Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-04, 10:51 AM   #25
K007
 
K007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia, Sydney
Posts: 9,406
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

I am confused to as what kind of monitor these people have, the ones who say 1600x1200 is all they care about out, they must suck in cs source, because it is bloody impossible to hit anything in the distance, look like a bloody .

1024 is what alot play.

As far as the survey, from what i recall the x800pro and gt is .5 / .5 and the same with Ultra/XT.

And also i dont know who the hell is saying ati is doing well, when they cant even keep up with a GT in some of the tests..hell even a 6800 took the lead in one place.

The fps difference in Source compared to Doom3 is very different.
K007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 10:59 AM   #26
anzak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,553
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Yeah, I guess im an ATI fan boy.

I am also a fan of 1600x1200, if you spend $400 to $500 on a card you should expect it to play at high resolution. IMO ATI won this battle because it won most of the 16x12 w/ 4x and 16x benchmarks.
anzak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 11:09 AM   #27
Ninjaman09
Takin 'er easy
 
Ninjaman09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jowjah
Posts: 6,687
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by anzak
Yeah, I guess im an ATI fan boy.
Yeah, I guess I wasn't talking about you.

As I said before, 1280x1024 is pretty damn high resolution. And most people who play games agree, even those who are willing to spend hundreds on their graphics card. Sure, 16x12 runs good MOST of the time, but it chokes when I need to not to - in big UT2K4 firefights, for example. Plus, most people don't have extremely high quality monitors that support decent refresh rates at 16x12. 70 hertz is not decent, in my opinion. In the grand scheme of gaming, 16x12 @ 8x (or 6x whatever)AA and 16xAF is an extremely unimportant benchmark. Hell, I don't even see IQ differences between 4xAF and 16xAF. Then again, I don't spend hours staring at my monitor trying to force myself to see flaws.

The only good argument against the nVidia cards is the horrendous texture crawling when the optimizations are on. This is especially terrible in CS:Source and UT2K4, I always force opts off because of how horrific they look in these games. nVidia needs to do something about this, because I paid 400 bucks for this damn card and it shouldn't be doing that.
__________________
Core i7 920 @ 3.2 | ASUS P6T Deluxe V2
6GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 RAM
eVGA GTX 570 SC | Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
CORSAIR CMPSU-850TX
Dell U2410
Ninjaman09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 11:33 AM   #28
Socos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjaman09
I think this thread's been polluted by ATI fanboys. Look, the benchmarks clearly show that both cards perform very evenly with each other. I don't understand the obsessive need to have a virtual pissing content with one another, both nVidia and ATI cards of this generation are extremely powerful. And sorry, I don't run anything in 1600x1200, because frankly I can't tell the difference between 1280x1024 & 1600x1200, and I like the extra fps and image quality the slightly lower resolution affords. Most people I know don't run anything above 1024x768.

Finally someone with something constructive to add to this thread. And I am being serious, not sarcastic. I totally agree with you. Based on the benchmarks we can conclude that the XTPE and 6800 Ultra are for the most part even in CS Source. We shall see if this holds true for HL2.. But for now it looks like you cannot go wrong with either card.... So for the record

E-Penis' are even ==================>
==================>
__________________
AMD 64 3000 + - 1 GB Kingston HyperX - Chaintech ZNF-150 MB - Audigy 2 Gamer ZS - 200GB SATA HD -
ATI X800 Pro OC 520/540 - 21" Cybervison monitor - Thermaltake Butterfly 450 watt PS - UFO Custom Case
Socos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 12:06 PM   #29
Knot3D
Registered User
 
Knot3D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ShadowMosesIsland
Posts: 734
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

To some extent I agree with Ninjaman too. 1024 x 768 without AA is certainly to jaggy for my taste. 1280 x 1024 with 4 AA (I don't care that much for AF)
is indeed a sort of sweetspot, but also a minimum. It's a sweetspot becuz of the 85hz refreshrate and the better average frames p/sec.

Anzak has a point in the fact that we paid quite substantial money for such high end cards and for that, 16 x 12 with high f/ps, is kinda reasonable to ask.
Do NOT forget, the majority of gamers will have to do with lesser cards than X800's and 6800's.

Anyway, we have NO friggin' clue as to how busy Nvidia has been on new Forceware in regards to Direct3D performance in HL2 and D3D performance in general. Since Doom3 Nvidia has not really made any press nor public statement on what they are doing in regards to this matter. I am sure when the HL2 game ships tons of reviews with benchmarks will arise ; Nvidia won't like it if lotsa reviews scream "Ati pwns Nvidia once more ! "
__________________
AMD X2 4800, Asus A8N32sli-D, Corsair Twinx 2Gb PC3500LLpro, Asus X1900XTX & 2 WD Raptors
Knot3D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 12:09 PM   #30
Buenamos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,123
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

some of you are pointing out that running a game at 1600x1200 is pointless..........so why did you buy a high end card? The point of these cards is to pump the graphics up...........1600x1200 @ 85 is my native resolution which works perfect for my video card.

One of you also pointed out that it seems like ati fanboys have joined this thread......I'm no fanboy, I like both companies, but when the poster says the 6800ultra wins it.....well, it depends on what settings ur running the game on.
__________________
Gaming PC: KOOLANCE PC3-410BK / SILVERSTONE ST70F 700W Modular / Q6600 G0 @ 3.2 / Swiftech Apogee GT Block /Asus P5Q Pro / 2x2gb 1066 G-Skill / EVGA GTX570 / 2 x Asus VH242 1080p monitors / Audigy Xi-Fi Platinum / Seagate 160gb HDD / Seagate 500gb HDD

Laptop: Inspiron 1520 15.4" LCD/ Intel Core 2 Duo 7300 (2ghz) / 2 gb RAM / 8600m GT / 80gb HDD / N Wireless / Blue Tooth

Media Center: AMD 4400+ / 2 gb OCZ Platinum / EVGA 9800gt / Audigty 2ZS / 42" LG 1080p 120hz / 3 x 1.5tb HDDs

Xbox 360 / Wii
Buenamos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 12:38 PM   #31
Ninjaman09
Takin 'er easy
 
Ninjaman09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jowjah
Posts: 6,687
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buenamos
.....so why did you buy a high end card? The point of these cards is to pump the graphics up...........1600x1200 @ 85 is my native resolution which works perfect for my video card.
I see you've chosen to ignore the other two posts I made explaining why I prefer 12x10 to 16x12. Believe it or not, high-end cards provide greater performance in resolutions LOWER than 1600x1200!! I had a Geforce 4 Ti4600, and decided, "Hey, I'm sick of playing Far Cry with DX8 and 15 FPS at 800x600! Time for a new card!". Lo and behold, the 6800 GT more than provided me what I sought. So now I play my games at a resolution that I feel is a perfect balance of performance and prettiness. I don't buy high-end cards to act like an elitist on message boards or brag to my friends - I buy them to play the games I want at the highest detail settings with the best performance possible. I believe that 1280x1024 @ 85hz, 4xAA, and 4xAF is that balance.
__________________
Core i7 920 @ 3.2 | ASUS P6T Deluxe V2
6GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 RAM
eVGA GTX 570 SC | Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
CORSAIR CMPSU-850TX
Dell U2410
Ninjaman09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 12:44 PM   #32
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

I think the point is that 1600x1200 is a legitimate desire for some people. Others not. So please, let's not say someone's a fanboy (if that was even said) or imply they're just being retarded by saying they want/need 1600x1200.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 10-11-04, 01:13 PM   #33
fivefeet8
Ngemu Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,886
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

It all really depends on your own perception as to what resolutions, eye candy, and gaming options which ultimately determines which card you think wins. Everyone has their own opinions.

The 6800gt clearly wins the x800pro IMO. In all resolutions, eye candy(FSAA/AF), and gaming options, it wins almost all the time. Some of those wins are only by a few FPS, but it does so most of time that it's worth noting.

The 6800ultra and X800xt pe are a bit trickier. The x800xtpe clearly has a VS and Fillrate advantage at 1600x1200 with AF. But that advantage is almost nonexistant at any resolution lower than 1600x1200 with AF. The 6800ultra clearly does better at almost all resolutions with no AA/AF.
__________________
[i7 2600k @4.4ghertz][2x4 GB DDR3 1600][EVGA GTX570 1.280GB SC][EVGA GTX460 physx][Asrock Extreme7 Gen3 Z68][2xSeagate 160 Gb SATA HD raid0][Seagate 250 GB SATA2 HD][Sony Bravia 40' 1080p LCD HDTV][NEC 3520a DVD+-DLw][Windows 7 Ultimate x64][Rosewill 1000w]
fivefeet8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 01:23 PM   #34
Ninjaman09
Takin 'er easy
 
Ninjaman09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jowjah
Posts: 6,687
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide
I think the point is that 1600x1200 is a legitimate desire for some people. Others not. So please, let's not say someone's a fanboy (if that was even said) or imply they're just being retarded by saying they want/need 1600x1200.
That's what I said, basically. I said "ATI fanboys" because the majority of posters responding to the thread initially were people claiming ATI had a landslide victory in the benchmarks because of better 1600x1200x8xAAx16xAF performance on half the tests. My point was that the results were very even, with both brands performing extremely well, and it is fanboy-ish to imply otherwise.

Soon afterwards I was informed that the only reason to buy a high-end graphics card is to play at 1600x1200. Personally, I don't like to play in that resolution, because my monitor does not support high enough refresh rates and I feel that the increased visual quality is not proportionate with the performance hit. So, I said, some people use their $400 video cards for 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 4xAF and keep their framerates above 60 in all situations (i.e., UT2K4 Onslaught or CS:S or Far Cry). Please don't take what I'm saying out of context. I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, I just felt like the thread had gotten a little screwy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivefeet8
It all really depends on your own perception as to what resolutions, eye candy, and gaming options which ultimately determines which card you think wins. Everyone has their own opinions.
.
__________________
Core i7 920 @ 3.2 | ASUS P6T Deluxe V2
6GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 RAM
eVGA GTX 570 SC | Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
CORSAIR CMPSU-850TX
Dell U2410
Ninjaman09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 02:57 PM   #35
AthlonXP1800
Registered User
 
AthlonXP1800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,352
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuvian
every1?
not me,i got an 6800ultra,but i didnt buy it to play on 1600x1200.
alot of games,specialy online MMORPGs etc... have alot of action,so a high end card is needed sometimes just to run 1024x768 etc... with AA/AF and eye candy on.
Indeed, like me, I played all games at 1024x768 on my LCDTV, it can go as high as 1280x1024 but it do not supported 1600x1200, not every LCDTV and LCD monitors support it.
__________________
Intel Core i7 3770K, Corsair H80 liquid cooler with Noctua S12-1200 fan, ASUS P8Z77V with UEFI 2104, 16GB Samsung Green 30nm DDR3-RAM, Pioneer BDR-S09XLT 16x Blu-ray writer, Corsair AX850 PSU, Western Digital 2TB SATA3 hard drive, CanonScan LiDE 210 scanner, Microsoft Internet Keyboard, Microsoft Touch Explorer mouse, 32inch Sharp LC32LE600 LED TV, EVGA Geforce GTX 670 SC 4GB with Geforce 370.50 driver, 50Mb broadband Virgin Media VMDG480 Super Hub, Aspire Xplorer Midi Tower, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit.
AthlonXP1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-04, 02:59 PM   #36
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: 6800 Ultra win in Xbit's CS: Source benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjaman09
That's what I said, basically. I said "ATI fanboys" because the majority of posters responding to the thread initially were people claiming ATI had a landslide victory in the benchmarks because of better 1600x1200x8xAAx16xAF performance on half the tests.
Actaually it was an nV fanboy that started this thread
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.