Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (
More info?)
"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message news:%016d.22537$Gk4.15581@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> "Marshall" <marshall@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:NHY5d.579$Yr.38@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net
>> "David Efflandt" <efflandt@xnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnclfqul.b8b.efflandt@typhoon.xnet.com...
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:26:10 -0700, Jeff <idont@thinkso.com> wrote:
>>>> What's the best video card for Doom 3 right now?
>>>
>>> Depends upon your criteria. I just wanted to get decent frame
>>> rate in the native 1280x1024 resolution of my 19" flat panel display on my
>>> Athlon64 3200+ (2GHz). The base 128MB 6800 gives me 60fps High quality
>>> (no AA or AF), and included Far Cry.
>>>
>>> First I tried replacing my FX 5200XT with an FX 5700LE, but had to use
>>> lower resolution. So I used eVGA's step-up program to get the 6800 for
>>> the price difference. GTs or better were back ordered at the time and now
>>> include Doom3 which I already had.
>>>
>>> If you have higher resolution, the extra bucks for GT or better may be
>>> worth it. But I am happy with what I got.
>>
>> Yep, the GT or better is the way to go. The base 6800 only has half the
>> data (rendering?) pipelines that the GT or Ultra have, and is seriously
>> neutered on account of that. That is why it's so (relatively) cheap. And
>> the 128MB of video RAM is a hinderance, too. Nowadays, go 256MB or
>> nothing.
>> -Marshall
>
> Er, no...the base 6800 has 12 pipelines, the GT and up have 16. Then the core and memory are clocked lower for the base 6800
> also.
Ok, so it wasn't half the pipelines, but it's still significantly less, and
the tests have born that out in the gaming press, in lower fps's for the
plain-Jane 6800.
-Marshall