PDA

View Full Version : X800 vs. the 6800.



actionhank1786
11-10-2004, 11:37 PM
Well the topic title says it all. I'm thinking of getting a new computer, and i need to choose between these two cards. I've heard that the 6800 may be faster (which i can't say for sure you guys in the know could inform me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) but then i read in PC gamer, that ATI says the X800 is recommended for Half Life 2 (A Huge plus in my book!) and the 6800 is recommended for Doom3. Which i dont really care for.
So i dont know which to choose, another important thing is, which runs Pacific Fighters better? So could you guys with these cards please tell me what you think! I'd love to know

Oilburner_TAW
11-10-2004, 11:56 PM
6800gt is hard to beat and natively supports pixel shader 3.0 for the pretty water.

TPN_Cephas
11-11-2004, 12:03 AM
Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_38.html.

actionhank1786
11-11-2004, 12:29 AM
Does the X800 not support the special water in Pacific Fighters?
I'm leaning towards that one since it seems to be so much faster

Spectre-63
11-11-2004, 12:40 AM
unfortunately Hank, the ATI cards won't support PixelShader 3.0 until the next set of cards are released.

RocketDog
11-11-2004, 02:33 AM
I've used both. I kept the X800Pro and sold the 6800GT.

The advantages of the 6800 series look good on paper (16 pipes and Pixel Shader 3.0), but the X800XT also has 16 pipes and the water = 3, PS 3.0, setting in PF can't be used with playable frame rates on the current generation of PCs. Maybe the next generation of graphics cards will be able to run PS 3.0 water with good FPS, but I guess that's at least two years away and we'll all be playing BoB by then. Finally, I found the image quality to be significantly better on the X800, although that might just be for my particular PC and not true generally.

Regards,

RocketDog.

clayman_52
11-11-2004, 03:35 AM
Hank ... it also may come down to availability and cost.

3 machines almost identical 1 gig memory and HD's, 2 ASUS and 1 ABIT Mobo's, all P4, two 3.0 & a 3.2 ... all two months old, all AGP though.

Two of my friends ran into availability issues and bought 6800 Ultras because they were easier to find. There really great cards, run PF solid and the price was not jacked ... but as RocketDog pointed out neither is running Water=3 except for screens.

Now my cousin held out and got a X800XT (but boy did it cost him). It definatly runs faster and we all feel PF runs better. I also like the image quality more and not just in PF (but I'm biased toward ATI).

There both great cards ... but, if it comes down to cost, availability and performance ... the 6800Pro or GT is a great deal.

On the other hand ... you did say Half Life 2 ... and I think the X800Pro just pulled ahead. I can only imagine what thats going to look like on an X800!

What a great month ... PF and HL2!

Miki40
11-11-2004, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now.

The_Great_Stonk
11-11-2004, 04:24 AM
also that fact that the guy cant spell sturmovik, also i find a 6800u only getting between 29-45 fps at such a low resolution as 1024x768 completly out of wack... hell, even i get higher values then that with a fx5950 ultra in perfect mode...

Nubarus
11-11-2004, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

I don't think so since I have seen plenty of OpenGL based games being benched where the Radeon beat the GeForce.

Besides, the game was benched in OpenGL and not in DirectX.

"The new version of IL-2 Sturmovik got improved graphics, particularly support of pixel shaders version 2.0. When enabled, it renders the water surfaces with more realism. We set up the game for the maximum image quality level to put the biggest load on the graphics cards."

You cannot use the Perfect setting in DirectX, only in OpenGL so they must have used OpenGL in order to get the PS 2.0 realistic water effect.

michael1962
11-11-2004, 04:37 AM
I have a BFG 6800GT, running on 533mhz fsb 2.66 ghz P4 oc'd to 3.0 ghz. 1 gig of decent quality RAM. I average 40-60 fps @ 1024*768. And that's with water and trees set to 3. If that's not considered playable, someone has issues.

Miki40
11-11-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

I don't think so since I have seen plenty of OpenGL based games being benched where the Radeon beat the GeForce.

Besides, the game was benched in OpenGL and not in DirectX.

_"The new version of IL-2 Sturmovik got improved graphics, particularly support of pixel shaders version 2.0. When enabled, it renders the water surfaces with more realism. We set up the game for the maximum image quality level to put the biggest load on the graphics cards."_

You cannot use the Perfect setting in DirectX, only in OpenGL so they must have used OpenGL in order to get the PS 2.0 realistic water effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then how can you explane this ? :

Leadtek 6800 Ultra

FB+AEP 1280x960, 2xAA, Anistopic, Perfect mode:

http://www.greenhearts.org/images/screenshots/207.jpg

FB+AEP+PF 1280x960, 2xAA, Anistopic ,Perfect mode:

http://www.greenhearts.org/images/screenshots/206.jpg

Please relaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!

RocketDog
11-11-2004, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by michael1962:
I have a BFG 6800GT, running on 533mhz fsb 2.66 ghz P4 oc'd to 3.0 ghz. 1 gig of decent quality RAM. I average 40-60 fps @ 1024*768. And that's with water and trees set to 3. If that's not considered playable, someone has issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't consider 1024 x 768 playable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Even with shed loads of FSAA and AF it's just too grainy.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Nubarus
11-11-2004, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

I don't think so since I have seen plenty of OpenGL based games being benched where the Radeon beat the GeForce.

Besides, the game was benched in OpenGL and not in DirectX.

_"The new version of IL-2 Sturmovik got improved graphics, particularly support of pixel shaders version 2.0. When enabled, it renders the water surfaces with more realism. We set up the game for the maximum image quality level to put the biggest load on the graphics cards."_

You cannot use the Perfect setting in DirectX, only in OpenGL so they must have used OpenGL in order to get the PS 2.0 realistic water effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then how can you explane this ? :

_Leadtek 6800 Ultra_

FB+AEP 1280x960, 2xAA, Anistopic, Perfect mode:

http://www.greenhearts.org/images/screenshots/207.jpg

FB+AEP+PF 1280x960, 2xAA, Anistopic ,Perfect mode:

http://www.greenhearts.org/images/screenshots/206.jpg

Please relaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain what?

Miki40
11-11-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

I don't think so since I have seen plenty of OpenGL based games being benched where the Radeon beat the GeForce.

Besides, the game was benched in OpenGL and not in DirectX.

_"The new version of IL-2 Sturmovik got improved graphics, particularly support of pixel shaders version 2.0. When enabled, it renders the water surfaces with more realism. We set up the game for the maximum image quality level to put the biggest load on the graphics cards."_

You cannot use the Perfect setting in DirectX, only in OpenGL so they must have used OpenGL in order to get the PS 2.0 realistic water effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

O! something ells!, read this please :

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1578&page=5

Nubarus
11-11-2004, 06:15 AM
IL2 FB Black Death track:

"The balance of power shifts as anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are applied to each card. Both of ATI's products beat their respective competition, except at 1024x768 where the 6800 Ultra comes in way ahead. At 1600x1200, the Radeon X800 XT stays ahead of the Geforce 6800 Ultra by a good margin."

And that was the reason I went with the ATI X800 since I like to play in high resolutions with FSAA & AF enabled as well as the Radeon having a better overall IQ.

Besides, ever since I bought the 20.1" LCD screen playing in low resultions is unaccepatle since it looks blurry, besides I did not spend all that hard earned money on the big screen to play in 1024x768 to begin with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Alexi_Alx_Anova
11-11-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Explain what? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly the same scene and settings, yet PF has decreased the FPS by 16. Doh!

Alexi

Nubarus
11-11-2004, 06:22 AM
So?

As long as it's smooth who really cares?

I have no problems with PF performance wise, even with the heavy ship flak/aaa guns firing.

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-11-2004, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Besides, ever since I bought the 20.1" LCD screen playing in low resultions is unaccepatle since it looks blurry, besides I did not spend all that hard earned money on the big screen to play in 1024x768 to begin with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL...I just find this interesting because only 2 years ago 800x600 was the sweet spot in gaming resolution. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I too look forward to 1600x1200 being the standard "sweet spot" for gaming in the future with all eye candy turned on...maybe in 2 more years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Miki40
11-11-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alexi_Alx_Anova:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Explain what? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly the same scene and settings, yet PF has decreased the FPS by 16. Doh!

Alexi <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, Alex I will rush out now and get an XT. They stock them everywhere, especially here in Bristol. They also came cheap...

Hunter82
11-11-2004, 08:28 AM
I find the whole argument funny...if you want to compare cards please compare them equally or not at all....it's boring to have to explain this 1000 times.

6800U vs X800XT PE

6800 GT vs X800 XT or X800 Pro(both GT and XT 16 pipe cards, X800 pro being 12)

Most reviews out are very subjective. Both cards perform well. Personally I play at 1600X1200 2X's AA and 4 X's AF on my XT PE and 75 on refresh rate with 21" LCD. Pinned at 75 for the same scene listed in perfect settings.

Alexi_Alx_Anova
11-11-2004, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alexi_Alx_Anova:
Exactly the same scene and settings, yet PF has decreased the FPS by 16. Doh!

Alexi <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, Alex I will rush out now and get an XT. They stock them everywhere, especially here in Bristol. They also came cheap... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed the point. I wasn't making a comment on the relative performances of X800 vs 6800 but on the relative performances of versions 2.04 and 3.0 of this game. I haven't worked out why yet (and hopefully it won't matter after the patch) but for some PF imrpoved their FPS while for others it gives significant hits (or at least bad stutter).

Loki-PF
11-11-2004, 09:45 AM
Guys,

Can someone explain how the PC-STATS page (referenced earlier) compares ATI and Nvidia using the IL2 engine at 1280x1024? Have I missed something this whole time?

Flatlander1961
11-11-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Does the X800 not support the special water in Pacific Fighters?
I'm leaning towards that one since it seems to be so much faster <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
actually it depends on the game. each has games it outperforms the other

OldMan____
11-11-2004, 01:14 PM
HAve access to both cards.. never got the X800 to be faster than the GF6 in any GL game.

Hunter82
11-11-2004, 01:35 PM
have both myself, tested across multiple systems Intel and AMD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
HAve access to both cards.. never got the X800 to be faster than the GF6 in any GL game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan____
11-11-2004, 06:58 PM
The point is.. I have to handle this everyday since I work on game development, more specifically on 3D Graphics. Unless using something codes specifically to get the opposite results, 6800 GT is superior in GL. D3D is another subject. And I get a lot of fancy artifacts on ATI+GL specially when the card does not render very small objects (1 or 2 pixels wide) to get more FPS.

Personally I would never use an ATI card for a GL game.

Hunter82
11-11-2004, 07:39 PM
OK point being as I had said earlier in my test results across MANY 6800 cards of all variants and ATI cards on many systems the cards performed well, however as far as IQ and AA/AF the ATI was better and especially at higher resolutions. NV does not FSAA properly never has and IMO never will.

I build multiple systems daily with each brand of cards. As I stated earlier the ATI card outperformed the NV and does currently in my system(s)

You may want to get in touch wih ATI developer relations if you are having issues coding to spec in your environment...they are very helpful.

BaldieJr
11-11-2004, 10:02 PM
nv is clearly the technological leader in advanced graphics hardware. ATI has a tough time keeping up, and for good reason: They're still playing catchup after all those years of saying "hardware accelerated 3d will never catch on in consumer markets.".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Charlie901
11-11-2004, 10:40 PM
Basically it comes down to this if PF is what your basing your purchase on, IMHO:

1) If the PS3.0 support is important and you want the best water(PS3.0 enabled) setting (water=3), even though it may or may not be playable on your new system and the best looking FSAA isn't that important go for Nvidia 6800gt or ultra.

2) If absolute speed and slightly better looking FSAA rendering is important and you don't care for Water=3 (the best setting w/ PS3.0 enabled) than go for the x800xt or pro.

Personally I miss the FSAA quality of my Radeon 9700pro but I felt that PS3.0 support was more important than FSAA quality or a few more fps, so I got my BFG overclocked 6800gt and haven't looked back since.

I also went with the Nvidia 6800 card after hearing that the developers were using it specifically with PF.

Remember HL2 is an older game than Doom3 due to the delay, hence it doesn't have PS3.0 technology, where Doom3 takes advantage of a newer graphics engine. Although I don't like Doom3 and have no desire to purchase it, it just seems like a graphical showcase platform rather than an immersive game so I'm going to get HL2 myself. Good luck!

OldMan____
11-12-2004, 02:46 AM
We do are in touch with ATI and NV during our development. While I agree that ATI FSAA solution is overall better, I had faced sometimes with inumerous serious bugs in ATI GL implementation. A simple one is really big textures (withing texture size limitations specified for the chip) just don´t work, the same program with same textures was OK in a GeForce 3 !!! Also the FSAA solutions of optimization usually produce a lot of artifacts at our game when using high FSAA levels.

A lot of the problems we have came with the catalysis change in the last few drivers that gave ATI that boost on FPS on GL, so I disregard this performance improvement since the quality is much worse.

Just something important here, BOTH cards will run PF smooth and fast in any non insane configuration.


Also from a personal point of view, I am a linux user, and NV drivers are far better than ATI ones within this Operating System, so I (that is completely personal view now) would never buy an ATI card to use at home.

Hunter82
11-12-2004, 05:05 AM
....don't you have a spouse to please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
nv is clearly the technological leader in advanced graphics hardware. ATI has a tough time keeping up, and for good reason: They're still playing catchup after all those years of saying "hardware accelerated 3d will never catch on in consumer markets.".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hunter82
11-12-2004, 05:23 AM
ATI has been releasing new Linux drivers but as you said I don't believe they are often of great quality. I stay away from Linux since I use it only on servers and at that point graphics are not a question lol.

NN_EnigmuS
11-12-2004, 05:35 AM
my fx5200 work well with water=0,no hardware shader,and i got average 25fps http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

seriously seeing all those guy speaking about average 50fps and more and water=3 with all perfect make me cry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

oh i forget im not using AA or AF of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

too bad i have not enough money to experience the game as some of you but anyway perhpas will try upgrade to a radeon 9800pro