PDA

View Full Version : Leadtek 6800u worth buying or not?


NvViolator
08-13-04, 07:35 PM
Well i had a 5950u and didnt wait till 6800u became available, so i got a
X8oo-pro, but doom3 even running with my P4 3.2E @ 4.0Ghz and my X800 pro clocked to 540/540 doom3 still sucks as far as fps. Anyway back to the reason for the post, the only 6800u i can get at the moment is the Leadtek card.
But a mate of mine says he has heard a few bad things about this card, so if anyone has one or knows of any issue's, i would be greatful for thier input.

Thanks Guys.

Cota
08-13-04, 08:33 PM
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34675

MUYA
08-13-04, 09:10 PM
What bad things?

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=393734&postcount=74
I have that and it's been nothing but stellar. How does a 450 MHz core and 1.2GHz o/c sound? :D
Disclaimer: Your OC will vary card to card
Ya it's that good on Doom III and Far Cry and Painkiller and Colin Mcrae Rally 4 etc
all with 4X AA and 8X AF at 1280 by 1024 res (max my LCD supports)

Ruined
08-13-04, 11:26 PM
Yep, the 6800U will destroy the x800pro in doom3.

Pandora's Box
08-13-04, 11:42 PM
What bad things?

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=393734&postcount=74
I have that and it's been nothing but stellar. How does a 450 MHz core and 1.2GHz o/c sound? :D
Disclaimer: Your OC will vary card to card
Ya it's that good on Doom III and Far Cry and Painkiller and Colin Mcrae Rally 4 etc
all with 4X AA and 8X AF at 1280 by 1024 res (max my LCD supports)


arent you finding that your being bottlenecked by your athlon xp 2800?

MUYA
08-14-04, 12:13 AM
arent you finding that your being bottlenecked by your athlon xp 2800?
Very much so compared to say what Anandtech found. Even an athlon64 2800+ whoops my Barton2800+ @ 2.2Ghz!!!!

However, Doom III is very much playable at 1280 by 1024 with 4X aa and 8X AF.

JoKeRr
08-14-04, 01:07 AM
since u got the aquagate now, why don't u overclock it more?? or get a Mobile Barton 2500+, since it'll hit at least 2.3Ghz on air, not mention u r doing it wet... btw, I live in Canada, maybe that's why.

Blkout
08-14-04, 01:14 AM
Just for the record, I have the Leadtek 6800GT, Mine OC'd to 415/1165 out of the box. I've been very pleased with it so far. The large copper cooler works VERY well. My core temps aren't nearly as hot under load as most other 6800GT's by other manufacturers. I'm sure the Ultra is a fine card as well but you can save yourself $150 going with the GT which will easily hit Ultra speeds.

Pandora's Box
08-14-04, 01:15 AM
wouldnt be worth it imo. 100mhz more, not going to make a big difference.

MUYA
08-14-04, 01:15 AM
The aquagate goes on my athlon64 setup i will get later...for now, I am air cooling teh barton ;)

Chippy
08-14-04, 04:36 AM
Q: "arent you finding that your being bottlenecked by your athlon xp 2800?"

A: Very much so compared to say what Anandtech found. Even an athlon64 2800+ whoops my Barton2800+ @ 2.2Ghz!!!!

However, Doom III is very much playable at 1280 by 1024 with 4X aa and 8X AF.

I am very confused by this.

At higher lower screen resolutions (1024x768 and perhaps 1280x1024), you might expect things to become CPU limited. But then again, at these resolutions, you are likely to get playable frame rates anyway, so who cares.

Then at 1600x1200 (and higher) you might expect things to get more fill-rate limited. And it seems they do:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?p=1333046380

As you can see, in Doom3 the XP3200 (with 512MB ram) **outperforms** the Athlon64 2500 (with 1 GB) and even the FX53 (with 2GB)!!!!

So I can't see anyone with a 2.2GHz Althon XP having any problems at all... at lower res, its not a problem. And at higher res, its still not a problem.

Chip

MUYA
08-14-04, 04:48 AM
I am very confused by this.

At higher lower screen resolutions (1024x768 and perhaps 1280x1024), you might expect things to become CPU limited. But then again, at these resolutions, you are likely to get playable frame rates anyway, so who cares.

Then at 1600x1200 (and higher) you might expect things to get more fill-rate limited. And it seems they do:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?p=1333046380

As you can see, in Doom3 the XP3200 (with 512MB ram) **outperforms** the Athlon64 2500 (with 1 GB) and even the FX53 (with 2GB)!!!!

So I can't see anyone with a 2.2GHz Althon XP having any problems at all... at lower res, its not a problem. And at higher res, its still not a problem.

Chip

why should u be confused at all? It has been shown that the full potential on the nv40s isn't realised w/o a damned fast CPU! :D That said, I said it was bottlenecked...not unplayable with it. Should the CPU not be the bottleneck then the full otential of my 6800 Ultra would be realised. ;) I get 45 fps with timedemo from iD on Doom III and thats with 1280 by 1024 with 4X AA and 8X AF (cp and in game High quality settings). And I get 55 fps with the same settings except at 1024 by 768 res.All other games have been great, like Colin Mcrae Rally4, Painkiller, Far Cry.

However, as a "I want more" type person, I do think a faster CPU would help my 6800 Ultra more....as it's shown with Athlon64s in reviews across the web along with our own, MikeC's and Clays and and Rytr's who all have a review of 6800 Ultra or 6800 GT with an athlon64 setup. And thats just my personal taste, I want more ;)

I used Anandtech's finding as a benchmark and also those ppl here with athlon64's and with 6800 Ultra. I find in Doom III, the CPU i have is holdingme back. those results you provide are for x800 XT PEs or x800 Pros perhaps not enough of a apples to apples comparision to get confused over the first place.

Chippy
08-14-04, 05:36 AM
Muya

The examples I provided were very much an Apples with Apples comparison.

All of them were with X800XT PE's running Doom3 at 1600x1200 with the same quality settings.

What they demonstrate is that at higher resolutions, the CPU - even a lowly XP3200+ is not a bottleneck. Anyone wanting to play 1600x1200 games today does not need a more powerful CPU than an XP3200+ And if they invest in an Athlon 64 or FX, they will get no improvement.

At lower resolutions, yes the CPU can help. But what is the point. Because at lower resolutions you can already run 4xAA and 8xAniso at good frame rates with a top end card.

You say "you want more". What do you mean? Do you mean you want 75 fps instead of 65? Well that seems pretty pointless to me.

Bottom line is, an Athlon XP3200+ is enough CPU to run any game at any resolution with a top end card.

Chip

MUYA
08-14-04, 06:50 AM
Muya

The examples I provided were very much an Apples with Apples comparison.

All of them were with X800XT PE's running Doom3 at 1600x1200 with the same quality settings.

What they demonstrate is that at higher resolutions, the CPU - even a lowly XP3200+ is not a bottleneck. Anyone wanting to play 1600x1200 games today does not need a more powerful CPU than an XP3200+ And if they invest in an Athlon 64 or FX, they will get no improvement.

At lower resolutions, yes the CPU can help. But what is the point. Because at lower resolutions you can already run 4xAA and 8xAniso at good frame rates with a top end card.

You say "you want more". What do you mean? Do you mean you want 75 fps instead of 65? Well that seems pretty pointless to me.

Bottom line is, an Athlon XP3200+ is enough CPU to run any game at any resolution with a top end card.

Chip

Chip,

What are u on about? I said my CPU is a bottlemark and it is as shown by a large numebr of benches across the web. The faster the CPU u move to the better on average the scores/FPS on certains games and synthetics.

The point here is even though I have said the Barton is a bottleneck, but how much is the CPU bottling the GPU? A lot? I don't know per say as I don't have a faster CPU setup. But as compared again to said becnhes around the web to see, I do feel an upgrade to a faster CPU will makes thing more cozy.

I really do not know why you are honing on the "i want more" quote? Is it not my choice to want more. It's upto an individual whether or not that such an average FPS count is enough for them whether u can put over your prejeudiced judgement aside for others to make a choice or not I couldn't care less.

Also I didn't ever say that the with my current rig that anything is unplayble. It is playable but, there is always a but. The reason why I want more right now now is to bring the FPS count up when there are slow downs in graphically intense scenes...and as gamers we do come across it. To me I want everything silky smooth, it does seem to me that moving to a faster CPU will allow that minimum fps range

I just want a faster rig with a faster CPU to accompany my 6800 Ultra and that also that is my choice.

Any more discussion on this is not appreciated and posts dealing with off topic issues of this thread will be deleted and person/member warned. Back to the topic "Leadtek 6800U worth buying or not?" To which I answer an emphatic YES! :D

Pandora's Box
08-14-04, 10:21 AM
think he is on about the fact that if u run games at 1600x1200 (guess he doesnt know u have a lcd at max 1280x1024) games become virtually gpu dependent.

Chippy
08-14-04, 10:30 AM
think he is on about the fact that if u run games at 1600x1200 (guess he doesnt know u have a lcd at max 1280x1024) games become virtually gpu dependent.

I thank you.

I thought I had said it clearly enough, but there you go.

Chip

Pandora's Box
08-14-04, 10:57 AM
but the same would apply for 1280x1024 with some aa and af applied.

odin20
08-14-04, 11:15 AM
hey i respect ya alot MUYA but i agree a little with Chip. My 6800 ultra watercooled and voltmodded runs at 493core and 1250 memory and at 1280 *1024 with 4xaa and 16*af i get many slowdowns in doom3 if i lower it down to 2xaa and 8xaf its as smooth as a butter. With vsync disabled i can run at 4xaa better but in doom3 i get too much tearing and texture thrashing.
I have argued the point before but all the websites like to say how all our cpus are outdated, its just not true! Will you see some improvement with a faster cpu?
Hell ya! But will it be drastic? Hell no. And if you play at certain resolutions with aa and af in really new games it will be non existant.
Think about it for a second, if you run 3dmark03 with 4xaa and 16 xaf even at 1024 *768 it will drastically drop yer score. Why? Cause 3dmarko0 is a video card benchmark and if we were cpu bound the framerate would not change no matter how much aa and af were enabled.
Anyway they are great cards, hell i think the refresh product nv45 will be slower than my ultra is now hehehe so im real happy but im not ready to buy a new cpu and mb yet.

Pandora's Box
08-14-04, 11:26 AM
yeap argued that point all the time. sure a new athlon 64 3800+ is a kick ass cpu but its not going to help that much if at all in games such as far cry and doom 3 at 1280x1024 with 4xaa 8xaf. ur totally gpu bound then.

MUYA
08-14-04, 04:53 PM
eh i dunno about that but could u guys start a new thread about that. I am willing to reconsider my thoughts though since I skimed through anandtechs article to find that AA wasn't enabled then. But thats anotehr thread and topic title. This thread pertains to that of a purchase question of a leadtek A400 Ultra THD and could u guys keep it that way. Thanks.

Pandora's Box
08-14-04, 04:58 PM
ok

odin20
08-14-04, 05:41 PM
rgr no problem just some insight of mine not important.

SH64
09-02-04, 04:16 PM
Does Leadtek A400U comes with 1.6ns memory ? i had read some reviews speaks about 2.0ns which isnt good for O/C .

Pandora's Box
09-02-04, 04:33 PM
i called leadtek and asked the question about the gt which memory does it have.

he said:

the gt has 2.0ns
the ultra has 1.6ns