Something about this card seems too good to be true...
Are the benchmarks at
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_doom3_benchmarks.html accurate?
It costs the same as the X800 Pro, yet performs WAY better, in some cases almost twice as good (at least when comparing FPS in Doom). In particular, I'm looking at the anandtech chart which shows the GT at 94 FPS where the X800 *XT* can't push beyond 47!! WTF?!
Another reason why I'm kinda second guessing this is because of results found here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...6800-oc_6.html
As they crank the settings up, the XT seems to perform much better, which is kinda odd... 1024x768 the 6800 GT performs better than the XT, but 1600x1200 with all AA/AF cranked up, the XT busts out with some 51 FPS!
However, you will also notice that it says the X800 Pro is 12 pipelines when <a href="http://ati.com/products/radeonx800/index.html">ati.com</a> says it has 16. Then again, ATI words it as "up to 16". [edit] Yeah, newegg lists the X800 Pro as 12 pipelines. Hm..
Another thing you'll notice is that the 6800 GT doesn't support (or so newegg says) Open GL 2.0, only 1.5. Will that be a problem for future games?
I'm not sure if the 6800 series was designed strictly for Doom 3 or if nvidia is really just kicking ass or what... but something doesn't seem right. Maybe the card IS that good, and if so, damn.. this would be the only time when I would even remotely consider spending $400 for a card.
Not to mention, I heard it's easily overclockable to perform on par w/ the Ultra. Is this true?