Wich card is the king of the hill (nv40 or R420)

You are allowed to think whatever you want man, no one needs to correct you

 

The techreport and extremetech reviews indicate that the X800 Pro performes comparable to the 6800GT, not the Ultra.

I think we have to wait til the Farcry rendering path / NVidia driver issues are worked out before we can get a clearer picture.

 

My novice eyes are telling me that both the XT and Pro spank the 6800 Ultra at high-res and max IQ settings in a whole slew of games, particularly more recent DX9 titles and *despite* possible brilinear Forceware optimizations.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_7.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_9.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_11.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_13.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_15.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_17.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_23.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_27.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_28.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_30.html

 

And as I have stated before, I don't really give a shit since EQ2, the game I will probably play almost exclusively for the next two or so years, will have such high video card requirements that AA and AF isn't feasible anyway.

Take away the AF and the 6800 tramples all over the X800 Pro because even a quick glance at the specs tells a 3D n00b like me that the 6800 is the more powerful card (compared to the Pro, not the XT).

If EQ2 is any indication for the things to come then the 6800 is the safer bet. I also doubt that AF will be much of an issue when it comes to the next version of the Unreal engine. But if you want to be faster when running max. AF at some insane resolution in yesterday's games then, by all means, get a X800 Pro.

The X800XT is an excellent card. If I wanted to spend $500 then it would definately be the one I'd buy. But I decided to settle for a $400 video card and the 6800GT seems to be the one more suitable to my gaming choices than the X800 Pro.

 

CNET REVIEW

 

Sorry can you point me to the benchmarks that say the 6800 tramples over the x800 in eq 2 ? can you point me to benchmarks that show it beating the x800


Cause if you can't then you don't know what will happen .

 

Thanks man. I feel alot better now

 

Sounds like a quake-quack scenario except this time its Far Cry-Fart Cry.


He says using the 61.11 drivers with the NV40 results in inflated benchmark scores in FarCry and that by renaming the farcry.exe file to fartcry.exe you get worse benchmark results.

 

R420 wins hands down.

You can talk about raw performance this, and AA/AF performance that, but when it comes down to it nothing matters if you can't buy the damn card.

The X800 Pro is shipping to retailers as we speak, and some may already have them. At the very least we'll be able to go buy one by the weekend. That puts it light-years ahead of the 6800 series because I know I won't get decent frames from cutting out a picture of a 6800 and putting it in my AGP slot which is all you will be able to do by this weekend.

 

NV40.

I'm not really sure that i would buy the NV40 though but it's just to boring with a card that has close to zero new features over a 2 year old card. And what's even more boring are all the reviews using games that are more DX8 then DX9. Two years after the release of DX9.

 

Well you can blame Nvidia for that, if they could do DX 9 2 years ago they would have pushed the developers harder wouldn't you say?

 

I just dont get it. I play EQ with its new dx9 engine and will prolly play EQ2 if i like the beta, but theses games are totally cpu bound. You can use all the eye candy you want it will not impact on your performances.

If you want the best performances for theses games, keep your actual grapich card and buy the most powerfull processor you can afford

 

Not totally true. EQ2 with all the bells and whistles eats massive fillrate. It's got full shadows plus pixel shaders on alot of the armor and monsters, and normal mapped polybump on some stuff.

 

Not in my experience. Well, I mean, you can have all the graphical detail you want, that is, until you try to join a raid. In a raid, I have to turn the particle effects off or my framerate drops to a crawl.

 

Nvidia probably has a lot to do with this, unfortunetly. Although the bigggest problem seems to be that DX9 content takes a really long time to develop. I doubt that Half Life 2 was delayed because of the NV3X f.e.

 

I think a large reason we still lots of dx8 based titles is largely due to the xbox, i've seen lots of games that are made to be ported to and from xbox easily and it's the pc only titles usually that really take advantage of dx9. Also too it doesn't help that quake3/ut2k3 based engines are still very popular with developers.

 

Why would you do that? Who buys a $300-500 card to play without AF? For any real life purpose non-AA and non-AF benchmarks are irrelevant.

 

I agree. Though you could argue that both cards are powerful enough and that you prefer to have more features then. But that's of course depending on personal preference.

 

Well if all you want is features and no aa/af, you'd be much better off waiting for a card that won't be cpu limited 99% of the time. Geforce6200 or whatever they choose to call it should fit the bill nicely and you can flush the extra $350 down the toilet or whatever turns your crank. You'd certainly be better off spending the extra money on a better display, a faster cpu or more ram than an enthusiast class video card.

 

Even though I originally voted for ATI, I'm thinking maybe I should've picked it's a tie. Looking through all the reviews out there, I've noticed that there's quite a bit of variation in the benches. Damn, it's too bad we don't have a B3D comparison review...

Meh, I'm not buying until the summer anyway so I'll see how things look then