x850xt PE

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
I'm still waiting to see the R520 and it's performance. Its a month away and I cant wait

nVidia cards are ALWAYS clocked lower than ATI cards. It's the way of the world

Remember, even though clock speeds are higher (Intel) doesnt meen it has better performance (AMD). I assume you already knew that though.

Uhh NVidia has traditionally resorted to brute force. It's only recently that ATI clocks their stuff like crazy.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Uhh NVidia has traditionally resorted to brute force. It's only recently that ATI clocks their stuff like crazy.

They can resort to it all they want, it doesn't mean it worked. Look at the FX's. They were clocked significantly higher than the R3xx's, yet the R3xx's still trounced them in nearly everything.

Like i said earlier, the more efficient your architecture, the lower the clock has to be to attain the same speed. THe same thing we talk about when comparing AMD and Intel CPU's (essentially)

-Kevin

 

[Northwings]

Alright I think I'm going to wait till the 7800 Gt comes out and the r520 and wait to decide, thanks alot for the help.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: munky
Rollo spouts pro-nvidia propaganda as usual, and although you don't have to believe him, I do agree that it's not worth buying the x850xtpe right now at it's current price. It's still a fast card, but I'd recommend getting something cheaper to hold you over until the r520 is out. That way, you can compare it against the 7800gtx, and see which is better. Or you can get the 7800gtx now, and sell it later if the r520 is better.

You are bashing him for supporting Nvidia, yet you agree with him :roll:.... genius.

-Kevin

I agree with him for different reasons than he states, genius. The x850xtpe is overpriced, that's all. You didnt hear me ramble on how it's stone age technology, has no soft shadows, hdr, blah blah blah, because frankly none of those 2004 features mean squat when you have to play a 1999 settings to get decent fps with them enabled.

 

[Gamingphreek]

If you were to try to run them all at once yes. But they can run them just fine. At least you have the option to run them, even if it might not play as well, you still have that option.

-Kevin

 

[evolucion8]

It would be more recommendable thinking in the future to buy the R520 instead if you want the very latest, since the 7800GTX is based on the 6800 Ulta. I guess is a matter of performance rather than feature set, the X850XT doesn't support SM3.0 but it have HDR, it is not just the OpenEX HDR, but the Reference HDR in DirectX, (No one can't blame this) because the HDR has been in the Radeon since the R300 (Look at the ATi's Deberec Demo) and the X850 support soft shadows (Look at the Ruby's demo). The Performance of the 7800GTX is faster than the X850, but there's no game actually in normal circunstances that can push the 6800 or X850 into it's limits, unless if you are a High High Definition Freak (2048x1536 or similar resolutions) Otherwise, even the Radeon X800XL or the 6800 GT are good, don't look only for the feature set, because even the GeForce 7800GTX can't handle fast enough the Open EX HDR, Why having plenty of features if there's no performance to run it decently? Look at the currently line of 6800, they can run infinite lengh shaders, but barely can reach 300 instructions and start struggling like an Intel Extreme Graphic, ATi can handle 300 just fine, but barely can reach the 40fps. Just pick up a product with a balance of usefull features at good performance rather than rich of features and a horrid lack of performance. Or you will run the game at 640x480 jeje

 

[Northwings]

Yeh I hear you, great post.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
It would be more recommendable thinking in the future to buy the R520 instead if you want the very latest, since the 7800GTX is based on the 6800 Ulta. I guess is a matter of performance rather than feature set, the X850XT doesn't support SM3.0 but it have HDR, it is not just the OpenEX HDR, but the Reference HDR in DirectX, (No one can't blame this) because the HDR has been in the Radeon since the R300 (Look at the ATi's Deberec Demo) and the X850 support soft shadows (Look at the Ruby's demo). The Performance of the 7800GTX is faster than the X850, but there's no game actually in normal circunstances that can push the 6800 or X850 into it's limits, unless if you are a High High Definition Freak (2048x1536 or similar resolutions) Otherwise, even the Radeon X800XL or the 6800 GT are good, don't look only for the feature set, because even the GeForce 7800GTX can't handle fast enough the Open EX HDR, Why having plenty of features if there's no performance to run it decently? Look at the currently line of 6800, they can run infinite lengh shaders, but barely can reach 300 instructions and start struggling like an Intel Extreme Graphic, ATi can handle 300 just fine, but barely can reach the 40fps. Just pick up a product with a balance of usefull features at good performance rather than rich of features and a horrid lack of performance. Or you will run the game at 640x480 jeje

1. There are no games that use ATI HDR.

2. There are games that any single card below a 7800GTX can't handle well at 16X12 4X8X (e.g. Riddick and Battlefield 2)
More on the way.

3. While a 7800 is based on a 6800, it has significant improvements to it's Z culling and shaders which make it better suited to modern games than any other card available.

4. No one knows if a R520 is a better card or not, you can't say that it is because you don't own one and have seen no reviews of it.

Originally posted by: Northwings
Yeh I hear you, great post.

Yeah, "great post". I refuted every point in 5 minutes in a manner that cannot be disagreed with. It's only a great post if you want to hold on to the illusion that the X850XT PE is somehow worth buying.

 

[DragonFire]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: evolucion8
It would be more recommendable thinking in the future to buy the R520 instead if you want the very latest, since the 7800GTX is based on the 6800 Ulta. I guess is a matter of performance rather than feature set, the X850XT doesn't support SM3.0 but it have HDR, it is not just the OpenEX HDR, but the Reference HDR in DirectX, (No one can't blame this) because the HDR has been in the Radeon since the R300 (Look at the ATi's Deberec Demo) and the X850 support soft shadows (Look at the Ruby's demo). The Performance of the 7800GTX is faster than the X850, but there's no game actually in normal circunstances that can push the 6800 or X850 into it's limits, unless if you are a High High Definition Freak (2048x1536 or similar resolutions) Otherwise, even the Radeon X800XL or the 6800 GT are good, don't look only for the feature set, because even the GeForce 7800GTX can't handle fast enough the Open EX HDR, Why having plenty of features if there's no performance to run it decently? Look at the currently line of 6800, they can run infinite lengh shaders, but barely can reach 300 instructions and start struggling like an Intel Extreme Graphic, ATi can handle 300 just fine, but barely can reach the 40fps. Just pick up a product with a balance of usefull features at good performance rather than rich of features and a horrid lack of performance. Or you will run the game at 640x480 jeje

1. There are no games that use ATI HDR.

2. There are games that any single card below a 7800GTX can't handle well at 16X12 4X8X (e.g. Riddick and Battlefield 2)
More on the way.

3. While a 7800 is based on a 6800, it has significant improvements to it's Z culling and shaders which make it better suited to modern games than any other card available.

4. No one knows if a R520 is a better card or not, you can't say that it is because you don't own one and have seen no reviews of it.

Originally posted by: Northwings
Yeh I hear you, great post.

Yeah, "great post". I refuted every point in 5 minutes in a manner that cannot be disagreed with. It's only a great post if you want to hold on to the illusion that the X850XT PE is somehow worth buying.

I disagree with #2, at 16x12 there is really no reason to be using AA in battlefield2 unless you are standing still looking at buildings instead of playing. Also, think outside of this group of people here on the forums. Just how many BF2 players have monitors that support 16x12 anyways?

While the X850 is a little behide tech wise compared to the 7800 it still doesn't matter. Since the first geforce came out, video cards have always supported features that take games at least a year to catch up to if not longer.

You say you need to have a 7800 to support upcoming games? Well your wrong, the most anyone needs at any given res is 30fps as long as it doesn't lag. There is not one game out today that will run 20-30fps at 16x12 on a 6800 much less a 7800. (Asuming AA is off which I see no point for it to be anything higher then x2 at 16x12.)

Anyone who has a 6800/9800 pro/X800 series card should just wait intill next year before upgrading. WHY? First we must wait for the 520 to come out and second nVidia will more then likely realease something faster then the 7800 by the end of the year. Sure it might be nothing more then a 7800 Ultra but it will still be faster.

Even after the above happens, there is still not a reason to get them. The 520 will cause X8** series cards to drop in price and by xmas the 7800 will have dropped as well. Tho I really don't see anything using the full power of a 7800 intill Unreal3 comes out.

I aslo disagree with the x850XTPE not being worth it. Going by pricewatch the 7800 only comes in PCIe format for the moment. So if you dont have a PCIe board you have to upgrade that as well. This adds to the total costs. The 7800 PCIE card is also $100 more then the x850XTPE and offers an amazing 20-50FPS more depending on game. As I said before you you only need 30FPS tho 60FPS would be best just to insure smooth gameplay, anything over that is just not needed. Now is the X850XTPE worth getting over the X850XT? I say no, get the XT and overclock it to PE speeds.


And now that I have read the specs in your sig I really can say Rollo, you have no clue.
You have two 7800GTX cards? Its a shame they are going to waste since your slow 3800+ is a big bottleneck. and for one that thinks a x850XTPE wont handle BF2 well I find it very funny that you have a weak 1GB of ram.

 

[videoclone]

I hate you all .... hows that for a reply...

geeezzz Try and be a little more friendly people ^_^ .. your acting like my Girl-friend is better then yours.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I disagree with #2, at 16x12 there is really no reason to be using AA in battlefield2 unless you are standing still looking at buildings instead of playing. Also, think outside of this group of people here on the forums. Just how many BF2 players have monitors that support 16x12 anyways?

I would venture to think most monitors can manage 16x12 nowadays. However most people choose to run at 12x10.

While the X850 is a little behide tech wise compared to the 7800 it still doesn't matter. Since the first geforce came out, video cards have always supported features that take games at least a year to catch up to if not longer.

What kind of logic is that. THe X850 does not support OpenEXR HDR, Soft shadows, 32bit FP textures (etc...). There is no catching up to do. Each of those features is already being used in todays games.

HDR: Far Cry, (Soon to be HL2), SS: CT
SS: Riddick, SS: CT
32bit FP Textures: ANYTHING
SM3: Riddick, SS:CT, Far Cry

THere are also the games that i cannot think of off the top of my head.

You say you need to have a 7800 to support upcoming games? Well your wrong, the most anyone needs at any given res is 30fps as long as it doesn't lag. There is not one game out today that will run 20-30fps at 16x12 on a 6800 much less a 7800. (Asuming AA is off which I see no point for it to be anything higher then x2 at 16x12.)

Wanna bet. You turn up Far Cry with HDR and run it at 16x12, i will garauntee you will not see a constant 30fps. Just because you dont notice the aliasing doesn't mean it isn't existant. I, for one, notice it at 16x12. Look at the grass and what not and you will see a lot of aliasing. Also try running Riddick with SM3 and softshadows and what not, ill garauntee it puts a strain on the 7800.

Anyone who has a 6800/9800 pro/X800 series card should just wait intill next year before upgrading. WHY? First we must wait for the 520 to come out and second nVidia will more then likely realease something faster then the 7800 by the end of the year. Sure it might be nothing more then a 7800 Ultra but it will still be faster.

Well, i would think that the X800 users should upgrade as the R520 will have all the features Nvidia has which are used in games. However the Geforce 6 users might be able to hold off until next generation, however you wont be running at max detail for long.

Even after the above happens, there is still not a reason to get them. The 520 will cause X8** series cards to drop in price and by xmas the 7800 will have dropped as well. Tho I really don't see anything using the full power of a 7800 intill Unreal3 comes out.

Yeah there might be some price cuts... but why dont we wait until we even have a release date for the R520. Additionally, you dont see anything using the full power of the 7800!? While it is true it is CPU limited at all but 16x12 and up, it certainly gets a strain put on it by some of these games. UIII isn't due out until IIRC late 2006 early 2007. You have a whole next generation and possibly one after that. I highly doubt that the 7800 will not be stressed before that. In fact i also doubt that a 7800 would be able to max anything out in UIII.

I aslo disagree with the x850XTPE not being worth it. Going by pricewatch the 7800 only comes in PCIe format for the moment. So if you dont have a PCIe board you have to upgrade that as well. This adds to the total costs. The 7800 PCIE card is also $100 more then the x850XTPE and offers an amazing 20-50FPS more depending on game. As I said before you you only need 30FPS tho 60FPS would be best just to insure smooth gameplay, anything over that is just not needed. Now is the X850XTPE worth getting over the X850XT? I say no, get the XT and overclock it to PE speeds.

There is no XT with the 850's. The 800's have an XT. Additionally, the XT will NOT give you a CONSTANT >30fps. Nor can you enable a lot of the higher detail settings. SS defaults to SM1.1 with the X series cards. As i have said many times. If you are planning on upgrading very soon and you just need a card for a couple weeks or something than you will want the fastest available (X850XT). However if you are waiting until late this gen or even until next gen, you will want something not quite as fast but a card that supports the upcoming games features.

And now that I have read the specs in your sig I really can say Rollo, you have no clue.

You were doing fine without flaming. Why did you start now?

You have two 7800GTX cards? Its a shame they are going to waste since your slow 3800+ is a big bottleneck. and for one that thinks a x850XTPE wont handle BF2 well I find it very funny that you have a weak 1GB of ram

Ok lets list what CPU's are faster than the 3800+.
1. 4000+
2. FX-57

Pretty short list. That 3800+ is no bottleneck once you reach high detail 16x12. SInce it is SLI it can run 20x15 just fine. A weak 1gig. Ok, maybe you have money to just start throwing around, but a lot of us dont simply buy everything at once, or at the first hiccup upgrade something. While it is true 2gig helps in BF2, it is not night and day, especially with SLI.

No, it would seem, based on your last comment, that you dont have a clue.

-Kevin

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DragonFire
And now that I have read the specs in your sig I really can say Rollo, you have no clue.
You have two 7800GTX cards? Its a shame they are going to waste since your slow 3800+ is a big bottleneck. and for one that thinks a x850XTPE wont handle BF2 well I find it very funny that you have a weak 1GB of ram.

LOL- the guy witha FX55 and a pathetic X800 Pro tells me I have no clue?

Tell me: How many people on planet Earth would trade your slow gaming computer for my fast one?
(answer: all of them)

The truth about CPUs

LOL- wish I would have spent double on a FX55 to get a whole 4-5fps more than my 3800!:roll:

Oh wait, I got SLI so I got 20-50fps more instead. Gee, who bought wiser????

Me, that can crank the settings and run the games way faster? Or you, who spent twice as much on a CPU for single digit gains?????? Damn! This is a TOUGH one.....single digit gains......or huge gains....single digit...huge.........damn University! Didn't prep me for puzzlers like this!

As far as "1GB RAM" goes- I don't own BF2. Link please to other game that needs 2MB RAM? What exactly am I missing again?

BTW- your sig says you only have 1GB RAM?

 

[KeepItRed]

LOL- DragonFire is right.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
LOL- DragonFire is right.

Coming from the boy who is always wrong....

 

[KeepItRed]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
LOL- DragonFire is right.

Coming from the boy who is always wrong (TEACH ME) ....

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: KeepItRed

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
LOL- DragonFire is right.

Coming from the boy who is always wrong....

Coming from the shyt talker.

The problem here is that I'm not a self admitted 16 year old newb. I've been computer gaming for longer than you've been alive. I buy and test most of the high end video cards, as well as read up on them.

You're not in a position to call me wrong, and if you do, you should provide links to back your reasons.

 

[KeepItRed]

Heheheh I edited my post.

I just wonder why your so addicted to Nvidia >_>

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
LOL- DragonFire is right.

Except for the fact that i just proved all his ideas wrong :roll:

-Kevin