Dead Men Walking

Nearly got me going there BB. I'm so desperate to buy something I almost went for it. Discipline returned though and I'm hanging on for an X800XT. Oh, and a 21" monitor.  :coolio:

Before you hang on too long have a look at this:

Toms Hardware (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040705/farcry-05.html)

Admittedly it is only based on 1 game but it is possible that we are starting to see the benfit of some of the stuff that nVidia have put in their cards as the mid range Geforce was giving the top range ATi a run for its money.

If you look at things over the next year or so then both the x800 and the 6800 will provide good performance.  

I dunno, based on the one game sample it is tricky to call but I'm gonna go for the 6800 GT on a price/performance basis - it boils down to how long do ikeep putting off the upgrade I suppose.

Sorry Ron  8)

That's one sexy beast!!  :dribble:

So, the x800xt is dead in the water and the 6800 ultra is the weapon of choice then? Answer quickly, finger poised on 'buy now' button.  :norty:

No I'm not saying that. It is too difficult to say.  I like living life on the edge and have gambled that nVidias efforts at making their cards more future proof will pay off. there are plenty reviews where the ATi still beats the nVidia so I guess it is a matter of how it was tested and in what state (DX8, DX9, DX9c)

Bet that doesn't help :)

Oh and I've gone for the GT not the Ultra as it is about £80 cheaper

I'd take a pinch of salt when reading that page.  Remember FC 1.2 offers a custom code patch for the nVidia 6800 card, so it is _bound_ to deal with it fairly well - it is trying desperately to get over the complete hash it made of dealing with the FC1.1 code!    Additionall, most peeps will not notice SM3 v SM2 so that's almost a red herring at the moment, particularly under an unsupported (yet) DX9c.

If SM3 is a big deal then you also need to look at the tests with AA/AF enabled - then you'll find that the differences change!  ATI seems to provide more punch in those particular quality stakes.  I would go so far as to suggest that nVidia's result is largely on the back of their as yet unreleased beta driver work.  I think when ATI release their upgraded drivers then the performance gap will close if not disappear altogether.  This final paragraph also makes me think drivers account for a big chunk of difference at the moment:

QuoteNVIDIA and Crytek have shown that SM 3.0 can indeed lead to performance improvements over an SM 2.0 implementation. This conclusion flies in the face of what ATi has been preaching for the last few months. In many of our FarCry tests, the NVIDIA cards can now pull ahead of their rivals from ATi. The GeForce 6800 GT makes an especially convincing appearance here, especially considering that, at $399, it costs just as much as its direct competitor the X800 Pro.

I interpret that as saying that someone somewhere has a driver issue that they have not yet dealt with as regards SM3.  This interpretation makes sense given that SM3 seems to be faster under the nVidia card and that ATI are rumoured to be 'updating their cards' later this year to include SM3.  Add a similar chunk of SM3 performance to the current X800XT figures makes quite a big difference to the scores.

Based upon the hardware employed it is difficult to believe the difference in performance between the mid-range and top of range versions of the cards when you look at something like the 1280x1024, 4AA,4AF test.  Again, me thinks other influences are at work here such as the driver quality and possibily hardware limitations of the test system - the CPU is often the bottleneck nowadays.

I'm not saying ATI is better, just saying that a broader range of benchmarks are needed before you make a decision.  At the moment there is very little to choose between them other than the hardware/power supply issues already discussed in other threads.

TL.

:frusty:  :frusty:  :frusty: Aaaaaagh!

:lmfao:  :lmfao:

Sorry Ron!

TL.

Hey Ron. You can get them in different colours. You'll have to choose that too  :devil:

i think a fair portion of the argument is down to "our card is faster than your card"
at the end of the day we are talking a few fps difference on the very fastest settings on a huge monitor, bearing in mind that most people will never run that kind of rig it sorta pales into insignifcance really.
im just about to upgrade my graphics card now for the first time in 2 years and i bin running a ge-force 4400ti on a 19inch crt @ 1600x1200 and all the new games have bin fine and crispy!!(far cry wasn't hence the upgrade) best value for money at the mo i think is an ati 9800pro for about £150 which should easily overclock to the region of an xt . so you can then spend your other £150 on someone special.

Went from a GF4600 to an Asus 9800XT

**** all difference ... :(

QuoteOriginally posted by smite@Jul 19 2004, 04:51 PM
Went from a GF4600 to an Asus 9800XT

**** all difference ... :(

I reckon you may be CPU limited. The Cyrix386 always was a crud CPU  :devil:

:lmfao: w2g BB :lmfao:  

Smite, I believe an appropriate avatar analogy for what BB just said, might be :rumpy:

TL.

QuoteOriginally posted by smite@Jul 19 2004, 03:51 PM
Went from a GF4600 to an Asus 9800XT

**** all difference ... :(

Biggest difference will be directx9 compatability I guess seeing as The GF4 cards were pretty fast :)  My Ti4200 was lightning!

QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall+Jul 19 2004, 05:13 PM-->