ATI On The Rebound: 6800nu and GT Dethroned !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Lastly, lets not forget something that the R430 (X800Standard,X800XL) has that even the XT PE does not have: its based on the 110 nm architecture, so that means less power requirement and higher OCs (hopefully).


Perkam

---

It's not low K so will probably be as hot, just like the X700 is pretty hot and that does not overclock very well, 50Mhz being a standard while the 6600GT starts off at 500 and adds 75-100 to that.

Regards

Andy

Quote:

---

So you're saying that the 6800GT now has a valid contender for the high-mid-high end coming from ATI's X800 xt or se or le or eb or xtpe or abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz?
Sometimes things get to the point where you just don't care anymore.

---

Seriously, its not up to use to decide when that point comes along because of the FX-5xxx fiasco with Nvidia's xt, se, le, ultra, etc, ATI would have to release an X900 se, xt, le, etc to match Nvidia's debocle.

AGAIN MY POINT, its getting so easy to spot Nv fanboyism when you see ppl getting annoyed by the fact that ATI has more competitors in the market now that Nvidia ---> WHICH WAS NVIDIA's POSITION A MONTH AGO, and no one complained then for some odd reason *rollz eyes*

Quote:

---

X700 is pretty hot and that does not overclock very well,

---

Low-K has always been an advance in technology, even at stock if you get the same perf as a 6600GT with 130-nm on an X700XT. In addition, you seem to be talking about the "X700" which , with the lack of a PRO or XT in front of it, only suggests you are talkinga bout he X700 Standard - the most overclockable low-mid-range card there is. It puts the 6600-non-GT to shame and can easily operate stable at XT speeds for a measly $149.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

That I cant disgree with. I had no intention of comparing any cards here, rather, my purpose with the "Dethroned" aspect was that the 6800 GT now has some thing to compete with, and is NOT the King of Mid-High-End anymore. Before the X800XL, the X800 Pro was more expensive but a tad less powerful and the X800 XT was much more expensive but with the same 16 pipes.

So the 6800 GT was the only practical card out there until now - thats my point. Sure, if I had said "ATI releases a new product line" it would have been more to the point, but with Nvidia fanboys (not that I'm accusing you of being one) going around telling ppl that the 6800 GT has no competitor and that the X800 PRo sucks, I just thought it'd be appropriate to qwell their overly enthusiastic miconceptions..

In addition, ATI seems to coming out on top on MOST of the synthetic benchmarks out there and you CANT deny that advantage. Nvidia may be suitable NOW for games like Doom 3 and Far Cry, but Futuremark makes software which measures the card's potential to remain competitive in the face of more graphically intensive games using newer technologies for the future, instead of current ones.

Perkam

---

I somehow doubt that correlation at all. 3dMarks are synthetic.. plain and simple and will never be reflective of actual gaming. It's been this way ever since the videocard contraversy started. The ATI and Nvidia cards I have are to similar in gaming performance... and am I suppose to assume (something you love to do) that because the synthetic benchmarks of old performed better on ATI.. that now ATI should perform well on current videgames now? I don't see that at all.

I'm not a fanboy... I'm not defending Nvidia or ATI.. I have both cards and have owned both for a very long time. I do however defend the ill assumptions that fanboys make... and for you perkam it seems a trend in all the threads I have read. And I think most people can agree on this.... constructive criticism is best.... but not wishful thinking...

Quote:

---

that now ATI should perform well on current videgames now? I don't see that at all.

---

I didnt say that at all, all i said was that there is no plausible explanation for why Nvidia's cards do so badly in synthetic benchmarks.

In addiion, "Wishful Thinking" is my word, so stop using it :p:

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Low-K has always been an advance in technology, even at stock if you get the same perf as a 6600GT with 130-nm on an X700XT.
Perkam

---

Both X700 series and 6600 series are 110nm. Neither use low K.


The X700 series runs fairly hot and up to now has not overclocked well compared to 6600 series.Check out the 3dmark05 scores for X700 series and 6600GT and tell me who is overclocking better.

Regards

Andy

I thought you meant the X700 Standard, which overclocks quite high. The X700XT may suck and I dont have a problem with that. Its the X700 Pro 128 MB that can operate at XT speeds and beyond but at $20 - $30 cheapter than the 600 GT. As a matter of fact, many that reviewed the X700 PRO 256 MB noted that it actually tries to compete with the 6600 GT, even though it is supposed to be slower.

Nvidia may have the 6600 GT, and with SLI support, it has more going for it than the X700 XT - Even I KNOW THAT. My comments were about low-mid-end graphics market with the X700 PRO 128mb and X700 Standard 128 MB, for $179 and $149 respectively.

Though for anyone not looking at SLI, not looking at OCing, and wanting something that goes head-to-head with the 6600 GT, the X700 XT is a good choice.

Perkam

Well Nvidia learned their lesson last time around, hopefully the same will happen to ATI. If they really must have so many products then why don't they just number them all from 1 to 25, where 25 is the most powerful, and 1 the least. I think just calling then X1, X2, X3, ... X25, would be much simpler.