7800s or 6800s?

MAGICMAGIC Doot DootFurniture City, Michigan Icrontian
edited August 2005 in Hardware
im gunna most likely be building a new system in the next couple months, with sli. i was wondering if its gunna be worth it to go for sli 7800s or go for 6800s. im not going to be upgrading untill ut2k7 comes out i was just wondering if 6800s would make it till then.

Comments

  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    I'd go with one 7800 for now... as it's as good as 6800's in SLI. That way if IT isn't good enough by then, then you could buy another 7800 and put that in SLI ;)
  • JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
    edited August 2005
    Damn RWB you are a genious.
  • edited August 2005
    Actually one 7800 GTx is better than two 6800 Ultra's if I'm not mistaken.

    7753.png

    7763.png

    7734.png

    7744.png
  • JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
    edited August 2005
    damn its a shame how badly the 7800 outperforms an x850
  • rykoryko new york
    edited August 2005
    depends on your monitor....if it's capable of 1600x1200 or higher than 7800gt(gtx) is the only way to go. if it's a 19" or less lcd (w/ 1280x1024) a 7800 series is overkill. :cool:
  • edited August 2005
    ryko wrote:
    depends on your monitor....if it's capable of 1600x1200 or higher than 7800gt(gtx) is the only way to go. if it's a 19" or less lcd (w/ 1280x1024) a 7800 series is overkill. :cool:

    Not really...

    I'd agree with you if you were referring to 7800 GTX's in SLI, because then it really is overkill, you don't gain much fps.

    7871.png

    See, there your post makes sense, because the one card outperforms two in SLi.

    But a constant 100 fps on high settings is quite nice.

    I play at 1280 x 1024 and get a solid 75-100 fps.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited August 2005
    maybe if you would actually read the articles instead of just looking at the benchmarks...

    i'll jump right to the conclusion...
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496&p=11

    "Here is where everything gets a little hairy. Will you be monitor limited by an upgrade? Many very good flat panels will only display up to 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. Owning one of these panels really negates the necessity for a 7800 GTX right now. From the numbers we have seen, the highest end card we would recommend for owners of a 1600x1200 flat panel (who don't get paid for gaming) is the 7800 GT. We would also recommend finding one for $400 rather than paying full price.

    Owners of 1280x1024 panels don't really need to spend the money here as even the 7800 GT will run into walls at this resolution. 6800 GT prices are now dropping to $300 and below. At this price point, owners of older systems who haven't taken the high end plunge and don't want to spend the money on 1600x1200 and up panels would do very well to upgrade to a 6800 GT. Even the venerable 128MB 6800 is available at nearly $200.

    We have entered an era where the graphics solution is often limited by the monitor more than anything else at the high end. It is important to pay attention to what is needed for a particular system rather than just grabbing the fastest thing out there. Even with all the bells and whistles, if nothing is going to be done at very high resolutions, current games do not stress the highest end cards enough."
  • edited August 2005
    No ryko, no.

    I get less than 100 fps, I never run into walls in BF2.

    I don't care what the article says...

    I play at 1280 x 1024, and the benchmark proves what I'm saying.

    I don't even have most of my settings on high.

    settings.jpg

    I switch between lights on LOW and MEDIUM, because it actually changes gameplay a lot, but to get good fps with my rig those are the settings you need to play at.

    I have first hand experience with the card, more than an article, maybe you should check that out. ;D

    Just kidding bro, but seriously though the card is not overkill by any means, only the SLi 7800 GTX is overkill without a huge monitor.

    But then again there isn't really a benefit for "pro gamers" to using those humongous monitors considering the sluggish response time they come packaged along with.

    My viewsonic vx924 has the lowest response time of any monitor on the market (4ms).

    /end rant.

    Don't take what I said offensively, I didn't mean it that way.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited August 2005
    you are proving my point... you even said "i am not hitting walls..."

    1280 x 1024 doesn't push your 7800gtx...not with AA or AF or any quality settings.

    want to really strech it's legs.... try 1600 x 1200 w/ 8xAA 16xAF, it might break a sweat.
  • edited August 2005
    ryko wrote:
    you are proving my point... you even said "i am not hitting walls..."

    1280 x 1024 doesn't push your 7800gtx...not with AA or AF or any quality settings.

    want to really strech it's legs.... try 1600 x 1200 w/ 8xAA 16xAF, it might break a sweat.

    How does that prove your point :scratch:

    If I was running into walls, it would mean my fps just sits at 100, never drops a frame, which is not the case.

    1280 x 1024, at the settings I posted above, I get 70-100 fps.

    If it was constantly at 100 never dropping, then you would be correct.

    I really don't get how you're making accusations without first hand experience with the card itself.
  • lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
    edited August 2005
    Jengo wrote:
    damn its a shame how badly the 7800 outperforms an x850

    I should have waited 6 more months :zombie:
  • MAGICMAGIC Doot Doot Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    so 7800s it is, hope its worth the extra 400 bucks. i hope that theyll be able to run the new unreal stuff at a decent quality
  • edited August 2005
    ' wrote:
    [V][AGIC']so 7800s it is, hope its worth the extra 400 bucks. i hope that theyll be able to run the new unreal stuff at a decent quality

    Well it's the best single GPU on the market (at least the 7800 GTX is).

    You should be very happy with it.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited August 2005
    djstubbs wrote:
    How does that prove your point :scratch:

    If I was running into walls, it would mean my fps just sits at 100, never drops a frame, which is not the case.

    1280 x 1024, at the settings I posted above, I get 70-100 fps.

    If it was constantly at 100 never dropping, then you would be correct.

    I really don't get how you're making accusations without first hand experience with the card itself.

    good for you, you have the card, and you have a monitor that isn't capable of pushing your card. i am not going to explain myself again. it is really simple. read the article i posted a link to earlier.

    anything constant of 60fps+ is hitting the wall. you can't tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps--it is physically impossible for the human eye. :rolleyes:
  • edited August 2005
    ryko wrote:
    good for you, you have the card, and you have a monitor that isn't capable of pushing your card. i am not going to explain myself again. it is really simple. read the article i posted a link to earlier.

    anything constant of 60fps+ is hitting the wall. you can't tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps--it is physically impossible for the human eye. :rolleyes:

    Buddy, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole, stop while you're ahead. ;D

    Have you even played BF2....

    And also, the specs of the PC they used for their tests and mine aren't identical, so keep that in mind.
  • MAGICMAGIC Doot Doot Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    a single 7800 with max settings and 8x aa might be tough
Sign In or Register to comment.