carbonsteel
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 100
Newegg has a sweet deal for the Nvidia 7800GT. In comparison with the ATI 800XT, 850XT, and the 1800XL (not XT)... What would be the better card overall? Thanks
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Frostwake said:Are you kidding me? A DOOM 3 review from september? First doom 3 is one the poorest performing games on ATI hardware, second catalyst 5.11 and up has huge gains not showed there... next time try being at least a bit convincing
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005.html
Read this one which is using cats 5.12 and doesnt even take into consideration the huge 1800XL overclockability and it becomes an easy choice
First, I agree with you on the point that buying a card for its overclocking "potential" is a poor choice. For example, back a year and a half ago when I bought my 9600XT everyone was saying how it can hit 600Mhz on the core without difficulty. Mine, however, artifacts at 530Mhz . I will not make the mistake of buying a card for it's OC'ing potential again.aop said:Get the GF7800GT. X1800XL may not OC well and if you get bad overclocker you end up with a lot slower and more expensive card. You can't go wrong with GF7800GT, it is enough fast at stock speeds and you have no need to OC if you don't want to.
Shane said:Personally I would go with a 7800gt over the 1800xl in most games its faster thats a fact proven over and over again with benchmarks. Also nvidia is sli capable as ati crossfire isnt available too consumers. Lastly if you want to run any linux os ati drivers are just horrid nvidia is the only real solution. So in my opinion without a doubt 7800gt for sure.
The only problem with that mentality (and I'm not accusing you of anything, just people in general) is that when they buy a card for its overclocking potential and find that they get a "dud", they feel pissed off and want to RMA/return it for another card that overclocks better. This puts corporations at a loss, thus making consumers (including those who don't care about overclocking) pay more for hardware.Jonsey said:I buy equipment based on it's overclock potential, as do lots of people on this site. It is the Hard Overclockers Comparison Page, afterall. I bought an AN8 Ultra, which was a cheap and good overclocker, a 0530 Opteron 170, which is a good overclocker, and an X1800XL, which does 700/650 Mhz.
Most X1800XL's are better overclockers than most 7800 GT's. They have similar performance at stock speeds. Since I'm not a cross-fire/SLI kind of person, the choice was obvious.
Either one you get you'll be happy. IMO, the X1800 XL is a better deal.
GVX said:The only problem with that mentality (and I'm not accusing you of anything, just people in general) is that when they buy a card for its overclocking potential and find that they get a "dud", they feel pissed off and want to RMA/return it for another card that overclocks better. This puts corporations at a loss, thus making consumers (including those who don't care about overclocking) pay more for hardware.
agreed. My GTX isn't too good at OCing either.GVX said:First, I agree with you on the point that buying a card for its overclocking "potential" is a poor choice. For example, back a year and a half ago when I bought my 9600XT everyone was saying how it can hit 600Mhz on the core without difficulty. Mine, however, artifacts at 530Mhz . I will not make the mistake of buying a card for it's OC'ing potential again..
It's more or less even, but even in unplayable-ness. I'm looking at the FEAR part of the review you posted. The GT is at 40fps no AA 1600x1200, the XL at 34. 4xAA 1600x1200, both at 20. Now, yes they are even, but remember this is also the AVERAGE fps. Who the heck could someone play a game at a pace where 50% of the frames are @ less than 20fps??? Once you go past the unplayable mark, the benches don't matter much imho.GVX said:That being said, I have a brand new X1800XL sitting next to me that will be going into my new computer in a matter of days.
I decided to buy the X1800XL over the GT for several reasons:
1) I do not agree with your assesment of the X1800XL's performance at stock. While the X1800XL is slower in gaming situations when no AA is enabled, the card is more or less even with the 7800GT once AA gets turned on (likely due to the more efficient memory controller). Any gamer who is willing to pay through his/her nose for a high end card like a 7800GT/X1800XL will be enabling advanced video card features such as AA (making the 7800GT's advantage in "pure speed" benchmarks pointless).
If you don't believe me check out this review (obviously paying attention to XL vs. GT benches):
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2616&p=1
You can see that the 7800GT's advantage shrinks to basically nothing when AA is enabled in games.
I haven't seen shimmering in my experience. I do run at HQ level thoguh. And it's HQ mode ffs. If you ran at the same game settings, HQ mode would look better than quality, that's the point. Obviously the performance goes down. Thats because the IQ is higher, you'd have to set the non-HQ card/tests to higher levels to equalize the IQ.GVX said:2)Shimmering. There have been way too many horror stories told about Nvidia's shimmering problem for it to be something that was just made up. Setting IQ to High Quality may eliminate this problem, but that involves a perofmance hit (which would sink the 7800GT to performance levels that are well below the X1800XL).
Both ATI and NVIDIA cheat at AF.GVX said:3)High Quality AF. Nvidia is yet to offer a feature that can compete with this. I'm sure anybody would welcome higher quality AF. This was probably the main selling feature for me.
Yes that's nice, but you gotta be at 1280x1024 for that to be feasible in the newest games. I'm sure a GT w/ HDR and no AA @ 1600x1200 isn't much different.GVX said:4)HDR+AA.
A good point. True, but I don't use it, and I don't really know if the average gamer does. (+1 to ATI)GVX said:5)Video Playback. A lot of people are very happy about the Catalyst 5.13 driver release. Basically, your getting a feature that's not only free but outperforms Nvidia's PureVideo which costs at least $20 extra on the side.
I'd think that huge performance gains would mean that they probably don't have much else to improve. They were probably fixing the problems that they were forced to release on, like they did by refreshing the x800 series, and what nvidia has done with sli.GVX said:6)Expandability. We've already seen huge performance gains from recent ATI driver releases. I know that it's speculatory, but because the performance increases that we've seen from ATI driver updates have been substancially greater than those from Nvidia's, one could expect that the potential for future perfomance jumps is greater with ATI than it is with Nvidia.
You can fond an X1800XL for under $300? Where? I thought they were all over $400 still.GVX said:I'm no f@nboy and I am not trying to slander Nvidia in anyway, but I'm merely just stating my objective opinion.
My recomendation to the OP, obviously, is to buy the X1800XL for the reasons above. Unless, you're planning to do a multi-GPU platform, I can't see much of an arguement for going with the 7800GT, given that the two cards are roughly the same price.
carbonsteel said:Newegg has a sweet deal for the Nvidia 7800GT. In comparison with the ATI 800XT, 850XT, and the 1800XL (not XT)... What would be the better card overall? Thanks