StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm back! After hearing rumors about the G70 I decided to hold off on getting the new system I asked about few weeks ago, here. I decided to go daul-core X2. I have heard rumors that one 7800GTX can out-perform SLIed 6800 Ultras, personally I am somewhat skeptical of that, and by my figuring the cost is fairly similar(at least what the 6800s are selling for now). Since my knowledge of GPUs is somewhat lacking, I would like to hear some advice, in particular which set-up is most practical/cost effective for the performance output I would get. I know the 7800GTX debuts tomarrow, though we already know the specs(at least I think we do).

P.S. There is no way in hell that I can afford daul 7800GTXs. I am, as before, going for maximum system life.

It's hard to judge. nVidia has been promising that future SLi drivers will continue to improve performance, so you have a bit of a gamble in that regard... on the other hand, the 7800GTX is simpler, and gives you the option of snagging a second one at some point in the future rather than scrapping both 6800U's when you next upgrade.

Me, I'd go with the 7800GTX.

*Bonks Wing on the head with a simply Warrenty OCed BFG 68GT*

NO ONE BUYS ULTRA'S when they can safely OC a 68GT to Ultra lvl's.

And no one knows, the NDA should die today, but apprently not on my timezone, also, unless your buying late summer early fall or late fall, theres not going to be 7800's of any kind in stores, not unless nVidia produces a miracle unlike the 68GT's.

NO ONE BUYS ULTRA'S when they can safely OC a 68GT to Ultra lvl's.

People that want bragging rights do.

SPOOFE wrote:

NO ONE BUYS ULTRA'S when they can safely OC a 68GT to Ultra lvl's.

People that want bragging rights do.

People involved in dick waving contests are idiots.
A pair of properly tweaked 68GT's will equal any Ultra, their the same except for the clock rates, and a 68GT with STOCK cooling can safely reach Ultra speeds.

People involved in dick waving contests are idiots.

... Or just have more money than you. Don't be jealous.

Ace Pace wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:

NO ONE BUYS ULTRA'S when they can safely OC a 68GT to Ultra lvl's.

People that want bragging rights do.

People involved in dick waving contests are idiots.
A pair of properly tweaked 68GT's will equal any Ultra, their the same except for the clock rates, and a 68GT with STOCK cooling can safely reach Ultra speeds.

An Ultra when overclocked should definately surpass an overclocked GT. Same thing with the XT vs the XTPE.

SPOOFE wrote:

People involved in dick waving contests are idiots.

... Or just have more money than you. Don't be jealous.

Oh belive me, I've had the chance to get a pair of Ultra's.
I turned it down, because spending 1000$ instead of 800$ which can be OCed to 1200$, is stupid.

Hamel, so far all OCing I see is being done with GT's, because its easier to fit them into an SLI motherboard.

My computer science professor told me about a server system that a company (he didn't tell me which one) sold to clients for several thousand dollars.

What was in it? a 486 processor.

A 486 is a really great processor... if you're only running one program on it.

They also put 80 Gig drives in the system but would format it as 40Gig unless you bought the more expensive system, then they would move a jumper and format the exact same drive as 80Gigs.

The moral of the story?

The ability to spend money is not an impressive trait.

I'm looking at the review here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ... 52&tid=137

And I have to say I am a bit disappointed.

I was expecting a new generation of graphics card, and a similar generational leap. The difference between the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra and Geforce 6800 Ultra is GIGANTIC. The difference between the Geforce 7800 GTX and 6800 is just a few FPS, enough to make the Geforce 7800 GTX just barely the fastest card on the planet.

What did you expect with its in-house codename(the unofficial one) being the NV47? its just a refresh, nothing more.
However, it does have nice new tech, the new AA technique looks great, and its the end of the NV30 line, which started out sucking, then blowing, then stunning and now its great.

Praxis wrote:I'm looking at the review here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ... 52&tid=137

And I have to say I am a bit disappointed.

I was expecting a new generation of graphics card, and a similar generational leap. The difference between the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra and Geforce 6800 Ultra is GIGANTIC. The difference between the Geforce 7800 GTX and 6800 is just a few FPS, enough to make the Geforce 7800 GTX just barely the fastest card on the planet.

Maybe the card is starved for bandwidth. Bring on the XDR baby

I turned it down, because spending 1000$ instead of 800$ which can be OCed to 1200$, is stupid.

What prevents overclocking $1000 to $1400? Nothing. Who's stupid now?

The difference between the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra and Geforce 6800 Ultra is GIGANTIC.

Because the FX series sucked balls-ass.

You just plain don't know much about video cards, do you?

SPOOFE wrote:

I turned it down, because spending 1000$ instead of 800$ which can be OCed to 1200$, is stupid.

What prevents overclocking $1000 to $1400? Nothing. Who's stupid now?

The only thing better about Ultras is their garunteed to work at those speeds, GT's arn't but most work at those speed, I'll take that chance.

The difference between the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra and Geforce 6800 Ultra is GIGANTIC.

Because the FX series sucked balls-ass.

You just plain don't know much about video cards, do you?

No, hes commenting that hes suprised that theres no quantum leap, while forgetting that it went:
NV30(Fx 5800)> Refresh(5900) > NV40(6800GT)>refresh(7800GTX)

Yeah, FX was and always will be garbage.

I don't think NV ever released a true 8 pipe FX.

Hamel wrote:Yeah, FX was and always will be garbage.

I don't think NV ever released a true 8 pipe FX.

Wasn't the FX 5950XT an 8 pipe?

Ace Pace wrote:No, hes commenting that hes suprised that theres no quantum leap, while forgetting that it went:
NV30(Fx 5800)> Refresh(5900) > NV40(6800GT)>refresh(7800GTX)

This is actually part of a larger pattern stretching back to at least the Geforce 256, if not even earlier. I'm not at all surprised that the "next generation" is just another speed-bump.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:No, hes commenting that hes suprised that theres no quantum leap, while forgetting that it went:
NV30(Fx 5800)> Refresh(5900) > NV40(6800GT)>refresh(7800GTX)

This is actually part of a larger pattern stretching back to at least the Geforce 256, if not even earlier. I'm not at all surprised that the "next generation" is just another speed-bump.

I know, but I was commenting on the arcitechture(SP) advance, not on the system.
Both cards this round are re-freshs, with both companies working on unified shaders, and ATi being busy working for consoles.

The only thing better about Ultras is their garunteed to work at those speeds, GT's arn't but most work at those speed, I'll take that chance.

I'm sorry, but that made zero sense. You just said that since it's riskier to overclock a GT, it's a better choice? How does that work?

No, hes commenting that hes suprised that theres no quantum leap, while forgetting that it went:
NV30(Fx 5800)> Refresh(5900) > NV40(6800GT)>refresh(7800GTX)

I'm commenting that he SHOULDN'T be surprised that there's no quantum leap, which has historically been the exception rather than the rule. The reason the jump to the 6800 series was so great was because the FX series sucked. It has nothing to do with the way things SHOULD be.

That chart MUST be ATI bullshit.... they cite the absolute lowest price you can find for the x800XL, but not for the 6800GT? Hint: You can find a 6800GT for almost $100 less than that chart shows.

Because the FX series sucked balls-ass.

I realized that but even the difference between the Radeon 9800 XT and Geforce 6800 Ultra is huge.


3dmark scores according to Tom's Hardware:

Geforce 6800 Ultra: 11873
Radeon 9800 XT: 6653

Even using ATi's card over NVidia's its still a quantum leap.

If it was just a refresh they should have called it the 6900...

SPOOFE wrote:That chart MUST be ATI bullshit.... they cite the absolute lowest price you can find for the x800XL, but not for the 6800GT? Hint: You can find a 6800GT for almost $100 less than that chart shows.

The lowest price for a PCI-Express 6800GT that I see on Newegg is $345 after rebates... there are cheaper 6800GT's but they are all AGP.

The cheapest X800XL cards, on the other hand, happen to be PCI-Express.

I think you're just being anal. It IS a big improvement, just not AS big.

EDIT:

The lowest price for a PCI-Express 6800GT that I see on Newegg is $345 after rebates... there are cheaper 6800GT's but they are all AGP.

AGP was what I was referring to, I suppose. I don't see any listing on that graph that delineates.

Further, if you examine the AGP side of things, the x800XL looks even worse.

I think the chart is meant to represent PCI-Express only, especially as the 7800 is probably going to be PCI-E only.

I PM'ed the guy over at SA that created the chart.

I wrote:Out of curiosity, how were the prices for the video cards selected?

Dr. Fred, of the Something Awful forums, wrote:They're all from newegg. For the nVidia cards I went for the eVGA boards, since eVGA make the reference models, and for the ATI one I think I went with the stock ATI OEM board since it was cheaper.

I suppose I should just compile an average of prices, but they're only there as a guideline, so a $5-10 fluctuation here and there isn't going to change much.