Support NeoGAF

[Vark]

Well new toy came in the mail today, PNY Verto 6800 Ultra.

http://www.vark-art.com/images/doom/doom3.jpg

That's running at 1600x1200, high detail, with 2x aa.

Sooo much better than it was before.

 

[Tenguman]

I suggest taking off 2x FSAA. It doesn't make any real difference. The only setting that actually makes a real difference is 8x in Doom 3

 

[pestul]

Well new toy came in the mail today, PNY Verto 6800 Ultra.

http://www.vark-art.com/images/doom/doom3.jpg

That's running at 1600x1200, high detail, with 2x aa.

Sooo much better than it was before.

Did you switch from a high-end ATI card? HL2 is supposed to favor ATI in the exact opposite way according to preliminary reports.. should be an interesting showdown. I'd put money on the 800XT outperforming the 6800 Ultra in just about everything except for Doom III.

 

[Nerevar]

Did you switch from a high-end ATI card? HL2 is supposed to favor ATI in the exact opposite way according to preliminary reports.. should be an interesting showdown. I'd put money on the 800XT outperforming the 6800 Ultra in just about everything except for Doom III.

So you're betting the Source engine is going to be more widely licensed than the Doom 3 one?



I'd take that bet.

 

[clipunderground]

Vark- what are the rest of the specs for your rig? just curious.

 

[Mason]

Isn't the new Vampires game using the Source engine already?

 

[dark10x]

I'd imagine Source will be more widely used as it seems like it could be more versatile AND will probably run better on more machines...

Doom 3's engine seems to be well suited for rather specific uses.

 

[Tenguman]

Well if it means anything, VR-Zone benchmarked the latest CS:Source beta. The latest ATI and Nvidia 256mb cards are neck-and-neck in all tests except the 1600x1200 test w/ AA where only the x800-XT PE pulls ahead by 8 fps, with other ATI and nvidia cards around the same

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1181

It seems that from these tests at least, it really doesn't matter much if you have an ati card or a nvidia card

 

[Bog]

6800 Ultra = Waste of money. Get a GT and OC it. Save yourself $150. I don't care how rich you are, it's a stupid waste.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

I hate you.

I'm running a damned x300 se right now...barely pulling 20fps at 640x480w/ medium details. At that res, theres hardly a difference between medium and low quality. However, i see no performance benefit from dropping to low quality(my card is 128mb).

The thing that kills me, is that my comp is actually too new to upgrade, as it's mobo is pci-e. I REALLY want a 6800 gt but at the moment theres no pci-e version of it.

 

[Vark]

Tenguman, I'd been running it without the FSAA and I like it better with. I can tell the difference (though slight) and it doesn't affect the framerate at all. So why the hell not.

Clip, it's an Athlon 64 3ghz, 1gig of ram, the HD is running off of a RAID 0 array.

Bog, It was a 100 dollar difference. I wasn't going for value . I haven't had a top of the heap videocard since the original TNT2. Plus I hate dicking around with overclocking because I use my computer as a workstation and introducing stability problems (however minor) is a huge no no.

 

[Vormund]

Raid 0 is the one meant for speed right?

I might do that one of these days.

 

[ChrisReid]

Anand says Raid 0 is worthless for games
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

 

[Vormund]

Well that sucks.

Although I should probably buy a Raptor....

 

[Vark]

Raid's still great for high capacity temp storage though (capturing video). I just leave the games on there because if the drive goes, i don't really lose anything. (and its my largest drive).

 

[Stryder]

6800 Ultra = Waste of money. Get a GT and OC it. Save yourself $150. I don't care how rich you are, it's a stupid waste.

Too right, I bought myself a 6800 GT (which costs enough in itself!) and have managed to overclock it past Ultra speeds.

 

[mashoutposse]

6800 Ultra = Waste of money. Get a GT and OC it. Save yourself $150. I don't care how rich you are, it's a stupid waste.

...and an Ultra will overclock well past anything possible with a GT (especially on the memory side of things).

I got a GT because I am quite satisfied with stock Ultra performance, but I could see how others can justify dropping $500 on the real thing. I would love to have that 1.6ns memory...

 

[marsomega]

Well if it means anything, VR-Zone benchmarked the latest CS:Source beta. The latest ATI and Nvidia 256mb cards are neck-and-neck in all tests except the 1600x1200 test w/ AA where only the x800-XT PE pulls ahead by 8 fps, with other ATI and nvidia cards around the same

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1181

It seems that from these tests at least, it really doesn't matter much if you have an ati card or a nvidia card

You should really throw those results out the window. What they don't highlight is that there are graphical options (from what I hear, lots of them) that can't be turned on. And CS:S doesn't push anywhere near what has been seen in Half Life 2 from other sources.

Also, this is an earlier buld . Another reason these benchmarks are pointless.

rolls eyes...

 

[Celicar]

That pic looks so much better than mine, running at 800x600 low detail.

 

[tedtropy]

Looks very sharp. If you're playing at that setting with a high framrate, you're a lucky man. I'm running 800 X 600, medium quality on my 9800 Pro. I can get away with 1024 X 768, but I want smoothness before graphics. Even at that setting, I think the game looks great, so I can only imagine what it's like to play it on some uber-expensive hardware.

 

[marsomega]

...and an Ultra will overclock well past anything possible with a GT (especially on the memory side of things).

I got a GT because I am quite satisfied with stock Ultra performance, but I could see how others can justify dropping $500 on the real thing. I would love to have that 1.6ns memory...

The Ultra is not a good overclocker. For the extra it requires in cooling and power to make a overclock, your just stuck with deminishing returns. The 6850U o the 6800UE (which ever you prefer) was that, an overclocked 6800U.

The difference was very little. Didn't change the situation either as where the X800 XT PE beat were the same situations it beat the 6800U. Not to mention that at times even the 6800U beat it. From what I've been reading the card was canned completely.

The card did not do a thing to over take X800 XT PE at DX either nor does it do anything to overtake it X800 XT PE with AA/AF enabled.

Here's some good benchmarks. Even though the article contradicts itself in end when you look at their benchmarks.

Link