Ati claim X800 PRO will be faster than 6800 Ultra

Whitehawk · April 21st, 2004, 05:59 AM

Just thought I should allert you all to this...

ATI Say X800PRO Faster Than 6800 Ultra
Monday April 19, 2004

Just as the NV40 received its official baptism, amidst a frenzy of benchmarking praise, and ATI choose to trouble the waters by voicing some doubt over the, perceived, global graphics dominance of nVidia's new board.

The way ATI wants to describe the claims is that their offering, X800PRO when announced, has cut-down on extra features in order to focus on speed. This dedication to speed, claim ATI, will mean that their 12 pipeline boards running at 475MHz(Core)/950MHz(Memory), featuring 96-bit precision and just PS 2.0 shader, will be faster than their rivals 16 pipeline boards running at 400MHz(Core)/1100MHz(Memory), featuring 128-bit precision and PS 3.0 shader.

Such a claim from ATI, as extremely optimistic as it may seem, probably means that the Canadians believe the X800PRO will give the 6800 Ultra a good fight and will hold the fort for them until their new chip, now codenamed R500, carrying 128-bit precision and PS 3.0, is announced near the end of this year.

The secret to this fight however, remains in the chip revisions which both manufacturers will implement. If nVidia have squeezed all they can out of the NV40 core with the 6800 Ultra, they might find that later incarnations of the R420 may produce, real-world, performance similar to their flagship chip. It is nevertheless, unlikely that nVidia have done all they can with the NV40 core already and experts suggest that a couple of tweaked revisions may surface, as the need arises.

We will all have to wait until ATIs official X800PRO announcement comes in order to see both cards Duke-it out, so for the time being we all have to follow ATIs official teaser suggestion and Get ready to Xperience it.

Source: MegaGames

IMO Ati has had its turn...Now nVidia is back to kick ass and take names - in a manner of speaking.

Whitehawk · April 21st, 2004, 06:01 AM

what do you guys think about this?

12 Pipelins against 16?

96 bit precision against 128?

PS 2.0 shader against PS 3.0 shader?

475/950 against 400/1100?

nVidia will kick ATI's ass..

phrozen_dreamz · April 21st, 2004, 12:17 PM

I hate the word "faster".

It's a vague word. Faster in the clock speeds or faster in gaming?

I really hate this fricken ATI vs. NVidia and Intel vs. AMD.
Benchmarks in realworld applications are the only way to tell which card is ultimately better.

That's why I cant pass any judgment untill ATI releases their card.

captainjrl · April 21st, 2004, 12:56 PM

What else would you expect them to say?

"Our new graphics card we'll be slower than the competitions"

The proof will be in the pudding.

**RobRich** · April 21st, 2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

The way ATI wants to describe the claims is that their offering, X800PRO when announced, has cut-down on extra features in order to focus on speed.

Am I the only one seeing a parallel to 3dfx with this statement from ATI? Performance is always appreciated, but we are already at a point were the bulk of popular and even current-generation games can be played at 1600x1200 with AA and AF enabled on high-end retail gaming cards.

However, nVidia is not any better off by offering enhanced features. No game in 2003 will ship with Direct X pixel shader v3 support, and 128-bit precision means little to anyone outside of the professional graphics scene right now.

In the end, both cards will offer more than enough performance for any game that is to be released over the next 12 months. I could honestly care less if a game runs at 100FPS on the 6800u while runnning at 110FPS on the X800p. I doubt most of you care either.

Robert Richmond

butch81385 · April 21st, 2004, 01:26 PM

of course they care.... its all about bragging rights even if no one could tell the difference looking at the screen

ArcticFox · April 21st, 2004, 01:34 PM

*Remembers the days where I drooled over a GeForce2 Ultra*

washe · April 21st, 2004, 01:55 PM

I have a better one...... remember the days when two Voodoo 2where hooked togheter......... and was the fastest greatest thing the world knew.....

**RobRich** · April 21st, 2004, 01:58 PM

On a similar note.... we all know the Rage Fury Maxx was a great design, but it was poor marketing that led to its demise.

radio1_mike · April 21st, 2004, 02:00 PM

100 FPS vs. 110 FPS would be just for bragging rights.

But having that 1 x 10^2 FPS range does mean a lot, in the arena of online gaming.

The card that can eek out the best performance on a game, with all other factors being equal (such as ping and latency) will make or break the online experience.

I had a Ti 4600, then it burnt out, PNY replaced it w/FX5600. I can't tell you how many times especially in BFV/UT2k4, when I go to frag someone in close, they turn and shoot, I turn, stutter and then shoot. Guess who ends up fragged?

All prices being the same, I'd probably go for that 10% extra.

edit: The Rage Fury Maxx, RobRich??! Aww man, I was sorry when that thing tanked. Was not that supposed to be the GeForce 256 killer, if I am remembering correctly?