB and have the 360 core. There is a way to tell. I think it is better and easier and safer to just OC the card instead of flashing. I know I would never buy a flashed card, so resale value could deminish. The think is, if you are gonna buy a 9800 Pro 256MB or 9800 XT 256MB, don't bother, just wait for the 6800. 300 bucks which is close to the 9800 Pro 256MB price point and performs a crap load better.

Otherwise get a regular 9800 Pro.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I has to be 256MB and have the 360 core. There is a way to tell. I think it is better and easier and safer to just OC the card instead of flashing. I know I would never buy a flashed card, so resale value could deminish. The think is, if you are gonna buy a 9800 Pro 256MB or 9800 XT 256MB, don't bother, just wait for the 6800. 300 bucks which is close to the 9800 Pro 256MB price point and performs a crap load better.

Otherwise get a regular 9800 Pro.

First of all, the 6800 does NOT perform a "Crapload" better . .. only - at best +12% over the 9800XT.

Secondly,

The Radeon 9800 Pro To Radeon 9800XT Mod Guide Rev. 4.0! Piece of cake, NOT dangerous and REVERsible!

 

[GeneralGrievous]

You can also turn a 128 mb 9800 Pro into an XT, though you'll lack the overdrive feature. You do need the R360 core though.

IMO, that's your best bet. Buy a 9800 Pro for $190 and flash/overclock.

 

[jim1976]

I've tried it with my R360 128mb gpu with the Samsung mem.
I advice you to have either a "vga silencer" or a "giant iii" and ramsinks wouldn't hurt.
Worked fine with no probs for me. But you always take a risk.

 

[nRollo]

Why bother with the question when you can get a refurb 256 for $220 shipped?

 

[BFG10K]

Try to get a faster card from this generation but if you can't get the 256 MB version of 9800 Pro.

 

[nick1985]

no

 

[skgarach]

or you could just get a 6800 for $250 here

 

[VIAN]

First of all, the 6800 does NOT perform a "Crapload" better . .. only - at best +12% over the 9800XT.

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=7
Reviewing benchmarks again. You can expect, on raw fps, the 6800 to beat the 9800 XT by up to 50%. However, when you turn AA/AF the 6800 will perform slightly lower than the 9800 XT by up to 20%.

Peteroy, i salute you.

"I don't know about anandtech, but from my own experience with both AMD and Intel, Intel is always better."

"Don't switch to AMD, new Pentium 4 Prescott 1MB L2 Cache Hyper threading smokes any Athlon 64."

"Athlon 64 do not perform better than Pentium 4 on gaming."

LOL

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: VIAN
I has to be 256MB and have the 360 core. There is a way to tell. I think it is better and easier and safer to just OC the card instead of flashing. I know I would never buy a flashed card, so resale value could deminish. The think is, if you are gonna buy a 9800 Pro 256MB or 9800 XT 256MB, don't bother, just wait for the 6800. 300 bucks which is close to the 9800 Pro 256MB price point and performs a crap load better.

Otherwise get a regular 9800 Pro.

First of all, the 6800 does NOT perform a "Crapload" better . .. only - at best +12% over the 9800XT.

Secondly,

The Radeon 9800 Pro To Radeon 9800XT Mod Guide Rev. 4.0! Piece of cake, NOT dangerous and REVERsible!

Good Lord. Here you are an "Elite Member" on this site, totally disregarding the reviews this site posts and spreading FUD.

OK Apoppin, since you apparently can't read the reviews here:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=1">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=1

Percentage performance differences, slower card/faster card

6800NU faster than 9800XT:
13%,23%,19%,32%,25%,31%,22%,24%,29%,31%,44%,40%,37%,42%,9%,19%,15%,14%,18%,27%,22%,20%,21%,35%,7%

Out of those 25 benchmarks where the 6800 is faster than the 9800XT, your insane "at best 12% faster" quote you keep misquoting is correct a whole 2 times. It's actually 20%> 17/25 benches it wins. That is considerable.

How about your 9800XT?

9800XT faster than 6800NU:
17%,15%,17% (and SM3 wasn't used on the 15% so that is dubious)

Gee Apoppin, tough choice here:
The card that is faster 25/28 times or the card that is faster 3/28 times?!?!?!
Which to choose? This is a stumper......

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: VIAN
I has to be 256MB and have the 360 core. There is a way to tell. I think it is better and easier and safer to just OC the card instead of flashing. I know I would never buy a flashed card, so resale value could deminish. The think is, if you are gonna buy a 9800 Pro 256MB or 9800 XT 256MB, don't bother, just wait for the 6800. 300 bucks which is close to the 9800 Pro 256MB price point and performs a crap load better.

Otherwise get a regular 9800 Pro.

First of all, the 6800 does NOT perform a "Crapload" better . .. only - at best +12% over the 9800XT.

Secondly,

The Radeon 9800 Pro To Radeon 9800XT Mod Guide Rev. 4.0! Piece of cake, NOT dangerous and REVERsible!

Good Lord. Here you are an "Elite Member" on this site, totally disregarding the reviews this site posts and spreading FUD.

OK Apoppin, since you apparently can't read the reviews here:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=1">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=1

Percentage performance differences, slower card/faster card

6800NU faster than 9800XT:
13%,23%,19%,32%,25%,31%,22%,24%,29%,31%,44%,40%,37%,42%,9%,19%,15%,14%,18%,27%,22%,20%,21%,35%,7%

Out of those 25 benchmarks where the 6800 is faster than the 9800XT, your insane "at best 12% faster" quote you keep misquoting is correct a whole 2 times. It's actually 20%> 17/25 benches it wins. That is considerable.

How about your 9800XT?

9800XT faster than 6800NU:
17%,15%,17% (and SM3 wasn't used on the 15% so that is dubious)

Gee Apoppin, tough choice here:
The card that is faster 25/28 times or the card that is faster 3/28 times?!?!?!
Which to choose? This is a stumper......

"Spreading FUD" Disregarding Reviews"

My my, you ARE proud of your card.

:roll:

I guess i failed to provide a link (this time) - From YOUR card's MAnufactiurer's web site:

In fact, the performance gains that you can enjoy from even the "Little Brother" of the GeForce 6 family, the GeForce 6800, are enormous: runs at least a full 12% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or the ATI 9800XT - the previous generation's top performers; and the 6800 comes in at an MSRP of only $299

That's what the marketing department of evga says.

And they are guilty of distortion . . . "a full 12% faster" DOES NOT EQUAL "enormous".

PLUS they say the 6800 is 12% faster than the 5950U OR the 9800XT (and we know the XT is faster than the 5950u).

:roll:

Now go argue with THEM.

:roll:

 

[nRollo]

:roll:
1. I don't get "proud" of material posessions, I enjoy using them.

2. Again, why are you giving more credence to a marketing claim than reviews on this very site? (not to mention others?)

3. Most of all- how can you so completely misunderstand such a simple phrase?

runs at least a full 12% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or the ATI 9800XT

"at least" is the key phrase here Apoppin- the important thing for most people is the "on average" and "at most". If you benchmarked a 100 games at all possible settings and found the 6800 was 200% faster at every setting but 1 on one game that it's 12% faster at, it would still be accurate to say it's "at least 12% faster"?

Do we understand the concept of "at least" now? That it means "it's always 12% faster or more" or "establishes a minimum threshold for performance increase"?

 

[VIAN]

That's what the marketing department of evga says.

And they are guilty of distortion . . . "a full 12% faster" DOES NOT EQUAL "enormous".

PLUS they say the 6800 is 12% faster than the 5950U OR the 9800XT (and we know the XT is faster than the 5950u).



Now go argue with THEM.

Now are you going to tell them why your information is still wrong.

You said, "First of all, the 6800 does NOT perform a "Crapload" better . .. only - at best +12% over the 9800XT."

You said at best. EVGA says at least. BIG difference. 12% at least and more like 50% at best.



So the 6800 Ultra is 12-44% faster than the 9800 XT with AA/AF off.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Even I'd say that its more than 12% appopin. Rollo's numbers average out to 20%. So probably 28% faster than a 9800 Pro.

Though if you get that $195 MSI 9800 Pro (with free morrowind and duke nukem and other games) and flash that sucker to XT, you get ~80% of 6800 speeds for 2/3 the cost.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo
:roll:
1. I don't get "proud" of material posessions, I enjoy using them.

2. Again, why are you giving more credence to a marketing claim than reviews on this very site? (not to mention others?)

3. Most of all- how can you so completely misunderstand such a simple phrase?

runs at least a full 12% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or the ATI 9800XT

"at least" is the key phrase here Apoppin- the important thing for most people is the "on average" and "at most". If you benchmarked a 100 games at all possible settings and found the 6800 was 200% faster at every setting but 1 on one game that it's 12% faster at, it would still be accurate to say it's "at least 12% faster"?

Do we understand the concept of "at least" now? That it means "it's always 12% faster or more" or "establishes a minimum threshold for performance increase"?

i understand the concept that you are having difficulty with.

You have quite a "gift" for exaggeration.

And there are cases where we see the 9800XT faster than the 6800 . . . Your theory "it's always 12% faster or more" or "establishes a minimum threshold for performance increase" is FULL of HOLES.


:roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: VIAN

That's what the marketing department of evga says.

And they are guilty of distortion . . . "a full 12% faster" DOES NOT EQUAL "enormous".

PLUS they say the 6800 is 12% faster than the 5950U OR the 9800XT (and we know the XT is faster than the 5950u).



Now go argue with THEM.

Now are you going to tell them why your information is still wrong.

You said, "First of all, the 6800 does NOT perform a "Crapload" better . .. only - at best +12% over the 9800XT."

You said at best. EVGA says at least. BIG difference. 12% at least and more like 50% at best.



So the 6800 Ultra is 12-44% faster than the 9800 XT with AA/AF off.

Evga doe NOT QUALIFY their statement - they say "12% faster (period)"

My "at best" refers to the FACT that eVGA "says" the 6800 is 12% faster than the 5950u; we know the 9800xt is faster than the 5950u . . . i guess i might also be "guilty" of generalization. Big deal. it's explained now.

:roll:

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Even I'd say that its more than 12% appopin. Rollo's numbers average out to 20%. So probably 28% faster than a 9800 Pro.

Though if you get that $195 MSI 9800 Pro (with free morrowind and duke nukem and other games) and flash that sucker to XT, you get ~80% of 6800 speeds for 2/3 the cost.

Holy poop on a stick, Mr. Hat! General Grievous agrees with me and has my back?!

Thank you General Grievous and Vian- I was starting to feel like I was talking to the Rain Man with Apoppin.

 

[nRollo]

Evga doe NOT QUALIFY their statement - they say "12% faster (period)"

AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
For Christ's sake, your own quote says "at least 12%"?!?!?!?

Do you even understand what "qualifying a statement" means?!?!?

The only way this can be happening is if English is a third or fourth tier language for you, or you're just trying to push my buttons.

Either way, I give up. If you want to think and post 6800s are at most 12% faster than 9800XTs, go right ahead.

The rest of us who can read and understand the reviews that have been posted know this is not the case.

:beer:

 

[GeneralGrievous]

:beer:

Seriously this thread does need a sticky for the ultimate display of idiocy. At the very least he could have kept his ranting to a single thread.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Evga doe NOT QUALIFY their statement - they say "12% faster (period)"

AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
For Christ's sake, your own quote says "at least 12%"?!?!?!?

Do you even understand what "qualifying a statement" means?!?!?

The only way this can be happening is if English is a third or fourth tier language for you, or you're just trying to push my buttons.

Either way, I give up. If you want to think and post 6800s are at most 12% faster than 9800XTs, go right ahead.

The rest of us who can read and understand the reviews that have been posted know this is not the case.

:beer:

if you have read my posts in this and the other thread, you'd see, i agree to give up the over-generalized "at most".

i can confidently say the 6800 is 12% faster than the 9800xt since your own card's manufacturer feels pretty safe doing so.

And you NEVER explained why your card gets beaten by mine in a (very) few benchs even though it is "supposed to be 12% faster in ALL cases" (according to your "logic"). :roll:

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
:beer:

Seriously this thread does need a sticky for the ultimate display of idiocy. At the very least he could have kept his ranting to a single thread.

:Q
Now I'm agreeing with the General?!!?!

(looks into Tanqueray and Tonic for LSD paper as world has taken on hallucinatory qualities)

What's next? Me pimping D3c before any games have it and the General saying SM3 is the key factor in card choice?

Interesting times indeed....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

:Q
Now I'm agreeing with the General?!!?!

Interesting times indeed....

Glad to be of help.






:roll:

 

[nRollo]

Apoppin:
I'd explain the 9800XT beating the 6800NU at very few benches by saying it has more RAM, memory bandwidth, and more efficient filtering, allowing it to beat the more advanced 6800NU by a small amount when it's mid range memory system is overtaxed?
How would you explain it? Since when has it ever been the case that one card wins every game at every setting? (hint: never)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Apoppin:
I'd explain the 9800XT beating the 6800NU at very few benches by saying it has more RAM, memory bandwidth, and more efficient filtering, allowing it to beat the more advanced 6800NU by a small amount when it's mid range memory system is overtaxed?
How would you explain it? Since when has it ever been the case that one card wins every game at every setting? (hint: never)

i'd say you have suceded in CONTRADICTING yourself. Your's is the following quote: :roll:

"at least" is the key phrase here Apoppin- the important thing for most people is the "on average" and "at most". If you benchmarked a 100 games at all possible settings and found the 6800 was 200% faster at every setting but 1 on one game that it's 12% faster at, it would still be accurate to say it's "at least 12% faster"?

Do we understand the concept of "at least" now? That it means "it's always 12% faster or more" or "establishes a minimum threshold for performance increase"?at least" is the key phrase here Apoppin- the important thing for most people is the "on average" and "at most". If you benchmarked a 100 games at all possible settings and found the 6800 was 200% faster at every setting but 1 on one game that it's 12% faster at, it would still be accurate to say it's "at least 12% faster"?

letsee, you say "always" then "never".

What is it?