1. #1
    Well the topic title says it all. I'm thinking of getting a new computer, and i need to choose between these two cards. I've heard that the 6800 may be faster (which i can't say for sure you guys in the know could inform me ) but then i read in PC gamer, that ATI says the X800 is recommended for Half Life 2 (A Huge plus in my book!) and the 6800 is recommended for Doom3. Which i dont really care for.
    So i dont know which to choose, another important thing is, which runs Pacific Fighters better? So could you guys with these cards please tell me what you think! I'd love to know
    Share this post

  2. #2
    6800gt is hard to beat and natively supports pixel shader 3.0 for the pretty water.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s-2004_38.html.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Does the X800 not support the special water in Pacific Fighters?
    I'm leaning towards that one since it seems to be so much faster
    Share this post

  5. #5
    unfortunately Hank, the ATI cards won't support PixelShader 3.0 until the next set of cards are released.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    RocketDog's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    896
    I've used both. I kept the X800Pro and sold the 6800GT.

    The advantages of the 6800 series look good on paper (16 pipes and Pixel Shader 3.0), but the X800XT also has 16 pipes and the water = 3, PS 3.0, setting in PF can't be used with playable frame rates on the current generation of PCs. Maybe the next generation of graphics cards will be able to run PS 3.0 water with good FPS, but I guess that's at least two years away and we'll all be playing BoB by then. Finally, I found the image quality to be significantly better on the X800, although that might just be for my particular PC and not true generally.

    Regards,

    RocketDog.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Hank ... it also may come down to availability and cost.

    3 machines almost identical 1 gig memory and HD's, 2 ASUS and 1 ABIT Mobo's, all P4, two 3.0 & a 3.2 ... all two months old, all AGP though.

    Two of my friends ran into availability issues and bought 6800 Ultras because they were easier to find. There really great cards, run PF solid and the price was not jacked ... but as RocketDog pointed out neither is running Water=3 except for screens.

    Now my cousin held out and got a X800XT (but boy did it cost him). It definatly runs faster and we all feel PF runs better. I also like the image quality more and not just in PF (but I'm biased toward ATI).

    There both great cards ... but, if it comes down to cost, availability and performance ... the 6800Pro or GT is a great deal.

    On the other hand ... you did say Half Life 2 ... and I think the X800Pro just pulled ahead. I can only imagine what thats going to look like on an X800!

    What a great month ... PF and HL2!
    Share this post

  8. #8
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
    Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
    My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    also that fact that the guy cant spell sturmovik, also i find a 6800u only getting between 29-45 fps at such a low resolution as 1024x768 completly out of wack... hell, even i get higher values then that with a fx5950 ultra in perfect mode...
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Nubarus's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    710
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miki40:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
    Here is a good chart for gauging speed of video cards for IL2 basically the Radeons are faster but if you want the special water go with Nvidia.
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s-2004_38.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What they fail to mention in that article is, if the tests where in DirectX or OpenGL.
    My guess is probably DirX because in OGL Nvidia is unbeatable for a long time now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Really?

    I don't think so since I have seen plenty of OpenGL based games being benched where the Radeon beat the GeForce.

    Besides, the game was benched in OpenGL and not in DirectX.

    "The new version of IL-2 Sturmovik got improved graphics, particularly support of pixel shaders version 2.0. When enabled, it renders the water surfaces with more realism. We set up the game for the maximum image quality level to put the biggest load on the graphics cards."

    You cannot use the Perfect setting in DirectX, only in OpenGL so they must have used OpenGL in order to get the PS 2.0 realistic water effect.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last ►►