• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

6800ultra vs x800 xt

rancor said:
http://www.digital-daily.com/video/geforce6800ultra-vs-radeon800xt/index04.htm

I know old drivers, but its a first ultra vs xt, anyways

Interesting to see the x800xt has a variable loose of fps, over different games. It seems, can't remember which article it was, but they are using an almost adaptive filtering of some sort.

As you can see ATi's aa and af performance in Doom 3 especially mimics, nV's Dx aa and af perfromance.
Click to expand...

Gotta say, never finished Aquamark or 3dmark, got kinda bored cos of the slowness of pace of the game ;)
 
rancor said:
no no keep going they did other benches, thats just the first page :D
Click to expand...

Lmao I couldn't resist mate.

What makes me laugh is when they bench at 640x480....why?

The only game I'm playing is faster on my card :D Makes me warm and fuzzy inside :)

Rock on ut2k4

Although, I have dabbled at Star Wars BattleFront, and I have to say, that is one wicked game...
 
Tigerblade said:
Lmao I couldn't resist mate.

What makes me laugh is when they bench at 640x480....why?

The only game I'm playing is faster on my card :D Makes me warm and fuzzy inside :)

Rock on ut2k4

Although, I have dabbled at Star Wars BattleFront, and I have to say, that is one wicked game...
Click to expand...


hehe :), awe yeah SW battle front is nice !
 
well il just throw in my .02
im running FFXI @1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF :eek: WOW
^^ looks soo much better then 1024x768 NoAA NoAF
now >.> if thay offer a highres texture pack
 
I would say ultra and XT are about dead even. XT would be more scaleable if you use better CPU. If you don't know it's because fillrate. Look at the difference in fillrate test 3dmark.

fill-rate-multi.gif


Also look at the how radeon dips @ 800x600 and takes a big leap @ 1024x768. Strange. Radeon's just hate low res. LOL
 
Marvelous said:
I would say ultra and XT are about dead even. XT would be more scaleable if you use better CPU. If you don't know it's because fillrate. Look at the difference in fillrate test 3dmark.
Click to expand...


If fillrates actaully ment something , take a look at the different games and how fillrates effect aa and af performance, why does ATi die is some dx games, and in Doom 3 shows teh same drop as nV when aa and af are applied? take a close look, Doom 3 is supposed to be very fill rate dependent. Not synthetic benchmarks


If top games like Far Cry and Doom 3 were really stressing the fill rate amounts then nV would drop just like Ut 2004, even more so since this games are much more graphics intensive. Then take a look at this. If nV was doing shader replacement for Doom 3 its perfromance curve in aa and af should still be like that of ut 04.

Also I wasn't talking about fill rates so stay on the topic please,

I'm proposing a theory of adaptive AF (not saying its a bad thing, if its actually been made its a very good thing as you can see the performance benefits), and would like to hear others theories.
 
There is no AA Doom 3 benchmark in that review so I can't comment on what you said.

Well it could be drivers or any number of things. Also Nvidia's Aniso has always been slower than ATI way of Aniso but they did catch up. Adaptive or not image quality is on par with 6800GT. 6800GT AA is slower too but you have to give Nvidia credit for high performance in low resolutions or without AA or Aniso in all resolutions.

But most people buy these cards to crank everything.

Fillrate does matter. Without fillrate the card cannot fill the screen. With faster CPU's you can always scale at lower resolutions or if you have games that have enough fillrate you can add AA or ANiso basically for free.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=40&type=expert&pid=5
 
Why are people such bandwidth/fillrate whores? The ps2 has more bandwidth than 2 XTPEs in SLI.

At the end of the day, we see that there's no real difference being made between these cards.
Welcome to 2004, where pixel shader strength is more important than fillrate.
 
Marvelous said:
There is no AA Doom 3 benchmark in that review so I can't comment on what you said.

Well it could be drivers or any number of things. Also Nvidia's Aniso has always been slower than ATI way of Aniso but they did catch up. Adaptive or not image quality is on par with 6800GT. 6800GT AA is slower too but you have to give Nvidia credit for high performance in low resolutions or without AA or Aniso in all resolutions.

But most people buy these cards to crank everything.

Fillrate does matter. Without fillrate the card cannot fill the screen. With faster CPU's you can always scale at lower resolutions or if you have games that have enough fillrate you can add AA or ANiso basically for free.
Click to expand...


Stop getting back to the fillrate thing,

Well here

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDM=

ATi's loss is mimic nV's precentage wise.

Doom has an average of 4 levels of pixel draw. Its more intensive the Far cry when it comes to fill rates. Far cry uses 3 to 4 depending on the level and which shaders are being used. And a hell of alot more intesive then Ut 04, since Ut 04 doesn't go over 2.
 
CCC has no bearing on this, we are looking at reletive performance drops at different settings not shader replacement performance increases.
 
Who in their right mind would even take these benchmarks with a grain of salt? We are talking drivers two revisions old.
 
I know your not going by numbers just the percentage it goes up and down when AA or aniso is applied.


Before I was skimming not really reading.

Here's the benchmark from Hardcop.

1600x1200 standard no aa or aniso.
ultra=61.8
xtpe=49.8

With AA and aniso same res.
ultra=40.7
xtpe=33.5

percentage drop after applying AA and Aniso
Ultra =66%
XTPE=67%

This could be number of reasons with this particular engine. I am not sure XTPE why it's similar. Driver issues and texture issues was prone to Radeon's early drivers with doom 3. Also AI was not applied in these benchmarks.

But with all other benchmarks ATI shows much better results. Doom is also OpenGL which ATI doesn't do so well against Nvdia's cards. Could this be the culprit?
 
Marvelous said:
I would say ultra and XT are about dead even. XT would be more scaleable if you use better CPU. If you don't know it's because fillrate. Look at the difference in fillrate test 3dmark.
Click to expand...
Read the actual numbers. The XT has a 12% lead, but by tweaking the Y scale it looks like a 100% lead. Lying with graphs 101.

Secondly, fillrate isn't worth much of anything in and of itself. The FX5800U took a 20% lead over a 9800 Pro in 3D03 multitexturing. http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000269
 
Lazier_Said said:
Read the actual numbers. The XT has a 12% lead, but by tweaking the Y scale it looks like a 100% lead. Lying with graphs 101.

Secondly, fillrate isn't worth much of anything in and of itself. The FX5800U took a 20% lead over a 9800 Pro in 3D03 multitexturing. http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000269
Click to expand...


Good find Lazier! Also Marv the CCC opts will increase performance at a equal ratio over the aa and af levels so the % difference between the drops will be the same anyways.
 
So fill in the lamemen.. what the hell does that mean and how does it effect the gaming experience?
 
R1ckCa1n said:
So fill in the lamemen.. what the hell does that mean and how does it effect the gaming experience?
Click to expand...


Oh no no this has nothing to do with gaming experience, I just had a question of why is the aa and af performance so volitile on ATi's cards with different applications, this is apperent in compairing different API's, Dx and Ogl, and with Dx itself, some games affect ATi performance more as res and aa and af levels increase, nV's on the other hand all have similiar results all round.

Just that if its an optimization that ATi has done, how was it done :) because what ever it is, its damn good and works very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top