Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I'm stuck! X850XT vs. 6800GS vs. 7600GT

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 28, 2006 5:42:39 PM

Here's my situation. I am trying to build a decent gaming cpu for a price under $800. I am wanting to be able to play Battlefield 2 at max settings. If you were on a budget, and say all of these video cards were the same price, would you get the X850XT, the 6800GS, or the 7600GT? I will probably pair this with an Nforce 4 mobo.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The X850XT has 16 pixel pipelines, the 6800GS has 12 I think, and the 7600GT has 12 also (but only 128mb memory).

More about : stuck x850xt 6800gs 7600gt

March 28, 2006 6:28:25 PM

my options would be:

1st - 7600GT
2nd - 6800GS
3rd - X850XT

you want to play at max setting but which resolution? with a 7600GT i guess you'll be able to play at 1024x768
March 28, 2006 6:42:37 PM

1st - X850 XT

The only card on your list with 16 pielines and a 256-bit memory interface.
It'll give the best framerates in BF2 with Antialiassing enabled, and at higher resolutions than the 7600 GT can pull for sure.


2nd - 7600 GT

Nice card, new technology, high clockspeeds and Shader Model 3, but a 128-bit memory bus. 12 pipelines vs the X850 XT's 16 pipelines.


3rd - 6800 GS

Basically an underclocked 7600 GT (12 pipelines) with a 256-bit memory interface. The stock 7600 GT is better stock because of it's high clockspeeds, but if you're into serious overclocking you might get more milage out of the 6800 GS because of the memory bandwidth. I've seen overclocked 6800 GS' do amazing things.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 28, 2006 7:04:53 PM

7600 gt all the way man. The 7600 will beat the 6800 of course but also if your getting a nforce4 board with sli, then you'll have to have the 7600. The money is just better spent on compatability. the 7600 should have 256mb on the board, just a 128 bit memory bus.......
March 28, 2006 7:22:32 PM

Im going to agree 100% with cleeve, if you want the best frame rate the x850xt is the way to go.

If you want SM3 then you may want to get the 7600 instead but it depends on the games you play. I myself have never found the need for it and I would go for speed over fancy features.
March 28, 2006 7:43:11 PM

Quote:
1st - X850 XT

The only card on your list with 16 pielines and a 256-bit memory interface.
It'll give the best framerates in BF2 with Antialiassing enabled, and at higher resolutions than the 7600 GT can pull for sure.


2nd - 7600 GT

Nice card, new technology, high clockspeeds and Shader Model 3, but a 128-bit memory bus. 12 pipelines vs the X850 XT's 16 pipelines.


3rd - 6800 GS




Basically an underclocked 7600 GT (12 pipelines) with a 256-bit memory interface. The stock 7600 GT is better stock because of it's high clockspeeds, but if you're into serious overclocking you might get more milage out of the 6800 GS because of the memory bandwidth. I've seen overclocked 6800 GS' do amazing things.




My thoughts exactly. I have been on the upgrade the video card quest for sometime. After 2 months of hard core reviewing, I have went with the x850xt. I got it from newegg.com for 169 bucks. I could have gotten one of the other ones. The reviews on the 6800gs alot of people had major hardware trouble with it. One person had 6 DOA cards before getting one that worked. The 7600gt is ok, personally I wanted to give ATI a try again. I had a 7000 it was good then a fx5200(crap) a x300(way better than the fx5200) a 6600 vanilla 128. So for me the price was right and the card looks like a sweet choice. Less than 10 reviews lower than 3 stars, mostly stuff like the sicker fell off, its loud as hell , blah blah blah. Go with the x850xt. 256bit 256MB ram for 169 bucks! Thats a good deal.
March 28, 2006 7:43:14 PM

what you mean by max settings? as i said, it will allow you to play at 1024x768 at max quality, that's fine for me. It's a matter of taste, i prefer running at at least 50fps with a good visual (SM3) than hit 200fps and a not so good image. Besides, the human eye can only see ~30 fps, why would you need more than that?
March 28, 2006 8:12:06 PM

Isn't sm2.0 almost a clone of sm3?
x850 all the way. 7600GT isn't special,6800gs performs poorly and x1800gto is overpriced.
X850XT is by far the best bang for buck you can get today.
March 28, 2006 8:13:39 PM

Quote:
Besides, the human eye can only see ~30 fps, why would you need more than that?

actully the human eye can see much more than 30 frames per second.

Quote:
The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.
March 28, 2006 8:36:55 PM

Quote:
It's a matter of taste, i prefer running at at least 50fps with a good visual (SM3) than hit 200fps and a not so good image.


Having owned SM 2.0 and 3.0 cards, I can say with certainty that the only thing I've ever seen as far as a SM 3.0 "good visuals" feature - that you couldn't do on a SM 2.0 card - is the OpenEXR method of HDR. Everything else loks the same, 2.0 or 3.0.

I can also say from experience that my 6800 Ultra was unable to run OpenEXR in Far Cry without slowing to below 20 fps @ 1024x768. And since the 7600 GT has an inferior memory bus, I'd be real surprised if it is powerful enough to do openEXR @ 1024x768 with smooth framerates...
March 28, 2006 9:13:12 PM

Hey, can you pilot a F-16 too? An Apache maybe... or you can handle some G's over your body too...
Then, according to what you're saying, 220 fps is not enough, coz USAF pilots can detect the slightest difference in frame rate

EDIT:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/geforce-7600-7900/...

62fps is good for me, coz i ain't a USAF pilot...
March 28, 2006 9:49:39 PM

If you can't tell the huge difference between 30 and 60 fps, not only aren't you a pilot, but you are probably mildly retarded.
March 28, 2006 10:07:30 PM

Hey, we got a pilot here! Sorry man, i ain't a highly trained U.S. Air Force official as you are, but i replied wrong... i was supposed to reply to the guy who said that about USAF. Don't kill me

Anyway... in these days of high fps, sharp image and stuff... have you ever read about something about some studies of implementing depth of field and motion blur in games? That is totally against fps, coz it tries to reproduce the human vision... like when a car passes real fast in front of your eyes and all you can see is a blur... BUT if you're an USAF pilot or you're playing at 100+ fps you'll she the entire car... sharp, and that's not real. The same thing applies to depth of field, in games you see the whole screen sharp in focus, but that's now what happens with your eye (dunno about usaf pilots).
That's why even with the most demanding effects and stuff we still dont have motion-like games... The first step towards that direction is HDR, and yes, it makes a huge difference... now, if YOU can't see a difference between an HDR rendered game and a non-HDR, you're telling me about fps?
i think i've found the retarded in here
March 28, 2006 10:13:13 PM

So let me get this straight: your argument is that you are better off with a pretty 12 fps slideshow with HDR than 60 fps of gaming goodness while playing a first person shooter?

Let me guess.. you don't do too well in shooters, do you? (As a mildly retarded person, that's nothing to be ashamed of, mind you).

Framerate is life.

BTW, the X850 XT offers BETTER AA & AF eye candy than the 7600 GT... so if it's eye candy you like, the X850 is STILL better...
March 28, 2006 10:23:24 PM

The X850 and the 7600GT are your best options. The X850 will offer slightly better peformance at the moment; however, if you don't want to upgrade your card for a while, the 7600GT will be better because it supports shader model 3.
March 28, 2006 10:29:07 PM

now i'm sure you're the retarded in here :) 

i'm telling you that i dont care reaching 150fps, as long as it does not go under 30...

i didn't want to show off, but you asked... i used to give everyone headshots with a glock in counter strike and they all got mad at me, but i admit i dont play that kind of game anymore... that's for kids

hey, you saw the pictures? did you notice any difference between them? let me guess... no? hahahaahhah

you saw the benckmarks for 7600gt in HL-LC? did you see it beating a 6800GS? i did... Did you see it beating a X1800 GTO (same 12 pipes, same SM3, 256bit memory)? I did too... Did you see the title? HDR 16AF? I did.. all other specialized sites show the same situation...

Air force is driving you crazy, you should quit

Well, sorry Cartman0123 i was trying to help you, but some people like to make their opinions the only truth instead of just giving advice. They even start offending people... that's sad
March 28, 2006 11:21:52 PM

Quote:
now i'm sure you're the retarded in here :) 

i'm telling you that i dont care reaching 150fps, as long as it does not go under 30...


Quote:
Besides, the human eye can only see ~30 fps, why would you need more than that?


Hmmm.

you have to keep track of your own BS, man. Which is it? The human eye can only see 30 fps?
Or as long as it doesn't go under 30?
Because those are vastly differing statements...

Of course, a mildly retarded person couldn't grasp the subtlety... so we forgive you. :) 

I had a 6800 Ultra, and it couldn't do HDR fast enough to be playable. End of story. you can whine and complain all you want, but that's the fact jack.

And for the record, your example is ludicrous. Even the X800 series... heck, even the Radeon 9500 and up... can do HDR (eye candy) in Valve's source engine. You don't need SM 3.0 to do that.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the X850 XT being a better card than the 7600 GT, because it can do AA & AF at high resolutions and with AA (more eye candy).
March 28, 2006 11:26:48 PM

well, cartman said he'd like to play BF2 at max settings and i asked at what resolution, and i said he'd be good at 1024x768. I think this card can deliver 1024x768 at highest quality settings possible, with a reasonable framerate, but nothing awesome like Cleeve claims with the 850XT.
BUT on the other side, this card has SM 3.0 which i think is a good feature and it gives a lot of image improvement and support for newer games.
My point is: i dont want to play at 1920x1440, i'd be well satisfied playing at 1024x768 at max settings, and if i had to lower resolution without lowering image quality i wouldnt mind.
But i wouldnt lower resolution or image quality to get higher framerates just because i'm getting like 30-50, neither lower image quality UNLESS it's below 30's.

I didn't say x850xt would reach 150 fps, but i think people today give too much importance to frame rates (aka SLI, "framerate is life") rather than other aspects, like the effects i mentioned, power efficiency, noise, price...
You may be uncomfortable at 30 fps, you probably feel ok at 50, then why some people want 150?
March 28, 2006 11:35:01 PM

Quote:
30 fps, you probably feel ok at 50, then why some people want 150?


But you miss the point.

There will be certain games where the 7600 GT will give you 12 fps at 1024x768 with SM 3.0 enabled. Sure, you can turn off HDR, then you get 20 FPS. Or you can lower res to 800 by 600. Or, you can keep it at 1024x768 with the X850 XT...

In these tough cases, the X850 will have the edge, getting you 30 fps.

THATS the difference. Not 50 or 120 fps, but 12 or 30... where the difference counts. In the tough titles.
March 28, 2006 11:38:59 PM

Man, i think your case is really serious...
the human eye can NOT feel a difference ABOVE ~30fps, so anything ABOVE that is not necessary, but if you get BELOW 30 than you can see some difference

Anyway, i wouldn't be amazed if you couldn't play HL with HDR on your ultra, even a retarded could make it work, but you...
You're so damn stupid that you cant tell the difference between HDR and anti aliasing... I wont spend my time trying to explain that thing to such a loser

but let me ask you some things:
- anti aliasing implement lighting effects?
- anti aliasing change reflection of surfaces?
- anti aliasing change color according to light incidence?
- tell me one game that is not based on source engine that supports hdr in a non-DX9c card
March 28, 2006 11:39:46 PM

what games?
March 28, 2006 11:47:03 PM

Hey, you're making some improvement... you're starting to talk like normal people instead of making use of offenses to make your word valid :) 
congratulations man
this way we can help the guy pick his card
March 29, 2006 12:25:16 AM

Quote:
Man, i think your case is really serious...
the human eye can NOT feel a difference ABOVE ~30fps, so anything ABOVE that is not necessary, but if you get BELOW 30 than you can see some difference


Nope.

You obviously have no experience with framerates and videogames, so I'm not sure what value there is in you expressing your opinion anymore.

Quote:
Anyway, i wouldn't be amazed if you couldn't play HL with HDR on your ultra, even a retarded could make it work, but you...
You're so damn stupid that you cant tell the difference between HDR and anti aliasing... I wont spend my time trying to explain that thing to such a loser


Wow! Well thought out points there. Unfortunately, you have made no argument. Nice try tho.


Quote:
but let me ask you some things:
- anti aliasing implement lighting effects?
- anti aliasing change reflection of surfaces?
- anti aliasing change color according to light incidence?
- tell me one game that is not based on source engine that supports hdr in a non-DX9c card



And you show mw ONE GAME that has sm 3.0 effects that can't be done in SM 2.0. OpenEXR is all you've got. And that's the one feature that brings the 7600 GT to it's knees.

Essentially you keep BSing this board with talk of SM 3.0, framerates, and FUD while you can't really point out one instance of a single game where it'd be better to have a 7600 GT over an X850 XT.

Let's get back to the argument, shall we? The X850 has 4 more pipelines than a 7600 GT, twice the memory bus, it's faster and will allow you to play games farther into the future than the 7600 GT.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it with actual hardware and doesn't accept the concrete experience of people who have actually used it...
March 29, 2006 12:34:28 AM

actually this is for the thread rather than for you cleeve ....

My two bobs worth would be the x850xt, i actually bought one not long ago, and imho the price/perf ratio is superb, i can't actually think of another card with a better ratio .... it easily plays the latest games and will survive for a while
March 29, 2006 1:12:08 AM

The 7600GT does have higher memory clocks...
but yeah I agree with you.
X850 XT > 7600GT
Look at F.E.A.R., no shader model 3.0 support but looks better than most shader model 3.0 titles.
March 29, 2006 1:16:53 AM

Quote:
Wow, you don't make any sense. Human eyes CAN see a difference at higher than 30fps. Usually above 60-65 is pointless, that's the point where your eyes can't see a difference. I can see a HUGE difference between 30, and let's say 50fps. Plus, 7600GT isn't powerful enough to last more than a few months. What's the point of having SM3 in a slideshow?


Yes, you can, but you're the USAF pilot, aren't you? Or is Cleeve? well, you can see a difference, but other people may not... if he cant see a difference at 30 fps then he could buy this card, right? or not, just coz you're saying?


Quote:
And you show mw ONE GAME that has sm 3.0 effects that can't be done in SM 2.0. OpenEXR is all you've got. And that's the one feature that brings the 7600 GT to it's knees.


That is another point.. There's a huge difference between possibilities and they actually being done. That's the same thing about D3D and OpenGL. What game can be done in D3D that can't in Opengl? Now tell me how many games we have in d3d and in opengl. It's simply a matter of people doing it or not. If your point is so consistent, tell game producers to stop doing games in SM3 and start doing in OpenEXR and SM2

Quote:
Let's get back to the argument, shall we? The X850 has 4 more pipelines than a 7600 GT, twice the memory bus, it's faster and will allow you to play games farther into the future than the 7600 GT.


So as X1900 with twice the pixel shaders of a 7900, but it's far from delivering twice the performance... I guess you are the one here with no experience at all with actual hardware... According to your statement, then a P4 would be definetly faster than an A64, coz it has higher clock speed, higher FSB, HTT, DDR2 memory... things are just not that simple...

I am not arguing with you anymore... you ruined this topic... you can't accept people's opinion. At no moment i said my opinion was the truth, differently from you.

I still think he has a good lifetime with this card, and yes, he can play games at a reasonable resolution with max settings,hdr enabled and decent framerates .
Also, i think HDR offers a much more impact on image quality than AA.
I asked you to tell me one game that makes this card go 12fps at 1024x768 with max settings and you failed to do so, so i'll consider you're the one here who is BSing.
He asked a card that he can play BF2 and he can with this, with a good upgrade path

One game i can point is Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, where a 6600GT would be enough to play at 1024x768.
But more important than that is that more and more games will be SM3 compatible, not OpenEXR, that is my point. You tell me in a couple of months if i was wrong or not.

adios kiddos
March 29, 2006 1:19:13 AM

For Oblivion

Anyone tell me how it will play with my system?

Im getting a x850 xt or 7600 gt.

This is a temporary card until summer when i get SLI. I want to play max settings with some shadows and 50% grass and density at 120 and HDR, bloom,and some AA and AF(depends). Which will give me smoothest FPS.?

Ive been thinking x850 xt, because i dont think i read that oblivion uses SM3 well anyway
March 29, 2006 1:24:29 AM

Don't litsen to japones, he is ignorant and uninformed, he also has nothing to base his conclusions off of and no actual proof that 30 fps is the max a human can see.

Get a x850xt it will last you longer than a 128bit 7600gt. If you do happen to get a 7600gt, you most likely won't be able to hit those desired details you liked.
March 29, 2006 1:24:34 AM

The 7600GT can be OCed to faster than a 7800GT. I would pick that one.
March 29, 2006 1:49:48 AM

Quote:
Yes, you can, but you're the USAF pilot, aren't you?


Yes sure. I'll be the pilot, if you want to keep being the retarded fellow.

Quote:
well, you can see a difference, but other people may not... if he cant see a difference at 30 fps then he could buy this card, right? or not, just coz you're saying?


Poll the forum, asking if people would prefer 30 fps to 60 fps. I dare you. My money's on +95% disagreeing with you.


Quote:
That is another point.. There's a huge difference between possibilities and they actually being done. That's the same thing about D3D and OpenGL. What game can be done in D3D that can't in Opengl? Now tell me how many games we have in d3d and in opengl. It's simply a matter of people doing it or not. If your point is so consistent, tell game producers to stop doing games in SM3 and start doing in OpenEXR and SM2


Are you even making sense? What are you arguing here, and WTF does it have to do with the X850 XT being better than the 7600 GT?


Quote:
So as X1900 with twice the pixel shaders of a 7900, but it's far from delivering twice the performance... I guess you are the one here with no experience at all with actual hardware... According to your statement, then a P4 would be definetly faster than an A64, coz it has higher clock speed, higher FSB, HTT, DDR2 memory... things are just not that simple...


WTF is your point, again? The X850 XT outperforms the 7600 GT. What does the X1900 have to do with it? Stay on topic. Please.


Quote:
I am not arguing with you anymore... you ruined this topic... you can't accept people's opinion. At no moment i said my opinion was the truth, differently from you.


Idiot... look at the thread. First, you come in here saying 30 fps is the most you can see. Then, you say at least 30 fps. Then you start concentrating on USAF pilots. WTF? You don't even know what you are arguing anymore, and it shows.

Quote:
But more important than that is that more and more games will be SM3 compatible, not OpenEXR, that is my point. You tell me in a couple of months if i was wrong or not.


Once again, complete muddling of the issue. We're not even arguing the merits of SM 3.0, we're arguing if the 7600 GT is powerful enough to pull it off. It's not. So you'd have to turn off the features like OpenEXR anyway. Once again, remember the points lad!

Quote:

adios kiddos


Good riddance, amigo.
March 29, 2006 2:14:46 AM

Wow, just stepped in on this thread. We have some uneducated people in here. First of all, all that Cleeve and Prozac stated is correct. There is no way you can make a 7600 GT perform like a 7800 GT. Secondly, load any game where you can make your fps 30 and 60, and a FPS counter. Spin the mouse around and tell me if you cant tell between 30 fps and 60 fps. You can. Simple as that. However, over 60, it becomes increasingly difficult. It seems like in the past few days we've had some real ignorant people on the forums. grr..

X850XT: Better then 7600 GT or 6800 GS, however, more expensive then either. Good buy if one can be found at a low price.

7600GT: Better then 6800 GS, and usually cheaper.

6800 GS: Worse than either of the other 2. Maybe, maybe, maybe, if you wanted to OC it to the extreme.
March 29, 2006 3:20:24 AM

Quote:
Secondly, load any game where you can make your fps 30 and 60, and a FPS counter. Spin the mouse around and tell me if you cant tell between 30 fps and 60 fps. You can. Simple as that.


Actually i already did... the only game i've seen this feature was on M$ flight simulator. You can set a target framerate, so i accidentally left it capped at 30 fps and i had a smooth play. I realized that and set it to unlimited, my system reached like 70 fps and i didnt see any noticeable difference from 30 fps. And i did set quality to maximum, enabled 3d clouds (lots of fog), 3d scenery (lots of poligons) and it really didn't showed any difference... I dunno if you can do that in other games but there's a point: if a game is running at 30fps when you're not moving your mouse, that's the maximum your system can reach... then you start moving it, framerate will drop. now if you keep a steady 30fps i dont think it would be unplayable as some are claiming...

By the way, look at these graphs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/24/ati_radeon_x1900...

If you notice, there's a red line steady at 30... So that makes me guess that 30 is the limit of unplayable. They say below 30 is no good, but they dont say anything about 30-60 range, so that makes me think it's ok for playing. Or maybe the guys at tomshardware are ignorant... Or maybe 2x7800GTX 512 sucks, coz 50% of the framerate is between 30-60 at 1024x768...
I'm still wondering what game makes a 7600GT go 12fps

maybe this fps stuff is more psychological than practical...
March 29, 2006 4:03:03 AM

Quote:
OC?? Dude, 7800GT has 20 pipelines and 256bit bus. 7600GT has 12 pipelines and 128bit bus. You can only OC a 7600GT to a 7800GT in wild dreams. Yes, 7600GT as higher clock speeds, but 7800GT has everything else.


Where did I mention pipelines or memorybuses? I was talking about plain performance, the thing that matters to the user.

A 7600GT can be OCed to beat a 7800GT.
March 29, 2006 4:03:26 AM

I believe it was Ian that said that the x850xt was expensive. I found one from newegg for $169. It also currently has a $15 rebate. The others may or may not be a few dollars cheaper (I don't think they are), but this one appears to have the bigger specs--on paper, anyway.
March 29, 2006 4:18:33 AM

The X850XT would be the better option right now. It used to be an ultra-high-end part so at $169 it's a steal. The performance is better than the 7600GT anyways, and you could probably try to clock it to X850XT PE speeds for extra fun.

Concern over the lack of SM3.0 is overrated. Games have to first support SM3.0 for it to be of any use to begin with. Regardless, SM2.0b offers most of the features of SM3.0 and with the large ATI customer base even newer games code for both SM3.0 and SM2.0b so you really don't lose much. Also, SM3.0 is not mandatory for HDR support. HDR was actually first introduced with SM2.0 and was further expanded in SM2.0b and SM3.0. It depends on the game of course, but many games include HDR for SM2.0 and SM2.0b such as Splinter Cell and Half-Life 2.
March 29, 2006 4:33:03 AM

I don't care if it has shader model 3 for future games. I just want whichever video card is either no bottleneck to performance in Battlefield 2 or is the least bottlenecking (if that is a word). Simple...right? I do not care about any other game right now. Probably by the time my wife lets me buy the video card I will get something better. I thought these three were a good comparison, because I haven't really seen a test using all of these specific cards and they are relatively equal in price.
I wish I could justify the extra $150 or so for the 7900gt!
March 29, 2006 4:50:03 AM

You may have noticed the dips below 30FPS, even those ultra fast cards dip below 30, and this is where you definitaly feel the slowdown, and imo, that threshold is really around 40 to 50 FPS that you begin to notice slight slowdowns, and stutters.
Higher peak framerates mean less durations you have below 30 or 40 FPS and fewer stutters... That with high quality settings makes good game play...
March 29, 2006 4:59:23 AM

Quote:

Concern over the lack of SM3.0 is overrated. Games have to first support SM3.0 for it to be of any use to begin with. Regardless, SM2.0b offers most of the features of SM3.0 and with the large ATI customer base even newer games code for both SM3.0 and SM2.0b so you really don't lose much. Also, SM3.0 is not mandatory for HDR support. HDR was actually first introduced with SM2.0 and was further expanded in SM2.0b and SM3.0. It depends on the game of course, but many games include HDR for SM2.0 and SM2.0b such as Splinter Cell and Half-Life 2.


I love denial posts like this....there are no sm3.0 games? :lol: 

....and your theory on the evolution of HDR is severely flawed, true HDR isnt dependent on the shader capabilities of your card, it is dependent on it's floating point precision capabilities, or lack there of in early ATi cards.
March 29, 2006 5:01:57 AM

In cs 1.6, you can very feel and tell when the game chops up even @ 40 - 50 fps major slowdown. To hit low fps in cs1.6, crank up the settings and use fps_max 40 and fps_modem 40 and you will see the v-sync lines move when you turn.. horrible..
March 29, 2006 5:21:21 AM

I don't think I ever said that there are no SM3.0 games, just that most of them also implement SM2.0b providing a bridge from SM2.0.

I believe what HDR requires is support for 16-bit floating point filtered textures, at least the way it's implemented in Half-Life 2 and Splinter Cell. The X800 and family have support for this feature, so they would be able to use HDR in SM2.0b mode. In terms of earlier ATI cards, I think the 9800 series also can use HDR so they must also have this feature while the 9700 doesn't. SM3.0 cards also have 16-bit floating point targets with alpha bend support allowing the full HDR feature set.
March 29, 2006 5:39:05 AM

ANY Radeon 9500 and up supports HDR, and can use the HDR method in the source engine (HL2, Counter Strike source, etc)

It's the specific method of HDR - OpenEXR - that requires higher floating point capabilities.

It's also the most demanding form of HDR hardwarewise, and it's the method that Nvidia hardware can't do AA with concurrently.
March 29, 2006 6:40:08 AM

i`m not going to coment on the others .. everyone has it`s own opinion

mine.....x850xt blows a 6800 ultra so when it cames to 6800gs....you decide.....
as for the 7600gt the problem is more difficult ....x850xt has 16 pipes (pixel) and 256 bit interface (with the memory ddr3)...7600 has 12 pipes and 128 bit...you could say it`s clearly who`s the winner but 7600gt seems to be quite a good oponent ...i could say x850xt beats to the limit a 7600gt expeciali when it cames to AA an AF filters and high resolution
7600gt cames from a 7900 not from 7800

the conclusion:
x850xt cleary blows an 6800gs....
7600gt could be a good performer when playing at 800x600 or even 1024x768 any details...but when it cames to 1280x1024 AA and AF setting x850xt beats them all ....
March 29, 2006 6:42:57 AM

Well if BF2 is the main concern:

The x850xt is the clear winner
March 29, 2006 7:22:26 AM

..well i`ve been reading all of your posts there...and same of them ..i must admit .. are quite funny....
let`s set this thing once it for all....i`m talking with the beginners here of course....
SM are groups of instructions (instruction sets like cpu have their own set of instructions)...of course they play their part in the image quality but not 100%....to clear you out i`m going to give you an example...you can draw a scene using same instructions ..and you can build the same scene using other instructions....of course same of them are faster and same of them are slower (take more time to assemble and compile)...

enough with beginner lessons...the difference between sm1.1 and sm2.0b is huge ...but the difference between sm2.0b and sm3 is very little

the x850xt versus 7600gt issue was settled same time ago...we all agreed that the topic was more like x850pro against 7600gt and even then.....

you should not get stuck on names ...compare the gpus by their parameters......sets of instructions..etc.....


x850xt beats an 6800ultra ..even a 6800ultra sli set..


ohh one more thing the way i see it the clear advantage sm3 has against sm2.0b is ...the support for ageia physics processing ..although i would be surprised to see that this can be done with sm2.0b instructions also..

and of course the proof of all that:

hl2: all details to the floor 1028x1024 AA 4X AF 4X .....the fps on the screen shows 60fps (i have v sync on with the desktop .. beginners feel free to coment)...that ofcourse on x850xt

battlefield 2: 1280x1024 all details to the floor ... AA 4x AF 4x 60fps with v sync on

need for speed most wanted: all details to the floor 1024x768 ..arround 50 fps min..that of course on x850xt

call of duty 2: all details to the floor 1024x768 AA 4X all details to extra ..when posible including shadows.....arroud 60fps in high combat scenes and stalingrad scenes.....

fear ... all details to the floor ...without soft shadows..1024x768 AA 4x AF 16x ... the game runs perfectly..the demo showed 100% over 40fps ..i hope you all know what that means....and all that on x850xt xt

all that on x850xt..and the story could continue...
when i`ve said all details to the floor i meant max of course ..
i use v sync to the desktop...and my desktop is at 60 hz for 1280x1024


i must point out that i`m using a intel 630 cpu now ...and we all agree that cpu is not build to perform in games...point....i also dissable same taskes from the task manager when playing ...

any comments from experienced people are wellcamed...any from the non experienced people are not :lol:  just kidding they gotta learn too...

see you boyz.......
March 29, 2006 8:18:10 AM

well kids ..listen to cleeve ..he knows what he says.......there is no point on arguing on the advantages and disadvantages of using sm3 or 2b .....the simple fact is that x850xt is stronger than any of these cards displayed in there......real fact ..in our days ...will see what happens in one year or two ..when who knows what will happen......

check this out i`ve just made a new moto..play today and work tomorrow......... :lol:  ..smile kids is tomorrow we have to worry about.....
March 29, 2006 11:21:50 AM

Quote:
What you see is the AVERAGE FRAMERATE, so you get 30fps on average, but in heavy fire fights, with granades exploding everywhere and everyone shooting, you will get like 12fps, so at that point SM3 is pointless, and your whole argument is screwed and you lose.


ok, the ati card may reach higher fps, but that doesn't mean the nvidia will go down to 12 as you say... if so, i'm still waiting for you to tell in which game(s). is it that hard to tell me the game title? you're just BSing about 12fps but you can't tell me what games can do that, so you're the loser here coz you can't answer my question...
March 29, 2006 11:59:02 PM

Unfortunately theres no benchmarks that directly compare the 7600GT to the X850XT, but my vote would have to go to the 7600GT. People need to stop talking about specifications and look at real world benchmarks and performance. The 7600GT's newer, effecient architecture paired with high clock speeds allows it to out-perform 16 pipeline, 256-bit cards. If you look at any of the reviews you would see that the 128-bit memory interface isn't really an issue for this card. Even with anti-aliasing and anistropic filtering enabled it still puts out good framerates and clearly wins against the 6800GS. If you're only going to be using 1024x768 with small amounts of AA/AF then this card will keep you happy for a long time, compared to a "few months" like others have said.

A year or two ago Shader Model 3.0 didn't matter but at this point in time it does. The X850XT is older technology and in newer games like Unreal Tournament 2007 I can almost guarantee the 7600GT will be a better choice.

As for the original question about being able to play Battlefield 2, yes the 7600GT will give you great performance in that game.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7600_gt_performance/page10.asp
March 30, 2006 1:18:26 AM

Quote:
Unfortunately theres no benchmarks that directly compare the 7600GT to the X850XT


yeah :/ 

Quote:
People need to stop talking about specifications and look at real world benchmarks and performance


i tried to explain that to this two dumbasses...

Quote:
A year or two ago Shader Model 3.0 didn't matter but at this point in time it does


not for some at this topic... they say is useless

Quote:
As for the original question about being able to play Battlefield 2, yes the 7600GT will give you great performance in that game.


well, they say it will deliver like 12 fps


Also, i'd like to point out that SM3.0 is not only about image quality. It's also about perfomance, coz its larger instruction set would allow a scene to be rendered in less passes than with SM2, that means more data processed per cycle. That's why a lower spec card can deliver the same performance as a higher spec'ed one.

Lastly, you can scale up with SLI with this card... if you have the right platform and you think it's not delivering the desirable performance you can buy another one and link them. By the time it becomes obsolete its prices will be ridiculous. Then you buy another one and you have a performance similar to a 7900GT.
March 30, 2006 1:50:25 AM

Quote:
OC?? Dude, 7800GT has 20 pipelines and 256bit bus. 7600GT has 12 pipelines and 128bit bus. You can only OC a 7600GT to a 7800GT in wild dreams. Yes, 7600GT as higher clock speeds, but 7800GT has everything else.


Where did I mention pipelines or memorybuses? I was talking about plain performance, the thing that matters to the user.

A 7600GT can be OCed to beat a 7800GT.
I know you didn't mention pipelines and buses, but 7800GT has like twice of each, so I said you'll need "out-of-your-mind" clock speeds on the 7600GT to come close to the 7800GT.



No, you don't:

7800GT = 6700 3DMarks

7600GT = 6400 3DMarks

OCed 7600GT = 7180 3DMarks
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?s=a7fe9361413d...


The 7600GT (and 7900GT) is a new generation of graphics cards. They have a 0.09 micron core compared to 7800-series which have 0.11 micron.

The 7900GT even kicks the 7800GTX.
!