PDA

View Full Version : 6800GT/ultra



BM357_TinMan
09-30-2004, 08:02 AM
Does anybody have any idea when more GT's or Ultras are going to be available.

Seems like "backordered" is norm on these cards.

What gives with that?

The one I am most interested in is the ultra.

Thanks

BuzzU
09-30-2004, 10:59 AM
Ebay.

Owlsphone
09-30-2004, 11:09 AM
Best Buy has a ton of 6800 GTs in stock. Try there .

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-30-2004, 11:17 AM
Click this link: http://magnum-pc.com/

crazyivan1970
09-30-2004, 11:24 AM
Buzz you getting XT PE?

BM357_TinMan
09-30-2004, 11:31 AM
cool, thanks

I was looking for the ultra and the places I was looking had neither, but I see there seems to be a good amount of GT's out there.

looks like maybe the ultra will be available in a couple of weeks...I hope. I want to have it installed pre PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Eagle_361st
09-30-2004, 11:35 AM
I am looking for donations of either a x800 XT PE or 6800 Ultra. All donations are tax deductible. Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BM357_TinMan
09-30-2004, 11:39 AM
I just checked E-Bay, seems like there are a few to be had there, but I am kind of leary of spending that much money on e-bay....lol

Maybe, if I get desperate enough, and they still have some NEW PNY's there, I might break down and buy one.

crazyivan1970
09-30-2004, 11:41 AM
X800XT PE wipes floor with Ultra and cheaper too. Why?

BM357_TinMan
09-30-2004, 11:47 AM
I'm a coolaid drinking Nvidia Fan boy. Probably not the smartest thing after being bit by them with the stupid FX series.

But I had a bad run in with the Cat's a couple of years ago and vowed to never go back to ATI.

Maybe I should revisit this position

El Turo
09-30-2004, 11:50 AM
So, explain it for a tech-stoopid guy..

What's the difference between a 6800gt "XFX" for $390 and a 6800gt "BFC OC" for $419?

OC = overclock?


Bleh.. need some info!

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
X800XT PE wipes floor with Ultra and cheaper too. Why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would not go that far from reviews I have seen. The ultra is comparable to the X800xt. And we are not talking 3.0 shaders yet.

Here is one review fro Sharkey Extremem
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3406871__7

Owlsphone
09-30-2004, 12:19 PM
Yes the OC means it comes overclocked. I have one of the BFG 6800 GT OCs and you can even run it up to Ultra speeds no problem. Like I said, theyre everywhere and you can get em at BB for $349 now

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 12:21 PM
More reviews

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDc=

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?head=15&page=943

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_6800_ultra_extreme/page9.asp

crazyivan1970
09-30-2004, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
X800XT PE wipes floor with Ultra and cheaper too. Why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would not go that far from reviews I have seen. The ultra is comparable to the X800xt. And we are not talking 3.0 shaders yet.

Here is one review fro Sharkey Extremem
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3406871__7 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don`t have to go that far mate, just look at 3d 2005 mark scores... first pages of highest scores belong to XT PE owners...then Ultra starts popping up along with X800 PRO. Better then any reviews in my book.

Hunter82
09-30-2004, 02:48 PM
Best buy had them for 399.99 and are not in stock http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Owlsphone:
Yes the OC means it comes overclocked. I have one of the BFG 6800 GT OCs and you can even run it up to Ultra speeds no problem. Like I said, theyre everywhere and you can get em at BB for $349 now <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
09-30-2004, 02:49 PM
Hey B, was just looking at 3d 2005 scores hehe. You were right.
Check e-mail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Owlsphone
09-30-2004, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunter82:
Best buy had them for 399.99 and are not in stock http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Owlsphone:
Yes the OC means it comes overclocked. I have one of the BFG 6800 GT OCs and you can even run it up to Ultra speeds no problem. Like I said, theyre everywhere and you can get em at BB for $349 now <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 Best Buys by my house had at least 4 of them a few days ago. I guess the deal is over but yes, they were 349.99.

Maple_Tiger
09-30-2004, 05:13 PM
Attention:

Anyone who is not happy with their Ultra or X800XT Platimum.

Send it to 1451 Rte 3, Harvey NB, Canada. Postal code is, E6K 2R7.

Lunix
09-30-2004, 06:09 PM
Oleg develops on NVIDIA hardware. Oleg will be implementing SM3 features in pacific fighters leaving ATI owners out in the cold. NVIDIA runs OpenGL better than ATI. IL2 engine is written in OpenGL. I see no need to even look at the ATI cards.

BM357_TinMan
09-30-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BM357_TinMan:
I'm a coolaid drinking Nvidia Fan boy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was reading back through and this struck me as it might easily be taken as a jab at NVidia fans. THAT was not my attention.

I meant it with all sincerity. My first 3d accelerator was a TNT2 ULtra (which I still have and have (not anymore but have)used to play IL2 FB on a back up machine btw)

I do like the NVidia cards and I did try a 9700 when they were the hot ticket because the benchies said they were better than the comparable Ti4600 and they were cheaper, but I DID have major issues with the Cat drivers so that 9700 became the only video card I ever had to take back and it made me (already a nvidia fan) a die hard (nvidia fan). I even bought the stupid FX5950 thinking it wouldn't be as bad as it looked in the tests in comparison with the ATI's and I was severely disapointed.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify, I was talking a shot at anybody, just expressing the fact that if ATI's Xwhater it is X XXX IS better and CHEAPER, than maybe even this diehard might look that way.

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
X800XT PE wipes floor with Ultra and cheaper too. Why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would not go that far from reviews I have seen. The ultra is comparable to the X800xt. And we are not talking 3.0 shaders yet.

Here is one review fro Sharkey Extremem
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3406871__7 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don`t have to go that far mate, just look at 3d 2005 mark scores... first pages of highest scores belong to XT PE owners...then Ultra starts popping up along with X800 PRO. Better then any reviews in my book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know what results you pull from. I used pentium 3.0 for cpu and all video cards for parameters. I got ultras at the top of the heap. Post if the link works.

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Hey B, was just looking at 3d 2005 scores hehe. You were right.
Check e-mail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know what list you used but I used Pentium 3.0 and all video cards for parameter search. I got ultras at the top of list.

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch

crazyivan1970
09-30-2004, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lunix:
Oleg develops on NVIDIA hardware. Oleg will be implementing SM3 features in pacific fighters leaving ATI owners out in the cold. NVIDIA runs OpenGL better than ATI. IL2 engine is written in OpenGL. I see no need to even look at the ATI cards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently you are not really aware of how and what Oleg developes. No further comments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@Stranger, do a simple search of projects... search result link wont work here

Hunter82
09-30-2004, 06:43 PM
try putting in no parameters and it pulls up all cards/cpus

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Hey B, was just looking at 3d 2005 scores hehe. You were right.
Check e-mail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know what list you used but I used Pentium 3.0 and all video cards for parameter search. I got ultras at the top of list.

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 06:48 PM
So I guess it depends on what list you pull up.

Hunter82
09-30-2004, 06:51 PM
Well if you put in no parameters it is accurate. If you put in a specific CPU it is inaccurate unless you are looking for the top user with a 3.0

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
So I guess it depends on what list you pull up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 06:59 PM
Ok you got me. Highest pentium with ati 800xtpe was a pentium 4258 With a mark of 7373
Highest Pentium with a ultra was 4260. Pretty even on bus. It marks was 7130. I do not have my calculator I think that is 2 or 3 % over a ultra. If that is your definition of wiping the floor you win. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
09-30-2004, 07:07 PM
Not sure what you searching for:

3DMark Score: 8250
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2930 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X800 XT PE, 806 MHz / 648 MHz
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6490
Driver Status: Non WHQL - Not FM Approved


3DMark Score: 7130
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2772 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra, 602 MHz / 1338 MHz
Display Driver: 6.6.7.0
Driver Status: Non WHQL - Not FM Approved

1100 points? That`s wiping a floor in my book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Rogodin
09-30-2004, 07:15 PM
Me neither-but remember that 3dmark was basically renedered inane by nividia themselves.

Rogo

Stanger_361st
09-30-2004, 07:56 PM
I search for nothing just hit all

Obi_Kwiet
09-30-2004, 09:03 PM
I an ATI fan boy, But if I were to buy this round, I'd go with the 6800. Why? PS 3.0.

ComradeBadinov
09-30-2004, 10:06 PM
I just got a BFG 6800GT. It runs at 57 to 64 degrees farenheit.. it droped my mother board temp by 20 degrees.. and my computer is 100 times quieter than it used to be, and thats sayin somethin.. and the card is fantastic by the way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-01-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Not sure what you searching for:

3DMark Score: 8250
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2930 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X800 XT PE, 806 MHz / 648 MHz
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6490
Driver Status: Non WHQL - Not FM Approved


3DMark Score: 7130
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2772 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra, 602 MHz / 1338 MHz
Display Driver: 6.6.7.0
Driver Status: Non WHQL - Not FM Approved

1100 points? That`s wiping a floor in my book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">There is over 250mhz difference inthose processors. That's enough to make up most of the difference in those tests.</span>

Hunter82
10-01-2004, 07:45 AM
I tested my FX 53 @ Stock 2.4 and @ 2.7 269 FSB score changed by 9 points. 3D Mark only scores the first graphics test. CPU does not get added into the overall score, this was the same in 3D Mark 03 which is why ORB users only run the first graphics tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Not sure what you searching for:

3DMark Score: 8250
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2930 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X800 XT PE, 806 MHz / 648 MHz
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6490
Driver Status: Non WHQL - Not FM Approved


3DMark Score: 7130
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2772 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra, 602 MHz / 1338 MHz
Display Driver: 6.6.7.0
Driver Status: Non WHQL - Not FM Approved

1100 points? That`s wiping a floor in my book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">There is over 250mhz difference inthose processors. That's enough to make up most of the difference in those tests.</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
10-01-2004, 09:22 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">What Hunter Said </span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

DingleRoad
10-01-2004, 09:22 AM
Hey Guys,
I was going to upgrade this Autumn to a FX53 system, but with BOB being at least a year away I thought I might just change the graphics card for now.
Present spec : Athlon 3200, 1 Gig Corsair 3200, Creative 5900 Ultra.
Do you think I would gain much by putting a 6800GT/Ultra into my present spec ?

crazyivan1970
10-01-2004, 10:59 AM
You have a solid machine... why waste another 600 bucks, just curious.

Odranoel1
10-01-2004, 11:18 AM
Hello from Switzerland (neutral country as we all know! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

I am the proud owner (man I must be proud, posting all over the place!) of a Pine XFX 6800 GT.

Mine runs very close to 6800 Ultra stock speeds (400/1080). It has two DVI ports as the Ultra. Image quality is superb and gameplay very smooth.

After reading test results by firingsquad (they test with FB) I decided that this card was the best choice because:

1) Once overclocked, it is in the same league as the X800 XT PE (for FB that is - other games or benchmarks are not relevant to me)
2) It has Shader Model 3 support which is promising for PF and BoB I understand.

Now - just to prove this IS a neutral country, My Son and I selected a 9800 Pro for his PC which we built 6 months ago, and it is a very nice card! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One thing for sure: we are not in the situation of the 59xx vs 9800 era. In today's high end, there is no right or wrong...

Good flying to all!

JG14_Josf
10-01-2004, 11:24 AM
Looking at the new edition of PC magazine it seems very odd how 3Dmark tests do not always equate to higher FPS in games.

1,200-by-1,024 with 2x anti-aliasing, 4x Anisotropic filtering

Card/3Dmark/Doom3/FarCry
Geforce/6865/70/64
Radeon/7815/52/69

1,600-by-1,200 with 4x AA, 8x AF

Geforc/4053/38/39
Radeon/4525/27/44

Geforce is better in FPS for Doom3
Radeon is better in FPS for FarCry

Note:
Some people have noted that ATI cards are not as good as Nvidia cards for spotting and tracking planes without icons in IL2.

WUAF_Badsight
10-01-2004, 01:03 PM
Nvidiea are knowen for better colour

ATI are knowen for faster performance at higher resolution & high levels of AA & AF

i run FB at 1100-ish res / max AA & AF that i can set

im after best picture quality when i get my next card

-HH-Quazi
10-01-2004, 02:07 PM
And the 256MB X800Pro's and XT PE's have been handicapped all this time because of the Cat drivers haven't been allowing these cards to utilize all 256MB of memory. The new Cat betas, 4.10, fixes this. Plus, if you are going to oc the 6800's, better have a 480-watt psu. At least this is what Nvidia recommends. And Pixel Shader 3? Useless. There's no games on the market at this time to utilize it. And by the time there are, ATI will have that covered also. ATI fanboy? Oh yea, I am. Why? I have used both cards. And all the previous reviews and tests pitting the 6800Ultra and the X800XT PE, also useless, seeing as the X800's are just now being able to use all of the 256MB memory they have with the release of the 4.10 betas, soon to be Cat 4.10 officially released. I'd like too see those tests done over. Like Crazy Ivan said, wiping the floor. loll

WUAF_Badsight
10-01-2004, 02:35 PM
6800 GT needs a 300 W PSU

so Nvidea recommends

PS 2.0 can do what PS 3.0 can do . . . . . but PS 3.0 is faster

Busysilent1
10-01-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DingleRoad:
Hey Guys,
I was going to upgrade this Autumn to a FX53 system, but with BOB being at least a year away I thought I might just change the graphics card for now.
Present spec : Athlon 3200, 1 Gig Corsair 3200, Creative 5900 Ultra.
Do you think I would gain much by putting a 6800GT/Ultra into my present spec ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you consider 6600 GT insted of 6800?

What do people think in general on expected difference in performance between 6600 and 6800?

OldMan____
10-02-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
6800 GT needs a 300 W PSU

so Nvidea recommends

PS 2.0 can do what PS 3.0 can do . . . . . but PS 3.0 is faster <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no Ps 2.0 cannot do anything PS 3.0 can do. It can get simmilar results to anything done until know with PS 3.0. It a computer language theory problem.. ther are thing you can do when you have branchs.. and cannot do without them. MOst attempsta to copy PS 3.0 effects with PS 2.0 hardware are based on the idea of precomputing the data and storing it in textures. So you can make a very complex funcion with parameters X any.. and store its result in the (x,y) pixel of a texture. But with this work around you are limited to functions you can map in a texture. Try to make the same with a function using 8 variables.. impossible to do with PS 2.0.. easy with PS 3.0.


Also making the calculation usually is much faster than reading the result in atexture (becaus ethat people say PS 3.0 is faster)

Agamemnon22
10-02-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
And Pixel Shader 3? Useless. There's no games on the market at this time to utilize it. And by the time there are, ATI will have that covered also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... Pacific Fighters?

WUAF_Badsight
10-02-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:

no Ps 2.0 cannot do anything PS 3.0 can do. It can get simmilar results to anything done until know with PS 3.0. It a computer language theory problem.. ther are thing you can do when you have branchs.. and cannot do without them. MOst attempsta to copy PS 3.0 effects with PS 2.0 hardware are based on the idea of precomputing the data and storing it in textures. So you can make a very complex funcion with parameters X any.. and store its result in the (x,y) pixel of a texture. But with this work around you are limited to functions you can map in a texture. Try to make the same with a function using 8 variables.. impossible to do with PS 2.0.. easy with PS 3.0.


Also making the calculation usually is much faster than reading the result in a texture (because that people say PS 3.0 is faster) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx for the clarification

F19_Gazoo
10-02-2004, 03:31 PM
I think you´ll be happy with either of those cards! I wonder if anyone will SEE any real difference between the cards we´re talking about. And please don´t come running with those benchmarksnumbers, it´s what you experience that counts.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hunter82
10-03-2004, 05:51 AM
pixel shader 2.0b however......... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:

no Ps 2.0 cannot do anything PS 3.0 can do. It can get simmilar results to anything done until know with PS 3.0. It a computer language theory problem.. ther are thing you can do when you have branchs.. and cannot do without them. MOst attempsta to copy PS 3.0 effects with PS 2.0 hardware are based on the idea of precomputing the data and storing it in textures. So you can make a very complex funcion with parameters X any.. and store its result in the (x,y) pixel of a texture. But with this work around you are limited to functions you can map in a texture. Try to make the same with a function using 8 variables.. impossible to do with PS 2.0.. easy with PS 3.0.


Also making the calculation usually is much faster than reading the result in a texture (because that people say PS 3.0 is faster) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx for the clarification <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull_dog_
10-03-2004, 09:44 AM
Chevy...Ford....Chevy...Ford...Chevy...Ford

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

This fanboy stuff is killing me...some day soon, I'll be looking to upgrade myself and based on what I read, it looks like you can't go wrong with either. I started with a Nividia, so I'll probably stay with one.

Copperhead310th
10-03-2004, 12:23 PM
Ok so being the tecnical dumb@ss of the bunch
someone tell me what the BEST card for the money is today. i mean top of the line card that will use all the new grafix features comming in PF.

Keep in mind i'm holding off on biulding my new rig till tax time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(sometime in feb. or march.)

MOH_SKID.
10-03-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Note:
Some people have noted that ATI cards are not as good as Nvidia cards for spotting and tracking planes without icons in IL2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me, *this* is what really matters. Since going to the 9800pro, I've been bothered by hard-to-see dots and planes disappearing into the background. I never had this problem with the old Ti4400. The colours were "richer" or something on the NV card too. Yes, I'm getting 85fps average with the 9800pro. Fat lotta good 85fps is when you're dangling from your chute because you didn't see that bandit at your low six. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

That top-end ATI card looks like a screamer. It's likely a good choice if you primarily play the shooter games. I don't. This rig is mainly used for FB. And a 6800GT is going be the next video card. So I'll be a few fps slower in Half-life 2 or Farcry or Doom3 or whatever... I don't intend purchasing those games. The performance in FB is what matters to me.

S~
Skid

Hunter82
10-03-2004, 04:18 PM
The reason the dot looks smaller and not a block is because AA and AF work properly the entire scene in ATI...you could achieve the same results in turning these objects down to equal Nvidias AA and AF performance.

Also don't forget some servers reduce dot range via mp_dotrange command.