All these 6800U Benchies are making me sad

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
Hey.. all the Mobile XP2500+ overclocks that people are reporting make my XP look crap...

but then my chip did cost less than half what I can buy a 2500+ for, and that was something like 18 months ago, so at least I still have some reason to be cheerful!

<pre>sorry... I guess that didn't help much</pre><p>
---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
 

GeneticWeapon

Splendid
Jan 13, 2003
5,795
0
25,780
Dont tell him to do that....

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
wusy shut up, i'm trying to sell all my old crap before the new ones come out. Don't spread the word. ARRGH!!

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
Not trying to be an as$hole or anything, but do we care about people's feelings on an internet forum?

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

barnettgs

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2003
85
0
18,630
From what I have seen in these 6800 Benchies, Geforce comes out a lot better in much higher res but the performance is similar between Gefore 6800 and Rad 9800XT (if not better than 9800XT) in lower res of 1024x768. I wonder how many people are playing much higher res than 1024x768?
 

GeneticWeapon

Splendid
Jan 13, 2003
5,795
0
25,780
Let's not beat around the bush here...the 6800 stomps the 9800XT(notice I said 6800).

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
I am, i need at least 1280x1024, if not playing with anti-aliasing. Depends on your monitor, if you have 17 inch you only need like 1024x768, but 19", 1280x1024 helps.

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Lower resolutions are always limited by CPU.

The idea being, newer hardware makes these high-resolutions VIABLE.

PLus the fact that the 6800 will destroy a 9800XT with AA at 1024*768...

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 340/310)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @2.2Ghz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b>
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
The reason why the 6800 doesn't beat the 9800XT in 1024x768 is because the CPU is the bottleneck, therefore if you have the cash for an Athlon64 FX53, with Prometeia and clock the CPU at 2.9Ghz, the 6800 will beat the 9800XT at 1024x768, and by quite a bit.

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
Have you noticed that in many benchmarks going from 1024x768 res up to 1600x1200, the 6800Ultra takes almost no performance hit? While the 9800XT drops frames by almost half if not more?

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
My 17" sony only does like 60 Hertz at 1280x1024 :frown: .. So I end up stuck at 1152x864. It really pisses me off when games don't offer that resolution.

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
That sucks, 19" aren't exactly expensive anymore, the Samsung 955DF especially, very nice monitor 20dpi, you can probably find them around 200 bucks in the US.

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

rx7000

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2003
674
0
18,980
I play everything in 1280x1024, 800x600 is laughable after playing higher resolutions. Id love to have a monitor that supports even higher, maybe tis time to upgrade.

Asus p4c800 Deluxe,1 Gig Mushkin PC3200 400 Mhz(2-2-2 cas), Pentium 4 3.0 512k 800fsb HT, Thermaltake Xaser III, Thermaltake Spark 4, WD 80 Gig 7200, Samsung 52x24x52x16, GeForce 4 MX440 (PCI).
 

flamethrower205

Illustrious
Jun 26, 2001
13,105
0
40,780
The reason for that is when at such low resolutions, the CPU is the limiting factor. Maybe at 640x480 the Radeon would win cause it taxes the cpu less. The trend is toward higher resolutions tho, 1024x768 is (wwas?) standard, but now we're moving to 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 (notice how people are even saying screw 17" LCD's, I want an 18" at least).

SEX is like math. Add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, and hope you dont multiply
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
we taught barnette the lesson pretty good I think, the 3 of us explained to him in 3 different ways.

I guess insane gamers who doesn't have 5000 dollars for a computer has to get an Athlon64 4000+, or P4 Prescott 4.0Ghz if they want to get the full performance of these new cards.

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

barnettgs

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2003
85
0
18,630
Ok, I understand about CPU bottleneck on lower res. From these posts, I can tell these are from guys who knows everything about computers and loves playing games at high res. Yes, higher res is better looking.

But the reality is, it isn't the same in real world outside this forum. I have visited many people homes to fix their computers, I noticed that many of them using 1024x768 or even less for games regardless of how powerful their system & graphic card specifications are. But one thing for certain, all of their PSU is around 300ish watts and also it would be pointless for them to upgrade to geforce 6800 if they are not going to play at higher res, let alone buying new PSU. Thats the way it is for 'average' people who are not THAT interested in computer stuff, overclockinge tc because they seemed to be happy with their res setting so i'm sure that since they are happy with it, they can't see the need for higher res. I suppose thats their common sense. I find some games look fine to me on 1024x768 but if i'm using TFT flat panel that has higher res, then i wouldn't mind setting high res in games to match TFT native res. In this case, Geforce 6800 would be a big advantage for any computer that has large TFT flat panel.
 

pauldh

Illustrious
<Thats the way it is for 'average' people who are not THAT interested in computer stuff,>

These aren't exactly the people that R9800XT, GF6800U, and X800Pro are geared for. If they don't care about computers, chances are their systems doesn't contain a video card capable of gaming at over 1024x768. It may not contain a video CARD at all. Or maybe they don't even know the resolutions can be changed. :tongue: All I am trying to say, is those folks you speak of aren't worth putting into a discusion about the 6800 because why would they spend that kind of money if they really don't care much about computers in the first place?

I find 1280x1024 to be perfect on my 19" monitor. If i could play at that resolution, max details, and 4X/8X, I'd be thrilled for sure.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
Have you noticed that in many benchmarks going from 1024x768 res up to 1600x1200, the 6800Ultra takes almost no performance hit? While the 9800XT drops frames by almost half if not more?

That was a great example of CPU bounding results.

And to think that I was mocked by a particular THGC member when I was the first THGC member that said the NV40 was clearly CPU bound when we all looked at [H]'s leaked review shots. I was told that it was my, "excuse for NV".. LOL

Its going to be tough laying down the cash for this card and a new system. I agree its not worth buying the card unless you are anticipating getting a fast CPU in the near future.

I'm going with whichever brand has their PCX motherboards out in June.
Hopefully S939 NF3-250 w/PCX will be out but I'll take a Intel Grantsdale (S775, DDR2, PCX16X) if its out by then as well.
With the news of the NV mobo giving bonus performance working with a NV I might have to go AMD.

But I think I'd let that bonus go if Intel is out first with PCX support at that time.
Either way, an expensive CPU is also on the bill as well... /sigh

This class of stuff should last a while at least.

____________________________
:evil: <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil:
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>