ATI answers NVIDIA: Radeon X800!!
 

ATI unveiled its new videocard series today. The new competitor of NVIDIA's GeForce 6800 Ultra is the Radeon X800 XT!

After reading through the tests, it looks like the Radeon X800 XT is the new performance king, just barely gliding past the GeForce 6800 Ultra. ATI introduced two cards today, however: the Radeon X800 Pro and XT. As ATI fans know, Pro is the upgraded version of a Radeon, and XT being the "ultimate" version. The X800 Pro is performing somewhere between a Radeon 9800 XT and a GeForce FX 6800 Ultra. It's also $100 less than the XT!

NVIDIA plans to launch the GeForce 6800 GT soon. This card will be the Radeon X800 Pro's competition (price and performance).

To confuse matters even more (I love the videocard market), ATI has decided to release a Platinum Edition XT, which is faster than "regular" Radeon X800 XTs. NVIDIA plans to combat this with a GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme which will probably be well over $500.

So now, gamers have these new cards to look forward to:

ATI Radeon X800 Pro and NVIDIA GeForce 6 6800 GT
ATI Radeon X800 XT and NVIDIA GeForce 6 6800 Ultra
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition and NVIDIA GeForce 6 6800 Ultra Extreme

I'm sure there will be X800 and 6800 regulars out as well. It'll be interesting to see how they perform against the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and the Radeon 9800 XT.

Another interesting point: the Radeon X800 (both) use smaller heatsinks than a Radeon 9800 XT, and only use one power connector without the need of a bigger PSU. ATI sure knows how to condense technology!

Well, ATI's news is over, and now we have a new generation of videocards debuting very soon. I can't wait! I figured ATI would pull slightly ahead with a new videocard soon, and they did. ATI by no means "owns" the market now (as many ATI fanboys will believe); it's mainly due to driver optimizations that ATI is in the lead. NVIDIA's newer drivers actually decreased performance in some games with the 6800 Ultra. When the drivers are good to go for both companies, it's gonna get really, really close. :)

-Lasereth

Like I said 2 weeks ago, ATI would sneak in and answer Nvidia's call for the new graphics cards market. This comes as no surprise to me, nor should it be a surprise for anyone who pays attention to the videocard market. That's how ATI works, everytime Nvidia comes out with the newest, next generation card, ATI sneaks in and BARELY beats out Nvidia's solution.

what... no extreme, mega, super wrath of God, diamond, type R editions?

And yet my Radeon 8500 still does everything I need it to...

I'm happy these new cards are out because they'll drive down the prices of the "still good but not the best" cards in a month or so.

There ya go.

//Me waits for prices to drop to reasonable levels...

I dunno, it's getting harder and harder to justify (to myself and my girlfriend) that I need a new video card that costs $400 (cdn) when I could just buy an X-Box for $299.

I couldn't agree more.



Mr Mephisto

When did we move to Japan? :crazy:

Next card will be the Super Mega GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme :lol:

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto at the marq. I just got a 9800 Pro and even that is having a tough time with FarCry so I don't know how its going to handle HL2, etc. But I do have an Xbox (price know $150) which will have HL2, Doom 3 and even a FarCry games released for it the near (?) future. I don't know.......maybe I am just bitter and angry that I have had my new card for about two weeks and its now third generation technology.

P.S. Would you upgrade your computer (your entire rig: new processor, RAM, GPU) just to play a game? Even if it is HL2, Doom 3, etc.?

Well, the first thing to keep in mind is that the graphics on the console versions are far different from the PC versions. Ever tried playing Grand Theft Auto on a PC and then a PS2?

As for upgrading my computer, I haven't upgraded once since I built it in August 2001, and I've been able to play almost all games that have come out up until now on my GeForce 2 MX. Sure, some had to have lower graphics settings than others, but that's ok.

Doom3 is the perfect excuse for me to upgrade, and when I do so I'll get the second best graphics card and the best or second best of everything else I need to upgrade (i.e. mobo), and I'll use that for the next 3 or 4 years probably. Nothing wrong with upgrading, you just gotta do it intelligently.

First off, FarCry is simply an incredibly taxing game. It's new. The Radeon 9800 Pro is a year old. You're using a videocard that's a year old on a game that's very new. It's simply not gonna run with extremely high settings. Still, the Radeon 9800 Pro is still considered the Super Elite of the videocard market. If you have a Radeon 9800 Pro or GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, you have NOTHING to worry about concerning PC games for at least two years.

Secondly, when you bought it, it was second-generation already simply because the 9800 XT is out. I wouldn't call it second or third generation if ya think about it though: the XT is only about 5-10% better at most. Plus, at $200, it's a fucking steal. Remember that the X800 XT and 6800 Ultra are gonna be five hundred fucking dollars! That's an incredible amount of money. I can buy a Radeon 9800 Pro, Athlon XP and the best motherboard and 1 GB of RAM for $500. These new videocards have superceded the current generation, but you're sure as hell gonna pay for it.

This happens every year guys! A new videocard that costs $500 comes out, and everyone automatically assumes that all of their equipment is obsolete. You simply have to remember that an Athlon XP 2000+ or P4 2 GHz with a 9800/Pro or 5900/Ultra will be good for at least two years from now. Yes, two years. It won't run the new games at the best, but it will run them, and that's all that computing equipment is designed to do. That's why ATI, NVIDIA, Intel, and AMD all have different levels of equipment: some people want their games to run the best, and some people simply want to play the games reasonably.

-Lasereth

I just read a side by side comparison of the new cards from ATI and Nvidia on PC Perspective (www.pcper.com) They said the new cards all were pretty much even until everything was turned all the way up when ATI pulled into the lead. I guess ATI is making up for all the time they lost having shitty drivers on their cards.

FarCry is mostly CPU limited on a 9800 Pro unless you are running a lot of AA and AF. From the benchmarks that Valve released last Sept., I think a 9800 PRO will be fine for HL2. Since doom3 was built targeting the NV30 cards, I'm sure that it will run fine on 9800 PRO. Bottom Line is I don't think you're likely to see any game come out in the next 12 months that won't run well on the 9800 PRO. Plus you probably paid around $200-$225 for your 9800 PRO, you won't be able to beat that performance at that price for some time.

It depends. It looks like right now that ATI's X800 is winning the anisotropic filtering war while NVIDIA's 6800 is winning the front side anti-aliasing war. Now it's just down to which card is better optimized for each game (which is mainly done through driver optimizations). To ATI's benefit, their drivers are looking to be better for overall games. It's gonna fluctuate a lot in the future with different drivers, however.

-Lasereth

I have to rant about the gaming industry and the video card industry. It's all based on gut feelings regarding the industries and my not be accurate at all. Please call me out if I'm way off. I'm not that knowledeable about how graphics work and how sales and marketting work either.

It might be off topic, if it is please move it to a new thread or let me know and I'll do so myself.

1) Graphics do not make the game, sadly game companies and the entire gaming industry doesn't get it and all the new games have to be set up for the most up to date card. Instead of releasing games that run really well on the average gamers system and super badass on the ubergamer system, they release games that have shitty framerates on average systems. Therefore you have to tone it down on your average system because you don't want to spend $500/yr on vid cards.

I don't need to see each button and crease in the the uniform of the asshole NPC that I'm about to blow to bits, I don't need to see his intestines fly out of the body, and the blood droplets don't need to be perfectly realistic either. It may "wow" me when I look at the box or read a review but when I'm playing I don't have time to care about it because there is another asshole NPC getting ready to rip me to shreds.

Is there some sort of spoken or unspoken collusion between manufacturers and the reviewing industry or are the fans really pushing for it? I'd really like to know.

2) Company A has a new card to debut. It's top of the line and when your sniper rifle is zoomed in on the bad guy, it allows you to see the boogers in his nose, so it's going to it's going to cost about $500. That's a lot of money, so they decided to make three variations, the A1, A2, and A3. The A3 is the one that the bulk of the R&D was focused at and the A2 and A1 versions are stripped down versions, but they still kick ass compared to what you have right now (or do they?). Since they are different, they have to make 3 production lines, 3 different types of packaging, they also had to spend a lot more money in R&D deciding how they different levels would be different and how they'd implement those changes. If they had decided to just make the best version of the card and forget about the two downgraded versions, couldn't they make just as, if not more money?

It sure as hell would seem a lot more consumer friendly at the least.

Oh Jesus. I just read on ign that
The reason I highlighted Sapphire is because they make DAMN good ATI cards and it excites me. Anyways, Lasereth's right, this shit happens every year, and I said before, whenever Nvidia releases their "next-gen" solution, ATI comes back with something that's a little better. It's called differentation, people, and it occurs when products compete with each other and try to create factors that make each product, even though they're basically the same thing. It's a damn video card. Methods of differentation for video cards come from 1) how good they make games and everything else look and 2) how good the scores are on certain benchmarks (i.e. 3dMark2003, Aquamark, Far Cry timedemo, etc.)

Anyways, I'm agreeing with Las and saying that the newest cards are begging to be bought, it's not necessary that you go out and blow 500 clams on every latest and greatest card that gets put out, unless your life depends on busting 10,000 on 3dMark2003 or you just have shitlodes of money to waste on it. Damn that was a long sentence.

Me personally, I'll probably wait until the R500 series comes out and is decently priced, because that'll just about time for a new computer, and I'll be feeling generous enough to shell out that kind of cash.

Doom 3 runs on my GeForce 4 TI4200. Half-Life 2 runs on it as well. It was $140 two years ago. You can get them for $80 now. No games that come out eradicate every system except for the super-elite...they just come with graphical settings that can be adjusted. It's a really good idea: those that spend $500 on a videocard get their money's worth by getting better graphics, and those that pay $150 for a videocard get a damn good game with less of a graphical kick. Those that spend more get better graphics, but both get a good videogame.

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu 2) Company A has a new card to debut. It's top of the line and when your sniper rifle is zoomed in on the bad guy, it allows you to see the boogers in his nose, so it's going to it's going to cost about $500. That's a lot of money, so they decided to make three variations, the A1, A2, and A3. The A3 is the one that the bulk of the R&D was focused at and the A2 and A1 versions are stripped down versions, but they still kick ass compared to what you have right now (or do they?). Since they are different, they have to make 3 production lines, 3 different types of packaging, they also had to spend a lot more money in R&D deciding how they different levels would be different and how they'd implement those changes. If they had decided to just make the best version of the card and forget about the two downgraded versions, couldn't they make just as, if not more money?

There's three versions because gamers want 3 versions. The market has people that want a better videocard than everyone else, and they'll spend $500 to get it. There's also those that want the next best, and those that want a budget videocard. It's a great idea for videocard companies to have 3 versions. One for people that want something that will barely deliver, one for people that want their games to look damn nice, and those that want the best videocard which is above and beyond what people usually see. If consumers want it, producers will make it.

-Lasereth

Why the fuck do they name these things the X800's or 6800's?

Now theyll have to come up with a whole new fucking naming system for their chipsets in a few versions because itll be like the 6950 or X950, where they cant go any higher.

Why didnt they name these things like the 6100's and X100's?
Then they can use the same naming system for more than a few years.

How is your 9800 pro having a hard time with Farcry, MahlerIsGod?? I have the same card and bought that game the other day, and It's running super with all the video settings maxed!

Back to the graphics card battle, I'm just going to wait a year or two and then get the cheaper version of whoevers is best. My 9800 pro should work great for the upcoming games, and if not, I can always overclock it.

Don't spend an assload of money on a brand spankin new video card!! Just buy the much cheaper versions that run almost as fast!

sticking with my ATI AIW 7500 here until it dies and must be replaced. Probably just going to throw in one of my 64 MB 'spare parts' cards even then.

That is a very good question spived2. My rig: 2.6HT P4, 9800 Pro, 1.25 3200DDR RAM. What someone said above was that FarCry is a CPU intensive game, so maybe, may CPU isn't fast enough. What are you running with? Granted I was only playing the demo (Fort AMD) but that really shouldn't matter, should it? Maybe I need to mess around with the settings of the 9800 Pro but the good people of Sapphire didn't include a user's manual so I still working on things.

Las,
How is it that you know your card can run both HL2 and Doom 3? Do you have a time-machine?

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjEx

ATI is still > nVidia

I'd like to know why anyone would buy nVidia's giant ugly card when ATI's are actually a normal size, and won't need 2 power connectors..... Once the price drops I'll buy one. Then I'll need to sell my 9800 PRO. :p

There's a Half-Life 2 benchmark video out there. It runs very, very well on my TI4200. I've also played the Doom 3 Alpha. It ran at about 15-20 FPS on my PC, but when enemies came around, it went down to about 1 FPS. The thing to understand is that the Alpha version is set with every single graphical detail for Doom 3 at the highest, at a high resolution. If you could change the options in it, I'm sure it would run at at least 30 FPS which is the "playable standard."

-Lasereth

They didn't name it 6100 or x100 probably because the performance you could get on a card that's only say "150" above the GeForce 5950, you could probably achieve through mega-overclocking. That's one theory at least. Another could be that Nvidia and ATI named these as they did because these cards are that advanced beyond the previous generation. These cards are the flagship for both companies in the upcoming months, and I'm sure that they'll release the shit versions of their cards, like a 6700 or a 6500 or something like that. Same thing goes for ATI, and they'll all be "budget" solutions retailing for less than 200 bucks.

demos have a large tendency to run worse than the actual retail games.

I'll wait for the Super Bitchin Utra Uber Mega Extreme Type R Platinum Limted Gold edition :D

I think it's too early to start drawing conclusions just from these comparisions.
Firstly, the drivers for both ATI & nVidia may not be optimised yet. Often the drivers can make a huge difference.
Secondly, ATI cards seem to be winning on the frame rate for the high quality & high resolution tests. But even the newest games aren't taking advantage of some of nVidia's newest technology. (If you read the comparisions carefully, you may notice that the new nVidia chip has greater potential than the ATI chip, but only if developers start using those technologies)

The sad thing is that I was looking forward to this date for about the last two weeks..... commence drooling.

I don't know... I've had my Radeon 9600 Pro for a while now, and when I got it, it felt like this will be the last video card I'll ever need.

But games are getting more and more hardware-intensive, with developers trying to make EVERYTHING into 3D, and despite performance issues on games like KOTOR, I still don't feel like upgrading.

Why doesn't anyone release a good, quality 2D adventure game, in the spirit of the classics (Lucas Arts, Sierra, etc.)? Sigh... It feels like we are completely misguided in our priorities and gaming tastes.

Its only a matter of time before we start getting entire dedicated $2,000 boxes just to render the flying blood splatters and giblets... :D

Like Lasereth is saying, yall have to remember that the games will still run fine on an older card. I am running FarCry on my radeon 8500, and it runs just fine. I have to turn the details all the way down, but I get 50-60 FPS on it, so it isnt an issue. And the rest of the computer isnt very beefy, either: P4 2.4, 512 megs of PC2100. Doom3 Alpha ran OK on it (just under 30 FPS, once the game is optimized somewhat, Im sure it will do better), and I am sure HL2 will run on it. The cards will run everything just fine for quite a while, its just a question of what kind of graphics you want. Up until FarCry, there wasnt a game that I played that I couldnt crank the graphics up to a reasonable level and get some decent framerates out of.

The Radeon 9600 Pro/GeForce FX 5600 Ultra are budget videocards. They're basically GeForce 4 TI4200's with DirectX 9 capabilities. Ya can't expect much out of either of them. They were never top of the line, and in some tests, the TI4200 and Radeon 9500 Pro simply slaughtered them, even without DirectX 9 support. It's hard to make a comparison to today's games with a budget card. They're designed to run the games at average settings, possibly below average settings.

-Lasereth

Couple things:

Holy Shit Lasereth. You know everything about this subject. I continue to be amazed.

I too will be happy to see the price of less than Ultimate Cards drop. My gaming does not need all that and I will only benefit.

Three cheers for capitalism! In this kind of competitive environment, consumers are king. Neither company can charge too much and neither company can rest on its laurels. W00t!

When will these things be available? I May have missed it in the thread, but when can the average job order one of these things and expect it to be widely available for delivery?

Runs like butter on my AIW 9700 Pro running with a 1.8 Athlon. Maybe you need more ram. A gig or more of DDR helps ;) I don't think I'll have trouble running Doom3 or Half Life 2 when they come out. It's all hype.

I have a 1.25 gig of 3200 DDR RAM. I am hoping that YaWhateva said above is true in that demos run rougher or less smooth than the full versions.

I love my GeForce 4 MX -- it simply rules with all details set to medium on NBA Live 2004 :) Seriously, for 80 bucks now I can pick up a GeForce 4 TI 4600 that will simply kill any card under 200 bucks... cept for maybe a radeon 9700 or nvidia 5900 (both are more than 2x the price anyway). I think I"ll wait till this card kicks down the price of the 5900 or 9800 pro and then pick one up when its slightly over one hundred bucks... shouldn't be too long before I can get one if I stay bargain savvy.

BTW, why did they ever put out the Radeon 9600, Geforce 5200, and Geforce 5600? These cards suck too much to be any good at DX9 and are slower than a ti4200 on anything else? Focking stupid...

Budget cards friend. Budget cards. Gotta make something shittty enough that it'll garner a lower price than the high end shit and make somebody's E-Ma-shit the best computer in the trailer park.

MahlerIsGod: I'm running a 3.2cP4 with 1gig corsair xms memory and a ati radeon 9800 pro. When I play the game on my normal user account, it can run a little choppy. But I created a seperate user account just for gaming without all the stupid windows effects turned on and only a few tasks running in the background. Runs like a dream on there.

Even at the lower video qualities, the game still looks great, so just turn them down a notch and it should run alright for you. And buy the game, it's worth it.

I hear the GForce one has a VTec sticker on it! Must mean it's the best!

spived32,
I think that is brilliant idea. "An idea of genius....." It would never have occured to me to create a seperate account for my gaming activities. Thanks. I will try that from Call of Duty, UT and maybe FarCry I decide to buy it. Thanks again.