Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Positive Reviews For Nvidia' GeForce 6800 Ultra

Posted by timothy on from the my-hardware-cringes-in-shame dept.

Sander Sassen writes "Following months of heated discussion and rumors about the performance of Nvidia' new NV4x architecture, today their new graphics cards based on this architecture got an official introduction. Hardware Analysis posted their first looks at the new GeForce 6800 Ultra and takes it for a spin with all of the latest DirectX 9.0 game titles. The results speak for themselves, the GeForce 6800 Ultra is the new king of the hill, beating ATI's fastest by over 100% in almost every benchmark." Reader egarland adds "Revews are up on Firing Squad, Toms Hardware, Anandtech and Hot Hardware." Update: 04/14 16:54 GMT by T : Neophytus writes "HardOCP have their real life gameplay review available."

6 of 564 comments (clear)

  1. Power Requirements by Lord_Pall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay so it's fast.. no question.. Amazing feature set as well..

    but it requires a 480 watt power supply

    and 2 power connections... And it also has what looks to be a vacuum cleaner tied to it..

    I currently use a shuttle skn41g2 for my main box.. I love the sff pc's. This won't work in that.. It would make the includied power supply very sad.

    My HTPC box uses an antec sonata with a fanless radeon 9000, and ultra quiet everything else.. Forget using this in a quiet pc as well

    I don't care for nvidia's trend towards hideously loud, bulky, power hungry video cards.. They might perform well, but for normal use, i'd prefer something smaller and quieter.. and for god's sake, give me an external power supply.. heh

  2. Re:nvidia's back by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To hell with the die size, check out the power requirements. There's two, TWO! power connectors for that thing. Damn, they've created a monster. I wonder how fast it can run GPGPU apps...

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  3. "... by over 100% in almost every benchmark"?? by sczimme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    To measure how well both cards perform with actual gameplay we used Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004 and Halo and Far Cry. For both versions of Unreal Tournament we've used the built-in benchmark, which consists of a flyby and a botmatch. We've omitted the flyby scores as they doesn't tell us much about performance during actual gameplay, just how fast the graphics card is able to render the flyby. With UT2003 the lead the GeForce 6800 Ultra takes over the Radeon 9800 XT is less impressive, at a 1024x768 and 1280x1024 resolutions it is only 6% faster. At 1600x1200 however the GeForce 6800 Ultra pulls away and clocks in 21% faster. With UT2004 the difference is much bigger, starting off at 10% at 1024x768 up to 65% faster at 1600x1200. What is also noteworthy is the fact that the performance of the Radeon 9800 XT drops at higher resolutions whereas that of the GeForce 6800 Ultra stays at about the same level.

    I know this is /., but how does this become "beating ATI's fastest by over 100% in almost every benchmark"??

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  4. Fanboyism by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the submitter must be something of an Nvidia fan. :) Most people wouldn't ridiculously compare a new next-gen card to today's months-old cards, not even mentioning that ATI has a new one due out in weeks. But he sure did mention an over 100% speed increase over those old cards, didn't he?

    Personally I don't get the fanboy rivalries--I have a Radeon in my laptop and a Geforce in my desktop, and that's just what I happened to buy at the time, no fanboy adherism going on.

  5. I wish .... by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish that people that pretend to be computer experts would do the teeniest bit of research.

    How about this gem: First introduced in 1995, Microsoft's DirectX application programming interface (API) was designed to make life easier for developers by providing a standard platform for Windows-based PCs. Before the arrival of DirectX, developers had to program their software titles to take advantage of features found in individual hardware components. With the wealth of devices on the market, this could become a tedious, time-consuming process.

    I'm glad he cleared that up for us. Because this little known company called SGI didn't develop OpenGL back in 1992. In fact, were it not for MS, we would still be in the computer graphics dark ages.

    I'm not trying to troll here. I am just pissed that people pretend to be experts when they don't have a clues what they are talking about.

  6. I sense a change in the force..... by Selecter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If Ati's counter offering, due up on the 26th it seems, has 90% of the performance of this beastie but has lower power requirements ( 1 molex or none ) and does not take up slots then Ati will still beat it.

    There's a very limited number of gamers that will buy this card - you literally have to build a whole new PC around it considering the power requirements and the slot hoggishness. I wont be buying one. My 9500 Pro Oc'ed to 300/300 with a 3000+ AMD *STILL* plays anything without problems ( at least any I can see )

    Even if ATi does come out with a card that beats it, I wont be buying one of those either. Gaming is only *part* of what I use computers for. These days at age 40 I cant compete with the twitchy youngsters anyways :D

    I care a lot more these days about how well my data is protected and how good the whole experience is, not how many fps I get in some game.