My 6800 Ultra

[Jethro]

i think its safe to say both the 5950 and the 9800XT are hype. Most any regular 5900 ultra and even 5900NU clock as high with the 9800pro clocking to xt speeds easy. U see the mod to convert 9800pro to xt all over the place now. If u have to have the highest clock card out of the box that money can buy with the money to burn hey no worries. But tru enthusiast go for bang for the buck because were always upgrading! lol and we know the mid cards almost always clock to the higher end card speeds.

The 6800 ultra will be selling for 400+ within 2 months is my bet. IMO the GT will be the card to get. Ultra's and XT's are for cyber penus envy nuts only. heheh

Im sorry but 500 bux for a friggin video card thats gonna be slow in 6 months! again to each his own i was just sharing my disbelief, even tho it happens every time a new one comes out so its nothing unusual

[monly]

Originally Posted by Jethro

i think its safe to say both the 5950 and the 9800XT are hype. Most any regular 5900 ultra and even 5900NU clock as high with the 9800pro clocking to xt speeds easy. U see the mod to convert 9800pro to xt all over the place now. If u have to have the highest clock card out of the box that money can buy with the money to burn hey no worries. But tru enthusiast go for bang for the buck because were always upgrading! lol and we know the mid cards almost always clock to the higher end card speeds.

The 6800 ultra will be selling for 400+ within 2 months is my bet. IMO the GT will be the card to get. Ultra's and XT's are for cyber penus envy nuts only. heheh

Im sorry but 500 bux for a friggin video card thats gonna be slow in 6 months! again to each his own i was just sharing my disbelief, even tho it happens every time a new one comes out so its nothing unusual

yes but if u buy a GT for 400 and clock it at 400mhx, a rich person can but a ultra for 500 and clock it at 450+. If money is no object then why not get the fastest. All cards will be greatly outdated within a year so you mayaswell get great performance now if you have the money.

[Jethro]

well yah thats tru man, dont get me wrong im not saying its wrong, just saying its hard to believe! if this trend continues and $500 dollars becomes acceptable price for a LEET card that u MUST have thats $1000 dollars a year just on VIDEO cards alone taking the 6month refresh into account DOH!!! lol, it does sound wacky no matter how much money yah got. Ive got the money to burn if i really wanted to i guess im just not inclined to drop that kinda money on a VIDEO Card? lol

[jimmyjames123]

The 6800 ultra will be selling for 400+ within 2 months is my bet. IMO the GT will be the card to get. Ultra's and XT's are for cyber penus envy nuts only. heheh

At the same time, I can understand why some people are willing to pay extra for the 6800 Ultra vs a single molex/single slot 6800 GT, because the 6800U can be overclocked to higher levels with the extra molex connector and beefier cooling solution.

[evilchris]

Originally Posted by monly

yes but if u buy a GT for 400 and clock it at 400mhx, a rich person can but a ultra for 500 and clock it at 450+. If money is no object then why not get the fastest. All cards will be greatly outdated within a year so you mayaswell get great performance now if you have the money.

So I'm rich? Sweet!

[Ackmed]

Originally Posted by Jethro

i think its safe to say both the 5950 and the 9800XT are hype. Most any regular 5900 ultra and even 5900NU clock as high with the 9800pro clocking to xt speeds easy.

Ti4600's and 9700 Pros were the same way. They held their value, untill the next cards came out. Saying a card will drop in price, 40, 50, or 60% in a month or two is just ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Jethro

U see the mod to convert 9800pro to xt all over the place now. If u have to have the highest clock card out of the box that money can buy with the money to burn hey no worries. But tru enthusiast go for bang for the buck because were always upgrading! lol and we know the mid cards almost always clock to the higher end card speeds.

It doesnt make it a true 9800XT, bios flash or not. True you can get more performance for your money if you get a step down from the top end, but not everyone wants to do that.

Originally Posted by Jethro

The 6800 ultra will be selling for 400+ within 2 months is my bet. IMO the GT will be the card to get. Ultra's and XT's are for cyber penus envy nuts only. heheh

I doubt that it will be $400, but it might. Saying the Ultra and XT's are for cyber strutting is silly. For some people maybe, but a lot of people have high end 20"+ LCD's, and have to game at 1600x1200. The top end cards do that more smoothly.

Originally Posted by Jethro

Im sorry but 500 bux for a friggin video card thats gonna be slow in 6 months! again to each his own i was just sharing my disbelief, even tho it happens every time a new one comes out so its nothing unusual

Explain to me how its going to be slow in 6 months? The next card release will more than likely be a refresh, for both ATi and NV. When the 9800XT came out, did it make the 9800 pro slow? Certainly not. Your logic isnt making much sense to me.

Simply put, some can afford high end parts, and some cant. Sometimes the ones who cant try to belittle the ones who can to make themselves feel better. I cant afford a Porshe, but I dont go ranting to people who drive them that they could have bought a Mustang for 80% of the speed, and more than half the price.

[Blacklash]

Originally Posted by Draxus

Any lag running around infront of the coronet spaceport with everything maxed?

The only lag I get in L2 and SWG is when the hard drive loads something and that isn't much with my HD. Sure a bad video card can lag games, however most lag in on line game in particular, are hard drive access, not your graphic card. I have tried Theed and Coronet with np, as I say my pauses are HD related/loading. It usually amounts to a brief hitch.

Now contrast this with Far Cry single player which is butter smooth for me and much more demanding.

[Drax]

I knew people where going to spaz as soon as I mentioned the price.

You don't want to pay that much for a card? Good for you. Now we all get to read about 10 - 20 more posts about price instead of about the video card.

[monly]

Originally Posted by steeda

So I'm rich? Sweet!

In a way yes, if you can find a poor person who can afford to spend 500 on a card, then you found a real hardcore gamer lol. fact is most people cannot afford half a k on a card which renders frames faster than a card that renders them slightly slower for less of a cost, infact i bet most people who buy computers will NEVER upgrade, which is a shame considering how much faster tech would progress if they did.

[Draxus]

Originally Posted by Malficar

The only lag I get in L2 and SWG is when the hard drive loads something and that isn't much with my HD. Sure a bad video card can lag games, however most lag in on line game in particular, are hard drive access, not your graphic card. I have tried Theed and Coronet with np, as I say my pauses are HD related/loading. It usually amounts to a brief hitch.

Now contrast this with Far Cry single player which is butter smooth for me and much more demanding.

Well I'm still running with a Ti4200 til i can get my hands on a 6800u, so I was asking because I get like 2 fps anywhere close to the spaceport entrance, hehe. I didn't know how well the next-gen cards would handle that.

[tb77]

Originally Posted by MikeC

What did you think of Painkiller? I started playing last night and it gave me the creeps Painkiller is one of the most terrifying games I have played.

I ran a series of performance tests at the beginning of the first level. Shortly after the start of the game, a horde of zombie warriors rise from the cemetary and approach the player. I used FRAPS to log the frame rate as I stood my ground and took all of them out using the shotgun





AA and AF were set to application controlled in the driver. All in-game graphics settings were at their maximum level with anisotropic filtering enabled. AA was set in the game. EAX3 sound was enabled. Athlon 64 3400+ CPU.

1024x768 - No AA - Avg: 82.563 - Min: 59 - Max: 113

1024x768 - 2X AA - Avg: 78.557 - Min: 59 - Max: 104

1024x768 - 4X AA - Avg: 70.344 - Min: 52 - Max: 98

1280x960 - 4X AA - Avg: 56.021 - Min: 42 - Max: 73

1600x1200 - 2X AA - Avg: 44.072 - Min: 35 - Max: 59

1600x1200 - 4X AA - Avg: 40.822 - Min: 30 - Max: 56

2048x1536 - 2X AA - Avg: 32.966 - Min: 25 - Max: 44

1920x1440 - 2X AA - Avg: 35.414 - Min: 25 - Max: 47

1920x1440 - 4X AA - Avg: 26.719 - Min: 20 - Max: 35

Painkiller is a hard-core first person shooter and becuase the action is hectic, gameplay is much better with an average frame rate that is close to 60. I completed the first level playing at 1280x960 with 4X AA.

Nice game, but Painkiller uses an DX8 engine, PS1.1 and PS1.4 - how will they patch it to support shader model 3.0 - as stated by nvidia (http://www.bit-tech.net/feature/43/) ?

[D.K.Tronics]

People spend much more than $500/£500 on a weeks holiday, and come home remembering nothing but rain, kids moaning, and a fortune spent on crap food.
So I think $500 on a video card, isn't a lot by today's standards. Especially since many of us spent a lot more on a dual 12Mb Voodoo 2 setup.