Geforce 6800 vs. Radeon 9800 Pro

[beach2nd]

I'm trying to decide between these two cards. Is the GeForce 6800 that much better than the Radeon 9800 pro to justify the $87 difference? Will I notice a big difference between the two when playing games? Thanks.

 

[Mik3y]

um, not really. the gt is stronger then the x800 pro and is about 30% faster then the 9800 pro, so i'm assuming that the normaly 6800 is only 15-20% faster then the 9800 pro. note that the 9800 xt is 5-10% faster hten the 9800 pro also. unless you're willing to spend the extra money on that, go for it. if not, get the 9800 pro. anyways, i think anything faster then a 9800 xt will bottleneck on your system thats only 2500mhz.

 

[Oreo]

Yea, I think it's worth it. The GT is not 30% faster than the 9800 Pro, more like 75% in a best case scenario. That would mean that the regular 6800 is atleast 50% faster in a good scenario (meaning that you aren't CPU limited but GPU limited).

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Oreo
Yea, I think it's worth it. The GT is not 30% faster than the 9800 Pro, more like 75% in a best case scenario. That would mean that the regular 6800 is atleast 50% faster in a good scenario (meaning that you aren't CPU limited but GPU limited).

not true. ask them in the video topic. the gt is only 30% faster, according to benchmarks.

 

[ponyo]

I would go for 9800 Pro.

 

[Lyfer]

You can get a refurbed Sapphire Radeon 9700 pro for $131 at newegg which should be able to run any new game decently at 1028x768 or even higher. I would opt for that then save up for a GeForce 6800GT or a X800 Pro when they come down to the $300 range.

 

[Wahsapa]

nvidia has a 12pipe 6800 and a 16pipe 6800. imho i would not spend the money on a 12pipe 6800(id rather get a 9800). just watch out for what seems like a good deal on a 6800, it might only be the 12pipe, not the 16(where all the performance is)

what specific cards are you looking at?

 

[CarrotStick]

All the regular 6800s have 12 pipelines. The 6800 GT has 16 and the 6800 Ultra has 16 also.....

 

[DaveSimmons]

If Doom3 is a key title for you:

According to the HardOCP.com benchmarks, the 9800 Pro should run Doom3 at 800x600 (since a 9800XT is just barely playable at 1024x768 medium quality), while a 6800 GT would run it at 1024x768 or higher. They didn't list a "plain" 6800.

 

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: Oreo
Yea, I think it's worth it. The GT is not 30% faster than the 9800 Pro, more like 75% in a best case scenario. That would mean that the regular 6800 is atleast 50% faster in a good scenario (meaning that you aren't CPU limited but GPU limited).

not true. ask them in the video topic. the gt is only 30% faster, according to benchmarks.

Yes, it is true, and I don't have to ask somebody else since I know for a fact myself that it is. Just check out some of the benchmarks in this review from Anandtech. The 6800 is over 50% in best case scenario and the 6800GT is more than 100% faster in a best case scenario. To get the score of a 9800 Pro just add like 10-15% to the 9700 Pro score.

When the game is GPU limited is when you really see how fast the graphicscard is. This occurs when you play with high resolution and or with AA. These are some numbers from the review showing this:

Far Cry, 1600*1200 no AA/AF
ATi 9700 Pro 32.6 fps
ATi 9800 Pro ~ 37.5 fps
nVidia 6800 59.3 fps
nVidia 6800GT 78.1 fps
6800 = 58% faster
6800GT = 108% faster

Halo, 1600*1200 no AA/8x AF
ATi 9700 Pro 19.9 fps
ATi 9800 Pro ~ 22.8 fps
nVidia 6800 35.1 fps
nVidia 6800GT 47.7 fps
6800 = 54% faster
6800GT = 109% faster

Jedi Knight, 1600*1200 no AA/AF
ATi 9700 Pro 42.5 fps
ATi 9800 Pro 48.9 fps
nVidia 6800 77.7 fps
nVidia 6800GT 96.0 fps
6800 = 59% faster
6800GT = 96% faster

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Dude, this is Anandtech afterall. Go here and check out the becnhmarks comparing the 6800 and 9800XT among others and then decide for yourself.

For me, I'd think the $87 is easily worth it for significant peformance gains and newer technology. The past two video cards I've bought were each ATI cards and I'm switching to an NVidia card this time because history has shown that NVidia cards get stronger over time as new drivers are released.

 

[caz67]

I would go with the 6800 over the 9800Pro.

 

[DeathByDuke]

Originally posted by: Oreo

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: Oreo
Yea, I think it's worth it. The GT is not 30% faster than the 9800 Pro, more like 75% in a best case scenario. That would mean that the regular 6800 is atleast 50% faster in a good scenario (meaning that you aren't CPU limited but GPU limited).

not true. ask them in the video topic. the gt is only 30% faster, according to benchmarks.

Yes, it is true, and I don't have to ask somebody else since I know for a fact myself that it is. Just check out some of the benchmarks in this review from Anandtech. The 6800 is over 50% in best case scenario and the 6800GT is more than 100% faster in a best case scenario. To get the score of a 9800 Pro just add like 10-15% to the 9700 Pro score.

When the game is GPU limited is when you really see how fast the graphicscard is. This occurs when you play with high resolution and or with AA. These are some numbers from the review showing this:

Far Cry, 1600*1200 no AA/AF
ATi 9700 Pro 32.6 fps
ATi 9800 Pro ~ 37.5 fps
nVidia 6800 59.3 fps
nVidia 6800GT 78.1 fps
6800 = 58% faster
6800GT = 108% faster

Halo, 1600*1200 no AA/8x AF
ATi 9700 Pro 19.9 fps
ATi 9800 Pro ~ 22.8 fps
nVidia 6800 35.1 fps
nVidia 6800GT 47.7 fps
6800 = 54% faster
6800GT = 109% faster

Jedi Knight, 1600*1200 no AA/AF
ATi 9700 Pro 42.5 fps
ATi 9800 Pro 48.9 fps
nVidia 6800 77.7 fps
nVidia 6800GT 96.0 fps
6800 = 59% faster
6800GT = 96% faster

but... thats super idiotic settings. not everyone has 4 bajillion Ghz PCs and 58" monitors.
dont forget, youre CPU tied with the 6800's until AMD 64 3000+/P4 3.2 so it wouldnt matter with a 9800 or 6800 until you hit such high resolutions in most games (unless its doom 3 or far cry). I myself wouldnt consider a X800 or 6800 until I wasn't cpu tied. (I currently use a XP 1800+, planning to go to a 64 3200+) true the 12 pipes and extra memory beef will help with FSAA (especially above 1280x1024) the fact remains though, 9800 pros are still great performers for a) the price and b) the games

 

[beach2nd]

Thanks for all the replies. The 2 cards I am deciding between are:

GeForce 6800
9800 Pro

 

[SilverBack]

The 6800 has a better upgrade path for games.
The $87 is worth it.

 

[phlashphire]

Just another fyi to consider, certain 9800 Pro's can be bios flashed to 9800 XT's (tho I'm not sure if that MSI does).

 

[JBT]

I would personally go with the 6800 it will last you a bit longer IMO.

 

[Ryoga]

Even if I had the money, I'd probably still go with a 9800 Pro right now. PC architecture is changing too quickly right now to step on the bleeding edge, IMO.

 

[beach2nd]

Also I didn't mention that I will also be upgrading to an A64 3200+ at the same time, so I don't know if this would change anyone's answer who based it off of the older system in my sig. Thanks.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: caz67
I would go with the 6800 over the 9800Pro.

Yep, ATI makes great cards, but the 6800 is truly better this time.

 

[Sideswipe001]

Originally posted by: beach2nd1
Also I didn't mention that I will also be upgrading to an A64 3200+ at the same time, so I don't know if this would change anyone's answer who based it off of the older system in my sig. Thanks.

It does make a difference. Get the 6800; it will do much better with a higher end CPU.

 

[Megatomic]

I don't know beach2nd1, I was faced with the same problem recently and I decided to go with a really inexpensive 9800 Pro. It has been modified with an excellent cooler and soon some ramsinks and I will overclock it until it screams. Then I'll back off the oc until it just whines a little.

I plan to go with this until I play a game that my system barfs on at 1024x768x32. Doom3 may do it, we'll see.

Oh, and if my gamble works out I saved myself about $150. If not, well it was fun modifying the 9800 Pro. It's a nice card.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001

Originally posted by: beach2nd1
Also I didn't mention that I will also be upgrading to an A64 3200+ at the same time, so I don't know if this would change anyone's answer who based it off of the older system in my sig. Thanks.

It does make a difference. Get the 6800; it will do much better with a higher end CPU.

CPU scaling article at HardOCP. Doesn't seem like that big of a difference unless I'm reading those graphs wrong.

 

[apoppin]

IMO, the 6800 is a waste.

OTOH, the "GT" is a much better card for a few bucks more.

Those of you that are MIStakingly saying the 6800 will beat the 9800 by 50% are DREAMin' . that is a BEST case scenario . . . in some cases, the 9800XT beats the 6800 - thanks to it's 256MB faster RAM (the regular 9800Pro is unlike to match this over the 6800).

eVGA claims their 6800standard is only (at least a full) 12% faster than the 9800xt.

the GeForce 6800 . . . it runs at least a full 12% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or the ATI 9800XT

One of the guys with a 6800 in video is e-mailing eVGA for clarification on their benchmarking performance chart.


i'd guess it is only ~15%-20 faster overall = worth $87? your call. For me, NO! (i got a 9800xt for $223) . . . look for a HOt Deal on a 6800-GT.

 

[Oreo]

Originally posted by: DeathByDuke

Originally posted by: Oreo

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: Oreo
Yea, I think it's worth it. The GT is not 30% faster than the 9800 Pro, more like 75% in a best case scenario. That would mean that the regular 6800 is atleast 50% faster in a good scenario (meaning that you aren't CPU limited but GPU limited).

not true. ask them in the video topic. the gt is only 30% faster, according to benchmarks.

Yes, it is true, and I don't have to ask somebody else since I know for a fact myself that it is. Just check out some of the benchmarks in this review from Anandtech. The 6800 is over 50% in best case scenario and the 6800GT is more than 100% faster in a best case scenario. To get the score of a 9800 Pro just add like 10-15% to the 9700 Pro score.

When the game is GPU limited is when you really see how fast the graphicscard is. This occurs when you play with high resolution and or with AA. These are some numbers from the review showing this:

Far Cry, 1600*1200 no AA/AF
ATi 9700 Pro 32.6 fps
ATi 9800 Pro ~ 37.5 fps
nVidia 6800 59.3 fps
nVidia 6800GT 78.1 fps
6800 = 58% faster
6800GT = 108% faster

Halo, 1600*1200 no AA/8x AF
ATi 9700 Pro 19.9 fps
ATi 9800 Pro ~ 22.8 fps
nVidia 6800 35.1 fps
nVidia 6800GT 47.7 fps
6800 = 54% faster
6800GT = 109% faster

Jedi Knight, 1600*1200 no AA/AF
ATi 9700 Pro 42.5 fps
ATi 9800 Pro 48.9 fps
nVidia 6800 77.7 fps
nVidia 6800GT 96.0 fps
6800 = 59% faster
6800GT = 96% faster

but... thats super idiotic settings. not everyone has 4 bajillion Ghz PCs and 58" monitors.
dont forget, youre CPU tied with the 6800's until AMD 64 3000+/P4 3.2 so it wouldnt matter with a 9800 or 6800 until you hit such high resolutions in most games (unless its doom 3 or far cry). I myself wouldnt consider a X800 or 6800 until I wasn't cpu tied. (I currently use a XP 1800+, planning to go to a 64 3200+) true the 12 pipes and extra memory beef will help with FSAA (especially above 1280x1024) the fact remains though, 9800 pros are still great performers for a) the price and b) the games

No, these are not idiotic settings, these are settings that really show how much faster the actual graphicscard is when the rest of the system isn't a bottleneck. That is the best way you measure how fast the graphicscard is in the most scientific way. Like or lump it.