confused about x800 xt and 6900 gt hehe...q

[KingT]

Heres the deal, I want an awesome gaming rig that will be able to run Doom 3, Half Life 2, Stalker, etc etc on high detail and atleast 1024X768...

I had my heart set on an X800 XT PE but seeing how they are overpriced and out of stock everywhere, would an eVGA 6800 GT serve me well?, I would like it to last awhile and I kind of didnt want to go the 6800 GT route because the game im most excited about is Half Life 2/Vampire:Bloodlines..

Both are source engine games and I kind of thought the X800 ruled here ... Do you think a 6800 GT would work well? seems kind of silly asking this hehe... I was seriously considering spending $650+ on an X800 XT but am not sure yet...

-Kingt

 

[nycxandy]

Yes, the 6800GT is pretty awesome itself.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

The XT currently offers about 30-35% more performance in directx games and about 5% less performance in opengl games when compared to the GT.

 

[KingT]

So would you try to score an X800 XT for games like Half Life 2, Vampire:Bloodlines etc?... I saw the performance of the XT in games like Doom 3 and that is fine for me, what worries me is the 6800 GT Performance in directx games like Half Life 2, etc...

Thats the only thing holding me back from ordering a 6800 GT

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

doesn't the xt cost 100 more then the gt? why are you comparing them?

 

[KingT]

because the only card that is readily available to me and can be overclocked to ultra speeds is the 6800 GT, is why im comparing them... the extra $100 or whatever doesnt mean anything to me... just wanted some opinions on the two cards and what would be a better gaming card

 

[GeneralGrievous]

The better gaming card is no contest. The problem is getting an XT for $500 and soon. My guess is you want it by August 3rd.

I'd search for an XT for a week more, then pick a GT up for $400. The GT is a great card, though you can't run 1600x1200 with AA/AF the way an XT can.

 

[Pete]

Valve will supposedly release CS:Source in about two weeks. If you can wait that long, you'll probably see benchmarks comparing a GT to an XTPE in that Source engine game.

 

[Safeway]

Yea, will CS:Source be HL2 engine? Multiplayer? Steam?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Safeway
Yea, will CS:Source be HL2 engine? Multiplayer? Steam?

It is hard for CS: Source not to be a HL2 engine, since Source IS the HL2 engine.
CS is multiplayer, defined (though IMO it sucks), and Valve seem obsessed with Source.
So I say Yes, Yes, Yes.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
The better gaming card is no contest. The problem is getting an XT for $500 and soon. My guess is you want it by August 3rd.

I'd search for an XT for a week more, then pick a GT up for $400. The GT is a great card, though you can't run 1600x1200 with AA/AF the way an XT can.

I agree mostly agree with this. The GT at STOCK SPEEDS can max (4xaa, 8xaf also ) any game, including Doom3 at 1280x1024 which is WAY above your base minimum. It can also max most games, at 1600x1200. I wouldnt say its 30-35% behind the xt on directx games. In Farcry in PS2.0 mode i could see this happening, but in most games it usually isnt quite that much. More like ~20%. In GL games (doom 3 engine) it is as fast or faster (like in doom 3) then the XT. If i were you, id get the GT and save the rest of the money for your next card's purchase. You can find a GT under $400 and based on my figures above, it is ~90% of the XT (on average). You would be saving $250 (like 60-70 some percent) on the card's purchase for a card that is way above your minimum required spec.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

The GT at STOCK SPEEDS can max (4xaa, 8xaf also ) any game, including Doom3 at 1280x1024 which is WAY above your base minimum. It can also max most games, at 1600x1200. I wouldnt say its 30-35% behind the xt on directx games.

I'm speaking from my own experience with the 2 cards. I did some testing with them, and the GT was about 30% slower in both Painkiller and SCPT as well. The difference does go down when you disable AA/AF though.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=7
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=9
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=13

Here are some of anand's tests where that 30% shows at the highest settings. I'm not saying the GT is a bad card, just that through hype people seem to exaggerate what it does. The overclocking factor usually goes to the GT as well, depending on your luck with the memory.

 

[bpt8056]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

The GT at STOCK SPEEDS can max (4xaa, 8xaf also ) any game, including Doom3 at 1280x1024 which is WAY above your base minimum. It can also max most games, at 1600x1200. I wouldnt say its 30-35% behind the xt on directx games.

I'm speaking from my own experience with the 2 cards. I did some testing with them, and the GT was about 30% slower in both Painkiller and SCPT as well. The difference does go down when you disable AA/AF though.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=7
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=9
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2113&p=13

Here are some of anand's tests where that 30% shows at the highest settings. I'm not saying the GT is a bad card, just that through hype people seem to exaggerate what it does. The overclocking factor usually goes to the GT as well, depending on your luck with the memory.

Curious as to why you're selective with the benchmarks as the others show the GT to be a better performing card. If you're wondering why there is a lot of hype about this card, then I suggest you check the links you provided again. You'll see that the chart not only has scores, but shows the value of the cards (when you roll your mouse over the charts). You'll see why the GT is a much better value overall than the X800 XT.

 

[1ManArmY]

the GT 6800 is the best bang for the buck thus far but it is still early.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

You'll see that the chart not only has scores, but shows the value of the cards (when you roll your mouse over the charts). You'll see why the GT is a much better value overall than the X800 XT.

They botched the prices of the XT, the Ultra, and the UE. The value graphs are flawed.

The only games in which the GT can outdo the XT that I've seen are Neverwinter nights, Jedi Academy, and now Doom 3, all of which are opengl. It may be a better value for the money but I was talking about raw performance. And it's not so much superior in price/performance that the other cards should be disregarded. The only benchmarks I am selective of are 1600x1200 benches preferrably with AA/AF; anything else shouldn't matter at all. Apparently anand feels the same way I do.

 

[SickBeast]

This is ludicrous. The 6800U should be compared to the X800XT. To say that $100 "doesn't matter" to you is also ludicrous. If it doesn't matter to you, then go buy the 6800U, plain and simple.

In any event, the best advice anyone can give you at this point would be to wait until HL2 is benchmarked. This could take a long time, but it is the only way for you to make an informed decision. If you want to jump the gun, read Anand's preview of HL2 performance and take what you will from that.

If I were buying a next-gen card tomorrow it would be the 6800GT hands down. The $100 *does* matter to me, for the record.

 

[Gamingphreek]

General you are the most biased fanboy in this entire coversation.

The better gaming card is no contest. The problem is getting an XT for $500 and soon. My guess is you want it by August 3rd.

A no contest, huh? My a$$ no contest, the GT beats the XT in quite a few tests. It seems the only test you picked were ones that used AF also.

How do you know that they botched the values? Are you like best friends with one of them or something, because the value graphs seem pretty accurate to me.

Also plz remember you are comparing a top of the line bleeding edge card with a card not meant to compete with it. That is why its price is so much lower.

You definately need to watch the subjectiveness in your posts. (dont wanna preach or anything but if you present both sides of the argument there is much less subjectivity )

-Kevin

Edit: OOPS i meant subjectivity

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Gamingphreek

A. I am probably the only person on this forum to have owned both of these cards.
B. I am running a 6800 GT at the moment, and its an incredible card for the $300 i spent on it.
C. Out of curiousity, do you own a 6800 or an x800? Or do you just like to talk about them? Your "monster" apparently houses a piece of trash 5900, so I guess I can see why you don't see importance in AF. The rest of your post is too idiotic to respond to.

This is ludicrous. The 6800U should be compared to the X800XT. To say that $100 "doesn't matter" to you is also ludicrous. If it doesn't matter to you, then go buy the 6800U, plain and simple.

Well my guess is he wants the most for his money and that he's willing to spend the extra $100 if need be. Either that or he is running a SFF PC which can't hold the Ultra.

If I were buying a next-gen card tomorrow it would be the 6800GT hands down.

Like I said before this is probably your best bet. If you aren't interested in Doom 3 immediately the XT is a better choice for you, and with the couple months before HL2 the XT might become more available and/or prices might come down. But I personally wouldn't want to play Doom 3 without a x800/6800 card; you won't get the full experience otherwise.

 

[cheapherk]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Gamingphreek

B. I am running a 6800 GT at the moment, and its an incredible card for the $300 i spent on it.

Where did you get a 6800 GT for $300 bucks. I just spent $400 on one. Are you sure it isn't the regular 6800?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
This is ludicrous. .

ludacris?

 

[PowderBB3D]

6800 GT. Next generation cards are estimated to be up to 3x as fast as this generation's. You'll be happy to have saved the money when those babies come rolling off the presses - trust me.

 

[KingT]

Yeah i preordered a X800 XT PE at compusa guess ill have to hold off on Doom 3 until i get my card lol... the reason i compared the 6800 GT to the X800 was because everywhere i looked the 6800 Ultra was out of stock just like the Radeon..

I prefer to get the Radeon but seeing that the 6800 GT is pretty much more readily available i compared the two in terms of which is more available? the GT or the XT... and how much would game performance suffer if i broke down and ordered a 6800 GT instead..

If you can show me a 6800 Ultra instock i may just buy that instead but i couldnt find any...

 

[GeneralGrievous]

I got it at compusa on a preorder. It was $280 + tax, totaled $296.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Gamingphreek

A. I am probably the only person on this forum to have owned both of these cards.
B. I am running a 6800 GT at the moment, and its an incredible card for the $300 i spent on it.
C. Out of curiousity, do you own a 6800 or an x800? Or do you just like to talk about them? Your "monster" apparently houses a piece of trash 5900, so I guess I can see why you don't see importance in AF. The rest of your post is too idiotic to respond to.

This is ludicrous. The 6800U should be compared to the X800XT. To say that $100 "doesn't matter" to you is also ludicrous. If it doesn't matter to you, then go buy the 6800U, plain and simple.

Well my guess is he wants the most for his money and that he's willing to spend the extra $100 if need be. Either that or he is running a SFF PC which can't hold the Ultra.

If I were buying a next-gen card tomorrow it would be the 6800GT hands down.

Like I said before this is probably your best bet. If you aren't interested in Doom 3 immediately the XT is a better choice for you, and with the couple months before HL2 the XT might become more available and/or prices might come down. But I personally wouldn't want to play Doom 3 without a x800/6800 card; you won't get the full experience otherwise.

So my system is trash now...OK think what you want. Seems pretty good for a 16 year old who just got a job to me. I really sunk a lot of money in this system and i also dont appreciate the fact that you think my systme is junk. Also i would like ot know why i dont see the importance of AF. My 5900 is a very good card and i spent 200$ of well earned money on it and it does just fine. I dont need to play games in the upper 300's (FPS) to enjoy them. Lastly please explain as to why you think the rest of my post is too idiotic to respond. Yes i know i accidently put objective instead of subjective but people make mistakes...SRY im sure that was a very important part of the post.

To end all of this why dont you just shut up and stop flaming people, and posting biased threads, cause everyone is getting sick of it!! If this sh!t happens again i will PM a moderator.

I cant attest to the price of the CompUSA deal but a lot of people ordered from there so unless you had some previous store credit or something special how did you get a GT for 300.

So if we dont want to play DoomIII the X800's crush the 6800's in everything, huh? Do explain why the XT is "immediately" a better choice. Also if you didn't notice the XT is much more expensive.

-Kevin

Sorry i didn't really have anyting new to contribute to this thread.

 

[FluxCap]

Originally posted by: PowderBB3D
6800 GT. Next generation cards are estimated to be up to 3x as fast as this generation's. You'll be happy to have saved the money when those babies come rolling off the presses - trust me.

3 times faster? Don't fool yourself.