Help a clueless gamer

[shpanky]

hey guys,

I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and decided to pipe in because I'm just horribly confused as to what to purchase in terms of a video card. Currently I'm settling with a crappy Nvidia 5200 card that just isn't doing the job anymore, and I want to upgrade to one of those newfangled cards recently announced by Nvidia and ATI. I've always had Nvidia cards, and have never experience ATI products, and I'm not extremely hardware-savvy. This is what I gather:

ATI's offering is a faster card, and has single molex connection and lower power requirements. Nvidia's card might eventually BECOME faster with updated drivers, but it also offers more features than the ATI card. Is Shader 3.0 REALLY that important? It seems 2.0 can do everything 3.0 can, but it's just a bit slower.

My gut action is to go with the Nvidia, only because I'll be upgrading from another nvidia card, and have had great experiences with their cards. I do have a 480 watt antec trueblue PSU in my case, so power requirements shouldn't be a problem. But it seems ATI really is the better option?? I'm VERRRRRY confused since with every comment BLANK is better, someone has an argument against it. I plan on spending about $400 for the card (so obviously not the HIGHEST end card, but definitely the next level). Thoughts? Thank you!

adam

 

[LeChuck59]

The 6800 GT is a single molex, single slot solution, and it's just as powerful as the X800 Pro. It loses to the ATI offering in some tests while beating it in others. Personally, it's what I'm going to buy. It can be overclocked to be faster than the 6800 Ultra Extreme and it's slightly more future proof than the X800 Pro due to it's SM3.0 compatability. I also think the card will get faster as the drivers improve.

Really though, you can't go wrong with either card.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

What game are you playing right now? If you don't need to upgrade for your current game, wait at least till Doom 3's release to do so.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: LeChuck59
The 6800 GT is a single molex, single slot solution, and it's just as powerful as the X800 Pro. It loses to the ATI offering in some tests while beating it in others. Personally, it's what I'm going to buy. It can be overclocked to be faster than the 6800 Ultra Extreme and it's slightly more future proof than the X800 Pro due to it's SM3.0 compatability. I also think the card will get faster as the drivers improve.

plus, you don't sound stupid by saying "My card is a xxx ULTRA EXTREME!!!"

 

[GeneralGrievous]

I wonder how the 6800 GT overclocks to ultra extreme without the 2nd molex connector.

 

[Keysplayr]

I would have to say the 6800GT will be the best bang for the buck if you are staying with Nvidia.
Although, the X800pro from ATI would probably be the gamers bang for buck card.

Any way you go, 6800GT or X800pro, you will be just fine for a long time to come.

As far as I know, these are the only differences between the two cards:

6800GT

• 350gpu clock and 1000 GDDR3 clock
  16 pixel piplines
  Pixel Shader 3.0 compliant
  1 molex connector
  single slot design
  almost as fast as the ultra version.
  Better for DoomIII and HL2
  Price around 400.00

X800pro

• 475gpu clock and 1100 GDDR3 clock
  12 pixel pipelines
  Pixel Shader 2.0+ compliant
  1 molex connector
  single slot design
  about 75 to 80% as fast as the X800XT
  Significantly better IQ and performance in FarCry
  Price around 400.00

Someone shout out if I got any of this wrong.

Keys

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
I wonder how the 6800 GT overclocks to ultra extreme without the 2nd molex connector.

That is an excellent question. If the GT can reach Ultra speeds stably, why then have two molex connectors on the Ultra?

 

[Lawranch]

Personally I think they are both great cards. They are both twice as fast as the current generation. You got to love competition. Depending on the rest of your hardware you might try to catch a 5900 or 9800 on sale.

 

[LeChuck59]

That is an excellent question. If the GT can reach Ultra speeds stably, why then have two molex connectors on the Ultra?

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_6800_ultra_extreme/page22.asp

I don't know how or why it works, but according to FS, it does.

 

[shpanky]

Right now, I'd love to play Far Cry, but that game just AINT gonna work on an Nvidia 5200, unless I turn off all features that make the game so beautiful. :-( But I would love to have a card that's gonna run Doom III and Half-Life 2 well, also. I imagine Carmack will optimize Doom to play on an nvidia card even if ATI runs faster so I don't think I have too much to worry bout. What do you guys think? Right now my machine is as follows:

AMD 2600+
ABIT Nf7-M
512MB RAM (Crucial 2100)
Nvidia 5200
Antec TrueBlue 480W PSU
DVD-ROM (don't remember brand)
Sony CD-RW
2 Hard Drives (EIDE 7200 RPM each)

 

[murban135]

If you can, wait. See how each card performs when HL2 and Doom3 actually get here. By then the prices will be much lower also.

 

[Bar81]

Apparently, nVidia is now asserting that the 6800 Ultra only needs *one* molex connector to run; the second molex connector only needs to be attached if one plans on overclocking the card. This would explain the ability of the GT to be overclocked to Ultra speeds with only a single molex connector.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Bar81
Apparently, nVidia is now asserting that the 6800 Ultra only needs *one* molex connector to run; the second molex connector only needs to be attached if one plans on overclocking the card. This would explain the ability of the GT to be overclocked to Ultra speeds with only a single molex connector.

...linkage?

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Bar81
Apparently, nVidia is now asserting that the 6800 Ultra only needs *one* molex connector to run; the second molex connector only needs to be attached if one plans on overclocking the card. This would explain the ability of the GT to be overclocked to Ultra speeds with only a single molex connector.

...linkage?

Scroll down a bit.

 

[Bar81]

Actually, reading through the Beyond3D forum post linked to in the article seems to imply that the 2 molex connector isn't truly needed provided a user has a high quality power supply. I'm no EE but from what I could gleen the two molex requirement seems to be mainly related to the quality of the wiring. I will say this though, I'm glad I bought this SilenX 450W PSU recently (for unrelated reasons) and I will likely be picking up a GT to play with. The posts make me feel a little better about the possiblity of overclocking the GT to higher speeds with only the single molex.

 

[RussianSensation]

Keys you pretty much got it covered. Well done. Except I fear by looking at Digit-Life and X-bit Labs bench previews of HL2, X800Pro might still be faster.

 

[SickBeast]

Yeah but DoomIII will be faster on nVidia so it's a wash.

 

[ForceCalibur]

Its pointless arguing now. The issue is that Nvidia has a NEW architecture with BETA Drivers, while ATI has gone with an OPTIMIZED OLD engine with already OPTMIZED drivers. THere is absolutely no competition as to which ones are faster right now, but later on, Nvidia may just pull ahead with better drivers. Only time will tell.

As to the original poster, if your really wanting a nice card, get an older gen card from ebay. R9700 pro/R9800 pro. Shouldn't cost you more than 160-170. They will play Farcry fine, HL2 fine, Doom3 fine etc.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
I wonder how the 6800 GT overclocks to ultra extreme without the 2nd molex connector.

I think it's been said that the 2nd molex connector isn't a requirement to meet power demands, but rather to provide "clean" power with crappy power supplies.

 

[tenoc]

re: the PS 2.0 vs 3.0 question - apparently only recent games use 2.0 at all.

It will be at least a year - most likely two or more - before anyone codes for 3.0.

I second the recommendation to get a 9700/9800 Pro and save $$$.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: tenoc
re: the PS 2.0 vs 3.0 question - apparently only recent games use 2.0 at all.

It will be at least a year - most likely two or more - before anyone codes for 3.0.

I second the recommendation to get a 9700/9800 Pro and save $$$.

Are you on crack? There have been lists of the 10+ PS3.0 games coming out this year (or already out). PS 3.0 is nothing more than a streamlined version of PS 2.0. Game developers would be insane not to want to code for PS 3.0 instead of PS 2.0.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: LeChuck59
The 6800 GT is a single molex, single slot solution, and it's just as powerful as the X800 Pro. It loses to the ATI offering in some tests while beating it in others. Personally, it's what I'm going to buy. It can be overclocked to be faster than the 6800 Ultra Extreme and it's slightly more future proof than the X800 Pro due to it's SM3.0 compatability. I also think the card will get faster as the drivers improve.

Really though, you can't go wrong with either card.

Same for me - I'm waitin on the 6800GT, especially since there's no reason to buy a new card right now

 

[sodcha0s]

Also your decision could be based on what types of games you play most. OGL games generally run faster on NV, D3D games on the ATI. I'm not planning on upgrading soon but if I was I would seriously be considering the 6800GT. The more I read the more this card looks like the "sweet spot" especially with the o/cing potential.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: tenoc
re: the PS 2.0 vs 3.0 question - apparently only recent games use 2.0 at all.

It will be at least a year - most likely two or more - before anyone codes for 3.0.

I second the recommendation to get a 9700/9800 Pro and save $$$.

Are you on crack? There have been lists of the 10+ PS3.0 games coming out this year (or already out). PS 3.0 is nothing more than a streamlined version of PS 2.0. Game developers would be insane not to want to code for PS 3.0 instead of PS 2.0.

If you watch the 6800 release video, the rep for crytek said it only took them 3 weeks to add PS3.0 functionality into their game. That's a very short amount of time, considering a full game with a brand new graphics engine usually takes upwards of 3-4 years to complete!