New computer, Video problem

its really funny - ive read stuff on the x800 that says "up to 75% more performance than the 6800" then the same for the 6800.

Basically im all for 6800 - with intel chips. But i think the Radeon works better with athlons. And thats based on reading a shitload of pcuser/world/format and atomic magazines.

I got an ASUS Radeon 9800XT and that runs sweet, if you have the cash go for the X800 possibly, but the 9800XT is still as good. The NVIDIA one needs two Molex connectors (If I am not mistaken) so you'd better have a damn decent power supply.

If it was me I would probably get the x800, but both are good cards.

Opps, posted as my brother.

Hehe, the age old question, which is better, Ati or Nvidia. Lets look at the track record. Nvidia always has way better drivers. 1 point for Nvidia. ATI can't get their act together and get a decent driver out. Even if their boards are better, their software stinks (although, the ATI guys came out a couple weeks back and said they "completely" redid their drivers, so here in a couple months, they should be out.) Anyway, Drivers alone, Nvidia all the way.

Second issue, Dual Display. Are you going to be running it? If not, then ATI is fine, if so, then you might want to grab a Geforce. In our office we have a great selection of ati and NVidia cards (I mean, we have to make sure the game works on all right?) anyway, the ATI can't run dual monitor for crap. We've seen this on a few different ATI products but the last case was on the 9800xt. A simple mesh viewer on the main window gets about 150 fps. Slide that over to the dual monitor, you're looking at 20fps. Makes zero sense. Anyway, the Nvidia clocked in at almost the same fps on the second monitor as the first.

Nvidia "recommends" connecting your vid card to two molex connectors.... Having talked to the Nvidia guys (they were out a week before the ATI guys) the second molex connector is to provide more power for those who are interested in overclocking their card. If you're not, just chill with one.

So, let's see here, Nvidia 3, ATI 0. In my eyes, go with the Nvidia. Of course, to each his own, ATI has been known to run cooler then Nvidias which equals more silent.

Anyway, let us know what you decide :)

I'm a nvidia man myself, Brand loyalty is stupid i know, but i've had 3 Nvidias and never had a problem. As Munkee said they do have the best drivers hands down - although i have heard some good things about Catalyst. So if I were in your shoes, i'd by the 6800 (and sell your shoes :P)

I've only ever had one problem with the driver, but since upgrading to a latter version there has been no problems.

I've used the TV out functionality, and the only problem I saw with that was that you needed to try some different combinations to get it working, but once it was it worked well.

I guess that it all depends on what you are looking for, heck for most things you don't even need the most powerful card.

Well thanks you all for you help so far :)

Daemin: I have budgeted for an $850 video card so money isn't much of a problem (and I will get most of it back on tax anyway, I love working in the industry.) I'm looking to be able to work on very Hi-res meshes (3-4 million) and also be able to test the characters/objects in-game with a large number of shaders, I wish to have a computer which has the power to make/render my short flim, to play the PC games that will come out to fill the gap between the next generation of consoles and something that will last me as long as my last computer did (3 years.) So petty much all the things I use my computer for need also much power as I can get, so I think the more power the better. Thanks for your help. Oh and power supply isn't a problem I have got 480 watt.

Bullet21: Yeah I have also been a Nvidia fan, but the last generation of card has made me a little more careful because $800 is a lot of a video card.

DaMunkee: Is this true about Dual Display, because I was thinking of have the two monitors one for the application I'm using and the other for concept art and reference images. Do you know a site which shows this. Is could very well be the deciding factor.

Rahnem: any reason for that, or you just like ATi cards??

HazarD: this is the very problem I'm having, one site says this and the other that. But I will add another point to Nvidia 6800 for it being better on Intel chips.

This is how it stands.

Nvidia and the 6800
-Better on with Intel chips.
-Better with duel monitors (not tested on 6800)
-Shadder version 3.0
-New drivers so room for alot more optimisation.

ATi and the X800
-Less power (not a problem for me.)
-Easily won last generation of video cards.
-Old drivers, making a very optimisation card to start with.
-Faster at AA.

I have a 9700 Pro (over a year and a half old). My friend has a 9800XT. I have also owned a GeForce 2 Ultra and seen some of the FXs in action. Preformance wise, they will pretty much give you the same. I like the visual quality on ATI cards a lot more (especially seeing as I have a LCD). The colours are brighter and in some games (FarCry at the moment), the nVidia ones have noticeable artifacts.

The GeForce6 has the better feature list and has more new features. The x800 is just a better made version of what has been available. Thing is, how much will that new nVidia tech bee used? Features that were introduced on the 9700s are only just being implimented now. By the time games start using the newer shader pipelines, newer cards will be out again. The GeFoerce6 also has onboard MPEG-2 encoding capabilities. I don't know just how good it is (quality or speed), but that may be a deciding factor if you want to encode DVDs. As DaMunkee said, nVidia have better dual monitor support. Just not with speed, but the GeForce6 has dual DVI outs (if you have dual LCDs that is ;) ).

I have a P4 and I have never had problems. Driver or otherwise. It is also worth noting that with Maya6, I have no troubles, but my friend with a GeForce3 has really bad preformance (due to a channel box bug). I don't know if newer nVidia cards have that trouble. Read up on other forums and see if people have had troubles with the programs you use and different cards.

There really isn't that much difference in the end, and it will just come down to the small things that will sway you. Nothing about the Geforce5s (original FXs) impressed me, so I was left rather indeiiferent with nVidia. Their 6s do sound nice, but the power and heat issues still bug me. I would personally go for a x800, but that just comes down to that it seems like a better made board, and I like what my current card has been able to do.

After read more tested today the X800 XT, is much faster then the 6800 Ultra. So my plan it to buy an Asus AX800 XT. As soon As I can find a place to buy it.

The main reason is the c3D normal map compression with the ATi cards, and the over all higher power of the ATi XT cards and Nvidia's marketing of there new card (you think microsoft are bad.)

Apparently Shader 3.0 is worse then Shader 2.1 or whatever it is, i've heard that off several coding gurus.

Its meant to be a lot more power hungry and does not improve results by much compared to Shader 2.1.

If it was me though i would say X800 [:)], but i love both companies so i guess its 50/50.

This is the test that I was talking about

[url]http://www.ixbt-labs.com/articles2/gffx/nv40-rx800-2-p1.html[/url]

Tbag: Yeah, that an idea I will ask the graphics programmer here.

They compare the two cards in this months atomic magazine, so it might be worht picking up, it's only 6.95 in Melbourne. Any way i think that the 6800 came out on top (this is what i comprehended from just reading the conclusion)

Bullet21: I can't see how you have come to the conclusion that the 6800 came out on top from reading the conclusion from the test. Can you point out you pick this up from.

I read it was saying that the overclock 6800 wasn't faster then the XT, the cost of the 6800 overclock will most likly be higher, the XT chip maybe hard to buy because of the small number of them, the XT work better with newer games and shaders. Shader version 3 maybe never take off. Also that 3Dc maybe not take off also (but I know for a fact that is has started to be use by developers, the only way to compress normal maps well.)

Also the Graphic programmer here said the X800 XT was the better card.

It is kind of funny because I was going to buy the 6800 U last week and now I'm getting a X800 XT.

On another note, my computer is on it way, p4 3.2 with HT, 1024 mb 400mhz ram :)

Its important to look into any driver/performance issues with your preferred 3d apps as well... Been reading in some places that the 6800 has a better opengl performance as well.. something to think about..

Mm.. my first post, been a long time lurker, hello all :)