• 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.

I Highly Doubt This.....

I

ikellensbro

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
1,410
I don't believe this at all:
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=315&pagenumber=1
It says MSI 6800 Ultra beating Saphire x800pro at everything , and by 30% on each and every benchmark, just about. Try comparing it to the hardocp review:
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDk=
It shows a consistent, good review, but with results the other way around, but not by such huge margins. I think I'm still gonna get me an x800pro to go with my soon to be purchased 64 3000+, K8V SE Deluve, and good memory to go with it :)
 
Uh if you would notice the driver version between the nVidia 6800's in the tbreak review and the ones in the HardOCP review you will see that the tbreak review is using the NEW drivers just released by nVidia that give a major performance boost for the 6800 series.

And if you will take notice, the 6800 ultra in the tbreak review DID NOT beat the X800Pro by 30% in almost every benchmark. The 6800 ultra took the big 30% leads when run at a resolution of 1600x1200. nVidia cards are better for higher resolution. If you wanna run 1024x768 then the performance difference is going to be alot less.

But anyways, the 6800 GT will spank the socks off the X800Pro with these new drivers if you run high resolutions. And thats the card i'm buying :).
 
There is a big difference in some of the tests, but for others the x800pro beats the 6800 and other times closes the lead. It could be a different driver, or with all these new cards coming out one manufacturer is using different clocks or something.

NVIDIA GeForce 6800Ultra – Operating at default clock speeds 400MHz/1.1GHz using ForceWare 60.72 (Not WHQL).

The review you list is using the newer Forceware 61.34 drivers, in which nVidia has evidently solved some performance issues. Nice to see nVidia back competitive with the new ones :)

EDIT: burninggrave101 covered this, I posted a little late...
 
hmm.. haven't heard anyone from the nvidia fansite that has 6800u's speak of any huge performance gain from these drivers.
 
It's always possible the reviewers made some mistakes, like installing drivers incorrectly or something. Maybe they accidentally left a program running while doing benchmarks. I don't know, those results don't look too off.
 
ikellensbro said:
I don't believe this at all:
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=315&pagenumber=1
It says MSI 6800 Ultra beating Saphire x800pro at everything , and by 30% on each and every benchmark, just about. Try comparing it to the hardocp review:
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDk=
It shows a consistent, good review, but with results the other way around, but not by such huge margins. I think I'm still gonna get me an x800pro to go with my soon to be purchased 64 3000+, K8V SE Deluve, and good memory to go with it :)
Click to expand...

bs i say..

i get 63500 in aquamark on my x800 pro...they are full of it..
 
posted over at rage3d a while back....

doom3kid said:

because according with them in "apples vs apples" the Radeon9800xt is faster than the Geforce6800ultra..

x800XT ->35.7
x800 pro ->28.2
Radeon9800xt -> 17.2
Geforce6800ultra-> 15.5
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA4MzU2NDE4OTg4OEFkazcwdGVfOF8yX2wuZ2lm

Where to begin? let see the Geforce6800ultra have near..... twice the fillrate and twice shading power ,twice the pipes and far more memory bandwidht that the R350 but still is losing there.. but other reviews shows is up to 2xtimes faster.. :hmm: they pulled those numbers from their asses .now i understand why some people like so much those benchmarks. that site was responsible for the confusion of many people with threads like "Geforce6800 slighty faster than the radeon9800xt?" at the Nvidia launch. thanks to their "optimized reviews". sorry but i dont believe that. all the review is flawed ..period.
Click to expand...

interesting. :confused:

theelviscerator said:
bs i say..

i get 63500 in aquamark on my x800 pro...they are full of it..
Click to expand...

well they did use a AMD Athlon64 3400+ CPU, not a 3.0C@3.9ghz lol
 
They might have also tested them in an nForce 3 motherboard; NV cards will significantly benefit in an nF3 mobo.
 
M4d-K10wN said:
They might have also tested them in an nForce 3 motherboard; NV cards will significantly benefit in an nF3 mobo.
Click to expand...

they used a Gigabyte K8VNXP (K8T800 Chipset) Motherboard
 
creedAMD said:
hmm.. haven't heard anyone from the nvidia fansite that has 6800u's speak of any huge performance gain from these drivers.
Click to expand...

That's becuase no one from the nvidia fansites were reporting the dismal numbers HOCP was.

Edit: If I had to take a guess as to why the 6800U performed so well it would simply be becuase AF was disabled. Currently, Nvidia has more effiecient AA [which is why the gaps increase with it enabled...I've seen it in two reviews but I never bothered filing the links, I know that doesn't add much credbility but meh] but ATI is still the AF king. I'd bet good money that the Pro would get close to tying/possibly beating the 6800U if 16xAF was enabled.
 
at the end of the review it says..

"Although we would like to mention that we're competing nVidia's highest-end card to ATI's lowest end of the x800 series. We have yet to test the XT and PE versions of the x800 card which would provide a better comparison."

sounds right to me..
 
"Although we would like to mention that we're competing nVidia's highest-end card to ATI's lowest end of the x800 series. We have yet to test the XT and PE versions of the x800 card which would provide a better comparison."

That sounds accurate to me. nVidia's top of the line should be beating the x800pro

EDIT: Meant as an agreement to the above post, not as a new idea...sorry about that.
 
Deadlierchair said:
"Although we would like to mention that we're competing nVidia's highest-end card to ATI's lowest end of the x800 series. We have yet to test the XT and PE versions of the x800 card which would provide a better comparison."

That sounds accurate to me. nVidia's top of the line should be beating the x800pro
Click to expand...
^read the post above yours ;)
 
burningrave101 said:
Uh if you would notice the driver version between the nVidia 6800's in the tbreak review and the ones in the HardOCP review you will see that the tbreak review is using the NEW drivers just released by nVidia that give a major performance boost for the 6800 series.

And if you will take notice, the 6800 ultra in the tbreak review DID NOT beat the X800Pro by 30% in almost every benchmark. The 6800 ultra took the big 30% leads when run at a resolution of 1600x1200. nVidia cards are better for higher resolution. If you wanna run 1024x768 then the performance difference is going to be alot less.

But anyways, the 6800 GT will spank the socks off the X800Pro with these new drivers if you run high resolutions. And thats the card i'm buying :).
Click to expand...


I agree with you on that the GT will beat the pro with the new drivers...i just wish the cards would hit stores lol!!
 
Visable-assassin said:
Yeah thats it...they are "winning" so they must cheating.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
lol! some people will make anything they want of out of what you say no matter what.

I said could be. I didnt say they were or 'must be'.
I offered it as a possible explanation.

everyone does know, well most people, about the trilinear -> bilinear forced thing that nvidia does.
 
Deadlierchair said:
though maybe [H] will realize that "Apples to Apples" really is the answer...
Click to expand...

bite your finger...

teh [H] does submit an a to a comparison...usually...with an explanation

i am used to the [H] method now...and i like it.

(l8r gotta go ta werk)
 
Deadlierchair said:
though maybe [H] will realize that "Apples to Apples" really is the answer...
Click to expand...

doubt it, kyle and brent usually stick with their decisions all the way. not that their way now is 100% wrong.
 
jaqie said:
lol! some people will make anything they want of out of what you say no matter what.

I said could be. I didnt say they were or 'must be'.
I offered it as a possible explanation.

everyone does know, well most people, about the trilinear -> bilinear forced thing that nvidia does.
Click to expand...



if anything is forced its ATis "trylinear" which cannot be disabled except with a regestry hack and then it loses something like 20% performance...
NV had their ass beat down soooo many times when it came to their cheating...I highly doubt they will resort to it this go around...especially with a core that is still in its infancy....and by the time they do end up cheating again...if they do...it will probably not be to noticable if at all...however some over at anands that own the 420 are able to spot the mip transitions on the 420.
 
Well, my PNY 6800U runs at 400/1.1Ghz in 2D and 425/1.1Ghz in 3D. Maybe original nvidia reference board reviews did 3D at 400/1.1Ghz and the retail board are doing 425/1.1Ghz in 3D (and the addition of a new driver).
 
Well, my PNY 6800U runs at 400/1.1Ghz in 2D and 425/1.1Ghz in 3D. Maybe original nvidia reference board reviews did 3D at 400/1.1Ghz and the retail board are doing 425/1.1Ghz in 3D (and the addition of a new driver).
Click to expand...

But can you see any noticable diff from using the new Drivers on your 6800u? I>E better FPS in a good cross section of DX8 and DX9 games And also any inprovement in running 1600X1200?
Any info you can post on this im shore would be helpful for people!
 
It isn't like HOCP is completely unbiased (whether they mean to be or not) in their reviews. Still good reviews, but cmon, who really uses 16xAF? There is no reason since 8xAF gives the same ingame image quality (human eye cannot tell the difference) and a huge performance increase. I am waiting for HOCP to compare 'apples to apples' and force real trilinear filtering on with ATI cards and run the benchmarks again. Lets see who comes out on top then.
 
Vagrant Zero said:
That's becuase no one from the nvidia fansites were reporting the dismal numbers HOCP was.

Edit: If I had to take a guess as to why the 6800U performed so well it would simply be becuase AF was disabled. Currently, Nvidia has more effiecient AA [which is why the gaps increase with it enabled...I've seen it in two reviews but I never bothered filing the links, I know that doesn't add much credbility but meh] but ATI is still the AF king. I'd bet good money that the Pro would get close to tying/possibly beating the 6800U if 16xAF was enabled.
Click to expand...

AF was disabled? WHERE?!?

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=315&pagenumber=1

In every one of those game benchmarks they ran - no AA, 2x AA + 4x AF and 4x AA + 8x AF.

Far Cry (1024x768: 4x AA+8x AF) - 6800 ultra beat the X800Pro by 20%
Far Cry (1600x1200: 4x AA+8x AF) 6800 ultra beat the X800Pro by 36%

So what if they didn't run 16x AF. Anyone in here actually run 16x AF in the games you play? Or is it just all bragging rights that you can :rolleyes: .
 
Sorry, the card shipped with the 61.34 drivers in question. That's all I've used.

@trapine said:
But can you see any noticable diff from using the new Drivers on your 6800u? I>E better FPS in a good cross section of DX8 and DX9 games And also any inprovement in running 1600X1200?
Any info you can post on this im shore would be helpful for people!
Click to expand...
 
Bad_Boy said:
doubt it, kyle and brent usually stick with their decisions all the way. not that their way now is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't mind them sticking with their new format. honestly, does anyone only read one review before purchasing? There are a jillion places that do head to head comparisons at mathcing settings. the [H] gives you a whole lot of different in one place to compliment that type of review, which I think is a mostly good thing.

We finished the preview reviews, which are kind of like exit polls during election. Production sample reviews are what you have to wait for if you aren't the risk taking type.
 
Their new review system should fix it. However, like I have previously said, there is no reason to use 16xAF. Nvidia's new cards/drivers are putting a pounding to ATI's non-optimised x800 series, and they have just started to tap it's power.
 
Plus like they said, the XT's weren't even benched, who knows what that will bring into the mix
 
AMD T-type said:
Plus like they said, the XT's weren't even benched, who knows what that will bring into the mix
Click to expand...

Well if the 6800 ultra is ahead of the X800Pro by 40% in Far Cry at 1600x1200 w/ 4AA + 8AF then i doubt the X800XT is going to fill up that much of a gap. I'm sure the 6800 ultra would of still been 10-20% faster in that specific benchmark against a X800XT PE.
 
I've been using 16xAF since the omega's enabled it on my Radeon 64mb DDR in 2000.

Who isn't running 16x AF? People who think 8x FSAA isn't blurry, from either camp, I guess.

Seriously, AF is the way to go, with some low FSAA (4x temporal looks good to me, still blurs things it shouldn't but its the best out there...until I can see a 6800U running atleast).

My question is why is there ANY hit on EITHER of these cards when using 16x AF? It should be free, now. There is no excuse now, the cards have the power, make it a feature of the pipeline. Thats what ATi was aiming for with trylinear, and from the hit the card takes when its disabled I'd say they are maybe 75% there to making 16x trilinear completely free, something my beloved Nvidia saddly has not done yet.

However neither is really hurting until you get to resloutions most monitors can't handle at high enough refreshrates to notice, so I'm still mosts likely looking for a 6800GT as long as it has that video enocding chip on it. Hoorah.

Also cat 4.7-4.8 along with the X800XT-PE going retail in the next couple of weeks should provide us with some nice numbers to compare these camps for you apples to apples people. For me the HardOCP reviews are showing the numbers I want, and showing that my card of choice will give me the performance I need at the settings I like in an "as close to real world" way as I've seen anywhere.

Remeber, the X800XT-PE is 25-33% faster then the Pro, it is directly correlated to the 9800xx series, the X800 pro is almost exactly twice as fast as the 9800Pro, while the X800XT-PE is a little more then twice as fast as the 9800XT.
 
wait, isn't this the top of the line nvidia card? the ultra? that's sort of like a major league team playing a triple-A team then saying how great they are when they beat the AAA team.

what's the difference between 6800u and x800xt is what i wanna know.
 
Sure there is a reason to use 16xAF. Especially considering that both ATi and NVidia are using similar angle-dependant AF now.

at 16X af, at around 45 degree angles, the AF quality acutally reduces to somewhere around 2.2 x AF. At 8x its closer to 2.0, and at a theoretical 32x it would be around 2.5x AF at the worst angles. All highly dependant on the actual algorithym used, but you get the idea.

Whether or not its noticable or not is up to debate, but personally I think 8X to 16xAF does more for image quality than Trylinear to textbook triliear.

Which is also the reason I'd like to see a 32xAF option someday.
 
Thats what ATi was aiming for with trylinear, and from the hit the card takes when its disabled I'd say they are maybe 75% there to making 16x trilinear completely free, something my beloved Nvidia saddly has not done yet.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, that and that they also disable everything but bilinear filtering on all but the first texture pass.

It's fairly noticeable in flight sims that use multiple texture passes to render trees or clouds (LOMAC or IL-2). I think only X-bit Labs has pointed this optimization out - it's really not apparent in shooters at all.
 
The 4.6 give the X800 some good performance boost, and the Nvidia Drivers give the 6800 some GREAT boosts. Tbreak review is completely accurate. Its why im most likely getting a 6800GT
 
burningrave101 said:
AF was disabled? WHERE?!?

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=315&pagenumber=1

In every one of those game benchmarks they ran - no AA, 2x AA + 4x AF and 4x AA + 8x AF.

Far Cry (1024x768: 4x AA+8x AF) - 6800 ultra beat the X800Pro by 20%
Far Cry (1600x1200: 4x AA+8x AF) 6800 ultra beat the X800Pro by 36%

So what if they didn't run 16x AF. Anyone in here actually run 16x AF in the games you play? Or is it just all bragging rights that you can :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...

Don't get your panties all in a bunch. I didn't notice the AF, the graphs just indicated AA.
And yes, I DO intend to run 16xAF, if I'm going to put down $600 for an 6800U I want full eye candy. And fuck bragging rights, bragging makes the presumption that I give a crap about other people...I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top