6800/6800GT price vs performance

In my quest to replace my now dead 9800Pro and decide on either a 6800 or
6800GT, I've done a performance comparison from the tests at anandtech. I've
added up all the test scores for both cards (38 of them) and averaged them.
Then I searched online for prices on both models.

The 6800GT was 18% faster than the 6800, averaging 64.96 fps compared to
55.03 fps, or roughly 65 to 55 fps. (38/24,687 and 38/20,913) The tests
concentrated on 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, with and without 4xAA
and 8xAF. This method is not scientific, but I agree with them that these
are the ranges that we'd like to play our games in.
For pricing, the GT averaged 50% more (about $140) than the 6800.

Since the 6800 is capable of running all games quite well, it's really a
question of where you want to draw the line for spending and how important
AA is for you in the most demanding games (is it worth $140?).
I thought this would help me make up my mind, but it hasn't. I just passed
it along because someone might find it interesting.

Gary

--
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

The real issue is what your cpu is, and if you plan to upgrade it soon.
If you have an Athlon 64 or plan to get one, then going for the 6800 GT
will be worth it. If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon XP,
and don't plan to upgrade the cpu soon, then go for the 6800, as the
cpu would probably be a bottleneck for a 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra.

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

In my quest to replace my now dead 9800Pro and decide on either a 6800 or
6800GT, I've done a performance comparison from the tests at anandtech. I've
added up all the test scores for both cards (38 of them) and averaged them.
Then I searched online for prices on both models.

The 6800GT was 18% faster than the 6800, averaging 64.96 fps compared to
55.03 fps, or roughly 65 to 55 fps. (38/24,687 and 38/20,913) The tests
concentrated on 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, with and without 4xAA
and 8xAF. This method is not scientific, but I agree with them that these
are the ranges that we'd like to play our games in.
For pricing, the GT averaged 50% more (about $140) than the 6800.

Since the 6800 is capable of running all games quite well, it's really a
question of where you want to draw the line for spending and how important
AA is for you in the most demanding games (is it worth $140?).
I thought this would help me make up my mind, but it hasn't. I just passed
it along because someone might find it interesting.

Gary

--
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

Sorry mate, thats not true.

I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
playing doom 3)

regards

Go for the GT, most o/c to ultra speeds

What resolution?

Mark Jeffries wrote:

Sorry mate, thats not true.

I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
playing doom 3)

regards

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:43:48 +0100 "Mark Jeffries" meeped :

Sorry mate, thats not true.

I have a 6800 GT and a p4 2.6ghz. The cpu is not the bottle neck (been
running perfmon in the background and the cpu does not hit 100% whilst
playing doom 3)

regards


yep...i can capture at 25FPS 512x384...when playing at 1024x768 on high.

It's the shadows that MASH yer Gcard.

You can see for yourself by disabling shadows and running the timedemo.
Massive increase.
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (

1280x1024, the only time I see cpu being maxed out is running at a stupidly
low resolution like 800x600 with no FSAA. At resolutions & fsaa settings
that you would actually play the game at the cpu is not the limiting factor.

regards

"JK" wrote in message
...
The real issue is what your cpu is, and if you plan to upgrade it soon.
If you have an Athlon 64 or plan to get one, then going for the 6800 GT
will be worth it. If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon
XP,
and don't plan to upgrade the cpu soon, then go for the 6800, as the
cpu would probably be a bottleneck for a 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra.

GTX_SlotCar wrote:


Totally incorrect. There is not that huge of a difference in FPS in games
to justify a new CPU if your 2.5 or higher, Intel or the AMD equivalent.

Get the GT.

That is not what this web page shows. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX-53,
3800+, or 3500+ would make a tremendous difference. Even an upgrade
to an Athlon 64 3000+ would show a significant difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7

Bruin wrote:

"JK" wrote in message
...
The real issue is what your cpu is, and if you plan to upgrade it soon.
If you have an Athlon 64 or plan to get one, then going for the 6800 GT
will be worth it. If you have a P4 that is less than 3ghz, or an Athlon
XP,
and don't plan to upgrade the cpu soon, then go for the 6800, as the
cpu would probably be a bottleneck for a 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra.

GTX_SlotCar wrote:


Totally incorrect. There is not that huge of a difference in FPS in games
to justify a new CPU if your 2.5 or higher, Intel or the AMD equivalent.

Get the GT.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:17:27 -0400 JK meeped :

That is not what this web page shows. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX-53,
3800+, or 3500+ would make a tremendous difference. Even an upgrade
to an Athlon 64 3000+ would show a significant difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7


notice the bench for the athlon 2000+
46.1 FPS in 8*6 AND 12*10

however the top CPU FX53 has a 21 frames per second drop off
explain that an remain fashionable ! (anyone???)


this game is sure throwing up some interesting benchies !!
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (