6800 looks noticeably worse than 9800 at the same resolution and AA settings. Period. Yes it it faster, but the only way it will look the same or better is if you crank-up the resolution. BUT this effectively reduces performance and alomst halves the frame rate and you get the same fps as 9800 which looks better at a lower resolution, so what's the point? I HOPE it is a driver problem and this will be ironed out before the card ships, but for now I am pissed and disappointed partly because extreme resolutions like 1600x1200 are often a bad thing if the a game includes text (Neverwinter Nights, for example, and other dialogue driven games) where text is hard to read if it is too small at hi-res and antialiased too.........
See the difference for yourself (link below)
I quote:
"Check out the horizontal stabilizer on this F-15C, specifically the left stabilizer, just beneath the “LN” markings on the tail. GeForce 6800 Ultra looks much better than 5950 Ultra here, although in this case we’ve got to give the AA edge to ATI. The RADEON 9800 XT does a better job of removing the jaggies, and doesn’t have the weird swirly marks found on the tail of the F-15C on both NVIDIA cards."
Oh, and DO check the RIGHT vertical stabilizer where it meets the fuselage! This kind of AA quality in a high-end "revolutionary" product which forces you to get a new PSU, motherboard and, possibly CPU + memory is unforgivable.
Link:
<A HREF="http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_6800_ultra/page7.asp" target="_new">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_6800_ultra/page7.asp</A>
<font color=green>Stingy people end up paying double. One kick-ass rig that will go strong for three years or one half-good one every year?</font color=green> 😎