Is the Nvidia Geforce 6800XT 256mb card any good?

[fastfood15]

I looked at the stickies in this forum but i couldnt find anything about this card. I want to use it in a gaming machine paired with an AMD 64 X2 3800. On this board: eVGA nForce-4 SLI Chipset Dual DDR w/7.1 Sound, Gb LAN, S-ATA Raid, USB 2.0, Dual PCI-E MB

Is it a good card? will it run games well on high setting, HL2, BF2, WoW. Or should i upgrade for that extra edge?

 

[Flakes]

upgrade that extra edge, that card is getting a bit outdated now itll run HL2 and WoW fine but BF2 and FEAR etc think low-med. so for future proofing i would go for atleast a 7800GT.

 

[ChipDeath]

Do you really need dual core? If it's mostly a gaming rig you'd be much better off getting a single-core processor, and putting the saved cash into the card.

the 6800XT is the crippled version of the 6800. Best avoided really. If gaming is really what you want, then I would strongly advise you to get a Venice 3200+ or 3500+, and a 6800GS or 7800GT instead of what you're thinking there...

Most people really don't need dual core. Would you ever have considered a dual-processor system? No? Then why spend the money on a dual-core one...?

 

[fastfood15]

Ive read some peoples reviews online and they say its easily overclocked, would that shove the performance up high enough to compensate for the med settings. I dont really have the money to add the 7800, and im kind of ok with med setting in BF2

 

[ChipDeath]

I don't personally think it's really worth the extra cash for an SLI mobo either. By the time you're unhappy enough about your card's performance to want another one, there'll be a single-card out which will perform better than whatever your SLI setup would be.

SLI is only for people who are buying a money-no-object monster gaming rig, and buy both cards at once.

Just my (informed) opinion.

Ditch SLI, and get a single core CPU. That should give you enough cash to get a better vid card.

 

[fastfood15]

is a 3500 really good enough though for highend gaming?


if i switch to that than i could go for a 7800gt.

is that actually alot better?


i kind of wanted the dual core for encoding dvds and stuff while playing games,or just for multitasking

 

[fastfood15]

is this MB better?

Gigabyte GA-K8NF9 nVidia nForce4 Chipset w/7.1 Sound, Gb LAN, S-ATA Raid, USB 2.0, IEEE-1394 PCI-E Motherboard

 

[ChipDeath]

Well, if you want to encode DVDs in the background while gaming, then Dual core would make sense. What most people define as 'Multitasking' though, isn't really running more than one application at once, it's merely having a few applications open and switching between them. Only one of them is ever really active at one time. And Web browsing, word processing, playing movies... none of those is very taxing on the CPU anyway.

On a 7800GT you'd be able to play FEAR at 1280x960 with all the eye candy turned up. on a 6800XT you'd have to drop the resolution and/or details to get it nice and playable - with my 6800GT I ended up playing at 1152x864 or 1024x768 with med-high settings, and the GT is quite a lot better than the XT. I do tend to be very fussy though - I demand a consistently high FPS when I'm playing. Some people are happy with it around 30, but not me

A 3500 with a 7800GT will be a much better gaming rig than even a FX-59 with a 6800XT. The graphics card is the real powerhouse for gaming (to a point - you don't want to go too crap on the other components, but a 3200 or up will be fine).

There's also overclocking to consider. with the motherboard you suggest there, you would be almost guaranteed to hit 2.5Ghz with the stock cooler. bear in mind the FX-57 runs at 2.6Ghz... If you're willing to overclock by much (since you mentioned doing it with the graphics card earlier, I assume you are...) Then there's no point getting anything faster than the 3500+ really. they generally all top out at around the same. My Winchester 3200+ will happily do 2.5Ghz, and the newer Venice cores are all much better overclockers than the winnies were.

If you're really going to be constantly encoding DVDs and stuff, then Dual core should be viable... But if you're only doing one or two DVDs a week, but spending 5 -10 hours gaming a week, then you'll have more fun by sinking the cash into the graphics card, and leaving it encoding overnight, or while you're out at work, or while you're eating or something. I can encode video and surf the 'net on my 3200 quite acceptably, since 'net surfing takes so little processing power, so it's not like it's totally unusable when doing so anyway. :mrgreen:

 

[ChipDeath]

Gigabyte are on the whole fairly decent. As are Abit and Epox. DFI are supposedly the best, but not very beginner-friendly.

Any of the nforce4 ultra boards from the better manufacturers will perform more-or-less the same - within 1% or so - at stock speeds. The differences are in overclockability and built-in features. They'll all overclock well as a general rule, but some are allegedly exceptional.

Don't bother with Asus - they are average quality with premium prices.

I should be getting my Abit KN8 Ultra within a couple of days, or maybe next week (damn holidays screwing up the stock replenishment of the site I ordered from... Bah Humbug :x ) So I'll have some first-hand knowledge of that one :mrgreen:

 

[GeneticWeapon]

Is the Nvidia Geforce 6800XT 256mb card any good?

No.

 

[fastfood15]

so dual cor has no benefits in gaming? i though that they are supposed to be coming out with new games that are designed to take advantage of it.

But anyway would a 3200, not overclocked (eventhough i probably will), perform well in BF2? Assuming that it would be paired with a 7800gt.

 

[ChipDeath]

bit more succint than me. :lol:

 

[ChipDeath]

They may come out with games that make some use of dual cores, but writing multithreaded code is a real bitch, and to make a game that runs badly on a single core system would be to alienate 99% of the current market. In 5 years, maybe (by which time Dual core systems might make up 15 or 20% of gamers... maybe). Don't forget, most of this new stuff is only really bought by a few % of the market (us sad enthusiast people). There's gamers on these forums who're still happy with their Geforce4 Ti4200 cards, and they're more 'into it' than most people who own computers! :lol:

But anyway would a 3200, not overclocked (eventhough i probably will), perform well in BF2?

Yup. Look at it this way - an X2 3800 runs at 2Ghz, so does a 3200. BF2 is not a multi-threaded app (as far as I know) so the difference will be: zilch. one core will just sit there and do nothing (more or less.)

Aargh. far too late for me. Time to sleep I think.

 

[fastfood15]

lol where do you live that you must go to bed now? :lol:

 

[fastfood15]

bit more succint than me. :lol:

so dual core isnt beter for gaming? alright then i could bear to sacrifice is in favor the top of the line GPU. Is it really safe to have 3200 longterm wise? Do you think that it might become obsolete in te next few years, im talking about to the point in which it cant play the newest games. Because i dont want to have to upgrade that fast. I was thinking that the dual core being new and all would have a ton more aplication in the future that would open it up and all both core to proccess the same game, making it ultra powerfull. I dont know.

So how are these final specs?...

NZXT Trinity
Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9 Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 ATX AMD Motherboard
NZXT TRINITY BLK Black/Silver SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 400 WATT PS2 ATX12V Power Supply
Thermaltake TR2 W0070 ATX 430W Power Supply (im going to use this instead of cases stock psu)
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor
CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit
JATON Video-PX7800GT Geforce 7800GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16
Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 300 MB/s Hard Drive
16X Dual Format/Double Layer DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW Drive

 

[ChipDeath]

lol where do you live that you must go to bed now?

I'm in the UK. It was 1:20am when I made that post, and I work 9-5:30.... 8O

Is it really safe to have 3200 longterm wise?

Especially if overclocking. It'll last some years. People with single-core processors of that level are still going to make up the majority of the game company's target audience for at least 3 years.

Think of it this way: Games (or game engines) which are currently out are basically all single-threaded. These won't benifit from dual core. Engines which are currently in development (they spend at least 3 years on them these days) might make some limited use of dual-core - the developers who are/were working on them would have had no idea of how well received dual core processors are by now (or in the near future), so they might include a little bit of optimisation there, but they wouldn't risk going all-out on dual core, because they'd most likely not have the hardware base which would run their game at release.

Those who start developing their game engine now, might well decide to include loads of multithreaded bits and bobs, but we won't see games based on these engines for 3 or 4 years at least.

Because games are controlled by inputs from the player, it's very difficult to write them in a multithreaded way - it can't predict exactly what's going to happen without extensive communication between the two, which destroys any advantage (if they spend a lot of the time querying each other about what's going on, they're not spending that time processing their own stuff). Multiple threads are useful for very predictable operations - e.g. if encoding Video, one core could encode the first half while the other does the second half or something (probably not a great example... ) or for running two completely separate applications at once.

Hope that is of some help....

 

[rodney_ws]

I'm not sure what all this dual-core bashing is about... in case everyone missed it, new games do take advantage of dual-core systems (Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. come to mind) Anyone that says "Oh, dual core... that's something that'll help in a year or two" is living in a fantasy world.

 

[ChipDeath]

We're not bashing dual-core. We're giving advice based on this particular guy's circumstances.

If you show me the benchies where a X2 CPU with a 6800XT (or even a 6800GT) is a better gaming platform than a 3200+ or 3500+ with a 7800GT, then I'll happily change my advice.

If he had unlimited money then I'd happily agree with him to go dual core, but since he was compromising the GPU for the sake of an X2, and he wants to build a gaming rig, It doesn't make sense here.

I hadn't realised that Q4 was patched to take advantage of Dual core... A quick search reveals FiringSquad looking at it. At first glance, it's impressive - up to 60% improvement!

But.... that's at 800x600. I could do that playably on my old Athlon XP with a Geforce4. Oh look what happens when you crank the Res up to the sort of level a 7800GT will allow, which a 6800XT won't. at 1600x1200 with AF and AA the difference is zilch. It becomes GPU-limited. It becomes exactly the same argument as it would be against getting a high-end Athlon FX chip. For what he wants, he'll have more fun by budgeting more for the Graphics and less for CPU.

Dual core would be nice, but not at the expense of the GPU, which is about the most important thing for gaming....

 

[cleeve]

Regardless rodney, an Athlon64 3200+ with a 7800Gt will DESTROY an AthlonX2 4800+ with a 6800.

That's all there is to it.

Unless you're multitasking constantly, the money is MUCH better spent on the videocard.

 

[ssnyder]

What about dual 6800's ? Any better than a 7800?

 

[ChipDeath]

2x 6800XT cards in SLI would probably still be behind a 7800GT. Depending on the game of course. 2x 6800GT or Ultra cards would probably win. But would probably also make his PSU blow up.

Call me a freak, but I've never actually been remotely interested by SLI (apart from on an intellectual level... interesting tech). it just seems stupid. Draws more power, creates more heat, for a 50-60% boost in some games. in other games, it actually makes performance worse (yeah I know the drivers are improving yada yada yada).. And a single one of these cards is good enough anyway... Better to just wait for the next single-slot card IMO. Too many headaches for too little gain.

 

[rodney_ws]

Regardless rodney, an Athlon64 3200+ with a 7800Gt will DESTROY an AthlonX2 4800+ with a 6800.

That's all there is to it.

Unless you're multitasking constantly, the money is MUCH better spent on the videocard.

I totally agree with you, but for anyone on this forum to say that games don't utilize the dual core... well, they're just wrong. The benefits from a higher-end graphics card would easily best the benefits gained from spending the extra money on a dual-core processor... no doubt, but either option would contribute to gaming performance.

Hell, what do I care? I've got both... X2-4400 and a 7800 GTX.

 

[rodney_ws]

Trying to get back on topic...

A 7800 GT can be had for under $300 now... that's a ridiculously fast video card for that kind of money... and I totally agree with the previous poster's take on SLI... sure, it's interesting how it works, but there are issues... heat, drivers, compatibility, etc... enough to make it not really worth the hassle except for the most die-hard techno junkies. Some benchmarks (because certain games don't support SLI) actually show lower FPS with the SLI than with the single card setup. Just some food for thought.

 

[fastfood15]

I can see what you guys are saying, so is this setup good?

NZXT Trinity

Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9 Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 ATX AMD Motherboard

NZXT TRINITY BLK Black/Silver SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

Thermaltake TR2 W0070 ATX 430W Power Supply

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor

CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200)

JATON Video-PX7800GT Geforce 7800GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 300 MB/s Hard Drive

16X Dual Format/Double Layer DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW Drive

 

[rodney_ws]

Bingo! Looks pretty solid to me.

Just go ahead and plan on upgrading to 2GB down the road if you're going to be playing Battlefield 2... 6 months ago I would have sworn 2 GB wasn't necessary for playing a game, but after getting Battlefield 2... yes, yes it is. When I ALT-TAB out of the application the main process (I have the expansion pack so that may consume more resources) is using just over 1 GB of RAM... insanity... and once you add in the various Windows processes you can see why that game needs 2 GB.