PDA

View Full Version : Geforce 6800 GT vs X800 XT PE?


gate1975mlm
07-10-04, 06:10 PM
When the Geforce 6800 GT is over clocked to 400/1100 how would that compare to a ATI Readeon X800 XT PE?

-=DVS=-
07-10-04, 06:15 PM
Depends on games , win some loose some (mag)

gate1975mlm
07-10-04, 06:19 PM
Depends on games , win some loose some (mag)

But close right?

Ruined
07-10-04, 06:24 PM
But close right?
yep

Revgen
07-10-04, 08:32 PM
You can also buy a GT right now.

The XT PE is even harder to find than the 6800 ultra at this point.

aaahhh52
07-10-04, 08:57 PM
plus the gt has added support for SM3.0 and the XT doesn't, but its all in your own preference

jAkUp
07-10-04, 09:03 PM
Why don't you take the 6800U and OC it farther? The x800xt pe is $500 as is the 6800U

mikechai
07-10-04, 09:24 PM
Happy Birthday to jAkUp !!!! :)

Clay
07-10-04, 09:44 PM
I'm currently wrapping up my latest review of a BFG 6800Ultra OC. I compare it against an ATI X800XT PE in all of the benchmarking. I can't speak for a GT comparison but the 6800U will best the X800XT PE in 1024 and 1600 whenever there is no AA or AF involved. Even at 4xAA and 16xAF @1024 the 6800U will continue to be faster or on par with the X800XT PE. Only when you go to 1600 at those same AA/AF settings does the X800XT PE pull away from the 6800. In some cases it is a considerable delta but if you just bump the 6800U clock up to ~460 and memory up to ~1250 it then is on par with the X800XT PE. The above all occurs in FarCry. I'm focusing on FarCry in this review.

Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY jAkUp! :thumbsup: :D

FearMeAll
07-10-04, 09:46 PM
I switched to a GT and I love it. It maxed for me at 400, 1150 with no artifacts at all.
However an x800xt is really nice as well. bah, it's pointless to argue who is better this round because it really is so good for the consumer.
I never thought I would go back to nvidia after the FX series. I bought a 5900 once just to see if it was as bad as I had heard and it was. Hell, I couldn't even get a decent price to sell it at a PC store because he said it was so bad with directx9 lol.
Anyway, all that has changed for sure with the 6800 cards. I like it better now because I can filter more angles than I could with my 9800pro.
The performance difference with the x800xt and 6800ultra (or GT since it overclocks to the same thing) is mainly in anistropic filtering. I really believe the 6800 to be doing more work than my 9800 was with anistropic filtering. I was used to bilinear filtering on all the time with the 9800 to keep performance up so I keep it at bilinear with the 6800. I like it fine since that was what I was used to and the image quality becomes "free".
Excellent card the GT is. I recommend to everyone.

One more thing I need to ask, I notice that my 6800 is a little grainy between mipmap transitions with bilinear filtering. In fact the graininess is there whether I run at high performance aniso or quality. The only way to make it go away is to turn off all optimizations but there has to be another way to get rid of the graininess even with pure bilinear. My ol9800 (may it reast in peace) didn't get grainy at all with the mipmap transitions and I always ran it bilinear. Is this how it is for everybody?

Lfctony
07-11-04, 01:07 AM
Any card will serve you quite well, both are extremely fast.


HAPPY BDAY JakUp!!!! Have a great one mate! :)

Blacklash
07-11-04, 01:22 AM
I was very skeptical of the GT, I had an overclocked X800Pro before. After testing the GT in most of the games I like I can say I am glad I have the card. I bought it because of the brief 299usd BB deal. I can say it's the best money I have spent in a long time. Even at a modest OC of 400/550 the card soars in Far Cry with the 61.71 drivers and SP2 RC2.

Someone merge these threads :D

Sitting at default my GT puts up the same numbers in 3dmark03 that my overclocked X800Pro did at 540/1120. It's a good card. I get 12, 552 out of the GT with an OC.(411/550)

Blacklash
07-11-04, 02:12 AM
If you look at the sticked screenshot thread you will see a GT OC at those numbers on my rig. I have lots of Far Cry shots, 1600x1200 8xSAA/16xAF set through the system.cfg, with all quality settings at Very high/ultra high. I am running the so called 'R300' path as well, not the FX one.

anzak
07-11-04, 02:36 AM
If you look at the sticked screenshot thread you will see a GT OC at those numbers on my rig. I have lots of Far Cry shots, 1600x1200 8xSAA/16xAF set through the system.cfg, with all quality settings at Very high/ultra high. I am running the so called 'R300' path as well, not the FX one.

system.cfg is generated by the system. Nothing can be change by editing it, yes I have tried. 8xSAA is insane and is only playable at 1024x768.

evilchris
07-11-04, 02:46 AM
system.cfg is generated by the system. Nothing can be change by editing it, yes I have tried. 8xSAA is insane and is only playable at 1024x768.

You can set r_Texture_Anisotropic_Level = "8"

or to 16. You can edit this file however you wish. When you go into Farcry options, you'll see AF says "custom" instead once you set 8 or 16.

Blacklash
07-11-04, 02:56 AM
system.cfg is generated by the system. Nothing can be change by editing it, yes I have tried. 8xSAA is insane and is only playable at 1024x768.

I also have 'high AA' selected in the game. Anyone with eyes can see that AA is on in my shots.

This a screen of my sys file. It does not change when I set what I wish. '8' has been selected and has remained in the cfg through all my other changes like res from 1280x960.

It has also allowed me to apply 16AF. I just select application pref in the nVidia driver. Reviewers have done this regularly to test 8xSAA, how is 'not supported'?.


http://img35.exs.cx/img35/3017/farcrycfg.jpg

anzak
07-11-04, 03:01 AM
But it's not doing 8xSAA. Over at this thread (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31699) I have posted a few shots with 8xSAA enabled in the CP. Now if yours is doing 8xSAA then how am I only getting 7-9 fps with 4xAF enabled?

Blacklash
07-11-04, 03:03 AM
I can only tell you what I have set. If it's 'not doing it', it is not because I am not setting it. The commands are there, the application is doing the AA, my driver is set to application preference. Again, reviewers have done this regularly to test 8xSAA, how is 'not supported'?.


It works with 16xAF so why wouldn't it with the AA?

Clay
07-11-04, 03:06 AM
I can only tell you what I have set. If it's 'not doing it', it is not because I am not setting it. The commands are there, the application is doing the AA, my driver is set to application preference.

It works with 16xAF so why wouldn't it with the AA?
you are running FC with the -devmode arg correct?

anzak
07-11-04, 03:09 AM
I can only tell you what I have set. If it's 'not doing it', it is not because I am not setting it. The commands are there, the application is doing the AA, my driver is set to application preference.

It works with 16xAF so why wouldn't it with the AA?

Because it's trying to do multisampling 8xAA which is not supported so it drops it down to 4x multisampling. Edting the file does work for other things though I just now tried it again, and it worked.

Blacklash
07-11-04, 03:25 AM
you are running FC with the -devmode arg correct?

Yes.

Here is an extreme close up from the screenshots thread of the Archive level floor. Its number 0332 in the thread. Reviewers have tested the 'unsupported' 8xSAA how many times? In closing, I am done with this. Think what you will.

http://img43.exs.cx/img43/4608/FarCry0332AA.jpg

http://img43.exs.cx/img43/3817/farcrydev.jpg

click for close up>
http://img43.exs.cx/img43/4356/dev2.th.jpg (http://img43.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img43&image=dev2.jpg)

Shocky
07-11-04, 08:15 AM
Why don't you take the 6800U and OC it farther? The x800xt pe is $500 as is the 6800U

Thats not true everywhere, Here the xtpe is not allot more expensive then the GT yet the 6800U ultra is ALLOT more expensive. :ORDER:

anzak
07-11-04, 03:08 PM
Thats not true everywhere, Here the xtpe is not allot more expensive then the GT yet the 6800U ultra is ALLOT more expensive. :ORDER:

What? The Geforce 6800 Ultra and Radeon X800XT PE retail for the same price.

As for the 8xSAA thing you can believe what what you wish.

Blacklash
07-11-04, 06:13 PM
What? The Geforce 6800 Ultra and Radeon X800XT PE retail for the same price.

As for the 8xSAA thing you can believe what what you wish.

Consider this and "-Devmode". I did try it your way through the CP. I do not know what more you could ask. I have also increased view distance, r_WaterUpdateFactor lowered to 0.001, r_TexBumpResolution to highest quality, and set my D3D filter to Anisotropic all in the CFG. This tweak guide was particularly useful. I had AA set in the game as High and in the CFG as '8' CP Application preference when I first benched.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Farcry_5.html

"Antialiasing: Here you can set the amount of Antialiasing (also called AA or FSAA) used in the game. The available options are: None=0x, Low=2x, Medium=4x and High=8x Antialiasing. Note that Far Cry will suffer significant performance degradation the higher the level of Antialiasing you use, especially on anything but the latest high-performance graphics cards. If you have any level of Antialiasing enabled in your graphics card control panel, they will override these settings. If you want to use Antialiasing in Far Cry I recommend either selecting "Application Controlled" (not 0x) in your graphics card's control panel and setting the AA level in-game here, or selecting None here and setting the AA level in your graphics card's control panel, not both. See my Simple Antialiasing and Anisotropic Guide for more details."

Plus if you can't make settings stick in the CFG why do they warn you not to 'edit' or modify?

EDIT:

http://www.tweakguides.com/Farcry_9.html

All of the game's major settings are held in the System.cfg and Game.cfg files in your \Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry directory. These files are read, and written to, by Far Cry each time the game launches and also when any of the game's settings are changed in-game, or by the Far Cry Configuration Tool, and sometimes when certain settings are changed in the Console.


"However, the personal settings for your Profile are also stored in the \Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\Profiles\Player directory under the filenames [profilename]_system.cfg and [profilename]_game.cfg. Any changes you make to the general .cfg settings while using a particular profile will be transferred to the profile-specific .cfg files as well. Whenever you switch profiles, Far Cry then transfers the settings from the relevant profile's .cfg files to the global System.cfg and Game.cfg files, making the game execute them the next time the game starts up. Keep this in mind, so that when you switch profiles you don't wonder why you've lost some of your tweaks. Try to stick with one profile if you can."


http://img21.exs.cx/img21/6237/FarCry2004-07-1203-42-06-27report.th.jpg (http://img21.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img21&image=FarCry2004-07-1203-42-06-27report.jpg)


More here:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31815