Going from 9800 Pro to Nvidia?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to go
with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.

Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain coming
from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300 bucks or more in a
video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks for the above. It is an XFX
6600 GT from Newegg.
My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.

Thanks,



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the way
of the man that's doing it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Don Burnette wrote:

> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to go
> with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>
> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain coming
> from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300 bucks or more in
> a video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks for the above. It is an
> XFX 6600 GT from Newegg.
> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>

Having just purchased a 6800GT which upgraded a 9700Pro with not so stellar
results Id suggest waiting. Yea its better, but not significantly enough
to justify $350 and sure not double (btw the 6800GT claims twice the perf
of a 9800pro, just nvidias marketing machine hard at work imo). Im taking
the 6800 back in a couple days and am going to go back to ATI and their
X800 Pro. That R300 core was a terrific part for its time.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE3.3.2a.
YaSTastic!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Mitch_A wrote:
> Don Burnette wrote:
>
>> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card
>> to go with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>>
>> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain
>> coming from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300
>> bucks or more in a video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks
>> for the above. It is an XFX 6600 GT from Newegg.
>> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>
> Having just purchased a 6800GT which upgraded a 9700Pro with not so
> stellar results Id suggest waiting. Yea its better, but not
> significantly enough to justify $350 and sure not double (btw the
> 6800GT claims twice the perf of a 9800pro, just nvidias marketing
> machine hard at work imo). Im taking the 6800 back in a couple days
> and am going to go back to ATI and their X800 Pro. That R300 core
> was a terrific part for its time.
>
> Mitch


Thanks Mitch.

Is the X800 Pro much of an improvement over the 9800 Pro?

--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

>
>
> Thanks Mitch.
>
> Is the X800 Pro much of an improvement over the 9800 Pro?
>

Personally Id probably skip an upgrade from a 9800 to an X800Pro. Maybe to
a X800XT but thats about a sawbuck more than the pro. Youll see an
improvement though its whether that improvement can justify such a big
expense. Hell Don, I skipped a generation just so I could get some wow
factor and even now in hindsight I think I was overly optimistic about the
gains. The difference from medium to maximum quality settings in most
games isnt all that great either. Even the shader 3.0 support in PF was
difficult to really even notice.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE3.3.2a.
YaSTastic!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Mitch_A wrote:
>> Thanks Mitch.
>>
>> Is the X800 Pro much of an improvement over the 9800 Pro?
>>
>
> Personally Id probably skip an upgrade from a 9800 to an X800Pro.
> Maybe to a X800XT but thats about a sawbuck more than the pro. Youll
> see an improvement though its whether that improvement can justify
> such a big expense. Hell Don, I skipped a generation just so I could
> get some wow factor and even now in hindsight I think I was overly
> optimistic about the gains. The difference from medium to maximum
> quality settings in most games isnt all that great either. Even the
> shader 3.0 support in PF was difficult to really even notice.
>
> Mitch


Yeah, I am beginning to think the same - and to get a significant increase
would mean spending >300 bucks on a vid card, something I do not care to do.

Now I have about convinced myself to wait a couple of months on go socket939
Nforce4 pci express for the 64 bit upgrade I want to do. Auughh!!



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

 

[Werewolf]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Don Burnette wrote:

> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to go
> with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>
> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain coming
> from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300 bucks or more in a
> video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks for the above. It is an XFX
> 6600 GT from Newegg.
> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>

Is this difference from changing the PCI Latency setting in BIOS (i.e
when one boots and hits delete to enter the BIOS setup)? If so how?

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Don Burnette wrote:
> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to
go
> with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>
> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain
coming
> from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card?
(snipped)

Have a read of this:
http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
It's a comparison & spec chart of most of the video cards you'll find
today. It might help you make a decision.

My own recommendation is to go with a 6800GT if you can stand the cash
bleed. I've just upgraded from a Radeon 9600 128mb to the 6800GT 256mb
and I've been blow away by the performance increases. I can now run PF
with perfect water, Effects=2, Water=1 or 2 and it's smooth, the only
stutters being during a mass takeoff at the beginning of campaign
missions. Lots of planes, lots of dust. I can run with water=3, but not
with a lot of planes in the air. It looks purty, but it gets a bit
choppy, and I don't mean the virtual waves that are generated at that
setting.

For what it's worth, Doom 3 can now be run at Ultra, 1280x1024, even
with that mod that leaves the corpses lying around, and the framerate
so far hasn't dropped below 45 or so.

Specs:
PNY Geforce 6800GT
Athlon XP3200
1 gig PC3200 ram
DFI Lanparty Nforce 2 Ultra motherboard
200gig over 2 hard drives (I have a 4095mb pagefile on a separate disk
from the System disk - it makes a difference)

 

[agh]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Mitch_A" <naman@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%PeGd.11688$5R.2015@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Having just purchased a 6800GT which upgraded a 9700Pro with not so
stellar
> results Id suggest waiting. Yea its better, but not significantly enough
> to justify $350 and sure not double (btw the 6800GT claims twice the perf
> of a 9800pro, just nvidias marketing machine hard at work imo). Im taking

It is much faster but it depends on the situation. What resolution are you
playing games in? If you're playing hem in 1024*768 w/o AF && AA then I
guess you won't see the difference. Try playing games at 1600*1200 if your
display can pull it off..

> the 6800 back in a couple days and am going to go back to ATI and their
> X800 Pro. That R300 core was a terrific part for its time.

That would be a bad move because X800 Pro is noticeably SLOWER than 6800GT..
6800 GT is a best buy right now (only 6800 Ultra and X800/850 XTs are
generally faster but by a very small margin), at least till the X800 XL
comes out..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Heiko & Verena Thomas wrote:
> I upgraded from Ati 9800Pro to Nvdia 6800 after reading this article:

> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
>
> The Nvidia seems to meet my expectations. I had some problems with
the
> latest drivers 66.93 though and I had to go back to some earlier
version.
> Since then, smooth performance and no problems with FS9 or other
games.
>
> Cheers,
> Heiko

I'm using 66.93 drivers now. What problems have you had with them? Have
you found any speed increases with other drivers? So far I haven't
experienced any problems, but if I can run the card a bit faster, I'll
try something new.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Heiko & Verena Thomas wrote:
> I upgraded from Ati 9800Pro to Nvdia 6800 after reading this article:

> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
>
> The Nvidia seems to meet my expectations. I had some problems with
the
> latest drivers 66.93 though and I had to go back to some earlier
version.
> Since then, smooth performance and no problems with FS9 or other
games.
>
> Cheers,
> Heiko

I'm using 66.93 drivers now. What problems have you had with them? Have
you found any speed increases with other drivers? So far I haven't
experienced any problems, but if I can run the card a bit faster, I'll
try something new.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

<alq119_4spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105986540.537176.197810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Heiko & Verena Thomas wrote:
> > I upgraded from Ati 9800Pro to Nvdia 6800 after reading this article:
>
> > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
> >
> > The Nvidia seems to meet my expectations. I had some problems with
> the
> > latest drivers 66.93 though and I had to go back to some earlier
> version.
> > Since then, smooth performance and no problems with FS9 or other
> games.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Heiko
>
> I'm using 66.93 drivers now. What problems have you had with them? Have
> you found any speed increases with other drivers? So far I haven't
> experienced any problems, but if I can run the card a bit faster, I'll
> try something new.
>

I actually had to roll back to the 66.93 drivers from some Beta 71.20
drivers in order to get CFS3 to run on my new system. So much for
non-WHQL...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

I upgraded from Ati 9800Pro to Nvdia 6800 after reading this article:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html

The Nvidia seems to meet my expectations. I had some problems with the
latest drivers 66.93 though and I had to go back to some earlier version.
Since then, smooth performance and no problems with FS9 or other games.

Cheers,
Heiko

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:e6CdnRaOn8MJ73TcRVn-vw@giganews.com...
> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to go
> with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>
> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain coming
> from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300 bucks or more in
> a video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks for the above. It is an
> XFX 6600 GT from Newegg.
> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> --
> Don Burnette
>
> "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the way
> of the man that's doing it."
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

I went the other direction.

I threw out a V9950TVD 128 after getting disgusted with the lack of stability and being led up, down, and sideways looking for the holy grail "stable drivers" by a bazillion sites and forums.

I threw in a 9800PRO256 and life is much easier.

I don't spend half my life reading troubleshooting boards and trying to find drivers for it. Now, anytime a new set of Omegas come out, I install them without even thinking about it. I haven't had to go backwards once.
I also have far, far, fewer reliability problems. I've given up on nVidia.


On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:33:45 +0100, "agh" <agh@kjh.com> wrote:

>"Mitch_A" <naman@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:%PeGd.11688$5R.2015@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> Having just purchased a 6800GT which upgraded a 9700Pro with not so
>stellar
>> results Id suggest waiting. Yea its better, but not significantly enough
>> to justify $350 and sure not double (btw the 6800GT claims twice the perf
>> of a 9800pro, just nvidias marketing machine hard at work imo). Im taking
>
>It is much faster but it depends on the situation. What resolution are you
>playing games in? If you're playing hem in 1024*768 w/o AF && AA then I
>guess you won't see the difference. Try playing games at 1600*1200 if your
>display can pull it off..
>
>> the 6800 back in a couple days and am going to go back to ATI and their
>> X800 Pro. That R300 core was a terrific part for its time.
>
>That would be a bad move because X800 Pro is noticeably SLOWER than 6800GT..
>6800 GT is a best buy right now (only 6800 Ultra and X800/850 XTs are
>generally faster but by a very small margin), at least till the X800 XL
>comes out..
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Thanks.

I am now strongly considering going with the X800 Pro 256 mb, or just
staying with my 9800 Pro. I will be ordering the 64 bit components before
the end of the week - I just don't know if the performance increase from
the 9800 Pro will warrant the still fairly steep price on either the X800
Pro 256 mb, or the 6800 GT 256 mb.

Yes, I am way too confused. I have decided though to go with socket
754/Nforce3 250 GB.

I may be best served sticking to the 9800 Pro until the later generation
cards become cheaper and more available.

Still, would be nice to see Pacific Fighters with perfect water... don't
play Doom though.

Thanks for all the feedback guys,


--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."


Heiko & Verena Thomas wrote:
> I upgraded from Ati 9800Pro to Nvdia 6800 after reading this article:
> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
>
> The Nvidia seems to meet my expectations. I had some problems with the
> latest drivers 66.93 though and I had to go back to some earlier
> version. Since then, smooth performance and no problems with FS9 or
> other games.
> Cheers,
> Heiko
>
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:e6CdnRaOn8MJ73TcRVn-vw@giganews.com...
>> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to
>> go with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>>
>> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain
>> coming from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300
>> bucks or more in a video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks
>> for the above. It is an XFX 6600 GT from Newegg.
>> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Don Burnette
>>
>> "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of
>> the way of the man that's doing it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

I went this path about 3 years ago. I still thing nVidia is crisper but that pure opinion and probably has more to do
with my settings than anything else.

OK that made me think. I use flatscreen and only see nVidea on CRT's. Forget the crisper observation.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Lost One" <notme@nothere.org> wrote in message news:5nnou0p55006v18stjm2i2o36enlglb3ss@4ax.com...
>
> I went the other direction.
>
> I threw out a V9950TVD 128 after getting disgusted with the lack of stability and being led up, down, and sideways
> looking for the holy grail "stable drivers" by a bazillion sites and forums.
>
> I threw in a 9800PRO256 and life is much easier.
>
> I don't spend half my life reading troubleshooting boards and trying to find drivers for it. Now, anytime a new set
> of Omegas come out, I install them without even thinking about it. I haven't had to go backwards once.
> I also have far, far, fewer reliability problems. I've given up on nVidia.
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:33:45 +0100, "agh" <agh@kjh.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mitch_A" <naman@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:%PeGd.11688$5R.2015@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Having just purchased a 6800GT which upgraded a 9700Pro with not so
>>stellar
>>> results Id suggest waiting. Yea its better, but not significantly enough
>>> to justify $350 and sure not double (btw the 6800GT claims twice the perf
>>> of a 9800pro, just nvidias marketing machine hard at work imo). Im taking
>>
>>It is much faster but it depends on the situation. What resolution are you
>>playing games in? If you're playing hem in 1024*768 w/o AF && AA then I
>>guess you won't see the difference. Try playing games at 1600*1200 if your
>>display can pull it off..
>>
>>> the 6800 back in a couple days and am going to go back to ATI and their
>>> X800 Pro. That R300 core was a terrific part for its time.
>>
>>That would be a bad move because X800 Pro is noticeably SLOWER than 6800GT..
>>6800 GT is a best buy right now (only 6800 Ultra and X800/850 XTs are
>>generally faster but by a very small margin), at least till the X800 XL
>>comes out..
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mZSdneqlVfN_E3HcRVn-gw@giganews.com...
> Thanks.
>
> I am now strongly considering going with the X800 Pro 256 mb, or just
> staying with my 9800 Pro. I will be ordering the 64 bit components before
> the end of the week - I just don't know if the performance increase from
> the 9800 Pro will warrant the still fairly steep price on either the X800
> Pro 256 mb, or the 6800 GT 256 mb.
>
> Yes, I am way too confused. I have decided though to go with socket
> 754/Nforce3 250 GB.
>
> I may be best served sticking to the 9800 Pro until the later generation
> cards become cheaper and more available.
>
> Still, would be nice to see Pacific Fighters with perfect water... don't
> play Doom though.
>
> Thanks for all the feedback guys,
>
>
> --
> Don Burnette

Save your money. Perfect water doesn't even enter the equation unless
you're bored, flying over open water with nothing but navigation on your
mind.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

James Calivar wrote:
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:mZSdneqlVfN_E3HcRVn-gw@giganews.com...
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I am now strongly considering going with the X800 Pro 256 mb, or just
>> staying with my 9800 Pro. I will be ordering the 64 bit components
>> before the end of the week - I just don't know if the performance
>> increase from the 9800 Pro will warrant the still fairly steep price
>> on either the X800 Pro 256 mb, or the 6800 GT 256 mb.
>>
>> Yes, I am way too confused. I have decided though to go with socket
>> 754/Nforce3 250 GB.
>>
>> I may be best served sticking to the 9800 Pro until the later
>> generation cards become cheaper and more available.
>>
>> Still, would be nice to see Pacific Fighters with perfect water...
>> don't play Doom though.
>>
>> Thanks for all the feedback guys,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Don Burnette
>
> Save your money. Perfect water doesn't even enter the equation unless
> you're bored, flying over open water with nothing but navigation on
> your mind.


Yeah, I think your probably right. I will probably stick with the 9800 Pro
for a few more months.
--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

James Calivar wrote:
(snipped)
> Save your money. Perfect water doesn't even enter the equation
unless
> you're bored, flying over open water with nothing but navigation on
your
> mind.

Dunno about that. Unless my eyes deceive me, Perfect water also seems
to bump up the terrain detail. The mountains look a bit less
"triangular", and the foliage seems to sit on them better. Generally
looks more realistic, IOW.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

James Calivar wrote:
> > Dunno about that. Unless my eyes deceive me, Perfect water also
seems
> > to bump up the terrain detail. The mountains look a bit less
> > "triangular", and the foliage seems to sit on them better.
Generally
> > looks more realistic, IOW.
> >
>
> But is it worth $400.00? :-0

And the terrible dishonesty of telling my wife it only cost $200? YES,
I think so. It's worth having introduced lies into my marriage.

The card will give me decent performance for the next while for
whatever I can throw at it. And performance-wise, the card really is
that good. For OpenGL, it beats the X800 Pro, which I was going to get.
It puts a beautiful picture on the screen, and FAST.

I've had good experiences with ATI. My old 9600 gave me sterling
service, no complaints. And now with the Nvidia 6800GT, I've pretty
much topped out what I can do with a Socket A AGP motherboard. I'm
using a 19inch LCD monitor and digital headphones my wife got me for
Christmas. It'll hold me for a while.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

<alq119_4spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106058325.808757.157390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> James Calivar wrote:
> (snipped)
> > Save your money. Perfect water doesn't even enter the equation
> unless
> > you're bored, flying over open water with nothing but navigation on
> your
> > mind.
>
> Dunno about that. Unless my eyes deceive me, Perfect water also seems
> to bump up the terrain detail. The mountains look a bit less
> "triangular", and the foliage seems to sit on them better. Generally
> looks more realistic, IOW.
>

But is it worth $400.00? :-0

 

[agh]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KnZGd.6429$5t2.1627@trnddc01...
> I went this path about 3 years ago. I still thing nVidia is crisper but
that pure opinion and probably has more to do
> with my settings than anything else.
>
> OK that made me think. I use flatscreen and only see nVidea on CRT's.
Forget the crisper observation.

Nvidia or Ati, there's no such difference. It just succombs to who has the
better product at the time being. Currently, you can't go wrong with Nvidia
6800GT (unless you can find X800Pro VIVO for the lower price and try turning
it into XT; it's a risk, but not very high).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Don Burnette wrote:

> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card to go
> with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>
> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain coming
> from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300 bucks or more in
> a video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks for the above. It is an
> XFX 6600 GT from Newegg.
> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>

What the heck Don, go for it man. Its only money, you can make more

The more I tweaked this 6800GT the more I like it. Initial dissapointment is
fading. I clocked it to over ultra speeds both core and mem and am using
the beta 67.03 driver along with a fresh install of XP and this thing seems
to work pretty dang good.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

With the videocard came some games, Thiefeadly Shadows and Spell Force
among them. With the new card, I immediately installed the 66.93 drivers and
had crashed to desktop in both games. I already thought the card was faulty
until I found some other guys had similar problems after installing this
version of the drivers. However, after going back to the 61.76 drivers, I
haven't had any problems at all. I guess I'll stick to the earlier versions
and try a new one, once it comes out.

Cheers,

Heiko


<alq119_4spam@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1105986540.537176.197810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Heiko & Verena Thomas wrote:
>> I upgraded from Ati 9800Pro to Nvdia 6800 after reading this article:
>
>> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
>>
>> The Nvidia seems to meet my expectations. I had some problems with
> the
>> latest drivers 66.93 though and I had to go back to some earlier
> version.
>> Since then, smooth performance and no problems with FS9 or other
> games.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Heiko
>
> I'm using 66.93 drivers now. What problems have you had with them? Have
> you found any speed increases with other drivers? So far I haven't
> experienced any problems, but if I can run the card a bit faster, I'll
> try something new.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

alq119_4spam@yahoo.com wrote:
> James Calivar wrote:
>>> Dunno about that. Unless my eyes deceive me, Perfect water also
>>> seems to bump up the terrain detail. The mountains look a bit less
>>> "triangular", and the foliage seems to sit on them better. Generally
>>> looks more realistic, IOW.
>>>
>>
>> But is it worth $400.00? :-0
>
> And the terrible dishonesty of telling my wife it only cost $200? YES,
> I think so. It's worth having introduced lies into my marriage.
>
> The card will give me decent performance for the next while for
> whatever I can throw at it. And performance-wise, the card really is
> that good. For OpenGL, it beats the X800 Pro, which I was going to
> get. It puts a beautiful picture on the screen, and FAST.
>
> I've had good experiences with ATI. My old 9600 gave me sterling
> service, no complaints. And now with the Nvidia 6800GT, I've pretty
> much topped out what I can do with a Socket A AGP motherboard. I'm
> using a 19inch LCD monitor and digital headphones my wife got me for
> Christmas. It'll hold me for a while.


ATI has not, and probably never will, do OpenGL well. They pretty much
devote their resources to d3d. If it wasn't for Carmack, OpenGL would
probably have already gone the way of glide.

Personally, I think games perform better with all things being equal, in
OpenGL. However, I feel d3d gives better visual quality at the cost of some
performance - not a great amount, just some.



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8O2dnV4OpMi8E3TcRVn-3Q@giganews.com...
> Mitch_A wrote:
>> Don Burnette wrote:
>>
>>> I am strongly looking at adding an Nvidia 6600 GT 256 mb agp card
>>> to go with the 64 bit system I am ugrading to.
>>>
>>> Am I correct in thinking I would see a significant performance gain
>>> coming from a 9800 Pro 128 mb card? I do not want to invest 300
>>> bucks or more in a video card at this time, I am ok with 225 bucks
>>> for the above. It is an XFX 6600 GT from Newegg.
>>> My last Nvidia card was the Ti 4400 , have been with ATI since.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Having just purchased a 6800GT which upgraded a 9700Pro with not so
>> stellar results Id suggest waiting. Yea its better, but not
>> significantly enough to justify $350 and sure not double (btw the
>> 6800GT claims twice the perf of a 9800pro, just nvidias marketing
>> machine hard at work imo). Im taking the 6800 back in a couple days
>> and am going to go back to ATI and their X800 Pro. That R300 core
>> was a terrific part for its time.
>>
>> Mitch
>
>
> Thanks Mitch.
>
> Is the X800 Pro much of an improvement over the 9800 Pro?
>
> --
> Don Burnette
>
> "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
> way of the man that's doing it."
>
>

I'd say no as well. I had a 9700 Pro and tried an X800 Pro and the increase
was not as dramatic as one would expect for a $300 card. Now that I've
bumped up to the X800 XT Platinum, things are different. Very different. But
for $500 it damn well better be!