6800/6800GT price vs performance

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In my quest to replace my now dead 9800Pro and decide on either a 6800 or
6800GT, I've done a performance comparison from the tests at anandtech. I've
added up all the test scores for both cards (38 of them) and averaged them.
Then I searched online for prices on both models.

The 6800GT was 18% faster than the 6800, averaging 64.96 fps compared to
55.03 fps, or roughly 65 to 55 fps. (38/24,687 and 38/20,913) The tests
concentrated on 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, with and without 4xAA
and 8xAF. This method is not scientific, but I agree with them that these
are the ranges that we'd like to play our games in.
For pricing, the GT averaged 50% more (about $140) than the 6800.

Since the 6800 is capable of running all games quite well, it's really a
question of where you want to draw the line for spending and how important
AA is for you in the most demanding games (is it worth $140?).
I thought this would help me make up my mind, but it hasn't. I just passed
it along because someone might find it interesting.

Gary

--
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
 
J

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The real issue is what your cpu is, and if you plan to upgrade it soon.
If you have an Athlon 64 or plan to get one, then going for the 6800 GT
will be worth it. If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon XP,
and don't plan to upgrade the cpu soon, then go for the 6800, as the
cpu would probably be a bottleneck for a 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra.

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

> In my quest to replace my now dead 9800Pro and decide on either a 6800 or
> 6800GT, I've done a performance comparison from the tests at anandtech. I've
> added up all the test scores for both cards (38 of them) and averaged them.
> Then I searched online for prices on both models.
>
> The 6800GT was 18% faster than the 6800, averaging 64.96 fps compared to
> 55.03 fps, or roughly 65 to 55 fps. (38/24,687 and 38/20,913) The tests
> concentrated on 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, with and without 4xAA
> and 8xAF. This method is not scientific, but I agree with them that these
> are the ranges that we'd like to play our games in.
> For pricing, the GT averaged 50% more (about $140) than the 6800.
>
> Since the 6800 is capable of running all games quite well, it's really a
> question of where you want to draw the line for spending and how important
> AA is for you in the most demanding games (is it worth $140?).
> I thought this would help me make up my mind, but it hasn't. I just passed
> it along because someone might find it interesting.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Tweaks & Reviews
> www.slottweak.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Sorry mate, thats not true.

I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
playing doom 3)

regards
 
J

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

What resolution?

Mark Jeffries wrote:

> Sorry mate, thats not true.
>
> I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
> running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
> playing doom 3)
>
> regards
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:43:48 +0100 "Mark Jeffries" <fdsdf@fsdfsdf.com> meeped :

>Sorry mate, thats not true.
>
>I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
>running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
>playing doom 3)
>
>regards
>
>
yep...i can capture at 25FPS 512x384...when playing at 1024x768 on high.

It's the shadows that MASH yer Gcard.

You can see for yourself by disabling shadows and running the timedemo.
Massive increase.
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4117E7A3.97B46A28@netscape.net...
> The real issue is what your cpu is, and if you plan to upgrade it soon.
> If you have an Athlon 64 or plan to get one, then going for the 6800 GT
> will be worth it. If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon
XP,
> and don't plan to upgrade the cpu soon, then go for the 6800, as the
> cpu would probably be a bottleneck for a 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra.
>
> GTX_SlotCar wrote:
>

Totally incorrect. There is not that huge of a difference in FPS in games
to justify a new CPU if your 2.5 or higher, Intel or the AMD equivalent.

Get the GT.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

1280x1024, the only time I see cpu being maxed out is running at a stupidly
low resolution like 800x600 with no FSAA. At resolutions & fsaa settings
that you would actually play the game at the cpu is not the limiting factor.

regards
 
J

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

That is not what this web page shows. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX-53,
3800+, or 3500+ would make a tremendous difference. Even an upgrade
to an Athlon 64 3000+ would show a significant difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

Bruin wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:4117E7A3.97B46A28@netscape.net...
> > The real issue is what your cpu is, and if you plan to upgrade it soon.
> > If you have an Athlon 64 or plan to get one, then going for the 6800 GT
> > will be worth it. If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon
> XP,
> > and don't plan to upgrade the cpu soon, then go for the 6800, as the
> > cpu would probably be a bottleneck for a 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra.
> >
> > GTX_SlotCar wrote:
> >
>
> Totally incorrect. There is not that huge of a difference in FPS in games
> to justify a new CPU if your 2.5 or higher, Intel or the AMD equivalent.
>
> Get the GT.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Mark Jeffries" <fdsdf@fsdfsdf.com> wrote in message news:<heSRc.50080$I_.27470@fe18.usenetserver.com>...
> Sorry mate, thats not true.
>
> I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
> running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
> playing doom 3)
>
> regards

I'm sure it plays a part. Looking at the reviews there is a good
20fps or more difference between the top AMD chip and my 2.6C. Still
I'm getting 45fps @ 1600x1200 2xAA/8xAF. Did you ever check the CPU
at heavy fighting scenes?

Eric
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:17:27 -0400 JK <JK9821@netscape.net> meeped :

>That is not what this web page shows. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX-53,
>3800+, or 3500+ would make a tremendous difference. Even an upgrade
>to an Athlon 64 3000+ would show a significant difference.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7


notice the bench for the athlon 2000+
46.1 FPS in 8*6 AND 12*10

however the top CPU FX53 has a 21 frames per second drop off
explain that an remain fashionable ! (anyone???)


this game is sure throwing up some interesting benchies !!
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (
 
J

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Granulated wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:17:27 -0400 JK <JK9821@netscape.net> meeped :
>
> >That is not what this web page shows. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX-53,
> >3800+, or 3500+ would make a tremendous difference. Even an upgrade
> >to an Athlon 64 3000+ would show a significant difference.
> >
> >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
>
> notice the bench for the athlon 2000+
> 46.1 FPS in 8*6 AND 12*10
>
> however the top CPU FX53 has a 21 frames per second drop off
> explain that an remain fashionable ! (anyone???)

There is a very simple explanation. The video card is the limiting factor
as the FX-53 moves to higher resolutions, while the low end chips
have the cpu as the limiting factor, so there isn't much difference
in the number of frames as the resolution is increased.

Read the full article. The first part of the article explains this.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1

>
>
> this game is sure throwing up some interesting benchies !!
> --
>
> ) ___ ______
> (__/_____) /) (, / )
> / __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
> / (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
> (______) (_/ (
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:13:50 -0400 JK <JK9821@netscape.net> meeped :


>
>There is a very simple explanation. The video card is the limiting factor
>as the FX-53 moves to higher resolutions, while the low end chips
>have the cpu as the limiting factor, so there isn't much difference
>in the number of frames as the resolution is increased.
>
>Read the full article. The first part of the article explains this.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1

cheers
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (
 
C

chip

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2001
513
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4118E707.2A10A7FE@netscape.net...
> That is not what this web page shows. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX-53,
> 3800+, or 3500+ would make a tremendous difference. Even an upgrade
> to an Athlon 64 3000+ would show a significant difference.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
>

Whereas on the other hand, you can see that in Doom3, with a Radeon X800XT,
an Athlon XP3200+ actually beats an Athlon64 3500+ and even an Athlon 64
FX53!

http://tinyurl.com/5dqxs

i.e. if you want to play games in hi-res (where the card is more likely to
be the bottle neck) then you should get the fastest card you can afford.

Saying "If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon XP... then go
for the 6800" is incorrect.

Chip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom