GPU game comparisons?

[PsychoUnit]

Does anybody know a place where they compare the in-game visuals for different GPUs and show screenshots for each? Mostly interested in 7800 GT, GTX, x1800xt comparisons.

 

[Pete]

You mean different cards in the same games? HardOCP, for one.

 

[PsychoUnit]

Yes different cards, same games. I went to hardocp.com, I can't find it, can you point out a url? I'll try and keep looking around the site.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

You can find some at Digit-Life where they have their monthly 3Digest. Here is the direct link to the screenshot gallery for the latest 3Digest.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: PsychoUnit
Does anybody know a place where they compare the in-game visuals for different GPUs and show screenshots for each? Mostly interested in 7800 GT, GTX, x1800xt comparisons.

Well, aside from seeing it yourself we can tell you right here what to expect.

IQ will be pretty much dead even on normal settings.

With AA Nvidia takes a larger performance hit, but delivers better IQ

With AF ATI delivers much better IQ (Due to programmable hardware) at a lower performance hit.

Any Transparency AA will look slightly better on Nvidia hardware.
________

If you are looking at encode/decode, then Nvidia wins by a fairly large margin at Deinterlacing. As for the other Video Editing, i haven't really seen a review yet, so i can not comment.

-Kevin

 

[PsychoUnit]

Well seems the gtx 256 mb comes very close to what the 1800xt can handle. As amatter of fact Hardocp says the 256mb nvidia can do better than the 512 mb 1800xt. I'm kind of new to gpus, so I'm just deciding on what's worth my money as of right now.

I have 2 questions though,

1) ATI/Nvidia said their upcoming cards in early 2006, are going to support Shader Model 4.0, what exactly is the shader model?
2) Can any of these cards run games at a 1920 x 1200 resolution?

 

[Gamingphreek]

1) ATI/Nvidia said their upcoming cards in early 2006, are going to support Shader Model 4.0, what exactly is the shader model?

That is impossible. I dont even the spec has been finalized yet. I haven't heard anything about it at anyrate. Additionally, no card will be released in early 2006. The first card i would think released will be sometime in late April early May.

2) Can any of these cards run games at a 1920 x 1200 resolution?

The Geforce 7's and the X18's are designed to operate at 16x12 and up. 1920x1200 is prime territory for one of these cards.

-Kevin

 

[Munky]

I'm gonna say you should do A LOT or reading on the web of the various reviews from sites like anandtech, techreport, xbitlabs, and make your own decision, because asking on these forums you're pretty much guaranteed to get a biased opinion.

edit: and since we're throwing opinions around here, here's a few more:

512mb gtx = fastest single card performance
x1800xt = second fastest performance, better features and IQ

 

[PsychoUnit]

Oh you're right, mid 2006. But they did mention Shader 4.0: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=60956

I'm on a low budget, what card would you recommend? My budget is approx around $500, just enough to afford the x1800xt. But maybe I should wait for the next nvidia or ati card? I could wait, that isn't too far since I have to buy other thigns for my pc as well in the meantime.

Would the shader 4.0 change alot in gaming? I am realtively new to gpus and pc hardware in general, right now I'm just reading around and trying to figure it out, been fun so far.

 

[Pete]

Few things. Apparently ATI's AA looks better on CRTs, nV's looks better on LCDs (due to a difference in gamma "correction"--see this thread). Apparently nV's TRAA looks better than ATI's Adaptive AA (both work on alpha [see-thru] textures like fences, gates, leaves). SM4 will appear with Windows Vista, so you probably won't see cards that support it before 2H06 (I may be wrong). ATI has the option for AF that covers the screen more evenly (across more angles) and so can look better with their HQ AF.

Lots of comparison shots in Rage3D's nice X1800XT review.

HOCP usually shows comparison shots at the bottom of each benchmark page, tho they may not be "apples to apples," as they use benchmark settings (so the two cards may have different levels of AA).

BeHardware.com uses 1920x1200 or sometimes 1920x1440 as a benchmark resolution. I'm sure FiringSquad and other sites do the same.

Tough call. The X1800XT is pretty nice, but a GTX is very competitive and typically sells for less (well, at least insofar as there aren't 256MB XTs out yet, AFAIK). And ATI is rumored to be releasing its next high-end, which is supposed to have 3x the shader power than R520 (X1800), as early as January. In that case, I'm tempted to tell you to wait until after the New Year if you're leaning toward an X1800XT, and tho I'm still skeptical of seeing a new high-end card so soon after R520, if ATI and NV will release SM4 cards in 2H06, then 1Q06 is probably prime time for a high-end refresh. A 256MB 7800GT or 7800GTX is probably a better buy ATM and for current games. I'm not sure even a 7800 GTX or a X1800XT will make you happy at 1920x1200 with a game like FEAR, though. Just read as many benchmarks as you can to see how the cards you're considering perform at the resolution and AA+AF setting you're after.

SM4 will be an improvement, but with both 360 and PS3 using essentially SM3+ GPUs, you have to expect SM3 to be popular for a good, long while.

 

[Elfear]

Do like other posters have said and read a lot of reviews. My personal opinion, coming from a guy that's had a 7800GTX and currently uses 7800GTs, is that if the price is fairly close (~$50-75 difference), I'd go for the X1800XT. It's really impressed me with it's new technologies and seems to overclock pretty well if you're into that.