GForce 6800GT vs Radeon X800Follow

Anyone tried both or have a suggestion? I am looking to upgrade. Both are same price, GForce has 50MHz more clock speed. Not sure which one is better, and for $400 bucks, I want to be sure.

Apparently there's a large and very embarrassing problem with the Nvidia 6800 and EQ2, it just doesn't work.

I'd seriously suggest you do some research before investing in this card. Check out the Nvidia board and the official EQ2 boards.

I was going to get that one too but I cancelled my order for now.

Just do a google search with EQ2 and Nvidia 6800, there really is a serious problem with this, it's caused a huge uproar.

By the way, I'm talking about the X800PRO. Both are the $400 models.

I use a Geforce 6800 with EQ and it works flawlessly. Great card.

Ok, this is what I have so far. The Radeon x800 Pro has a 475MHz Core Clock Speed and 450MHz clock/900MHz effective
video memory clock and most importantly it runs EQ2. Just to compare specs the GForce 6800GT (which is the only Nvidia that can compete with the x800 pro) has a 350MHz Core Clock Speed and a 500MHz Clock/1,000MHz Effective video memory clock. Am I missing something? I understand that people have their preferences, but LOOK AT THOSE SPECS! The core clock says it all. Its like asking would you rather have a Pentium with 3.4GHz or a 2.8. Am I wrong? I mean aside from the fact that the GT won't run EQ2, the specs just don't add up anyway. And don't get me started that Nvidia is charging the same for something that in my opinion can't compete with the Radeon. Even if I wasn't going to play EQ2, I let the specs do the talking. Thanks for the help everyone.

Anyone know a good site to find optimal running temps for Intel Processers. I'm at work so I can't look it up in my manual.

Much like Jute has said, you can't go by numbers alone. Look at AMD and Intel. The AMD Athlon 2500+ has a clock speed of around 1.7 GHz, but performes the same as a Pentium 4 with a clock speed of 2.5 GHz. Numbers mean little in the industry other than giving you a rough estimate of where it should be.

What matters is the architecture; basically how the card handles all the data that's thrown at it. It doesn't matter how fast or how much memory the card has if the architecture doesn't use it well.

That said, I have no idea which has the "better" architecture. I'd say much the same as the people above have said: check out the review sights and use google to find different stuff. Look at forums and benchmarks and make your decision from that.

I have probably used more video cards than the lot of you together. I won't get into the details of how CompUSA's T.A.P. program works, just trust me like you'd trust the Lord Jesus and buy your next video card from them, and tell them you want the T.A.P. with it. (And don't worry later about thanking me, just spread the good word.)Anyway, being somewhat of a taste-tester if you will, I have had the oppertunity to see the view from both sides, up to and including the current lines. Here is what I have learned from all my travels.(cards I've had the pleasure and displeasure of using: Radeons 9800 128MB x2,9800Pro 256,and X800Pro; Geforces 4600 TI 256MBx2, and 6800 GT.)

ATI- ATI cards will provide better framerates while using enhancements such as AA and AF, to quite a staggering degree. The visual quality is also slightly better while using said enhancments, but trust me, it is all but unnoticable. Driver releases tend to not do much of anything.

Nvidia- Every Nvidia card I have used(one I returned to see if it was a defect), which has been in two completely different systems, has had an antistropic filtering "problem" in some games, namely Star Wars Galaxies,EQ2,and half life for instance, where it renders the AF in sort of an area in front of you, at higher levels, it is very noticable. One big bonus that is very underrated by benchmarks is Nvidia's Quincunx antialising, which mimics 4xAA at 2xAA speed. This is a very VERY important feature. When they say at 2xAA speed they are not yanking your balls around, and the difference between quincunx and 4xAA is a very slight blurring around very jagged edges, but trust me, it looks great. The other reason to buy Nvidia, and particularly the 6800 GT, is extreme overclocking with no mods. I have only used Coolbits registry edit to overclock, no hardware additons, and the 6800 GT I had was wonderful. It came stock with core/memory set to 350mhz/1.0ghz. With no anomalies in my test games (Doom3, NBALive 2005, NFSU2, EQ2,HL2) it could be set to 412mhz/1.12ghz. As a note, HL2 and Futuremark 2005 could both be run fully stable at 431mhz/1.17ghz!!!!

That being said, I will never by choice purchase an Nvidia card. For every comparable card I've owned, the ATI's have outperformed the Nvidia. Online benchmarks will support this. The one reason I'd go back to Nvidia, like I said is Quincunx AA. You won't find it on any benchmarks, but if you plan on running your games in 4xAA, compare the ATI's 4xAA to the comparable Nvidia's 2xAA, and it really does give the Nvidia card an advantage. Unless your playing some of the newer games that will not use AA unless it's enabled in the game, then your screwed(EQ2).

BTW, with the latest drivers, the 6800GT had no problems for me with stuttering.