Is waiting for the 6800 really worth it?

[KnickNut3]

(EDIT: question modified from original I asked a few weeks ago, so the first few replies might not make sense. Didn't want to make a new thread, though.)

FedEx lost the Ti4200-8x I was RMAing, so I got a hundred bucks. I'm home for the summer, with multiple games I have on the shelf to delve into or am looking to get (Far Cry, UT2004, Splinter Cell: PD, Hitman: Contracts, Manhunt, Painkiller, in that order, most likely).

A couple weeks ago, with news of a $300 6800 non ultra on the horizon, being blown away by the 6800 Ultra benchmarks, and while considering a ~$200 9800 Pro, I decided to hold off.

At this point, summer and all free time may be gone by the time vanilla 6800s (or any next-gen in my price range) are really available, and, after estimating the performance hit from the slower clocks and less pipeliens it may have, I'm thinking it might not be as advantageous to wait for the next round of those cards. My questions:

1. Do you agree? Should I get a card now, since it is really my prime playing time, and I could always get a next-gen and pass mine on when the 9800 Pro becomes a bit too slow next fall or so? This will get me through HL, Doom 3, etc. comfortably, right?
2. If I decide on the 9800 Pro, might the prices drop significantly in the next couple weeks (short time frame) as X800s, etc., become more readily available? I'm thinking no, since the price disparity is still so great. Am I best to grab a Saphire from newegg?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: KnickNut3
1. When are these next generation cards from ATI and nVidia really going to hit shelves?

Sometime in the next month, at least for the 6800Ultra and X800Pro. The 6800NU and X800XT may also be hitting in May, or else in June/July.

2. Where will prices drop to as a result?

I take it you mean 'prices on current cards'. I don't think they'll move too much, myself, unless the $299 6800NU is really quite a bit faster than the current top of the line cards (and not just, say, 10-20% faster).

3. Do we know what card will better handle the new engines?

Define 'new engines'. The GeForceFX5900 is *supposed* to be very good for Doom3, but will likely blow at HL2, at least in PS2.0 mode. The 9800Pro should be quite good at HL2, but may suffer in Doom3. The 6800-class cards should be good at both. No clue about the X800s, but I'd expect them to be similar to the 9800s but considerably faster.

4. What card/plan of attack would you suggest at this point? I'd like to spend $150 max, so if the 9800 Pro 256MB can come done that much in a month or so, I'll wait. I mostly play sports games, FPS, and 3rd person shooters. I've kept my eyes peeled on Hot Deals and Fat Wallet, but haven't found anything suitable yet.
Thanks for the suggestions/knowledge.

First off, the 256MB 9800Pro cards are not worth it over the 128MB versions. It doesn't help performance unless you run at super-high resolutions AND with AA/AF on -- and that will make most newer games run unacceptably slowly regardless of how much memory you have.

I suggest waiting. I doubt that the 9800Pro 128MB cards will hit $150 before the end of this year, but you may as well see how both NVIDIA and ATI's next-gen cards perform before spending any money.

 

[KnickNut3]

Thanks for the information, especially with regards to the 128MB/256MB difference. Since Doom3's engine will most likely be the engine of choice a la Quake3 and UT's were for a while, would it be better to go for the Geforce 5900 or so, if it actually is better in Doom 3? Or will the HL2 engine get just as much play in the 2005/2006 games?

 

[VIAN]

First off, the 256MB 9800Pro cards are not worth it over the 128MB versions. It doesn't help performance unless you run at super-high resolutions AND with AA/AF on -- and that will make most newer games run unacceptably slowly regardless of how much memory you have.

If you Play with resolutions above 1024x768 and use 4xAA, then 256MB would be very useful. But the second statement should be kept in mind most definitely.

Thanks for the information, especially with regards to the 128MB/256MB difference. Since Doom3's engine will most likely be the engine of choice a la Quake3 and UT's were for a while, would it be better to go for the Geforce 5900 or so, if it actually is better in Doom 3? Or will the HL2 engine get just as much play in the 2005/2006 games?

If you aren't gonna buy another graphcis card till 2005/2006, then go with the brand new cards from ATI or Nvidia. Buying the 5900 for D3 is an interesting decision. The 5900 suffers from lack of IQ and performance in many other games. Are you willing to buy A card for A game. The Radeons are faster in all other games, but in Doom 3 they may not be as fast. But not to far behind. With 150 bucks, just buy another 4200, there is really nothing you can buy with that, that will last you a considerable amount of time.

 

[KnickNut3]

I'd never consider buying a specific card for a single game, but if most games in the future will use the D3 engine, and if the 5900 will be substancially better at D3 than 9800, then that's something to take into account.

 

[VIAN]

yes it is. But if you are buying for the future, I don't think the current generation is the way to do it. It is much better to buy something at the beginning of the generation and then watch it go down in style and the end of the next one. The 6800 is looking very attractive at 300 bucks.

 

[SithSolo1]

Originally posted by: KnickNut3
I'd never consider buying a specific card for a single game, but if most games in the future will use the D3 engine, and if the 5900 will be substantially better at D3 than 9800, then that's something to take into account.

Yes but who said the DM3 engine will be the dominant one? Why not the Source engine? Why not the Cry engine? Why not the STALKER engine(whatever it is called)? We just don't know yet. As of right now, that we know of I think there are 3 games in development using the Source engine. Also the odds are the 5900 won't be "substantially" better in Domm 3, it may be a little faster but it might not looks as good either.

 

[VIAN]

The Source engine looks much better than the D3 engine

 

[Pete]

Considering your system, I wouldn't aim any higher than a $173 9800 (Powercolor @ NewEgg). You should consider a 5900XT as well for around the same price (particularly for Doom 3), but the 9800 should be a bit faster overall (my reasons, which you may disagree with or consider not to be the final word), if not in Doom 3.

The $300 6800s and X800s probably won't perform 2x as fast as a ~$173 9800 or 5900XT and probably won't dip in price much for the next few months, so the latter should be safe buys ATM. IMO, of course.

 

[Lonyo]

What about the UT engine (new one ie: 2k3/2k4)?

 

[Gamingphreek]

I just bought an MSI 5900XT with VIVO. Its awesome. On my system over 16000 on 3dmark 01 and 5583 in 03.Considering what system im running thats pretty good (ie no dual channel DDR and value RAM and on board sound) Both the Radeon 9800pro and the 5900XT are good. If you wanna run PS 2.0 games tho ATI is better. However for most other games the 5900XT is equal and sometimes better. Both cards are awesome. Its pretty much up to personal preference. Also if you are going to do any OCing Nvidia is the way to go. It has a much larger performance jump and a lot more headroom for OCing.
-Kevin

 

[VIAN]

I forgot to take his sytem into consideration, good thinking Pete.

UT2k4 engine isn't that better looking and the water looks like utter crap. The Call of Duty engine looks better and that's based on QIII. Physics might be a different story however. One thing that I always hated about the Quake engines is that the lighting always sucked. If a grenade explodes on the otherside of a wall, you will see the lighting it makes on your side. That is impossible, but even on COD it happens.

On my system over 16000 on 3dmark 01 and 5583 in 03.

Damn I barely get 15000 in 3DM01, but I get around the same score in 3DM03.

 

[Sylvanas]

doom3= nvidia
half life 2= ATI
id say if you want a vid card in a hurry go with ATI (9800pro would suffice)

 

[KnickNut3]

Bump for new question with new perspective.

 

[KnickNut3]

^ Off to bed, hoping for some advice.

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: VIAN
The Source engine looks much better than the D3 engine

thats a personal opinion. Many others would disagree.

either way pick which ever cards in your budget and leave it be.

 

[KnickNut3]

I'm not really worried about the engines anymore. Just wondering if A) the performance boost between the 9800Pro and 6800NU is worth $100 and 2+ months waiting, B) whether 9800s will drop in price soon, and C) which 9800 I should get. (Sapphire? Is it worth $18 bucks on newegg to get a retail one made by ATI? Shoudl I get the Sapphire one with the R360 heatsink?)

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: KnickNut3
I'm not really worried about the engines anymore. Just wondering if A) the performance boost between the 9800Pro and 6800NU is worth $100 and 2+ months waiting, B) whether 9800s will drop in price soon, and C) which 9800 I should get. (Sapphire? Is it worth $18 bucks on newegg to get a retail one made by ATI? Shoudl I get the Sapphire one with the R360 heatsink?)

I'm real happy with my Sapphire 9800 non-pro flashed to pro. It's been flawless for about a year now.

 

[DoobieOnline]

Get the Sapphire 9800 Pro. It will play every game out right now, and you need a video card right now. Getting the 9800 Pro with the R360 core would be sweet, but just remember that it's not a definite that it will be able to flash to a 9800XT without artifacts.

If, in a few months, a game comes out where you need more power, sell the 9800 Pro and get the best card you afford at that time. Good luck!

Doobie

 

[KnickNut3]

Any history of/sites dedicated to flashing these 9800 Pros w/ R360 cores to XTs? How would I tell if I had one, and is there a site with instructions/bios? I'll go a googling.

 

[KnickNut3]

Found a pretty good link for those interested:

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2505575

 

[MichaelZ]

Originally posted by: VIAN
The Source engine looks much better than the D3 engine

you tried the doom 3 beta? i myself was blown away by the realism. too bad it ran slowly even on a 9800XT with A64 3000+. hopefully the full version would have that sorted.

** graphics settings couldn't be changed, though. 1024x768 with no AA and AF. barely managed 30FPS dipping down to 20 when there's smoke of any kind (rifles etc). was pretty freaky too... almost like playing doom 1 in the dark @ night back in 1994 or something

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: i82lazyboy

Originally posted by: VIAN
The Source engine looks much better than the D3 engine

you tried the doom 3 beta? i myself was blown away by the realism. too bad it ran slowly even on a 9800XT with A64 3000+. hopefully the full version would have that sorted.

** graphics settings couldn't be changed, though. 1024x768 with no AA and AF. barely managed 30FPS dipping down to 20 when there's smoke of any kind (rifles etc). was pretty freaky too... almost like playing doom 1 in the dark @ night back in 1994 or something

I played it...looked great for alpha software...played pretty sweet too....very creepy stuff !
however after an hour of playing...I got rid of it...just felt wrong

 

[Genx87]

Since you are so close I say wait.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Can anybody give me a site where i can download the beta version of DoomIII.

-Kevin