Which Video Card X800 or 6800 ???

MissilemanMissileman Orlando, Florida Icrontian
edited October 2004 in Hardware
Okay guys - I'm looking for some advice. I currently have an ATI 9800Pro and a TV Wonder Remote PCI in my machine. It has come time to upgrade.

I like ATI but feel I had better luck with Nvidia. ATI has better image quality, but drivers have a lot of texture problems. Nvidia has good textures, but gets some bad drivers once in a while. Why's it alway apples to pears?

Anyway, I'm torn between the X800Pro and the 6800GT. The GT would probably be faster (except 3DMark05), but the ATI would run better with my TV card. Money is about the same for both.

It would be running in a P4 - 3.2E watercooled Preshott board (IC7-Max3) with a Gb of Corsair 3700 RAM, but should be back to AMD64 by spring (as soon as 939's get reasonable).

So which way should I go ?
:scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch::confused::confused::confused:

Comments

  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited October 2004
    They're two very good cards, and both excel above each other in one test or another. I'd tell you to get the GT, but that's only because I have one. ;)

    If I were you though, I'd get the Pro.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    For all intents and purposes, in real life you will see probably about the same performance from both cards. I'd like anybody to honestly tell me that they can tell the difference a few FPS makes in any game.

    In that regard, I'd go with the X800, since it will make your life easier with your ATI tv card. One driver set to install instead of two. Much simpler and less prone to incompatibilities.
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    I'm in the same boat you're in and right now I'm leaning towards the NVidias. They seem to outperform the ATIs once you start working them hard with AA and higher resolutions.

    As for those cards I think the NVidia has better performance, but I'm not entirely sure.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    Statistically, the 6800 cards outperform the X800 series in this round.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited October 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    Statistically, the 6800 cards outperform the X800 series in this round.

    Based on what results?

    So far, ATI's solution is a little bit faster with Direct3D apps, while nVidia's is a little faster with OpenGL apps.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited October 2004
    I'd go with the 6800GT. From what I've seen, it's basically a tie between it and the X800 Pro, but I don't appreciate ATi's decision to cripple the X800 Pro by using 12 pipelines. The 6800GT can be made into a 6800 Ultra by overclocking the GPU core from 350MHz to 400MHz. The X800 Pro can be made into an XT-PE if you get lucky and get one that can be unlocked, flashed, and overclocked. And the chances of that working are rapidly going from "very, very, very, VERY slim" to "effectively zero" with each revision of the chip and card. Everything I've heard has said that with the newer X800 Pros, it's basically not going to happen. You might get stupidly lucky, but you're better off playing the lottery.

    The 6800GT, on the other hand, only needs that 50MHz overclock, and EVERY SINGLE NV40 GPU I'VE EVER SEEN will hit AT LEAST 400MHz. So basically a 6800GT is all but guaranteed to run at 6800 Ultra speeds.

    In 4 words: Go with the 6800GT.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    Missileman,

    What games do you play? Do you appreciate high resolutions, such as 1600X1200?
    The x800 is known to perform better at high resolutions and image quality set to high or maxed. However, this is based on the reviews i have read, not from a personal experiance.

    What i do know though is that UT2K4 is new game at 1600X1200 and maxed image quality, trust me.
    Whatever card you go for, i'm sure you will be pleased but in my eyes, the Nvidia doesn't stand a chance.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    Yes, but UT2K4 runs for me at 1600x1200 and max image quality with the 9800 Pro - which he can already do.

    If you're not planning on OC'ing the video card, I'd say definitely go with the X800 for your driver compatibility. If you do plan on OC'ing, I'd say go ahead and suffer through the driver incompatibilities to get the extra performance of the 6800.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2004
    Neither! Both the 6800 and X800 series are made using a .13micron process which is maxed out. The new .11micron process (used in the 8 pipe X700 & 6600 series) is running at 500mhz & up and will be used to make the next versions of the 16 pipe highend cards

    R480 to come in the fourth quarter

    ATI Technologies Readies New R430, RV410 Graphics Chips
  • djstubbsdjstubbs NJ
    edited October 2004
    the 6800 gt is better and costs less...

    and can be oc'd to ultra speeds which is the best on the market.

    why not just go with what is the best for less?
  • BudBud Chesterfield, Va
    edited October 2004
    Omega65 wrote:
    Neither! Both the 6800 and X800 series are made using a .13micron process which is maxed out. The new .11micron process (used in the 8 pipe X700 & 6600 series) is running at 500mhz & up and will be used to make the next versions of the 16 pipe highend cards

    R480 to come in the fourth quarter

    ATI Technologies Readies New R430, RV410 Graphics Chips

    when are these gonna hit? Is it really worth an upgrade from a 9800 pro to a 6800gt or x800?
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2004
    Not Yet. Wait until the Nvidia 500mhz & ATI 600mhz 16 pipe cards come out in 1Q 2005.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    Omega, have you tried either the 6800 or x800? Can't see what videocard you are using, that's why i ask. If you haven't tried any of them, how can you say it isn't worth it?
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2004
    I'm using a 2 9700 Pro and a 9800 Pro.

    The current cards are the Willamette/TbredA of video cards. If you want a high powered card why spend $300-500 on a .13 video card now when the more powerful .11 versions are only ~3 months away. X800 XT-PE are scarce because ATI cant make that many using their (TMSC's) .13 process. Also the imminent (.11) $200 X700 & 6600 series cards will give a nice speed bump over the 9800 Pro/XT.

    Of course if you want to spend $300+ on a soon to be outdated video card I totally understand.
    (Benchmark pissing contests are cool ;D I wish my 2K 3DMark05 score was higher)

    Tom's Hardware VGA Charts IV <- See How your Current DX9 card compares to the Latest and greatest

    (Also I philosophically opposed to spending more than $200 on a video cards, I grab all of my video cards when the high rollers upgrade to the latest and greatest.)
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    The difference between x800 and 9800 is far greater than between x800 and the upcoming (rumoured to be named x880) .11.
    I probably play the same games as most of you do, and the 9800 Pro i had couldn't stand a chance. The XT-PE is available, you just have to search a lot for it.
    And btw, you can get 6800 Ultra performance for $200 with their 6800LE version. It's a pretty high success rate for the mod.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    Mackanz wrote:
    I probably play the same games as most of you do, and the 9800 Pro i had couldn't stand a chance.

    Frankly, Mack, based on your OC'ing abilities and massively high benchmarks, your words above scare the crap out of me.

    I'm running Doom3 on my 9800 Pro (stock speeds) and my XP3200+ stock at 1024x768 with "high" detail settings - and it doesn't slow down. I have to wonder what you're running that "couldn't stand a chance" on this card.
  • MissilemanMissileman Orlando, Florida Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    Well I may just wait for the newer models and see what happens. I just got the upgrade bug. Kinda a post hurricanes treat myself kinda thing.

    I do play AA, UT2K4, RTCW, and then mostly online MMORPGs like AC, AC2, COH, WOW. I am probably a bit picky about the video performance. More than I should really be. Even though I'm not that good or don't really stress the card that much.

    I beta test almost full time so I like to stay high end where I know the lag is game caused and not machine caused. Makes troubleshooting easier.

    You know how it is. Wife says I can't go out and mess around so since I have to stay close to home it's the computer that gets the money :)
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    I never understood this "omg you just can't play any games anymore when a new generation of cards comes out"... Like Ghoosdum, I have a radeon 9800 pro/256. The thing rocks ass. There is not a game that I cannot play, at high quality, and have it look totally sweet. I just built two systems with 6800 GTs and they look just as good as my Radeon. I mean, seriously? What's the big deal? So you get 10 more fps? That's not really that noticeable.....
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited October 2004
    It's a whole lot more than 10FPS, Brian.

    Then again, I waited 3 generations before I replaced my 4600.
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    get a BFG 6800OC
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2004
    Going to be using an ATI TV Tuner Card? Sapphire X800 Pro.
    Tossing that out? BFG 6800 GT OC.

    But Fall Refresh is coming around and so are PCI Express platforms for AMD (AFAIK, NForce 4 by October/November 2004)... so you could hold out for NV48 and R480, which are on track for a November 2004 / December 2004 release.

    NV45/NV48: Higher clocks than NV40, integrated HSI chip on GPU, 0.11 process.
    R423/R480: Higher clocks than R420, 0.11 process.

    R5xx isn't due for another 12 months at the minimum (the same roughly for NV5x) due to limited supply of 1.6ns GDDR3 memory and bad yields on the current batch of chips.

    @ X800 Pro -vs- 6800 GT: The 6800GT Wins.
    @ X800 XT PE -vs- 6800 Ultra: The X800 XT PE Wins.

    NVidia > ATI in OGL
    ATI > NVidia in D3D

    However, with that ATI TV Card in your system, I'd be real hesitant of trying to get both NVidia & ATI graphics drivers and software to operate on the same system. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    GHoosdum wrote:
    Frankly, Mack, based on your OC'ing abilities and massively high benchmarks, your words above scare the crap out of me.

    I'm running Doom3 on my 9800 Pro (stock speeds) and my XP3200+ stock at 1024x768 with "high" detail settings - and it doesn't slow down. I have to wonder what you're running that "couldn't stand a chance" on this card.

    There's more to it than that McCord though. First of all, i use 1600X1200 in all games except Doom 3 and at maximium looks. The 9800 Pro i had couldn't handle that. Second, dual screens seems to be a lot better, spanning is now supported across 2 screens. I haven't tried spanning on 9800 though, but give it a try at 3200X1200 with all settings maxed in Flight Simulator. I have never said the 9800 was bad in any way, it's a very good card. But the upgrade costed me $200 after i sold the 9800 and i don't regret it at all.
    Those $200 for a videocard gave my system much more performance than a cpu for $200 would have done.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2004
    :respect:
    :respect:
    :respect:
Sign In or Register to comment.