Geforce 6800 vs. Radeon 9800 Pro

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

eVGA claims their 6800standard is only (at least a full) 12% faster than the 9800xt.

the GeForce 6800 . . . it runs at least a full 12% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or the ATI 9800XT

One of the guys with a 6800 in video is e-mailing eVGA for clarification on their benchmarking performance chart.


i'd guess it is only ~15%-20 faster overall = worth $87? your call. For me, NO! (i got a 9800xt for $223) . . . look for a HOt Deal on a 6800-GT.

You don't seem to know how to measure the speed of a graphicscard. The way to do it is to eliminate all other bottlenecks so it is only the graphicscards themselves that are being tested. You can do this by running with newer games at high resolution and/or AA/AF.

By your logic you could compare two different CPUs, a P4 1.5GHz and a P4 3GHz with the same graphicscard and come to the conclusion that the P4 3GHz wasn't faster at all. You would come to that conclusion IF you had a bottleneck in the graphicscard, if you were running the two systems with say a GeForce3. As I've shown you the 6800 (the actual card itself not comparing the rest of the system) is atleast 50% than a 9800 Pro. That DOES NOT mean that the 6800 will always be 50% faster than the 9800 Pro, of course not, but when "the sh!t hits the fan" it will (when you are graphicscard limited). What is that you don't understand about this?

So basically you can't make a general statement like "the 6800 is 20% (or 10% or 30%) faster than the 9800 Pro" since it depends on the situation. The most accurate statement would be to say that the actual card is over 50% faster BUT depending on the situation (game and the rest of your system) you will see actual gains in fps that are between 0-50% over what the 9800 Pro would deliver.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: apoppin
IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

You can't look at one or two anomolies and say the 9800XT is faster "sometimes". That's misleading. It's faster almost never would be more accurate.

 

[Lonyo]

You are not CPU limited with a 3.2GHz PC, but with your 2.5GHz P4, the effect may be more noticeable.
A 6800 isn't going to be as much faster as Anandtech shows, but will be faster.
But a 6800 is probably more future proof, and you have a 22" monitor, so you will want to look at higher resolutions.

If you are getting Doom 3 it will be worth it, if not, less so, but on the balance, it probably will be worth it, if you plan on keeping the card for a couple of years.

 

[jdogg707]

Wow, I cannot believe after all this time I can finally recommend a Nvidia graphics solution, but here goes. The 6800 costs just a bit more than the 9800 Pro, you get the benefit of newer technology (PS 3.0 for example) which will be helpful in the new breed of DX9 games that are coming out. You are going with a nice CPU, why hold yourself back, just make sure you get other things that will be important for gaming as well, such as at least 1GB of PC3200 (Higher Mem speed if overclocking), a nice motherboard (Something based on the nForce3 250Gb chipset, the Epox boards look to be nice), and a descent sound solution (onboard is ok, but a PCI solution will yield better sound results if you plan on getting nicer speakers, not to mention you are taking a burden off of the CPU. The Sound blaster Audigy 2 ZS and the Logitech Z-5300's have my vote for best sound setup without spending more on Klipsch speakers). Good Luck!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: apoppin
IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

You can't look at one or two anomolies and say the 9800XT is faster "sometimes". That's misleading. It's faster almost never would be more accurate.

look at the benchs

in Almost ALL benchs where HIGH res is coupled with LARGE textures the 9800xt will win. Did you forget the 6800 not only is crippled with only 12 pipes compared with the GT's BUT it ONLY has 128MB RAM?!

:roll:

tHE 6800 IS A "budgeT" "High-end" card.
And eVGA - maker of BOTH the 6800 and the ("old") FX5950u says the 6800 is overall ~12% faster - LOOK AT THEIR CHART - then go argue with THEM.

:roll:

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Oreo
You don't seem to know how to measure the speed of a graphicscard. The way to do it is to eliminate all other bottlenecks so it is only the graphicscards themselves that are being tested. You can do this by running with newer games at high resolution and/or AA/AF.

Of course, you cherry-picked the results where the 6800 has a big edge over the 9800Pro. Look, I can do the same the other way:

Far Cry 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF:
9800Pro: ~19fps (if 10% slower than 9800XT)
6800: ~18fps

UT2K4 1280x1024 4xAA/8xAF:
9800Pro: ~29fps
6800: ~28fps

Does that mean the 6800 is slower than the 9800Pro?

When you turn on AA and AF, the 6800 slows down a *lot*. And Halo is an X-Box port (all of which generally run better on NVIDIA), and *ALL* ATI cards have performance issues with JK:JA (you may have also noticed the vanilla 6800 beating the X800XT -- certainly some sort of game or driver issue there).

By your logic you could compare two different CPUs, a P4 1.5GHz and a P4 3GHz with the same graphicscard and come to the conclusion that the P4 3GHz wasn't faster at all. You would come to that conclusion IF you had a bottleneck in the graphicscard, if you were running the two systems with say a GF3. As I've shown you the 6800 (the actual card itself not comparing the rest of the system) is atleast 50% than a 9800 Pro. That DOES NOT mean that the 6800 will always be 50% faster than the 9800 Pro, of course not, but when "the sh!t hits the fan" it will (when you are graphicscard limited). What is that you don't understand about this?

It's not at least 50% faster. It's at most ~50% faster, generally at settings that make no sense to run a 9800Pro at (why buy an ATI card and run it without AA/AF, which is their biggest performance advantage?) It's more like a 15-30% performance difference if you look at a wider variety of tests and settings.

IMHO, the 6800 is the worst choice of price/performance right now (at least at $300). The 6800GT for $400 offers significantly better performance across the board, and the 9800Pro at $200 is a third cheaper and doesn't lose all that much performance in most games.

 

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Oreo
You don't seem to know how to measure the speed of a graphicscard. The way to do it is to eliminate all other bottlenecks so it is only the graphicscards themselves that are being tested. You can do this by running with newer games at high resolution and/or AA/AF.

Of course, you cherry-picked the results where the 6800 has a big edge over the 9800Pro. Look, I can do the same the other way:

Far Cry 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF:
9800Pro: ~19fps (if 10% slower than 9800XT)
6800: ~18fps

UT2K4 1280x1024 4xAA/8xAF:
9800Pro: ~29fps
6800: ~28fps

Does that mean the 6800 is slower than the 9800Pro?

When you turn on AA and AF, the 6800 slows down a *lot*. And Halo is an X-Box port (all of which generally run better on NVIDIA), and *ALL* ATI cards have performance issues with JK:JA (you may have also noticed the vanilla 6800 beating the X800XT -- certainly some sort of game or driver issue there).

All 128MB cards hit a wall when enabling AA at resolutiuons at 1280*1024 or higher, that is correct, so in those cases the 9800XT would be closer. The author of the thread didn't ask about the 9800 XT 256MB but about the 9800 Pro 128MB so your argument is invalid.

 

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: apoppin
IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

You can't look at one or two anomolies and say the 9800XT is faster "sometimes". That's misleading. It's faster almost never would be more accurate.

look at the benchs

in Almost ALL benchs where HIGH res is coupled with LARGE textures the 9800xt will win. Did you forget the 6800 not only is crippled with only 12 pipes compared with the GT's BUT it ONLY has 128MB RAM?!

:roll:

tHE 6800 IS A "budgeT" "High-end" card.
And eVGA - maker of BOTH the 6800 and the ("old") FX5950u says the 6800 is overall ~12% faster - LOOK AT THEIR CHART - then go argue with THEM.

:roll:

So you blindly trust a company when comparing products? Ok, good luck, I prefer to think for myself when comparing products.

BTW, he isn't comparing the 6800 to the 9800XT 256MB but to the 9800Pro 128MB so the scores would best be attained by extrapolating the 9700Pro scores by around 15%.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Oreo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: apoppin
IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

You can't look at one or two anomolies and say the 9800XT is faster "sometimes". That's misleading. It's faster almost never would be more accurate.

look at the benchs

in Almost ALL benchs where HIGH res is coupled with LARGE textures the 9800xt will win. Did you forget the 6800 not only is crippled with only 12 pipes compared with the GT's BUT it ONLY has 128MB RAM?!

:roll:

tHE 6800 IS A "budgeT" "High-end" card.
And eVGA - maker of BOTH the 6800 and the ("old") FX5950u says the 6800 is overall ~12% faster - LOOK AT THEIR CHART - then go argue with THEM.

:roll:

So you blindly trust a company when comparing products? Ok, good luck, I prefer to think for myself when comparing products.

it doesn't look like thinking for yourself is producing any significant insights.

:roll:

 

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it doesn't look like thinking for yourself is producing any significant insights.

:roll:

*double post*

 

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it doesn't look like thinking for yourself is producing any significant insights.

:roll:

Just cause you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm wrong, just that you have some difficulties comprehending logical reasoning. Try to reread the thread and learn something, mkay.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: apoppin
IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

Did you forget the 6800 not only is crippled with only 12 pipes compared with the GT's BUT it ONLY has 128MB RAM?!

Haha. Now you're arguing against the 9800 Pro which also, lest you forget, has 128MB ram.

The only times the 6800 is even in range of the 9800 XT is with high textures and high res on one or two benchmarks...that could easily be immature drivers focussing too much on the GT and Ultra. If you look at the average, it's around 30% increase.

 

[JBT]

Did you guys read Anandtech price/performance ratio in the 6800 / 6800 Ultra review??? the 6800 smokes all these cards in price/performance except maybe my GT which I got for $301 shipped.

link

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: JBT
Did you guys read Anandtech price/performance ratio in the 6800 / 6800 Ultra review??? the 6800 smokes all these cards in price/performance except maybe my GT which I got for $301 shipped.

link

Don't use hard data, these guys all know better than highly respected review sites like Anandtech :roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Oreo

Originally posted by: apoppin
it doesn't look like thinking for yourself is producing any significant insights.

:roll:

Just cause you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm wrong, just that you have some difficulties comprehending logical reasoning. Try to reread the thread and learn something, mkay.

it's YOU that has the comprehension difficulties? Do you have one of these crippled 6800 cards?


Look at the latest benchs with the 6800LE(!). the 9800Xt and the 6800 (Standard)

In MOST cases the 9800XT beats the (doubly crippled) 6800LE and is NOT THAT far behind the 6800 (stanbdard) - NOT the 50% some are claiming (and to be fair, not the 12% eVGA is claiming).

More like the 15-20% that i am have stated.

:roll:

LOOK at the Benchs

 

[apoppin]

Here's the SUMMARY:

(the "+" indicates the 6800standard's advantage over the 9800XT)

aquamark 3 6880 +19%

3Dmark03 +4%

Far Cry

10x7 +8%
2aa/4af +36%
4aa/8af +55%

16x12 -11%
2aa/4af -11%
4aa/8af +7%


UT2004
10x7 +2%
2aa/4af -12%
4aa/8af -35%

16x12 +36%
2aa/4af +32%
4aa/8af +29%


Halo

10x7 +24%
2aa/4af +44%


TR AoD)

10x7 +17%
2aa/4af +1%
4aa/8af -1%


16x12 -13%
w/2aa/4af +10%
w/4aa/8af +11%

Sure doesn't look like the 6800 is more than 20% FASTER overall. . . . NOwhere is it 50% faster (except in the dreams of the owners of this "crippled" 'high-end' card).

:roll:

 

[apoppin]

dp

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: JBT
Did you guys read Anandtech price/performance ratio in the 6800 / 6800 Ultra review??? the 6800 smokes all these cards in price/performance except maybe my GT which I got for $301 shipped.

link

Don't use hard data, these guys all know better than highly respected review sites like Anandtech :roll:

a) I'm not crazy about the logartihmic scale they used for their price/performance. A simple FPS/$ measurement is more consistent (assuming you normalize it around a single card's results). Their prices are also slightly wacky; you can get the GT and X800XT for less than the prices they quoted (so their price/performance numbers are too low).

b) They used a number of tests where ATI cards in general are hosed because of driver issues (JK:JA, Halo, NWN). This is not as indicative of ATI's likely performance on future PC games like Doom3, HL2, and STALKER (although I'm not disputing the accuracy of these benchmarks; ATI really does have performance issues with NWN and JK:JA, and Halo is built around NVIDIA hardware).

c) The 9700Pro (except in a handful of OGL benches) is leading the 6800 for price/performance, and the 9800Pro has about the same price/performance ratio (about $200 versus $180 for the 9700Pro, and it's about 10% faster).

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Oreo
All 128MB cards hit a wall when enabling AA at resolutiuons at 1280*1024 or higher, that is correct, so in those cases the 9800XT would be closer. The author of the thread didn't ask about the 9800 XT 256MB but about the 9800 Pro 128MB so your argument is invalid.

All the benches I've seen show that the differences only become apparent at 1600x1200 with AA and AF -- 128MB cards do just fine at 1280x1024. The vanilla 6800 just gets hammered with AA and AF on because of its limited memory bandwidth compared to the GT and Ultra.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Wow, talk about video card insecurity. Apoppin, you're so defensive about your card you still haven't figured out that we're discussing the 9800 Pro and the 6800...not the 9800XT. The extra memory on the 9800XT may help it maintain a trivial lead over the 6800 in some benchmarks, but that memory and speed won't be there on the 9800 Pro.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, talk about video card insecurity. Apoppin, you're so defensive about your card you still haven't figured out that we're discussing the 9800 Pro and the 6800...not the 9800XT. The extra memory on the 9800XT may help it maintain a trivial lead over the 6800 in some benchmarks, but that memory and speed won't be there on the 9800 Pro.

You're the one with ADD. i AREADY covered this :roll:



The 9800XT vs 6800 is a Known". We SEE benchs. BY EXTRAPOLATION (we KNOW how much faster the Xt is over the 9800pro) we can judge the performance of the 6800 vs the 9800p.

I could care less about my old card. I just want people to realize the 6800 is not that huge a leap over OLD technology because it is (really) crippled (compared to the "GT").

don't read extra into my posts.

BTW, What card do YOU have?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, talk about video card insecurity. Apoppin, you're so defensive about your card you still haven't figured out that we're discussing the 9800 Pro and the 6800...not the 9800XT. The extra memory on the 9800XT may help it maintain a trivial lead over the 6800 in some benchmarks, but that memory and speed won't be there on the 9800 Pro.

Your the one with ADD. i AREADY covered this :roll:



The 9800XT vs 6800 is a Known". We SEE benchs. BY EXTRAPOLATION (we KNOW how much faster the Xt is over the 9800pro) we can judge the performance of the 6800 vs the 9800p.

I could care less about my old card. I just want people to realize the 6800 is not that huge a leap over OLD technology because it is (really) crippled (compared to the "GT").

don't read extra into my posts.

BTW, What card do YOU have?

My old 8500 128MB after I sold my 9500 Pro. Why?

Were your percentage comparisons taking the extrapolation into account? That 5 FPS lead that translates to a whopping 25% when the card are running in the teens would be gone. A better comparison would be the 9700 Pro which scales more similarly to the 9800 Pro...which is already available on AT.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, talk about video card insecurity. Apoppin, you're so defensive about your card you still haven't figured out that we're discussing the 9800 Pro and the 6800...not the 9800XT. The extra memory on the 9800XT may help it maintain a trivial lead over the 6800 in some benchmarks, but that memory and speed won't be there on the 9800 Pro.

Your the one with ADD. i AREADY covered this :roll:



The 9800XT vs 6800 is a Known". We SEE benchs. BY EXTRAPOLATION (we KNOW how much faster the Xt is over the 9800pro) we can judge the performance of the 6800 vs the 9800p.

I could care less about my old card. I just want people to realize the 6800 is not that huge a leap over OLD technology because it is (really) crippled (compared to the "GT").

don't read extra into my posts.

BTW, What card do YOU have?

My old 8500 128MB after I sold my 9500 Pro. Why?

Were your percentage comparisons taking the extrapolation into account? That 5 FPS lead that translates to a whopping 25% when the card are running in the teens would be gone. A better comparison would be the 9700 Pro which scales more similarly to the 9800 Pro...which is already available on AT.

Just curious about your card . . . i still have my ati 8500-128 (i'm gonna benchmark Doom III with it for BGF10K)

Yes i took into consideration the differences between the XT and the Pro in comparing the 6800.

All i am doing is conveying MY diapointment with the 6800's performance . . . for just a FEW BUCKS MORE, you can get the "real card" - the GT.

That's all. Everyone else can read the benchs and make up their own mind what to buy.

I guess i "exist" as a "counter' those who believe the 6800 is 50% faster than the 9800pro.
(sometimes one has to take the "extreme other viewpoint" to get the point across)

anyway, i'd love to discuss further . . . but i ama already late for work.

(don't think i am "defending" 'my' card - i got such a GREAT deal on it; i'd be thoroughly satisfied with LESS performance; i was really surprised to see the 6800 standard just wasn't that much faster . . .)

 

[JBT]

The GT is ussully about 110 dollars more not quite "a few bucks" to most people. $290 at newegg for the 6800 vs 399.99 or more for a GT at any store.

 

[jacktesterson]

well just to pee off all you folks Im an ATI Fanatic (for Video Cards) and will stick to my 9800 Pro