PDA

View Full Version : Deep disappointment with 6800GT and GFX cards in general


Pages : [1] 2 3

TB303
10-06-05, 02:29 PM
Hi people,
I’m quite disappointed with my system which I have finished building not long ago.

I have a 6800GT (@Ultra speeds)
A64 +3000 Venice and
1 GB of DDR400

I thought such a system is at least somewhat “future proof” – and lo and behold – it can barely play today’s games… ;-(

COD2? Barely getting 25FPS with 2aa
F.E.A.R? Barely 30FPS? again with almost max settings.

Needles to say all of those games are being played at 1024*768!
My system hasn’t lost the “new plastic” smell yet and we have a new generation of hardware, again making mine absolute.

If I had bought a mid-range card I would have accepted that it got inadequate so soon, but a high end part? What target hardware do they develop these games for anyway? What point in there in spending £300 on a GFX card if it will only play today’s games properly and would be eclipsed with in 6 months and obsolete within a year?

What do you think?

PS
My system is properly tuned; I get 5600 in 3dmark05 – in line with the 6800 Ultra

superklye
10-06-05, 02:33 PM
The 6800GT and Venice 3000+ are most definitely NOT high end parts. Not even close. The 6800GT IS the midrange (actually low-midrange) card now with the 6600 making up the lowend. And the 3000+ is a budget A64.

Don't fool yourself.

Ninjaman09
10-06-05, 02:34 PM
You are referring to game demos which run poorly even on my system. My average frames in COD2 are in the low 40s and FEAR drops down to the teens frequently. Keep in mind a lot of that has to do with the possibility that the game engines are just not that efficient. Your system is great and you should have no worries about game performance for at least a year or so. :)
The 6800GT and Venice 3000+ are most definitely NOT high end parts. Not even close. The 6800GT IS the midrange (actually low-midrange) card now with the 6600 making up the lowend. And the 3000+ is a budget A64.
Whoa there. While the processor is definitely a "budget" one, it's still more than adequate for today's games. And the video card is still an enthusiast part. Granted, it's on the low end of the enthusiast spectrum, but it's still fast as all heck. His computer is definitely a gaming PC.

Merefield
10-06-05, 02:51 PM
The original poster makes a good point. My machine is pretty much top drawer and was gutted to find myself in a room in the FEAR MP demo where my framerate started to stutter (its the room with the wet floor in the Factory, I think)

I think its going to be really interesting what impact XBOX 360 has when it is released. I think its gonna make 6800 based systems look pretty slow, and no one with 9800 Pro is going to bother to upgrade their PC, they'll just get a 360 - its gonna be a performance bargain.

The price is going to make many people abandon the PC upgrade treadmill for a while until something comes out on the PC that totally buries the XBOX 360 and thats at least a year away, if not two, imho.

Ninjaman09
10-06-05, 02:54 PM
I think its going to be really interesting what impact XBOX 360 has when it is released. I think its gonna make 6800 based systems look pretty slow, and no one with 9800 Pro is going to bother to upgrade their PC, they'll just get a 360 - its gonna be a performance bargain.

The price is going to make some people abandon the PC upgrade treadmill for a while until something comes out on the PC that totally buries the XBOX 360 and thats at least a year away, imho.
I think you're vastly overestimating the graphical prowess of the X-Box 360. There is a reason most of its launch games are coming with a 30fps cap. Our current systems can easily outstrip the 360's graphical capabilities. ;)

superklye
10-06-05, 02:57 PM
Whoa there. While the processor is definitely a "budget" one, it's still more than adequate for today's games. And the video card is still an enthusiast part. Granted, it's on the low end of the enthusiast spectrum, but it's still fast as all heck. His computer is definitely a gaming PC.
The Venice 3000+ is pretty much the slowest 939 A64 you can buy. It’s low-end. High-end would be a 4000+, an FX-57 or an X2 4800+.

The 7800GTX is as fast or faster than SLIed 6800 Ultras. A single GT is up to 80% slower than SLIed Ultras. It’s the low-midrange with the Ultra making up the mid-midrange and SLIed Ultras making up the high-midrange.

I didn’t say that his computer wasn’t fast or that it wasn’t adequate for gaming, I merely said that is NOT high-end, nor should he expect high-end performance from it.

Merefield
10-06-05, 02:59 PM
I think you're vastly overestimating the graphical prowess of the X-Box 360. There is a reason most of its launch games are coming with a 30fps cap. Our current systems can easily outstrip the 360's graphical capabilities. ;)

Fair point, but have you SEEN the screens?? If they are as good as to be believed its going to kick some serious butt. NBA 2006 looks unbelievable! (Perhaps it is! lol) Project Gotham looks out of this world (maybe it is too!). And the reason they are capping the framerate is to push as much detail as possible so it looks good in the static screenies!

I think as a stable, standard, single config platform that devs can really optimise for, its going to be hard to beat...and of course they dont have to worry about the huge resolutions on PC monitors, even if they support "Hi Def" (yeah, sure!)

Oh, and my system cost over around $4000, thats 10 XBOX 360's!!!!!

russ_3d
10-06-05, 03:02 PM
thing is, those games you mentioned are trying to push the boundaries a bit arent they - i can run fear with my rig, but just not at high settings. they are shooting for the future with settings im sure - soft shadows being the example.

i would rather have games that push the boundary because the makers are trying to make it prettier than the opposite.

but i know what you mean - i have the same card and am now looking for some kind of upgrade - but proc comes first for me i guess.


oh, and i think what he means superklye is that it was high end when he bought it. it is basically a lower clocked ultra - which was the high end upon release. me the same.

and also i know the feeling of 'whoot hdr in far cry sm3.0!!11 - lets flex this cards muscles11"

<6800 muscles go creak a bit and we get sub par fps>

is that a bit of what you mean? it was sold as sm3 card, which it is, but a lame one in a gaming sense.. who cares if the ati's cant do hdr, when no-one uses it cause it slows down the game so>?

Clay
10-06-05, 03:03 PM
And the reason they are capping the framerate is to push as much detail as possible so it looks good in the static screenies!What?

Merefield
10-06-05, 03:07 PM
What?

By shooting for 30 FPS they can render far more detail than they could @ 60 FPS.

And this looks good in the marketing, the web previews and reviews and on the back of the boxes on the shelf when you can't see that it isn't as smooth.

Mr_LoL
10-06-05, 03:10 PM
The Venice 3000+ is pretty much the slowest 939 A64 you can buy. It’s low-end. High-end would be a 4000+, an FX-57 or an X2 4800+.

The 7800GTX is as fast or faster than SLIed 6800 Ultras. A single GT is up to 80% slower than SLIed Ultras. It’s the low-midrange with the Ultra making up the mid-midrange and SLIed Ultras making up the high-midrange.

I didn’t say that his computer wasn’t fast or that it wasn’t adequate for gaming, I merely said that is NOT high-end, nor should he expect high-end performance from it.

A 7800 GTx at stock is not as fast as slied ultras or even GT's. Probably in quake3 but in games 6800 ultras in sli are faster.

Ninjaman09
10-06-05, 03:14 PM
The Venice 3000+ is pretty much the slowest 939 A64 you can buy. It’s low-end. High-end would be a 4000+, an FX-57 or an X2 4800+.
He never said his processor was high end, and neither did I...are you agreeing with me? It's phrased like a rebuttal.


The 7800GTX is as fast or faster than SLIed 6800 Ultras. A single GT is up to 80% slower than SLIed Ultras. It’s the low-midrange with the Ultra making up the mid-midrange and SLIed Ultras making up the high-midrange.
Low-midrange is a 6600. 6800NU is mid-range. 6800 GT is high-end. 7800GTX SLI is just retarded. While the 6800 GT is certainly the slowest of the enthusiast cards, it is still an enthusiast card. Yes it can't run FEAR at 4xAA 16xAF but it should still be able to handle it with the details turned down, hell even I have to set it to 0xAA 4xAF to get consistent fast framerates.

I didn’t say that his computer wasn’t fast or that it wasn’t adequate for gaming, I merely said that is NOT high-end, nor should he expect high-end performance from it.
To the eyes of an enthusiast it may not be high end, but on the spectrum of PCs out there, it's at least in the 90th percentile.
A 7800 GTx at stock is not as fast as slied ultras or even GT's. Probably in quake3 but in games 6800 ultras in sli are faster.
Well that flies in the face of almost every benchmark I've seen...links please?

Clay
10-06-05, 03:15 PM
By shooting for 30 FPS they can render far more detail than they could @ 60 FPS.

And this looks good in the marketing, the web previews and reviews and on the back of the boxes on the shelf when you can't see that it isn't as smooth.Yes, I understand the mechanics involved but have never heard of the suggestion as to why they would go with a lower FPS cap solely for marketing purposes.

superklye
10-06-05, 03:19 PM
oh, and i think what he means superklye is that it was high end when he bought it. it is basically a lower clocked ultra - which was the high end upon release. me the same.
I guess, but he said that he just finished building it “not long ago” and the 3000+ was never a high-end part, let alone any time in the recent past.

And the 6800GT is still a fast card, but comparing it to the other technologies available, it is no longer high-end. High-end to me is the latest and most expensive parts on the market. An FX-57 or X2 4800+ with dual eVGA 7800GTX KO (or whatever the name of their GTX clocked at 490/1300 is) and 2GB of DDR500 RAM is high-end. I would say his machine is a solid mid mid-range. One like mine would be upper mid-range, since I’ve OCed the processor and have SLI.

One like Ninja’s would be mid high-end to upper high-end.

superklye
10-06-05, 03:27 PM
He never said his processor was high end, and neither did I...are you agreeing with me? It's phrased like a rebuttal.
You’re right, but he did say “future proof,” and while it is, yes, in that it’s socket 939 and 64-bit…it’s not future proof for extreme gaming. He did, however, say:
If I had bought a mid-range card I would have accepted that it got inadequate so soon, but a high end part?
A 6800GT is no longer a high-end part.

Low-midrange is a 6600. 6800NU is mid-range. 6800 GT is high-end. 7800GTX SLI is just retarded. While the 6800 GT is certainly the slowest of the enthusiast cards, it is still an enthusiast card. Yes it can't run FEAR at 4xAA 16xAF but it should still be able to handle it with the details turned down, hell even I have to set it to 0xAA 4xAF to get consistent fast framerates.
So the 7800GTX isn’t “high end” until the 8800GTX comes out? Look, we’re ALL enthusiasts here, so saying that these cards are enthusiast cards is a moot point. Everything is relative, and relative to the latest technology, the 6800 Ultra is NOT high-end.

TB303
10-06-05, 03:28 PM
Guys,

Thanks for the feedback.

What I meant by mid-range was like someone said - my machine is in the 90th percentile of the PC's out there. I know that you could spend thousands of dollars (or pounds) on a machine and then call it "high end" but I live in the real world.

If I can buy a A64 +3000 @ £99, I'll buy that rather than an X2 4400 = at £360! You can call me cheap but I don't feel that way.

What I meant in my post was that it used to be the case where you would have a majour upgrade (CPU, GPU, PSU) and that would carry you "graciously" for the next two years.

Today, I doubt I'll manage properly for the next 6 months, and I built this system to play Oblivion and the like.

Mr_LoL
10-06-05, 03:36 PM
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5683/6800ultrssli5zz.gif
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/1624/6800ultrssli24he.gif
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/922/6800ultrssli39vx.gif

superklye
10-06-05, 03:40 PM
Guys,

Thanks for the feedback.

What I meant by mid-range was like someone said - my machine is in the 90th percentile of the PC's out there. I know that you could spend thousands of dollars (or pounds) on a machine and then call it "high end" but I live in the real world.

If I can buy a A64 +3000 @ £99, I'll buy that rather than an X2 4400 = at £360! You can call me cheap but I don't feel that way.

What I meant in my post was that it used to be the case where you would have a majour upgrade (CPU, GPU, PSU) and that would carry you "graciously" for the next two years.

Today, I doubt I'll manage properly for the next 6 months, and I built this system to play Oblivion and the like.
No, man, I understand I agree with you completely. It's crazy to spend that much money, at least in my current income bracket. I was just saying that from an enthusiasts point of view, you don’t have a high-end computer and that having unrealistic expectations are only going to leave you feeling gypped. With my machine, if I can just PLAY FEAR or COD2 at 1280x1024 with no AA and no AF, I’m happy. And if it’s fast enough that I can throw some of those on there, I’m ecstatic.

I just didn’t want you to get your hopes up and then feel like you did nothing but waste your money. You’ve still got a great machine and with older games like Far Cry (without HDR), WoW and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, you’re going to get awesome framerates and will be able to bump up the AA and AF because you’ve got the speed. Hell, OC your proc to 2.25GHz and then you’ll really be cruising. 2.25 is 50MHz faster than a 3500+, which costs about $100 more than the 3000+…so you’ve got a processor that can be faster than a $250+ one, and you paid about 1/2 of the price for it.

Don’t be disappointed. Seriously. Just don’t have unreasonably expectations and you’ll be all right. And seriously, bumping up your CPU speed will do WONDERS for that GT. I know, I used to have the same setup. :)

Ninjaman09
10-06-05, 03:41 PM
So the 7800GTX isn’t “high end” until the 8800GTX comes out? Look, we’re ALL enthusiasts here, so saying that these cards are enthusiast cards is a moot point. Everything is relative, and relative to the latest technology, the 6800 Ultra is NOT high-end.
Again you are ignoring my point that we are discussing the gamut of hardware, including hardware outside the realm of the enthusiast market. On the grand scale of things, his computer is the upper echelon of hardware. End of story. The difference between his computer and mine from a performance standpoint is minimal to nonexistant if the user is not interested in IQ features, which most people aren't, and which are unimportant to game developers when considering how well their games will scale across hardware in use.
One like Ninja’s would be mid high-end to upper high-end.
That had me in stitches. "Mid-high end"? It doesn't get much better, man. Look at my system. You think I can't afford a 4800+ or an FX-57? I can, but there's no value in them. I'd see maybe 5-10fps increases in a few games with the FX-57. They are all about even in terms of performance. Even this 4000+ is unnecessary. The 7800 GTXs I have are exactly the same as the 7800GTX KO's, just not overclocked in the BIOS. I COULD overclock them but they're plenty fast already, and it wouldn't be worth the next-to-nothing performance increase I'd see. DDR-500 RAM is actually SLOWER than DDR-400 RAM in some cases due to the very loose timings required to run it. Tight timings are essential for A64 CPUs. If your definition of low-high end and upper high-end is a difference of 10-15fps (maybe) in a few games then I agree with you but it definitely doesn't reflect reality.

To be honest I wish I'd bought a system just like his. I'd have great gaming performance and a couple extra grand in the bank. ;)

What I meant in my post was that it used to be the case where you would have a majour upgrade (CPU, GPU, PSU) and that would carry you "graciously" for the next two years.

Today, I doubt I'll manage properly for the next 6 months, and I built this system to play Oblivion and the like.
Your computer is fine, you just unfortunately picked two games that run like absolute crap to benchmark your system. Trust me, they run terrible on EVERYONE'S system, not just yours. ;)

@Allaahu:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=13
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=14
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=16
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=17

JamesDax
10-06-05, 03:44 PM
Off topic. But I know that the developer of Call of Duty 2 has gone on record saying that the XBox 360 version will look and run better then the PC version. I think that that will be the case for most cross platform titles for the next year or so.

arioch21
10-06-05, 03:53 PM
the OP has a good point though, ive seen a few games that come out, most people get around 30fps on these games, takes about 2 to 3 years for most people to upgrade, sure they can run these games at 60fps+ now with max settings, but guess what?, the "part 2" of that game is due out and will make your system dip down back to 30fps with medium settings. Its a cycle when it comes down to pcgaming and hardware to run it.

Not saying all the games are like this, but mainly the big ones.

just my 2cents :)

superklye
10-06-05, 03:55 PM
Again you are ignoring my point that we are discussing the gamut of hardware, including hardware outside the realm of the enthusiast market. On the grand scale of things, his computer is the upper echelon of hardware. End of story. The difference between his computer and mine from a performance standpoint is minimal to nonexistant if the user is not interested in IQ features, which most people aren't, and which are unimportant to game developers when considering how well their games will scale across hardware in use.
And you’re ignoring the point that we’re enthusiasts comparing to enthusiasts cards. I don’t care what a normal user is interested in and what they are interested has no impact on this at all. They wouldn’t be looking to buy a 6800U anyway, so why are you even bringing them up. As far as I am concerned, anything below an A64 3000+ and a 6600 does not exist because it’s not even worth mentioning in this since it has no significance to it.

And, obviously, TB is interested in IQ features and getting the fastest frames at the highest resolution possible. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t have made this thread in the first place, nor would he have even BOUGHT a 6800 GT in the first place.

That had me in stitches. "Mid-high end"? It doesn't get much better, man. Look at my system.
I said mid high-end to upper high-end. Upper high-end would definitely be an X2 4800+ or an FX-57.

You think I can't afford a 4800+ or an FX-57?
Where the f*ck did this come from? I never said ANYTHING about you or the amount of money you make, nor did I comment that you could’ve had a better system if you had spent a little more money. I said yours wasn’t upper-end BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING FASTER OUT THERE. That is the point! If nVIDIA released a 7900GTX that was 10% faster than the 7800GTX, then THAT would be the high-end. Of course, in the grand scheme, both would be “retarded” as you said, but we’re not looking at the grand scheme. We’re looking at our enthusiast niche.

I can, but there's no value in them. I'd see maybe 5-10fps increases in a few games with the FX-57. They are all about even in terms of performance. Even this 4000+ is unnecessary.
And this is all completely unnecessary. It has nothing to do with what your opinion on the gains of performance between two chips/cards is. If there is something faster out there, the fastest thing is the high-end. It’s that simple—and really, it’s not, hence me breaking into low, mid and upper levels of the mid and upper-ranges. But whatever.

The 7800 GTXs I have are exactly the same as the 7800GTX KO's, just not overclocked in the BIOS. I COULD overclock them but they're plenty fast already, and it wouldn't be worth the next-to-nothing performance increase I'd see. DDR-500 RAM is actually SLOWER than DDR-400 RAM in some cases due to the very loose timings required to run it. Tight timings are essential for A64 CPUs. If your definition of low-high end and upper high-end is a difference of 10-15fps (maybe) in a few games then I agree with you but it definitely doesn't reflect reality.
It doesn’t reflect reality when you are looking at the grand scheme, which you shouldn’t be.

Look, this wasn’t supposed to be an argument, this wasn’t supposed to turn into some huge thing. You’re looking at the grand scheme, in which case, you’re absolutely right. No doubt about it. But looking at our 1% niche area, the 6800GT simply is nowhere near the high-end anymore.

STOP ARGUING WITH ME, DAMN IT! :p :)

hemmy
10-06-05, 03:57 PM
6800GT is mainstream

Nobody gets good fps in COD2 demo, just how it is (a lot think its just a console port since TVs run at 30fps)

Fear is also a hause, and benefits from 512mb cards and 2gb memory systems

nVidiaGuru
10-06-05, 04:05 PM
well my e-pen1s is bigger than all of yours.....aka the real "HIGH-END" :p

Strahd
10-06-05, 04:10 PM
Low-midrange is a 6600. 6800NU is mid-range. 6800 GT is high-end. 7800GTX SLI is just retarded. While the 6800 GT is certainly the slowest of the enthusiast cards, it is still an enthusiast card. Yes it can't run FEAR at 4xAA 16xAF but it should still be able to handle it with the details turned down, hell even I have to set it to 0xAA 4xAF to get consistent fast framerates.

So does this mean my rig (in sig) is retarded?