LeadTek 6800 and eVGA 6800 Ultra Extreme: New GeForce on the Block
by Derek Wilson on July 9, 2004 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Price/Performance Analysis
We decided not to use the MSRP (manufacturer suggested retail price) in our value calculation because people are buying the cards at market prices, not suggested prices. To answer the question "what card should I buy right now?" we have to evaluate the situation as it stands.As a reminder, here is the street pricing data that we gathered and estimated (all prices are USD).
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950: $380
NVIDIA GeForce 6800: $300
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT: $410
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra: $540
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme: $600
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro: $180
ATI Radeon 9800 XT: $400
ATI Radeon X800 Pro: $420
ATI Radeon X800 XT: $540
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: $600
When applying a graph to some set of data, it becomes more tangible and concrete, almost more "real" in a sense. But prices always fluctuate in the market, drivers come out that change performance, and people attach differing values to certain aspects of a product. The value graphs we have included are only one indicator in a sea of data. But making decisions between cards is difficult in very close race we have, and any indicator we have helps.
Interestingly, the 9700 Pro puts in a strong showing. Of course, in determining what purchase to make, we need to take into account minimum acceptable performance levels as well. The 9700 Pro may be a good value for many games, but it just won't deliver the frame rates in current and future titles, at the resolutions to which people are going to want to push their systems.
If something on the performance level of a 9800 XT or 5950 Ultra is desired, the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 is the way to go, every time. It's cheaper than both previous generation top-of-the-line cards, and offers better consistent performance and scalability than both. Of course, we haven't taken a look at a comparable product from ATI yet, but if it performs on par with the 6800, we'll be in good shape here. We are hearing rumors of an X800 SE part, but we have no confirmation from ATI on this. We will definitely re-evaluate the situation when that card comes to market, but for now we are very impressed with the performance and value of the stock 6800 part.
For higher performance, which is a better value? Should you go with the 6800 GT or X800 Pro? Is it a choice between the 6800 Ultra and X800 XT? Well, the answer is: go with the card that gives you the best value for the games that you like.
If that's too difficult a decision to make, our data shows the 6800 GT to lead the X800 Pro in performance. Maybe the $10 is a factor to you and maybe it isn't, but in this close race, price should definitely be a determining factor.
We can also see the 6800UE leading the X800XTPE most of the time as well. Gamers who choose these very high performing (and priced) cards will likely place less value on "value" than on how well the card does under on particular game. In those cases, check the performance graph for the game of choice and go for it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Drayvn - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
Actually i just found it for $530 over here in the UKDrayvn - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
In England the price of the XT-PE is about $565 and u could probably find it lower, at around $550 to $540...Noli - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
Guys if you don't like the value information 'overkill', er... just don't hover your mouse over the graphs?Actually my beef is slightly different which is why do anandtech log the fps/$ ?? There may be a good reason but am not sure what it is...
Marsumane - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
Something that I dont think is quite right is that they are doing these benchmarks to determine the value of a card. If you use SM2.0 for the 6800 series and the X800 series you will not be seeing the entire value of purchasing a 6800 based graphics card. SM3.0 IS A FACTOR IN VALUE!DarkKnight - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
I completely agree with #18, just too much value information for me. In the end of an article just give a graph of the overall value, something like they do at THG.DarkKnight - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
ZobarStyl - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
I love my LeadTek 4200, and the 6800nu is right up my alley...not like I need 256 for anything I do anyway. Great article, now I'm sure that once the gouging stops if I can find one for 250 it's mine. And ATi fanboys please stop posting their prices like they are wrong, everyone is overcharging right now...and the XTPE does not equal the XT #17...if the PE costs the same as the XT, who the hell will buy the XT when the PE is clocked higher stock and performs better?Hell at my local Best Buy the Pro (yes, the Pro) is proudly sold for 499.99; so much for the MSRP...
rjm55 - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
#18 - I infer that you meant "I am not implying . . ." in your comment.Derek - The "value" thing is a good idea, but using it in every graph is really more information than any of us need - which makes it more confusing than it needs to be. Not many are interested in comparing bucks per frame in Eve at 1600x1200 to bucks per frame in Halo, for example. What's in the article about value is geeky overkill, when what I want to know is true overall value, or bang for the buck.
Maybe you can settle on a bench ot two to best illustrate value instead of making it so complicated you have to run a computer analysis to figure it out.
binger - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
nice article, but too bad you didn't touch the issues of heat and noise. for me, those factors are far more decisive than, say, a 10$ price premium or a performance difference of a couple of fps.deathwalker - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
An after thought to my original post on this review...there seems to be a great deal of emphasis put on 1600 X 1200 performance in these reviews..I know there are still a great number of gamers out there still using CRT moniotors..but..with the growing popularity of LCD monitors this 1600 X 1200 performance range is unobtainable for most LCD owners as most 17" and 19" LCD monitors operate with 1280 X 1024 as the optimal native setting. I am not infering though that 1600 X 1200 is not revelant in this testing process...it's just an observation.