x800 pro v geforce 6800 gt (poll)

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: DerwenArtos12

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Slaimus
This is the wrong comparison!
it should be:

X800 XT PE <=> 6800 Ultra *16 pipes
X800 XT <=> 6800 GT *16 pipes, lower clocked
X800 Pro <=> 6800 *12 pipes

There is no difference between the XT-PE and the XT

By the same token, there is no difference between the GT and the Ultra either except for clock speed.
The PE and X800XT are the same except for clock speed as well.

The GT was targeted to be competition for the X800pro and the Ultra was targeted to be competition for the X800XT. The 6800 12 pipe is to be targeted against the X800SE when that surfaces.

So everything is where it should be. There is really no thinking involved when choosing from the two cards in this poll. Most will choose the GT and only die hards will choose X800pro.
Even though the X800 performs well, I just know that if I bought one, I will feel like I have less of a card because of the 12 pipe deal. With a GT, I will have 16 pipes and no other card has a higher number of pipes than that right now. More pipes HAS to have some advantages over 12 even though I know the architectures are different between the two. My piece.

I still don't think you get it

the ONLY difference between the 'XT' and the 'XT-PE' is the NAME

The GT and the 6900Ultra are DIFFERENT by virtue of their clock speeds.

:roll:

So why don't you help me "get it".
Your telling me that the X800XT and PE are the exact same cards core speeds mem speeds down to the last transistor? Why call it a PE then?

MARKETING

I got your MARKETING right here!

 

[BFG10K]

so 140fps vs 156fps.. and you claim 43% faster.. umm.. yea, i quiestion your definition AND logic

How the hell did you arrive at the conclusion that 156 is 43% faster than 140?

Do you having difficulty with simple mathematics too? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

If you had bothered checking the results at all you'd have seen that the results came from the 1600x1200 graph, namely 117.9 vs 82.5. Furthemore I clearly stated before that I was using the highest performance delta:

But because you're too lazy to back your own claims I'll calculate the figures using AA &amp; AF (or just AA if it's not possible) and work out the highest performance delta between each card for any given game.

So next time read and think before responding, OK?

first, i never claimed "alpha Cat 4.8" existed..

Cat 4.8 was just my example to illustrate how unreleased drivers don't mean much until they're tested.

secondly, not only was i running the beta i spoke of, there are many posts by others stating their results of faster CoD performance..

That's fine but I don't see those results at FS, do you? Furthemore you didn't even quantify how much faster they were, at what settings they were faster and in what situation.

Talk is one thing but concrete results are another.

your comparison is at best idiotic; at worst another attempt at spreading FUD...

:roll:

 

[Zebo]

I'm not buying a crippled card like the 800pro, and I think ATI is making a mistake releasing it to compete with the GT, a full fledged high end card with a bit of tweaking.

GT all the way then clock way past ultra extreme levels.


All this depends on pricing though since I always base these decisions on price/performance, ie 10% more price better equal 10% more performance....

 

[GeneralGrievous]

I'm not buying a crippled card like the 800pro, and I think ATI is making a mistake releasing it to compete with the GT, a full fledged high end card with a bit of tweaking.

Right...So even though the Pro performs at 90% of GT levels, it is somehow "crippled"?

GT all the way then clock way past ultra extreme levels.

How many retail GT's have you seen? And if you think that the core will overclock over 100 mhz, well, good luck with that.

The Pro at least has been shown to be a great overclocker, with XT speeds easily done and close to 600 mhz core possible.

 

[CaiNaM]

How the hell did you arrive at the conclusion that 156 is 43% faster than 140?

i'm not the one doing the 'calucaltions'. you are...

Do you having difficulty with simple mathematics too? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

like i said.. it's funny you toss around FUD numbers then state I can't count??? again, i'm not the one making claims here.

If you had bothered checking the results at all you'd have seen that the results came from the 1600x1200 graph, namely 117.9 vs 82.5. Furthemore I clearly stated before that I was using the highest performance delta:

why? somehow you now think it's fair to focus on the performance at settings no one runs? where were you defending nv when nv was faster with no aa/af last gen? i'll answer that - slamming nv cause those numbers were irrelevant, as you always stated the settings that were important were aa/af. yet now you're exercising blatant hypocricy as you refuse to compare performance with aa/af. pfffft.....

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

I'm not buying a crippled card like the 800pro, and I think ATI is making a mistake releasing it to compete with the GT, a full fledged high end card with a bit of tweaking.

Right...So even though the Pro performs at 90% of GT levels, it is somehow "crippled"?

or a card that even outperforms the GT in some titles is somehow "crippled"

GT all the way then clock way past ultra extreme levels.

How many retail GT's have you seen? And if you think that the core will overclock over 100 mhz, well, good luck with that.

The Pro at least has been shown to be a great overclocker, with XT speeds easily done and close to 600 mhz core possible.

i grew so tired of the ati fanboys, but this gen, while the cards haven't even managed to make it to the market, the nv fanboys seem to be taking over. ugh.

 

[Zebo]

It's crippled compared to it's top end part, the xt, and there is no way around it as of yet. The GT on the other hand can be a ultra extreme part. Most reaonable people see this which is why GT is dominating this poll. Of course I'll take the wait and see approach as I always do with new tech, pricing, overclcokablity, and performance will all play a role in the final decision as noted.

It's amusing though to be called a ATI fanboi on day when pointing out the XT's dominance then a Nvidia fan boi the next. Keep it up, makes reading these posts that much easier to skip those who hurl thier feces like baboon.

Eit and GeneralGrievous you should know better, I even sent you a PM linking Nvidia's IQ problems in farcry. Fan boi indeeed.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

i grew so tired of the ati fanboys, but this gen, while the cards haven't even managed to make it to the market, the nv fanboys seem to be taking over. ugh.

You must of known we would eventually take over again?

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Most reaonable people see this which is why GT is dominating this poll.

Because it's the better card overall. Nobody's arguing that. But then again it's also more expensive, setting aside Best Buy's pricing mistake, it's often over $400. You can find the Pro for $330. The cards might have the same MSRP but the Pro seems to be the cheaper one as of now. This is hardlly the R350 vs NV3x again.

My XT runs all over any of these 6800s anyway.

 

[Leon]

You can find the Pro for $330

Where?

 

[GeneralGrievous]

http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4053432

 

[Leon]

^^

Pre-order with ETA July 7th, according to the CSA I spoke. If we talk pre-orders, GT for $299 (was) the best deal, and it will arrive sooner too


Leon

 

[Corporate Thug]

ok, to resolve the whole CoD debate, i looked at the numbers in the FS 6800 review and ON AVERAGE, the 6800 GT is 21.3% faster

here is how it breaks down:

1024*768 4xAA/8XAF = Gt is 11.4 % faster
1280*1024 4xAA/8xAF = Gt is 17.7% faster
1600*1200 4xAA/8xAF = GT is 35% faster
2048*1536 4xAA/8xAF = Gt is 21% faster

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Leon
^^

Pre-order with ETA July 7th, according to the CSA I spoke. If we talk pre-orders, GT for $299 (was) the best deal, and it will arrive sooner too


Leon

wonderful for those who were lucky enough to run across it, however a price that was so limited it was only up for a couple hours can hardly be considered when talking the pricepoint of these cards.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Leon
^^

Pre-order with ETA July 7th, according to the CSA I spoke. If we talk pre-orders, GT for $299 (was) the best deal, and it will arrive sooner too


Leon

wonderful for those who were lucky enough to run across it, however a price that was so limited it was only up for a couple hours can hardly be considered when talking the pricepoint of these cards.

In that case then no pre-order prices should be considered!

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

i grew so tired of the ati fanboys, but this gen, while the cards haven't even managed to make it to the market, the nv fanboys seem to be taking over. ugh.

You must of known we would eventually take over again?

heh.. well, the gt looks to be shaping up as a nice card.. just wish they were a bit more 'available'.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Leon
^^

Pre-order with ETA July 7th, according to the CSA I spoke. If we talk pre-orders, GT for $299 (was) the best deal, and it will arrive sooner too


Leon

wonderful for those who were lucky enough to run across it, however a price that was so limited it was only up for a couple hours can hardly be considered when talking the pricepoint of these cards.

In that case then no pre-order prices should be considered!

there's a big difference.. except for a couple of hours, the gt 'preorder' price from bestbuy has been $399. there is no price lower than $399 for that card anywhere.

 

[BFG10K]

i'm not the one doing the 'calucaltions'. you are...

Yeah and even when I give you the numbers you still have trouble understanding where they came from. And ironically you then accuse me of ignoring AA/AF numbers in the other thread when in reality that's exactly what you're doing here.

like i said.. it's funny you toss around FUD numbers then state I can't count???

What FUD numbers might those be?

why? somehow you now think it's fair to focus on the performance at settings no one runs?

What do you mean nobody runs them? You were the one that asked for high detail AA/AF results and also (wrongfully) accused me of ignoring them. Now that you have the results I'm not even sure what you're trying to do with them.

where were you defending nv when nv was faster with no aa/af last gen

No and why should I?

yet now you're exercising blatant hypocricy as you refuse to compare performance with aa/af. pfffft.....

This is simply comical now. What part of look at the 1600x1200 + AA/AF benchmarks in COD do you not understand? I even gave you the actual numbers for heaven's sake.

If you're really not trolling then you must be on medication and/or intoxicated. There is simply no way that someone would continue to spout the same rubbish after being pointed out three times that they were obviously wrong.

 

[CaiNaM]

what res/aa/af setting is nv 43% faster? 'nuff said...

using shady's #'s (i added the actual fps in parentheses):

ok, to resolve the whole CoD debate, i looked at the numbers in the FS 6800 review and ON AVERAGE, the 6800 GT is 21.3% faster

here is how it breaks down:

1024*768 4xAA/8XAF = Gt is 11.4 % faster (157 vs 140)
1280*1024 4xAA/8xAF = Gt is 17.7% faster (141 vs 119)
1600*1200 4xAA/8xAF = GT is 35% faster (118 vs 83 - which should be 30%, not 35%)
2048*1536 4xAA/8xAF = Gt is 21% faster (69vs 56, 19%)

the 1600 figure seems a bit out of place.. but at any rate, yea, it's faster, but significantly? and certainly not 43% faster as you claimed, but even then it's one title in one review.. but i guess if you wanna "crown the king" based on a single review...

but whatever.. you argue for the sake of arguing, and if that pleases you, that's fine, but i tire of the FuD and the selective arguments you make.. if you want to believe your own misinformation and obvious bias in this issue, more power to ya - tho i hope those who are honestly seeking opinions and suggestions looks at both sides...

 

[Keysplayr]

This poll seems to be what we would call, a "landslide".

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Most reaonable people see this which is why GT is dominating this poll.

Because it's the better card overall. Nobody's arguing that. But then again it's also more expensive, setting aside Best Buy's pricing mistake, it's often over $400. You can find the Pro for $330. The cards might have the same MSRP but the Pro seems to be the cheaper one as of now. This is hardlly the R350 vs NV3x again.

My XT runs all over any of these 6800s anyway.

Of course, that's with the hacked down cheater drivers and it's primitive 24 bit PS2, but what the heck?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Most reaonable people see this which is why GT is dominating this poll.

Because it's the better card overall. Nobody's arguing that. But then again it's also more expensive, setting aside Best Buy's pricing mistake, it's often over $400. You can find the Pro for $330. The cards might have the same MSRP but the Pro seems to be the cheaper one as of now. This is hardlly the R350 vs NV3x again.

My XT runs all over any of these 6800s anyway.

Just let us know how many different driver versions you will be needing to install over the next few months.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Let me know when you actually get your hands on a 6800 Rollo, and not the garbage $300 one. August? September, maybe?

 

[Zebo]

My XT runs all over any of these 6800s anyway....August? September, maybe?
---------------
I would'nt bet on it. Stock it' faster but I have a feeling, like my cheap $150 at the time 5900NU beats my 9800pro when both overclcoked, the GT will reign supreme. But that's just pure speculation based on Nvidia's past major overclcokablity. Natually I'll wait for the new card premium to die down a bit, reviews with real drivers and redily availiable cards to come out. By then both cards should present a good value proposition which just released products hardly ever do and a clear winner should emerge. What's the hurry?

 

[nemesismk2]

This Digit Life 6800 GT review pretty much ends this thread, mods please delete this thread because the 6800 GT is obviously superior!