Quake3World

the guys in the know at the b3d forums have made it pretty clear the cards are gonna be superior to 7800 series.

i dunno about the driver probs rook. i have not had one single issue with drivers on the last 2 ati cards i've had. issue with punkbuster for awhile there but that also hit nvidia users to.

you can always upgrade to dual core later with the 939 board also.

my a64 runs at 2.45. i don't think theres a game out there that makes it sweat.

Well, until you guys mentioned it I hadn't heard anything about the new ATI cards. If they're being released tomorrow, you think the 7800's will drop in the next few days to compete with them?

If that's the case, maybe I should wait before I start ordering, because I was planning on doing it tonight.

shadd_ wrote:you can always upgrade to dual core later with the 939 board also.

my a64 runs at 2.45. i don't think theres a game out there that makes it sweat.

Which ATI card are you running, and what kind of frames do you get in D3?

i'm pretty sure all the reviews and benches will be out in the morning. so it wouldn't hurt to wait a day.

I would go with the Athlon 64 3700+ (SanDiego). It has a 1MB L2 cache, and the SSE3 instruction set. It OC's just as good as the Venice Core's.

R00k wrote:

shadd_ wrote:you can always upgrade to dual core later with the 939 board also.

my a64 runs at 2.45. i don't think theres a game out there that makes it sweat.

Which ATI card are you running, and what kind of frames do you get in D3?

800xt pe. i was playing it at 1280x1024 4xaa, 16af in high settings hitting the 60fps cap pretty much solid if i remember right.

fast enough anyways. but if doom3 is your game, it's the one game nv is good at.

Nah, I barely even play Doom3, I was just trying to use it as a rough guide. I know it kills my machine, but I only have a 9600XT so it's completely expected.

I think I'll wait a few days though to see what the news is. Hell, the 7800's might drop 50 bucks next week. Even if they don't, it would be silly to upgrade the night before a new line of video cards come out.

R00k wrote:Stop being a fucking idiot. I asked for experienced technical advice, not quotes from "Complete Power Users Magazine."

Multiple cores are still used by the OS even if a game isnt using or even aware of them. Windows itself will offload service threads to the second core, newer antivirus apps can be set for an affinity with the second core, etc. That means there is less CPU usage when you're playing a game since the second core is picking up the extra workload of those background apps.

[FTF]Pyro wrote:

R00k wrote:Stop being a fucking idiot. I asked for experienced technical advice, not quotes from "Complete Power Users Magazine."

--- experienced, you cock muncher.

That's really doubtful after reading some of the technical "opinions" you post here.

experienced.... yes
always right ........ no


hey I'm willing to learn from other people, doesnt mean that I am wrong on this account though.

Tormentius wrote:

R00k wrote:Stop being a fucking idiot. I asked for experienced technical advice, not quotes from "Complete Power Users Magazine."

Multiple cores are still used by the OS even if a game isnt using or even aware of them. Windows itself will offload service threads to the second core, newer antivirus apps can be set for an affinity with the second core, etc. That means there is less CPU usage when you're playing a game since the second core is picking up the extra workload of those background apps.

But for an equal prices processor you could get a dual 2.0GHz or you could have a 2.4Ghz single core. Or save a $130 and get a single 2.2GHz. I just don't see them as price effective just yet. Maybe in 6 months, but for now I think the 3500+ Venice is a great value. It's only $30 more than the 3200+ and will easy hit 2.6GHz on stock cooling & voltage.

I have a 64bit cpu, but still no 64bit OS. TBH, I'm with the guys saying to wait. I just cant see the point in spending extra money to get an OS that wont REALLY be of any point to me.

Does Longhorn support 64bit out of the box? Shame it fucks up openGL...

AnandTech has a review up today of the new X1000 line from ATI.

Unfortunately, from what I've read so far, it doesn't seem like they will actually be on retail shelves for another week or so. Maybe just bad timing on ATI's part?

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2552

They also only have the high-end cards to review. The mid/low range of X1000's haven't been made available to them yet, which would be the ones I would consider. This worries me a little, but I don't know if the cards are having problems, just aren't finished/polished yet, or if ATI simply doesn't want to release them until their high-end cards generate all the hype.

i like AA(anti-alaising). there is no way i would fork out hundreds for a 7800 that cannot do hdr and aa at he same time when another card can.

the new ati cards are pretty advanced. it's hard to judge from the intitial reviews. they seem to be fairly even in the games out at the moment with image quality and high res being in ati's favour.

anyways i was reading up on the dual core stuff and some recent comments from ati confirm they are working on drivers that will offload vertex and shader operations to the second core. nvidia is working on this too so it can't be to far off.

@odium, this thread really had nothing to do with 64bit os or anyone suggesting he buy xp64 at all.

The page on high quality AF made me drool.

"High Quality AF does come with a performance hit. We tested Far Cry at 1600x1200 on a Radeon X1800 XL and saw a performance drop from 76.3 fps to 71.2 fps. This is quite acceptable on high end hardware, but may not be a viable option for everyone."



Not to mention the obvious differences in angle-independent filtering between these and the older cards.

I've read reviews at four sites so far.
X1800XT > 7800GTX but barely
And it has a much higher price tag.

7800GT > X1800XL in almost all things

If you can afford $600, by all means go the ATi route. As for me, this just solidified my decision to get a 7800GT.

Psyche911 wrote:I've read reviews at four sites so far.
X1800XT > 7800GTX but barely
And it has a much higher price tag.

7800GT > X1800XL in almost all things

If you can afford $600, by all means go the ATi route. As for me, this just solidified my decision to get a 7800GT.

All ive seen is if you play Farcry or Splinter cell ATI is better..

O_o

Or Battlefield 2, FEAR, or give a damn about 3DMark (not I).

So, I guess they're more even than ATi being slightly better. Either way neither is clearly superior in overall performance.

Not to mention 7800s have quieter coolers and consume considerably less power.

You've made a good choice in your GPU, SOAP.

P.S. DooM 3 engine loves nVidia, so if you really want to play Q4, nVidia is the only way to go, IMO.

Psyche911 wrote:Or Battlefield 2, FEAR, or give a damn about 3DMark (not I).

So, I guess they're more even than ATi being slightly better. Either way neither is clearly superior.

Not to mention 7800s have quieter coolers and consume considerably less power.

You've made a good choice in your GPU, SOAP.

you guys need to take a closer look. i would almost think youre nvidiots with your refusal to admit the 7800gtx is no longer king. anyways these are just quick reviews thrown up in a hurry.

beyond3d has not put up their review yet because these cards really deserve no less than a full in depth review of the new hardware and the features they bring.

and i'll repeat this over and over. you have no AA with HDR on the 7800. i dunno, as an enthusiast, having the option for both is a no brainer.

wait for beyond3d review.

SOAPboy wrote:

Psyche911 wrote:Or Battlefield 2, FEAR, or give a damn about 3DMark (not I).

So, I guess they're more even than ATi being slightly better. Either way neither is clearly superior.

Not to mention 7800s have quieter coolers and consume considerably less power.

You've made a good choice in your GPU, SOAP.

hard to believe you were raving about being able to play fear maxed out when you got your gtx. now ati crushes it in fear(with its first set of drivers no less)and now you start to backtrack.

The ATI is better in a few respects. ATI also doesn't have a good SLI solution, but I'm sure that will come soon.

I am still leaning toward nvidia right now, but I have decided to wait a couple of days, so hopefully ATI will make a better case in some new reviews soon. Otherwise, I think I will probably go with a 7800.

shadd:
shaddup, you're the only one sounding like a fanboy. I've never even owned nVidia, this is my 4th or 5th ATi card in a row, and before that I just had onboard video.

You are the one who is refusing to believe. You're looking at the X1800XT 512MB. It doesn't have a corresponding nVidia part as they are all 256MB. It will never cost the same as the 7800GTX. It does not reflect the performance of this generation of ATi hardware at all.

The 7800GT wins over the X1800XL in almost everything. And that's all that matters to me as I can't pay $450-600 for a video card. Most people don't.

So the 7800 doesn't have MSAA in HDR games. There is no full game that supports HDR on the market right now.

Who knows where things will stand by the time it actually matters which cards can do HDR (with or without AA).