Posted February 14, 200520 yr Benchmarks show the Ultra do better in most games, plus has pixel shader 3.0, which the x850 doesn't have. But people here seem to favor the x850 more, and I'm curious why.
February 14, 200520 yr Read this: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index.html and that's the x800, not the x850 basically, the x800 is faster after you crank up shit to the maxium, thus taking the bottleneck off the CPU. Plus, image quality is better on ATi cards.
February 14, 200520 yr because nvidia sucks and have to cheat on benchmarks to get a decent score, plus they put their fuckass logo on every game.
February 14, 200520 yr Author On the same site: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/index.html 6800 does better on most games Edit: the x850 isn't even much better than the x800, with barely any 10% difference.
February 14, 200520 yr I prefer Nvidia because of the DVI-input. So far I haven't seen an ATI card with that. And I have a DVI monitor, so.
February 14, 200520 yr Freddie_Mercury']Read this: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index.html and that's the x800, not the x850 basically, the x800 is faster after you crank up shit to the maxium, thus taking the bottleneck off the CPU. Plus, image quality is better on ATi cards. what do you mean by 'cranking the shit to the maximum'? you mean when you crank it to maximum on both cards, that ati will be fasters than the nvidia one? or do you actually mean it just gets faster (which doesn't make sense) and how does this take the bottleneck off. i have a x800 and it seems to run slower than it should, wra.
February 14, 200520 yr Stone gorilla.. lol.. yo.. I made a rage collage of that server today.. check it out.. on the rage forums for hl2
February 14, 200520 yr Stoned Gorilla']what do you mean by 'cranking the shit to the maximum'? you mean when you crank it to maximum on both cards' date=' that ati will be fasters than the nvidia one? or do you actually mean it just gets faster (which doesn't make sense) and how does this take the bottleneck off. i have a x800 and it seems to run slower than it should, wra.[/quote'] yesh, if you crank it to the max on both cards the ati will come out ahead. If you have a "slow" processor (basically anything less than ~3.4 ghz or AMD equivilant) it won't be able to send as much data as the videocard is capable of processing. by turning up AA and AF [which are both very GPU intesive and don't take up CPU time], alot more of the videocards processing time is taken up calculating that shit, and less time doing things that require input from the CPU, like loading textures from RAM and whatnot. that means that the GPU won't be processing as much actual data, so slower CPUs will be able to send all the data that the videocard can take.
February 14, 200520 yr I think his care-o-meter is at 0% for your rage. plus i didn't play cs at all today :|
February 14, 200520 yr nobletype']On the same site: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/index.html 6800 does better on most games Edit: the x850 isn't even much better than the x800, with barely any 10% difference. actually, the x850 beat the single 6800u on most of those games, execpt call of duty and doom3. what's winning is the DUAL 6800s and 6600 GTs. (see the "SLI"?) lewl
February 14, 200520 yr Freddie_Mercury']yesh' date=' if you crank it to the max on both cards the ati will come out ahead. If you have a "slow" processor (basically anything less than ~3.4 ghz or AMD equivilant) it won't be able to send as much data as the videocard is capable of processing. by turning up AA and AF [which are both very GPU intesive and don't take up CPU time'], alot more of the videocards processing time is taken up calculating that shit, and less time doing things that require input from the CPU, like loading textures from RAM and whatnot. that means that the GPU won't be processing as much actual data, so slower CPUs will be able to send all the data that the videocard can take. so are you saying if i put on AA and shit, it'll run FASTER than without? I have a AMD, it's about 1.6 ghz. i forget what it's equivalent to for intel, though. i think it's an amd 2500 or something.
February 14, 200520 yr Wuh oh, there is a stone gorilla imposter! bullshit, and I saw some myg0t pr0n guy he was pretty funny..
February 14, 200520 yr Stoned Gorilla']so are you saying if i put on AA and shit' date=' it'll run FASTER than without? I have a AMD, it's about 1.6 ghz. i forget what it's equivalent to for intel, though. i think it's an amd 2500 or something.[/quote'] i'm saying that if you put on AA and shit on an ati card and an nividia card, the ati will lose less frames than an nvidia card with the same settings, so it will be faster in comparison to the nvidia, not faster than before you put the AA and AF on. a 2500+ is definatly not powerful enoguh for an x800 but it's a good cpu. it's equivilant to a 2.5 - 2.7 ghz pentium 4.
February 14, 200520 yr OMG arguing over video cards!!! NERDS!!! we're not arguing anymore, if you could read. ilol that would be leet if fps magically went up by increasing AA.
February 14, 200520 yr I prefer Nvidia because of the DVI-input. So far I haven't seen an ATI card with that. And I have a DVI monitor, so. My Radeon 9800 Pro has both DVI and VGA connectors....Did you even LOOK before you posted this?
February 14, 200520 yr My Radeon 9800 Pro has both DVI and VGA connectors....Did you even LOOK before you posted this? my x800 has VGA and DVI. the x850 are DVI only. lewl. and it's not as if you can't get VGA => DVI adapters for like 20 cents.
February 14, 200520 yr Stoned Gorilla']we're not arguing anymore, if you could read. ilol that would be leet if fps magically went up by increasing AA. jk man, calm down
February 14, 200520 yr I prefer Nvidia because of the DVI-input. So far I haven't seen an ATI card with that. And I have a DVI monitor, so. lol you really are an idiot. anyway my 9800 pro has dvi,vga
