Should i buy a new graphics card..

Azza

The current X800 and X850 do not have Pixel or Vertex shader 3.0.

I know of 2 games that use Pixel and Vertex shader 3.0

Far Cry is the first one. The use of pixel shader 3.0 offered minimal to no performance increase. I could not tell graphical if there was any improvement (but I'm not sure about last bit).

Pacific Fighters (which incidently does not correctly support SLI) uses both pixel and vertex shader to enable higher graphical settings for the landscapes. More accurately the ocean is rendered far more realisticly. The waves look much more realistic. Since the game is set mostly over sea its quite a nice feature. However I know with these features enabled the game will not run well on even very powerfull pcs (that includes either the 6800GT or Ultra cards). Bare that in mind with the fact that with SLI the game becomes graphicaly corrupt (albeit very fast) means hardly anyone uses the shaders.

Granted these shaders may become a plus in the future and these games where the first ones with these shaders and you would expect that they would fully take advantage of them. But the point is ATI is at no great loss without them currently. Its has a single card solution that is faster in both games. (SLI being ruled out in one) and ATI having a single card that although slower than SLI can still play the game at max settings with AA and AF at comfortable framerates. By the time more games start to use Shader/Pixel 3.0 ATI's next card with those features will be out the door.

jesus_thats_gre

Pretty much my pont Azza.. There is little doubt that PS3.0 will offer improvements once most games begin to take advantage of it.. Its a next generation feature so of course it is not going to offer much at the moment and ATI took a calculated gamble not to support it.. ATI's next card will support PS3.2 if I remember correctly..

However, my point that current Nividia cards should fare better 12 months down the line is still pretty valid. This only applies if you intend to keep the card for a long period of time. If you plan to change in 6 months again, it makes no difference.

Azza

I see your point. However if a person had opted the X800 ATI route he would have a card capable of playing older and current games faster now which compenstates for possible being slower in the next generation games.

There is also the possibility that the next generation of games which properly utilize the shaders may require a 512MB card to properly run. Which may obliged people to upgrade there ATI/Nvidia cards to a 512MB. Speculation on my part but I reckon it could happen.

Ciaran500

I think we are about two generation away from 512mb cards being used fully.

gline

Azza wrote:

There is also the possibility that the next generation of games which properly utilize the shaders may require a 512MB card to properly run. Which may obliged people to upgrade there ATI/Nvidia cards to a 512MB. Speculation on my part but I reckon it could happen.

I dont think that is going to happen with the next gen of games, like Ciaran500 said, probably 2 gens away, granted the next gen of games will probably have a bit of a benifit from more mem but not so much that it will require you to have 512meg to "properly run"

Azza

Probably but how many generations away are games that properly incorperate shader model 3.0 and above?

gline

Azza wrote:

Probably but how many generations away are games that properly incorperate shader model 3.0 and above away?

But your not going to "need" a card that supports ps3.0 to play them, im sure you will be able to play them at a slightly lower setting without PS 3, id say we are years away before you will actually need a card with ps 3.0 just to play a new title

Azza

Thats my point. Its no great loss to have gone ATI. Its not that I have anything against Nvidia (I have had cards from both and none have ever given me issues)
Not much to choose between in the single card department. I like nvidia's better driver support for linux however..

gline

well that is one thing i like about nvidia, i do prefer their drivers, i prefer using them to ati's

Azza

Gainward (and XFX)have been showing off there 512MB 6800 Ultras in SLI at the cebit in Germany.

Interestingly was the pirce. Gainward will be selling them in a bundle of 2 for €1100 euro.

Using logic one could conclude that the there going sell for €550 seperatly. Which is exactly what you would expect to pay for current 256MB cards. Either the price is going be higher for seperate cards or the 256MB cards will have the price value drop.

Also the card where running at a core/memory speed of 450mhz/1200mhz as opposed to what the 256mb cards run at now 400mhz/1100mhz.

jesus_thats_gre

gline wrote:

But your not going to "need" a card that supports ps3.0 to play them, im sure you will be able to play them at a slightly lower setting without PS 3, id say we are years away before you will actually need a card with ps 3.0 just to play a new title

Using that analogy, would you prefer to run HL2 on a DirectX 8 card or a DirectX 9 card? You may not need a PS3.0 compatible card but it should be a better experience. Sure you might as well just stick with a 9800 and 60 frames a second. You don't need 100 fps to play the game..

jesus_thats_gre

So back to my point, considernig the 6800 was developed as a brand new architecture, supports newer features and more than holds its own in the current generation of games next to ATI cards.... The 6800 is a better long term buy..

jessy

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

So back to my point, considernig the 6800 was developed as a brand new architecture, supports newer features and more than holds its own in the current generation of games next to ATI cards.... The 6800 is a better long term buy..

Not to keep on with the same point here, but no its not, you cant talk long term when it comes to hardware, take a gxf card from a year and a half ago and try runing farcry on max detail with it, same will be true for the current generation of cards in 1.5-2 years time. the best card to get is basicaly whaterver is best now, nobody will(should) get a 6800U or x850XT cos there looking to future proof or even thinking past 1 year.
just my opinion

jesus_thats_gre

Thats fair enough to.. I did say that if you planned to keep it for a short while and upgrade again this year it would make no difference what you bought now..

Azza

What about the people that bought both of em?

po0k

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Using that analogy, would you prefer to run HL2 on a DirectX 8 card or a DirectX 9 card? You may not need a PS3.0 compatible card but it should be a better experience. Sure you might as well just stick with a 9800 and 60 frames a second. You don't need 100 fps to play the game..

Actually, from what I read on Anandtech (albeit about a month ago), enabling DX9 on certain cards (can't remember exact model/manufacturer) hits the framerate by about 20%

jesus_thats_gre

SyxPak wrote:

Actually, from what I read on Anandtech (albeit about a month ago), enabling DX9 on certain cards (can't remember exact model/manufacturer) hits the framerate by about 20%

This is because of improved image quality and other DirectX9 effects that would be utilised.

I think you missed the point of my analogy though..

gline

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

So back to my point, considernig the 6800 was developed as a brand new architecture, supports newer features and more than holds its own in the current generation of games next to ATI cards.... The 6800 is a better long term buy..

You keep saying newer FEATURES, what features??? youve only mentioned Pixel/vertex shader 3.0, which is only utilised in a handful of games but has been out for the best part of a year (so game developers must not be in a big rush to start using it). So by the time most games start using it, ATI will probably have it in their cards also.

astrofool

well, look at it this way, the geforce fx was very competitive with the 9x00 series of graphics cards(even beating them alot of the time), until all the dx9 games started appearing. But NOW, anyone who got a 5950 ultra gets very bad performance, whereas someone who bought a much cheaper(at the time), 9800pro, still has a very usable graphics card for the latest games, only bettered recently by the 6600gt mainstream wise.

Not that is definitely going to happen, but the 6800 due to ps3(not playstation3..) will probably have more legs in its architecture than an x850xt PE. Not definitely (it certainly wasn't definite with the FX series until hl2 came out), but maybe. So if history repeats, the 6800 will be a better buy, if not, the x850xt PE will be, as it scores slightly better in some games.

EITHER way, both cards are more than enough to play ALL current games, so buying one for the future, the better choice is probably the 6800 (esp. the sli ones as you can add performanace later, and will probs have a higher resale value).

BloodBath

Not that is definitely going to happen, but the 6800 due to ps3(not playstation3..) will probably have more legs in its architecture than an x850xt PE. Not definitely (it certainly wasn't definite with the FX series until hl2 came out), but maybe. So if history repeats, the 6800 will be a better buy, if not, the x850xt PE will be, as it scores slightly better in some games.

What are you talking about. The fx series was dire compared to the ati cards long before hl2 came out. All ranges of the cards low, medium and high end were well beaten by their ati equivalent. The 5950 was about the only decent buy but it still wasn't as good as a 9800pro.


BloodBath

gline

BloodBath wrote:

What are you talking about. The fx series was dire compared to the ati cards long before hl2 came out. All ranges of the cards low, medium and high end were well beaten by their ati equivalent. The 5950 was about the only decent buy but it still wasn't as good as a 9800pro.


BloodBath

thats what i thought, i had an fx5200 and it was dire on most games.

astrofool

the 5700 ultra was a very good mainstream card in everything but dx9. Can go check the benchmarks from the time yourself if you wish. I got my 9800XT well before hl2 was released, and from the benches at the time, about 50% were won by the 5950 and the other half by the 9800XT, I bought the XT cos it supported dx9 properly, and it turned out to be the right decision.

Both the 5200 and 9200 are equally dire, hardly something to base a series of cards on.

The 5900XT was also a very good mainstream performer in everything but half life 2.

Anyway, we'll see in the next year or so..

jesus_thats_gre

gline wrote:

You keep saying newer FEATURES, what features??? youve only mentioned Pixel/vertex shader 3.0, which is only utilised in a handful of games but has been out for the best part of a year (so game developers must not be in a big rush to start using it). So by the time most games start using it, ATI will probably have it in their cards also.

Go look them up if you dont know them.. There is at least 4 others that I cannot remember the names off..