1. #1
    I'm still happy with my BFG 6800GT but I'm surprised by these results.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s-2004_38.html

    Alexi

    -----------------------------
    Drug of choice....coffee


    -----------------------------
    Share this post

  2. #2
    I'm still happy with my BFG 6800GT but I'm surprised by these results.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s-2004_38.html

    Alexi

    -----------------------------
    Drug of choice....coffee


    -----------------------------
    Share this post

  3. #3
    "This page cannot be displayed"

    Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2
    Share this post

  4. #4
    tsisqua's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,211
    Wow! The X800 XT kicks som serious butt in this benchmark test.

    I'll be so happy when I can afford it.

    Tsisqua


    Share this post

  5. #5
    6800GT is a econo card of the 6800 series (Yes it costs more than the superior 6800 Ultra in benchmarks... go figure, but Nvidia has always had questionalbe marketing schemes such as the MX series ripoffs, I mean cards).

    The 6800 Ultra 256MB is the premo if you disregard the Ultra expensive platinum edition. Regardless the X800 beats it flat out no FSAA or AF. With Full FSAA and AF the cards have less of a gap in terms of preformance.

    Share this post

  6. #6
    Slechtvalk's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    408
    ...
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Slechtvalk's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    408
    Must be something wrong with that benchmark because I have seen other reviews where the 6800 series where faster so that huge difference as in that review is almost impossible.

    Here is a another review for example:

    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...king/page6.asp
    Share this post

  8. #8
    I agree with Slechtvalk...check out firingsquad comparisons.

    .


    Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Kasdeya's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,018
    THere are many ways to come up with the results on these sites. Read the comments at the bottom of that page. One states that, this certain test was run on Direct3D and not OpenGL. I am not sure, I didnt read it anywhere, but the way I figure it is that both are very comparable using either method. Some tests from sites are geared toward certain cards, so be it. Thats the way its always gonna be.

    Just look at the fps we're talking about- any where from 3 to 7 frames- at a freakin astonishing 80 fps. bah I aint worried bout 3 frames that high up. I run a FX card on GL, my squadmate run ATI in Direct 3D. We both have decent frames with eye candy. What more do you want? Why worry what some pple say. I love Nvidia but have bought a X800(on backorder). Why, I like the way it looked on the few screens I saw. Sometimes I think I should have gotten another Nvidia, but all in all its about the same.

    This is sad but here goes. *Disclaimer: These are my opinions and if I spelled it wrong it would by onions. To each his own, esp. if he paid for it. I am not ragging on anyone I just feel that both sides need to lighten up. Thats all.

    Hey Slechtvalk, sweet screenshots mate. I can only hope to get somewhere near that with my POS system.


    CWoS Forums. More Cheese, Less Whine
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Jetbuff's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,444
    Note, the comment was mine. Based on the numbers at firing squad it is obvious the test was run in direct3D. Simply put IL-2:FB has always been faster in OpenGL (hence the higher numbers for BOTH cards at comparable settings in the firingsquad review and others) and OpenGL has always been nVidia's strong point.

    Here's the review: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._pro/page6.asp

    You really can't go wrong with either brand at the moment. But that review unrealistically skews the numbers in favour of ATI because of improper testing. At the very least, they should have tested in both OpenGl AND direct3D. Me, if I get the cash, I'm getting a 6800GT because:
    a) I play in OpenGL.
    b) I want the advantages of pixelshader 3.0, just in case
    c) With 16 pipelines, a good GT card will overclock to 6800 Ultra speeds (a card that costs $100 extra) while the X800 pro can never become an XT because it has only 12 pipelines. (althouth the VIVO version has been successfully converted to 16 pipes by some)
    d) If I get a PCI version, I have an opportunity to upgrade to an SLI solution (imagine 2xGT's running side-by-side!!!) which is currently an nVidia-only technology.

    Bottom line, both video card manufacturers are offering comparable performance and comparable quality at comparable prices. What you need to ask yourself when deciding is which games do I play and what are each card's numbers in that particular game. Throw in other things like:
    - power consumption: 6800 Ultra is very power hungry unlike the ATI cards or the other 6800's
    - heat: ATI cards are running slightly hotter at the moment because of their higher clock-speeds
    - price: the very competitive nature of the graphics card market atm is great and might yield some great bargains
    - size: some of the nVidia cards are HUGE!

    Share this post