Is the 6800GT just an underclocked 6800Ultra?

M

mulpsmebeauty

Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
882
I don't know if 'underclocked' is the technically correct term here, but pretty much everyone with a GT seems to be getting Ultra speeds out of their cards. Often past what my Ultra will go to (about 440/1.13), if people are to be believed.

So, as the thread title asks, are the GTs and Ultras the same, but the GTs having their clocks lowered or something? Especially with the mentions that not all Ultras have the quickest memory onboard....

I'd be something of a disgruntled customer if the extra £80 I paid was essentially for nothing.
 
personally i dont think they are.

I read somewhere that some non-Ultras dont have a full compliment of vertex engines etc.

If you can afford the Ultra without having to go hungry then get one.
 
from what i have seen the only diffrence is the clock though the 6800NU does only have 12 pipes but the GT and the Ultra both have all 16 running
 
Syphon can you elaborate on that?

I think they are basically just underclocked Ultras, and wouldnt pay the extra £ for one they are dear as it is, btw where are looking to buy one from, www.overclockers.co.uk have good deals :)
 
This is the point - if nVidia's 6800GT cards are all capable of hitting 400/1.1, but they need two different products at different price points, it seems like they risk pissing people off (me if my hypothesis turns out to be true) by selling essentially the same thing at different prices.

It's like buying a car with 150bhp for £12000, but finding that the people who paid £10000 for the 130bhp model just need a 50 quid engine remap to get exactly the same power.

You'd have thought they'd have picked the best chips and given the Ultras 450/1200 clocks or something.
 
Neural Interface said:
Syphon can you elaborate on that?

I think they are basically just underclocked Ultras, and wouldnt pay the extra £ for one they are dear as it is, btw where are looking to buy one from, www.overclockers.co.uk have good deals :)
Click to expand...

hey dude. Check out that link below.

http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=1828

and this is from another guy who posted in some thread:

....at least, thats what mine had. BFG 6800 GT has been running 410/1110 without any problems at all for the last month. Until a week ago when i started getting artifacts while running star wars galaxies with AA enabled through the driver. Ran the high-dynamic range light demo again to monitor temps and everything was still the same... nothing higher than 81C under load for over 30min.

Bumped back down to stock and scrubbed coolbits, reinstalled the 61.77's and i'm still getting arts at stock!?! and now nothing but garbage out...no post...no boot...nothing but garbage then straight to reboot. Fan on the card works fine (and no, the sticker did not come off and get stuck in the heatsink). My 465watt psu has 35amps on the 12v rail and will occasionally flux between 11.92-11.86v, but my understanding is that this isn't anything out of the ordinary (correct me if wrong). So, the only conclusion i can come to is that the card had a faulty core that progressively got worse over time. The overclock could have sped up the process a bit but its still a fairly tame overclock compared to what others are doing.

Your thoughts, opinions, advice, etc is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...


Its your choice of course. But if i had the cash, i'd go all out and get the Ultra (which i did).

As for www.overclockers.co.uk

That is where i buy all my kit from generally. But my BFG 6800 Ultra came from

http://www.pcwcomponentcentre.co.uk/invt/bfgr68256uocuk

as they had em in stock and ready to go...and it was a BFG with lifetime warranty. The price was also reasonable.
 
I see your point if you have the cash get it, but that is one incident (probably others too)but there are a lot more poeple running with GT @ Ultra with no problems.

What did ya pay for the 6800ulta then 370?
I have never checked their componenet centre, thats a good price and I am actaully shocked that its PC (im a n00bz0r) world :D
 
Neural Interface said:
I see your point if you have the cash get it, but that is one incident (probably others too)but there are a lot more poeple running with GT @ Ultra with no problems.

What did ya pay for the 6800ulta then 370?
I have never checked their componenet centre, thats a good price and I am actaully shocked that its PC (im a n00bz0r) world :D
Click to expand...

Yeah i know, it was just my thoughts.

Yeah i too was REALLY suprised it was PC World that could offer the BFG at that price. They are an official reseller for BFG.

And yeah I paid about that (I cant remember the exact figure).

I dunno dude...if its like $80 and its not that much of a bother to you then get the Ultra.
 
In some cases yes it is...the selling point for the Ultra was supposed to be the 1.6ns gddr3 but many early Ultra's shipped with the same 2.0ns as the GT's. If you look at it that way then the only difference is stock out of box clock/memory speed (easily oc'd yourself) and the extra Molex connector for stability and the better cooler that comes on the ultra.
 
joemama said:
In some cases yes it is...the selling point for the Ultra was supposed to be the 1.6ns gddr3 but many early Ultra's shipped with the same 2.0ns as the GT's. If you look at it that way then the only difference is stock out of box clock/memory speed (easily oc'd yourself) and the extra Molex connector for stability and the better cooler that comes on the ultra.
Click to expand...

I think that extra molex connector is one of the main reasons the GT's run at lower clocks and has a limited OC. I'm betting that Nvidia wanted to offer a performance product that didn't require everyone to upgrade their psu.

Also, I think I would be pissed if I bought an Ultra and found it had the same 2.0 ns mem that the GT has...I would feel shafted.
 
Think of it this way most people will not overclock and so to them the GT is definately slower.

Also I have seen very few people with stock cooling getting better than your 440/1.13 overclock and if they are it involves volt mods and bios flashes etc, so basically you pay a bit more and don't have to risk breaking anything trying to hit ultra speeds and have a fully intact warrenty so seems fair to me.
 
like M1dknight was saying, you got an Ultra so your warranty is good at the Ultra speeds.
all the people that are overclocking are voiding their warranty to get the same speeds as you.
i would think that the ultras came out of a better batch of silicon to make sure they perform at a high rate for longer, but that is only a guess.
 
i bought a BFG 6800GT with the shitty copper cooler when it first came out, fried in 6 days and they sent me a 6800GT with the reference cooler, but it has the 1.6ns ram. think this is a ultra they put the wrong sticker on the cooler, says GT but its doing 430/1150 no problem with 4 hour doom 3 sessions...

maybe i lucked out, but thats the least i get for having a card i paid a premium price for at RMA for 2 months
 
ULTRA's use 1.6ns memory chips as opposed to 2.0ns chips on GT's. Cores are identical, just underclocked on the GT. Plus, the molex connector which adds juice for the upped frequencies.
 
i got a PNY gt that i can run 3dmark03 on at 435/1150, but i like to keep it at 425/1150, just in case it decides it doesnt like the high clock
 
so there is no weight to the Vertex Engines story on guru3D?

bottom line...

if the extra money is no object then ultra is for you.
 
I say yes it is. I think the only difference is that the Ultra has more voltage. Other than that, I think they are pretty much the same..
 
krizzle said:
ULTRA's use 1.6ns memory chips as opposed to 2.0ns chips on GT's. Cores are identical, just underclocked on the GT. Plus, the molex connector which adds juice for the upped frequencies.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I saw this on another thread some time ago, and I'm pretty sure that the answer was "no", but are there any software tools that can tell you if you've got 1.6 or 2.0ns chips onboard? I don't want to be taking bits off my card and checking out chip serial numbers or anything like that, given my ability at breaking things.
 
Syphon Filter said:
so there is no weight to the Vertex Engines story on guru3D?
Click to expand...

Uhm, 6800Non-ultra IS NOT the same thing as 6800GT... the guru3d story applies only to non-ultra, aka 6800NU... 6800U and 6800GT has 16pipes/6vpus, they are equal in all respects except for clock speed. 6800NU has reduced number of pipes AND vertex processors.
 
TehQuick said:
Uhm, 6800Non-ultra IS NOT the same thing as 6800GT... the guru3d story applies only to non-ultra, aka 6800NU... 6800U and 6800GT has 16pipes/6vpus, they are equal in all respects except for clock speed. 6800NU has reduced number of pipes AND vertex processors.
Click to expand...

Ah...thanks for clearing that up for me.

I thought the NU was any card that wasnt an Ultra, including GTs.
 
Yeah and that is why we need a name other than 6800nu I prefer 6800 vanilla myself less confusing until some muppet licks his card to see if it is really vanilla... I know people that stupid i am afraid to admit. :rolleyes:
 
TehQuick said:
Uhm, 6800Non-ultra IS NOT the same thing as 6800GT... the guru3d story applies only to non-ultra, aka 6800NU... 6800U and 6800GT has 16pipes/6vpus, they are equal in all respects except for clock speed. 6800NU has reduced number of pipes AND vertex processors.
Click to expand...
They also differ in their Ram chips. That's why you can't hit 1.2ghz (stable) on a GT, which is easily attainable on Ultra. Ultra has 1.6ns response times, GT has 2.0. I'm pretty sure that is right..
 
6800 GT: Smaller cooler, 1 molex power hookup, clocked 350/1.0, 256 MB 2.0ns DDR3 memory, 1.3 volts vcore
6800 Ultra: Bigger cooler, 2 molex power hookups, clocked 400/1.1, 256 MB 1.6ns DDR3 memory, 1.4 volts vcore
6800 Ultra Extreme: Same as Ultra, but clocked at 450/1.2.
Common to all 3: Identical graphics processor (same bandwidth, pipelines, etc.)

Comments:

The GT core can, in theory, run at Ultra Extreme speeds with absolutely no problems, since the cores are identical. However, you have to take a few things into account.

The GT cooler is considerably less effective at cooling the core than the Ultra cooler. Even though it is clocked lower, the GT runs hotter than the Ultra. The big source of variation here is that some cases are cooler than others, and some GTs just run hotter than others. Some people get under 80C under load with their GT, some get 90C+. Meanwhile, Ultras are in the 70s at he same clock speeds.

So heat is arguably the biggest problem if you want to overclock your GT. However, most people can run their GT at Ultra clocks (400/1.1) with the reference cooler and a little luck, and be stable and not significantly hotter than stock clocks (maybe 2C hotter under load). With a NV Silencer 5, your GT can run as cool as an Ultra, and the inside of your case will be cooler than the Ultra cooler. Since the Silencer is $30 or so, vs. the $150 markup for an Ultra over a GT, this starts to look more attractive. With the NV Silencer 5, my 6800 GT runs faster than an Ultra (425/1.15), and is 10C cooler overclocked under load than it is with the stock cooler at stock clocks!

But this isn’t the only limitation. 425/1.15 is the fastest it will go and still pass the “test these settings” feature in the nVidia control panel. If the limit isn’t the cooling, or the core design, what is it?

The answer is probably the other differences, lower voltage to the core and 1 instead of 2 power hookups. Possibly the 2.0ns memory instead of 1.6ns precludes keeping 1.2 GHz clock speeds on the RAM stable. Also, I only have a 300W power supply, so I’m not necessarily interested in making the card much more of a power pig than it already is.
 
Perhaps there is a difference in the overclockability of the core.

I'm sure that there is a sorting process at the factory where they test to see how far the core can go.

In any CPU/GPU manufacturing process, there are slight variations on a wafer - some make the grade, and others don't - that's normal.

I know both the 6800GT and 6800U core are identical in features, however, it's not the same thing as saying that they use the same batch of GPUs for both - I doubt it.
 
I think "Giga", referring to the memory's clock speed. Not quite sure though.
 
br1zz0 said:
what does the G stand for in GDDR3
Click to expand...

Graphics? I though there was some little difference between system DDR and GDDR. Otherwise wouldn't RAM makers be using GDDR3 for system RAM instead of DDR2? From what I've read GDDR3 stomps DDR2. GDDR3 also costs more which is why we don't have 512MB video cards right now.
 
CastleBravo said:
The GT cooler is considerably less effective at cooling the core than the Ultra cooler. Even though it is clocked lower, the GT runs hotter than the Ultra. The big source of variation here is that some cases are cooler than others, and some GTs just run hotter than others. Some people get under 80C under load with their GT, some get 90C+. Meanwhile, Ultras are in the 70s at he same clock speeds.
Click to expand...

Dunno what you've been looking at, but my GT runs at 55C after playing farcry or halo for a couple of hours...I damn sure hope it never hits 80C!!!
 
How can you check it see what speed memory you got on an Ultra? Just curious.
 
Well I have owned a GT and now an Ultra and the added value of more power and the dual dvi was worth the exstra 100 dollars.

She came stock 425/1100 and frankly runs more stable at that speed then did my GT. My GT would crash to the desktop in Far Cry aftera couple of hours at that clock speed. It does not with the Ultra. The additional molex and bettter cooling is what i would attribute it too.

Granted every card is different but I suspect Doom 3 would have forced me to remain at stock GT speeds. My Ultra cut through Doom3 like butter
 
MH Knights said:
Graphics? I though there was some little difference between system DDR and GDDR. Otherwise wouldn't RAM makers be using GDDR3 for system RAM instead of DDR2? From what I've read GDDR3 stomps DDR2. GDDR3 also costs more which is why we don't have 512MB video cards right now.
Click to expand...

Yes. G stands for Graphics, not Giga. Not unless Nvidia has started naming ram as well. :D
 
ehZn said:
Dunno what you've been looking at, but my GT runs at 55C after playing farcry or halo for a couple of hours...I damn sure hope it never hits 80C!!!
Click to expand...

Try measuring your temperatures correctly. Playing a game, quitting, then checking the temperature isn't how you do it. ;)

The odds your GT runs at 55C hover around zero. Ambient, maybe, but not core temps, which are what matter.

Run rthdribl in a window for a couple hours at 12x multisamples with the nVidia temperature monitor visible and see what your real peak temps are WHILE IT IS RUNNING. :eek:

http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/
 
The GT has less in cooling?

check out the leadtek I just bought:

14-122-195-01.JPG
 
onetrueday said:
The GT has less in cooling?

check out the leadtek I just bought:

14-122-195-01.JPG
Click to expand...

He meant reference design. Which is what the majority of GTs are. You slap a waterblock on a good GT and you'll probabley reach UE speeds.
 
difference between the two

if you have a GT running at ultra speeds
and an ultra running at stock

the Ultra will always win

therefore, the parts that make up the whole are not the same and you're paying for the premium parts ie better ram, 2 molex, better cooling

I think the 2 molex allows the ultra to perform better because ultra's also run on a higher vcore than Gts do
 
ehZn said:
Dunno what you've been looking at, but my GT runs at 55C after playing farcry or halo for a couple of hours...I damn sure hope it never hits 80C!!!
Click to expand...

Try running DX9 Real-Time High-Dynamic Range Image-Based Lighting (rthdribl)
Have the temp indicator open,slide it to the side,just enough to see it when you open rthdribl. Now enlarge the rthdribl window as big as you can and still see the temps.

Your in for a surprise :eek:
Fear not
 
Dreaz said:
difference between the two

if you have a GT running at ultra speeds
and an ultra running at stock

the Ultra will always win

therefore, the parts that make up the whole are not the same and you're paying for the premium parts ie better ram, 2 molex, better cooling

I think the 2 molex allows the ultra to perform better because ultra's also run on a higher vcore than Gts do
Click to expand...

They have the same pipeline count, same core, and same memory; they run about the same per clock. The GT's missing a molex, but people have been upping the voltage on their GTs anyway without any problems.
 
Dreaz said:
difference between the two

if you have a GT running at ultra speeds
and an ultra running at stock

the Ultra will always win

therefore, the parts that make up the whole are not the same and you're paying for the premium parts ie better ram, 2 molex, better cooling

I think the 2 molex allows the ultra to perform better because ultra's also run on a higher vcore than Gts do
Click to expand...

negative!

review on the leadtek 6800gt (oc'ed using included coolbits software) had the gt beating out the ultra in a couple of games. it was only by .5-2 fps, but the 6800gt oc'ed was faster then the 6800u running at stock.
 
Yup he's right, a GT at 400/1100 will beat out an Ultra at 400/1100 [if just barely]. I haven't the slightest clue why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top