Theres a fellow on ocforums.com who has his paws on a 6800GT. I think its stock cooling, and hes scoring in the 13000 range.
BTW...kickass forums :D
AC
heres the thread:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.p...hreadid=298357
Printable View
Theres a fellow on ocforums.com who has his paws on a 6800GT. I think its stock cooling, and hes scoring in the 13000 range.
BTW...kickass forums :D
AC
heres the thread:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.p...hreadid=298357
i don't agree, i don't think the x800 can match the NV40 clock for clock. Just take a look at the scores with NV40 @ only 540. if NV40 goes to 600mhz, i think it can take down the R420 quite easily.Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
Yes, sierra is correct ... this 6800 is a 35% overclock ...
a X800XT = 520 stock, 35% overclock = 702MHz
And yes, a X800XT @ 702MHz can and will produce that score, probably a lot higher...
from 400 stock, the NV40 gets 140mhz increase to (540) on japanese o/cer, the x800xt gets 260mhz increase from 520 stock(780) on Macci's rig. how did u get the 35% figure? i see that the x800 needed 50% overclock to match the NV40. well at least on Macci's rig.
Look at what I said:
NV40 Stock = 400MHz
Overclocked = 540Mhz
Difference = 35%
R420 Stock = 520MHz
Overclocked = 702MHz
Difference = 35%
I'm saying a X800XT @ 702MHz, vs a 6800U @ 540MHz is an equal (35%) overclock. And at 702MHz the Radeon is faster.
Macci's overclock was a 50% overclock ... and a 6800U at 600MHz may or may not pull 16.7K but we haven't see one that high yet have we :) Actually I think the 6800U in Macci's hands might pull 16-17K, but who knows...
Now quit eggin this on, i'm startin to sound like GeForceTi4200... :p:
No one ever said that an X800XT at 700mhz couldn't produce that score...the moral of the story here is that the 6800U can do it at MUCH lower clocks.Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
Yes, sierra is correct ... this 6800 is a 35% overclock ...
a X800XT = 520 stock, 35% overclock = 702MHz
And yes, a X800XT @ 702MHz can and will produce that score, probably a lot higher...
I'm sure this has been said before. Its totally irrelivant to compare these two cards on a clock for clock basis. It would be like trying to compare Intel vs Amd that way. The only thing that matters is what oc you can expect with different cooling +- mods and what they score at those settings.
Wow graphic cards these days crazy. lol nice:)
And an A64 can do it at much lower clocks too ....Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
No one ever said that an X800XT at 700mhz couldn't produce that score...the moral of the story here is that the 6800U can do it at MUCH lower clocks.
.... yeah, so ?
What's the story here ? You reading a different book than I am ? I'm completely lost now... :confused:
This is getting no where. Its really hard talking to fanboys.Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
And an A64 can do it at much lower clocks too ....
.... yeah, so ?
What's the story here ? You reading a different book than I am ? I'm completely lost now... :confused:
I am not trying to downplay ATI, or make Nvidia sound like the king of all that is graphically holy, I was simply replying to the discussion about the clocks.
We need to see how high they will go. If there is more headroom we could be seeing some really nice scores. If not, then ATI keeps the lead...
if we live in a perfect world , i would agree. but since , so many people always raise the AMD higher IPC issue whenever comparing with Intel. I thought i might as well do the same here. NV40 is faster clock for clock.Quote:
Originally posted by pkrew
I'm sure this has been said before. Its totally irrelivant to compare these two cards on a clock for clock basis. It would be like trying to compare Intel vs Amd that way. The only thing that matters is what oc you can expect with different cooling +- mods and what they score at those settings.
Also it seemed like the 6800 won out in 3DMark benchies but in most/all games the X800XT won out...
Why would you assume there is more headroom just because it has lower stock clocks ? You think nVidia wanted to have 400MHz stock clocks when they knew ATi was rolling out 520MHz ? They are completely different cores, just like an A64 FX and P4EE are different cores ... percentage wise they both have the same headroom ... just because the AMD has lower stock clocks doesn't mean it has headroom to scale up to 4GHz with Intel.Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
This is getting no where. Its really hard talking to fanboys.
I am not trying to downplay ATI, or make Nvidia sound like the king of all that is graphically holy, I was simply replying to the discussion about the clocks.
We need to see how high they will go. If there is more headroom we could be seeing some really nice scores. If not, then ATI keeps the lead...
That being said, we have seen very few actual products ... who knows the card Macci has might be a magic lucky core, and the 6800U might have been the dirtiest clocker of the whole batch. We have to wait to find out :)
Truce ?
Because our 3DMark benches aren't run with maxed out AF...Quote:
Originally posted by Arkangyl
Also it seemed like the 6800 won out in 3DMark benchies but in most/all games the X800XT won out...
Where did I assume they had more headroom? Maybe you mis-read my post...Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
Why would you assume there is more headroom just because it has lower stock clocks ?
i dont want to go in this argue just wanted to say which gives more performance at stock speeds is the winner most of the world dont oc or say only %5 oc
That was nearly good enough for 800mhz, actually.Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
You'll need this to hit 700+ however on an X800XT :)
http://www.soneraplaza.fi/GetImages/...0,49565,00.jpg
Oppainter is over 700 with phasechange.
Hmm... Yes...Thats the whole point... I think that tests should be run in 1600x1200 w max AF and AA.... Otherwise you arent really testing the GPU limits... 1024x768... Thats GF4 style... I wouldnt ever play in that resolution again... Its freakin ugly... Hehe... So people should run at least 1280x1024...Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
Because our 3DMark benches aren't run with maxed out AF...
But the 6800U got more in 3dmark03 than X800XT... Both on beta drivers... That doesnt even count... And as it was said before you cant compare clock to clock... Thats just lame... Mega noobie...
Then AMD would have no market period... Anyways X800XT has a better IQ ;o)
pwn.Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
Why would you assume there is more headroom just because it has lower stock clocks ? You think nVidia wanted to have 400MHz stock clocks when they knew ATi was rolling out 520MHz ? They are completely different cores, just like an A64 FX and P4EE are different cores ... percentage wise they both have the same headroom ... just because the AMD has lower stock clocks doesn't mean it has headroom to scale up to 4GHz with Intel.
That being said, we have seen very few actual products ... who knows the card Macci has might be a magic lucky core, and the 6800U might have been the dirtiest clocker of the whole batch. We have to wait to find out :)
Truce ?
I will also add--If Nvidia could have released a card that trounced ATI from the get-go they would have.
Quote:
Originally posted by pkrew
I'm sure this has been said before. Its totally irrelivant to compare these two cards on a clock for clock basis. It would be like trying to compare Intel vs Amd that way. The only thing that matters is what oc you can expect with different cooling +- mods and what they score at those settings.
Yep soulburner has harped on the clocks in many a Radeon vrs. GF thread. I went on and on explaining how silly it was last time but might as well do one of these instead. :brick:Quote:
Originally posted by LilGator
Why would you assume there is more headroom just because it has lower stock clocks ? You think nVidia wanted to have 400MHz stock clocks when they knew ATi was rolling out 520MHz ?
So have we got anywhere, lol?
I see that the 6800U may win in 3d mark 03 but the X800XT seems to do better in some games. This is a damn hard choice which one should I go for, I am all confussed, lol!
I'd go for the gaming card.
That would be a X800XT me thinks :D
What "harping" have I done? I really think you guys have a vendetta against me or something, this is really rediculous.Quote:
Originally posted by texuspete2k2
Yep soulburner has harped on the clocks in many a Radeon vrs. GF thread. I went on and on explaining how silly it was last time but might as well do one of these instead. :brick:
There was nothing wrong with any of posts in this "discussion".
Nothing wrong--you're entitled to your own opinion. we are just disagreeing with you.Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
What "harping" have I done? I really think you guys have a vendetta against me or something, this is really rediculous.
There was nothing wrong with any of posts in this "discussion".
And how does that make a difference lol ?Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
No one ever said that an X800XT at 700mhz couldn't produce that score...the moral of the story here is that the 6800U can do it at MUCH lower clocks.
imo the 6800u / intel will top the 03 bench
and the x800xt / amd will top the 01 bench
time will tell but the 2 cards are completely different and the clock speed difference between the 2 doesn't matter. now if they scale the same then useing a overclock % to performance % increase can be used.
Yea time will tell! I think im going for a X800 XT, might not be the best card but it should be above average :D
Nothing against you Soul. Its just this one thing we've disagreed on a few times. I agree with you that Nvidia's card looks stronger clock for clock. Just too much empahsis on it like in this Q&A.....
Quote:
Originally posted by Bennah
Which is better then? A 6800 U or X800 XT?
Hmm... the core, where most marks come from, is hardly even overclocked when talking of the XT in this scenario. Seems to me this was listed as a reason for it being better, not a statment of a more efficient core. I think others read it this way too. I dont believe the poster with the % OC was using GeForces patented ratio and multiply system but instead trying to be more fair to the Radeon card.Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
Look at the score and the clocks...I don't think an X800XT at 540/625 would match that...
I do wonder how everyone has seemed to peg all .13 GPU's at max 600MHz on conventional cooling. That would seem to lend more headroom to NV but there are many other influences. I dont want to embarass myself playing armchair engineer. But the flipside is Ati has got there low-k and lower power consumption which would make one think Ati could scale MHz better. Since we're not engineers I just look at it like once again the higher IPC chips just dont scale on the MHz as much, which luckily they dont have too. Amd v/ Intel... end of the day fps is king.
If we weren't passionate about this stuff, we'd still be using our stock HSF's.
:toast: