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
The Test
Our benchmarks this time around will consist of our previously tested standard benchmarks. The scores of older cards have simply been copied from our old test (from our first X800 review). Performance gains on most applications haven't been huge on the older cards with the latest couple of driver revisions from either camp, but these numbers should still only be used as a reference point.Unfortunately, the 4.7 Catalyst drivers were released the day after testing was completed, and were not able to make it into the article. We will, of course, be looking into the performance of new drivers in other articles (though the 1 per month release schedule of ATI is tough to keep pace with at times).
Performance Test Configuration | |
Processor(s): | AMD Athlon 64 3400+ |
RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 (2:2:3:6) |
Hard Drives | Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 120GB PATA |
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | VIA Hyperion 4in1 4.51 |
Video Card(s): | eVGA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT LeadTek GeForce 6800 NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition ATI Radeon X800 XT ATI Radeon X800 Pro ATI Radeon 9800 XT ATI Radeon 9700 Pro |
Video Drivers: | NVIDIA 61.45 Beta NVIDIA 61.11 Beta (5950U) ATI Catalyst 4.6> ATI Catalyst 4.4 (9800/9700) |
Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
Power Supply: | PC Power & Cooling Turbo Cool 510 |
Motherboards: | FIC K8T800 (754 pin) |
For easy reference, here is the pixel width, core clock speed and memory data rate of all current generation parts:
NVIDIA GeForce 6800: 12 pipes, 325 core, 700 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT: 16 pipes, 350 core, 1000 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra: 16 pipes, 400 core, 1100 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme: 16 pipes, 460 core, 1200 mem
ATI Radeon X800 Pro: 12 pipes, 475 core, 900 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT: 16 pipes, 500 core, 1000 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: 16 pipes, 520 core, 1120 mem
Here is the pricing data that we gathered from pricewatch and our own RealTime Pricing Engine (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: $?
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: $?
We don't yet have any reliable pricing information for the 6800 Ultra Extreme or the X800 XT Platinum Edition. With the 6800 Ultra and X800 XT both at $540, we can expect the beefed up versions of these cards to be priced a little more. We'll guess $600 each as the price points for the ultra high end cards. Who knows whether or not this will prove to be the case, but that's the best that we can do right now.
We have seen 6800 GTs on sale for their MSRP of $400 and there are a few links on pricewatch showing $410, but we couldn't touch an X800 Pro for less than $420.
We are always trying to bring more sanity to the decision making process, so for this series of tests, we will add a value graph to each performance test that will essentially rank all the cards by price/performance.
Even choosing to graph this data requires that we essentially assign a "value" to frame rate. Unfortunately, the way every individual values frame rate is unique, and we can't tailor make a graph for every individual. The once constant when graphing this data will be rank: no matter what you do, higher frame rates will raise rank, and lower prices will raise rank. Therefore, to try to help alleviate the problem of attaching a dollar value to every frame, we have decided to use a log scale. Specifically, our value graphs will be based on the following equation:
Value = 10 * log(100 * performance / cost)
We multiply performance / cost by 100 in order to avoid the problem of negative log values (our graphing engine doesn't like that), and we multiply by 10 for readability.
It is important, when looking at this data, to remember that performance and value need to be taken into account at the same time. In certain price difference situations, (for instance between the 6800 GT and X800 Pro), performance will be in favor of one and value the other. In these cases, the $10 USD difference may or may not be an issue. It's up to the reader to be the final judge.
But, that's enough talk. Let's move on to the numbers.
46 Comments
View All Comments
gordon151 - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
[q]ATI Radeon X800 XT: $540ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: $?[/q]
The X800 XT == X800 XT PE with respect to your prices.
deathwalker - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
The use of ATI catalyst 4.X drivers has proven to be a real thorn in the side of ATI card owners(in my opinion). I have a 9700Pro and the use of any catalyst driver above 3.9 results in a 3-5% performance hit regardless of the benchmark I use for measurement. I wonder if the resulting compatibility issues resolved in the 4.X series is worth the tradeoff in performance. ATI needs to remain focused on performance issues also in there driver releases. I have been a long time ATI fan (since the release of the 8500)..but..this article clearly indicates that Nvidia is in the process of or already has put a trump card on the table with the 6800 series of VGA cards that ATI needs to respond to.RyanVM - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
How did the X800 XT come out ahead of the XT-PE by 10fps in the Homeworld 2 16x12 4xAA/8xAF test?Warder45 - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
Derek, do you really think a fall refresh line is comeing this year? The spring line has barely shown up, let alone the low end ATI cards haven't really been introduced. Seems like that would be a big waste of money for ATI and Nvidia to release refreshes before the current line has market penetration.Slikkster - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
All I can say is that it's about time, Nvidia, that you've closed the gap on ATI. I'm looking forward to 2 6800 UE's SLI'd on a pci express board. hehehDerekWilson - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
sorry, to answer the resolution and connection questions:Viewsonic P95f+ using analog. When necessary (with the 6800 U and 6800 UE) we used a DVI to analog adapter.
DerekWilson - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
Things would have looked different if we had gone with MSRP ... things will also look different in a couple months when the fall refresh line comes out.We didn't feel it was fair to use MSRP because people can't find these cards for MSRP right now. In a month or two, that may or may not be different. And in a month or two, we may take another look at performance and value.
But, as we indicated in the article, the value graphs should really be more of a guide than a definition. If that makes any sense :-)
at80eighty - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
gotta agree with Shinei, this bunch DEFINITELY makes me wanna shift from my trusty Ti4200 *sniff* : p ... and umm no, im no fanboy; was seriously considering the X800XT, but the tests make me think the 6800GT is worth my money...btw Derek...what monitor + connection were you using for these tests?
/also - the value graphs: - great idea!...something i've come to expect from you guys now : P Keep up the good work!
trexpesto - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
whoops thought I was just logging in - um - nice article.I've seen newegg testing the waters with 9800 Pro 256MB for $223.00. Once I could believe it was a mistake, twice tho seems like real sampling to see when they should be lowering the price. There's just so many models out there, given a 10$ spacing, it's like prices are shored up from the bottom. Anyways, picked one up, but I let them sweat for a half hour first. ;)
Pumpkinierre - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link
In homeworld2 test the X800XT 1t 1600x1200 goes up in speed when you switch on 4xAA and 8xAF and beats the PE!