New cheap and very good performance for its price video card
 

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20041011/index.html


Very cool I think, only downside is that its PCI-E but its only 100$

AGP version will be released later. It's about god damn time that the low-end card can actually perform. It's been years since the low end cards have been anything but shit.




Not that I'd ever buy one. <3 6800GT @ 421/1100

I'm currently planning on buying a new PC although I would've got the ati x700 already if it had been AGP.....damn it.

I'm going for 3.0 to 3.4 ghz, 512 ddr ram, over 120gb HD and the graphics card can be upgraded at a later date, same goes for the monitor. I've been looking on ebay too, hopefully I'll find a system soon.

btw budget = £350 :)

6600GT > X700



Both will be released in AGP form.

yep...

There`s a recent article about those two head to head @ http://www.hardocp.com

I dont know why people still think Nvidia blows compared to ATI but Nvidia is doing a damn good job with their new line of geforce 6`s...

Okay, I'm a noob, but I'm asking anyway.

What is involved in making your computer PCI-E compatible? New motherboard?

Yup

That's some shit. I'd go check Pricewatch for the price, but I don't know which MBs support PCI-E. Any estimates?

Basically ati have been whooping that ass for the last few years with the 9700,9800-9800xt, people come to know who the market leader is and even when the competition get out a good card it takes quite some time for word of mouth to get around that theyre back in contention.

Not only that gerv its that the high end, top of the line, king of the hill, cards made by each company that are often the ones refered to most when compairing companies. This time around ATi's is better than Nvidia's, so most people feel that the lower end cards produced by ATi will be better. It may not be the case, you really have to look at each card your considering to purchase and balence it against a same level card from the competition.

Also loctis, dont worry about PCI-E yet. Most video cards cant even use up the 8x agp bandwidth. What they'll do with 16x is more future based and has more to do with line in video editing. As foreseen by people "in the know".

meh
 

fuck it, already got my 6800 td overclocked to an ultra, low-end cards suck the_finger:

jesduejesdue

Re: meh
 

[quote="Greg_Di":b35b0]fuck it, already got my 6800 td overclocked to an ultra, low-end cards suck the_finger:[/quote:b35b0]

td? heh...


Miscguy "Not only that gerv its that the high end, top of the line, king of the hill, cards made by each company that are often the ones refered to most when compairing companies. This time around ATi's is better than Nvidia's, so most people feel that the lower end cards produced by ATi will be better. It may not be the case, you really have to look at each card your considering to purchase and balence it against a same level card from the competition.

Also loctis, dont worry about PCI-E yet. Most video cards cant even use up the 8x agp bandwidth. What they'll do with 16x is more future based and has more to do with line in video editing. As foreseen by people "in the know". "

Dude you are all wrong, of course ATI is kicking ass as well, but Nvidia is right where they should be and they are.....Every single benchmark you look at from another site you will see ati and nvidia neck to neck or ati take a big lead in something and then nvidia takes a big lead in something...both are extremely doing good right now. From what you are saying it sounds like you are a fan of ATI and thats fine but from saying that Nvidia is worse is not entirely true, Nvidia has been around longer is more known and has just as good gpu`s as your ATI company. Enough said... [url="http://www.hardocp.com"]http://www.hardocp.com[/url] http://www.tomshardware.com http://www.anandtech.com all say same as what I am saying.... now for a fact I believe the Geforce 5***`s series against the 9600 ,9200,9100,9800,9800 xt series of course I believe the ATI has gained the battle but now NVIDIA has come back and are kicking ass.

6800s are actually ahead of the X800 series in the majority of tests with the current driver release. Next driver release, ATI will have a 1 FPS lead, then Nvidia and back and forth until the next generation.

The thing I find most amuzing about this current generation is that HL2 was supposedly built for the X800 series, yet the 6800s beat it in almost every HL2/CSS test.

But going with either company at almost any price range is a win. Although ATI's low end sucks really bad so far.

This is how I feel the current gen is broken down.


>$500 : X800XT-PE is ahead of 6800U is the majority of tests but they are both too close to call one a winner over the other.
$400 : 6800GT thoroughly beats X800 Pro in every test. No contest here.
$300 : 6800 is the only card here other than the 9800XT. Pretty obvious which to go with.
$200-250 : 6600GT or X700. Both are neck and neck with 6600GT pulling ahead slightly. 9800 Pro is also a viable option.
>$100 : 6200 is the only option here. X600/300 performs worse and costs more...
<$100 : You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Counterstrike source no matter what way you slice it is NOT halflife 2. Same engine yes, completly different game. CS has a small handfull of the effects used in hl2, and as far as im aware in the VST ati is still far ahead of nvidia.

Cs is a game thats always been playable on a ton of systems, for source they wanted to keep it that way. It has upgraded graphics because lets face it, it fucking needed them. And has some physics and a handfull of dx9 effects tossed in. Now compare what you see in counterstrike source to the hl2 HDR bink exe file. The effects in hl2 going by that at least are a shitload more noticable and are used more frequently than in source.

At best basing judgements on how a card is gonna perform in hl2 by drawing numbers from cs:source is retarded. Hl2 has a lot more geometry, larger levels, loads more effects, a lot more to the physics system, ai enemies and npc's running around.

You could basically draw this comparrison, hl2 is call of duty:uo and cs:source is quake 3, bottom line is cod:uo has more effects going on, more detailed models etc, quake 3 is more simplistic, less effects, not as hi res models. Theyre both on the same engine yes, do you get quake 3 frame rates with cod:uo? No

Nothing can be compared untill the game is actually out. Halflife 2 was not built for the x800 series, it was meant to be out last year, and last year nvidia could not keep pace with the 9800 which was shitkicking them at every turn. The 6800 is a brand new core, the x800 series is a speed bumped 9800 more or less. If nvidia are now faster well good for them, with a new core comparing to a core thats now around 2 years old or more id expect them to be catching up or being faster to some extent, would be embarressing if ati "old tech" was beating up on nvidia's "latest and greatest".

Anyway, hl2, noone really knows as yet, the cs source benchmarks dont count for much imo and are not indicitive of how hl2 is gonna perform for the reasons stated above.

my friend just got a 6800GT for free..he wont it at a lan party.

It actually makes sense that ATI's old core would perform better than a new one. The reason being is it has very mature drivers. ATI knows how to get the best performance out of it. That's why there haven't been many monumental increases in performance from driver updates on ATI's side. The 6800 core is very young and the true potenual is still be squeezed out of it. Look at preliminary benchmarks of the 6800U with it's original drivers. It sucked, sometimes performing worse than a X800 Pro. Now it's neck and neck with the X800XT-PE.

I didn't mean that HL2 was built for ATI. I meant that ATI spent so much money hyping HL2 saying it would only perform good on their hardware. Remember 'Shader Day'? I think CSS gives you a pretty good idea of HL2's performance. I'm sure the ratios will be similar just at much lower FPS. Chateau is the most shader intensive map in CSS and it performs better on the 6800s.

The xbit article was using the 4.9 cats, ati have since released a hotfix driver that address a bug that elts the ati cards use all their 256 megs of ram.

I think its pretty safe to say we'll see numbers hop about for the coming months depending on driver revisions. I really dont see either side getting a lead that i would say is substantial. Just more driver revisions then people calling out on optomisations etc etc. Who'd be a driver writer huh biggrin:

I don't have a problem with optimizations. If ATI can implement their AI shader replacement dealy with no loss in IQ then by all means do it. I hope nvidia comes out with something similar. dance:

[img]http://www.daplayazclub.com/uploads/jiga.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.daplayazclub.com/uploads/jiga.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.daplayazclub.com/uploads/jiga.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.daplayazclub.com/uploads/jiga.jpg[/img]

rolleyes:

relevance is off the scale.

Im not sure where you get your sources from but the X800 isnt simply an overclocked 9800 like some of you seem to think. It is a compltly new design, no doubt simply advancing ideas from the 9800's but to say its the same thing is assinine. Look at the benchmark compaiisons from first run test between the 9800xt and x800xt and you'll understand that you cant get that type of proformance leap by just overclocking.

As for 6800 vs x800 naturally there going to be neck and neck, you see this every time new cards are released. But does the 6800 still require 2 stand alone power connections? Or did they un fuck themselves and make it 1? Its not just a few FPS that make a card better or worse, its in the features and ease of install. If im still required to hook up two power connecters, shit, id need a new power suppply.


Though i will grant you i have been out of touch with these new cards for a while.

The x800 series has always been known as 9800 on steroids, aside from pixelshader 2b and a higher clock speed its the same as the 9800. The clock speed increase was brought about by the die size shrink. And obviously the ram running at 1120mhz helps with the speed bump. Their new chip is coming in the new year, so new design, have to see what that brings to the table.


6800-ultra is still 2 power connectors but the official word is "one for normal operation and 2 for overclocking". Saying that though i was whoring forums when this was released and seen people getting artifacts with one connector and no overclocking so i dunno if that was ever resolved.

Don't really keep up with the hardware scene as much as i used to =/

[code:12865] NV38 NV40 R360 R420
Transistors 130M 222M 110M 160M
Core clock 475MHz 400MHz 412MHz 500MHz
Mem clock 950MHz 1.1GHz 900MHz 1.12GHz
Memory Bus 256bit 256bit 256bit 256bit
Vertex Pipelines ~4 6 4 6
Pixel Pipelines 4x2 16x1 8x1 16x1
Shader Model 2.0+ 3.0 2.0 2.0+
Fab Process 130nm 130nm 150nm 130nm[/code:12865]

R420 is the new x800, and the R360 is the 9800. So not only did you get more clock speed, and faster memory they upped the vertex and pixel pipelines, dropped the die size and crammed more transisters on.

The nv40 is the 6800, and if i recall the nv38 is the 5950.

Yup, 60 million transistors for the nv-40 are for pixel shader 3.0. Seems to be a far bigger leap for nvidia for similar performance to a "less complicated" chip r-420.

The R420 still has the same exact aritechture as the R300 which was the original 9700 core. ATI added 8 more Pixel pipelines(where most the speed comes from) and 2 more Vertex pipelines. Then overclocked the hell out of it. That's all there is to it. Then pair it with some 1.6ns GDDR3 and you have blazing fast performance with 'old' tech.

Why would you need to buy a new power supply to run a 6800U? It comes with 2 y-splitters and will easily run on any 350W PSU.