![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
X800XT or 6800GT?
- Thread starter Hate_Bot
- Start date
Hate_Bot said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=865290
There's 1. I saw at least 3 more. In fact, your thread title is X800XT or 6800GT? That one is 6800 GT or x800 XT?
Yeah, GT starts to get crappy framerates when you bump up AA/AF, gets a bit choppy aswell. My XT is nice and smooth running HL2 @ 6x/16x, nVidia cards can pull 8x/16x but get awful framerates. The opposite is true for Doom 3, but that is the only game I can think of at this point that uses OpenGL and is new enough for there to be any sort of visible difference.
I'm an ati fan at heart, but if you're going to playing OGL games, the 6800gt is more consistant.phaelinx said:
But the X800XT will tear the 6800GT a new one in HL, not sure about CS:S.
But since he says he mostly plays CS:S, a XT will do nicely, but it's more money.. of course it's faster.
Are there recent comparisons for CS:S?
Moloch said:
In Doom3 the X800XT is ~10% slower (~3fps) than the GT at 1600x1200, High quality, 4xAA and 16xAF.
In Half-life 2 and CS:S the 6800GT is ~37% slower (~24fps) than the X800XT at 1600x1200, Max Quality, 4xAA and 16xAF.
So if you are going to say the 6800GT offers good performance in both games then you must admit that the X800XT is "good" as well in D3 since it is barely slower, and you must also admit the X800XT offers VERY GOOD performance in D3D games since it is WAY faster.
Besides, the point is pretty moot. I created a spreadsheet a couple months ago listing all mainstream OpenGL games that have been released (and I was VERY generous with what I considered mainstream) and all mainstream D3D games that have been released (and I was VERY stingy with what I considered mainstream) and despite doing all I could to boost up the OpenGL numbers I still came up with only about 10% of all mainstream games being OpenGL.
Even if a few of the best are OpenGL it just doesn't make sense to make a decision based on OpenGL performance when 90% of all games, and probably about 75% of the "best" games are D3D....
Why buy a card that is 25% slower in 75% of the games you play just to be 5% faster in the other 25%?
Dr. X said:
True, it's not fair to do that, but that's why I only said the 6800GT was 25% slower in the later part of my post...
In D3D the 6800Gt is usually between 12% and 30% slower than the X800XT, with HL2 at 37% being about the worst it gets, and certain games at 1% being about the best (although those games are all CPU bound, even on an FX55 so they don't actually count).
Although it's hard to give an average score because of so many variances based on the speed of the PC it's still fair to say the 6800GT is slower in D3D by an average somewhere between 15% and 25% depending on the individual PC.
Regardless, the X800XT is the better card unless you have a PCI-Express board right now and are intending to go to SLI in the near future. It's simply a fact that the X800XT is the faster card, and there is really no reasonable way to dispute that fact.
CastleBravo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,064
These aren't comparable cards, you knuckleheads. An x800 XT costs about $100 more than a 6800 GT. So OF COURSE it is going to be faster than a 6800 GT. A fair comparison would be a 6800 GT vs. an x800 Pro, or a 6800 Ultra vs. an x800 XT, since they are similarly priced cards.
In related news, a 6800 Ultra usually beats an x800 Pro. Duh.
$500>$400
In related news, a 6800 Ultra usually beats an x800 Pro. Duh.
$500>$400
CastleBravo said:These aren't comparable cards, you knuckleheads. An x800 XT costs about $100 more than a 6800 GT. So OF COURSE it is going to be faster than a 6800 GT. A fair comparison would be a 6800 GT vs. an x800 Pro, or a 6800 Ultra vs. an x800 XT, since they are similarly priced cards.
In related news, a 6800 Ultra usually beats an x800 Pro. Duh.
$500>$400
Yup, and thats why I can't understand why people insist on suggesting the 6800GT over the X800XT when the poster clearly doesn't bring up price as any sort of an issue.
Though I would suggest the Sapphire X800XT-PE from ZipZoomFly for $520 with free 2-day shipping. I am pretty sure it's actually in stock too.
CastleBravo said:These aren't comparable cards, you knuckleheads. An x800 XT costs about $100 more than a 6800 GT. So OF COURSE it is going to be faster than a 6800 GT. A fair comparison would be a 6800 GT vs. an x800 Pro, or a 6800 Ultra vs. an x800 XT, since they are similarly priced cards.
In related news, a 6800 Ultra usually beats an x800 Pro. Duh.
$500>$400
Does an ultra beat an XT?
plus, I just found an XT for $582CDN (about $469USD) so thats pretty shweet.
Plus, I am going to be playing %90 Half-Life2 Deathmatch and CS:Source, So i'de prefer an ATI card...
Also, Here It shows the XT beating the ultra in most (if not all) benchmarks. Thats not saying that the Ultra is a bad card (not by a long shot) but My requirements (source games) would prefer an ATI card
Hate_Bot said:
They are quite comparable in terms of speed...the Ultra creams the XT in opengl games...but it's also dual slot...dual molex...and harder to find...
But the ultra has dual-dvi...which is nice...
You can't really call either better based on speed...it comes down to features and price...