On 23 Mar 2006 10:45:43 -0800, "johns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
>it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
>but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
>settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.
>
>johns
Is the 6800 an equivalent of the x800xl 256mb then an equivalent of a
x1600xt then i would go for it the 1600 has more capability of
rendering pretty image then all others at a same frame rate.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:27:20 GMT, "billyzoom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"johns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
>> it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
>> but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
>> settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.
>>
>> johns
>>
>
>I almost bought a nvidia 7800gs for $349.00, thank god I was smart enough to
>make the guy at best buy let me use his internet connect to check the specs
>on 'techpowerup.com'. I'm going to go on new egg and buy a 850xt pe for $346
>w/next day shipping.
>
i think the x1600xt score the same in 3dmark06 than a x850xt

Is this a worthwhile upgrade? Fill rate is double than the 9800 but the mem
bandwidth is halved. Four extra pixel pipelines than the 9800.

SYS SPECS

P4 3.2
1gig pc3200 mem
Abit IS7 MB
9800 pro oc'd to 9800xt spec

Playing TigerWoods 2006 at 1600x1200 with everthing turned to max. Would
like to play NFS2 and HL2, FEAR ect. at resolutions above 1024x768 at high
settings. What about shader 3.0 are any games using this?

1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.

johns

"johns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
> it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
> but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
> settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.
>
> johns
>

I almost bought a nvidia 7800gs for $349.00, thank god I was smart enough to
make the guy at best buy let me use his internet connect to check the specs
on 'techpowerup.com'. I'm going to go on new egg and buy a 850xt pe for $346
w/next day shipping.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:49:24 -0500, MB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:30:15 +0100, DDC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:27:20 GMT, "billyzoom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"johns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
>>>> it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
>>>> but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
>>>> settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.
>>>>
>>>> johns
>>>>
>>>
>>>I almost bought a nvidia 7800gs for $349.00, thank god I was smart enough to
>>>make the guy at best buy let me use his internet connect to check the specs
>>>on 'techpowerup.com'. I'm going to go on new egg and buy a 850xt pe for $346
>>>w/next day shipping.
>>>
>>i think the x1600xt score the same in 3dmark06 than a x850xt
>
>Where are you getting your information from??? That's physically
>impossible... the 850xt will stomp all over the x1600xt without
>breaking a sweat..... not even close.
my mistake but see www.futuremark.com and check the result for the
x800xl vs the x1600xt
x1600xt at 1280x1024 no oc
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=186916
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=130816


x800xl these are not oc running at 1280x1024
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=89235

the are not very far from each other only by a few 100 points witch
make not much difference in game.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:30:15 +0100, DDC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:27:20 GMT, "billyzoom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"johns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
>>> it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
>>> but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
>>> settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.
>>>
>>> johns
>>>
>>
>>I almost bought a nvidia 7800gs for $349.00, thank god I was smart enough to
>>make the guy at best buy let me use his internet connect to check the specs
>>on 'techpowerup.com'. I'm going to go on new egg and buy a 850xt pe for $346
>>w/next day shipping.
>>
>i think the x1600xt score the same in 3dmark06 than a x850xt

Where are you getting your information from??? That's physically
impossible... the 850xt will stomp all over the x1600xt without
breaking a sweat..... not even close.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:00:35 GMT, "Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>When the scores center around 1000 a couple hundred is a huge difference.
>And the x800xl is slower than the x850xt as well.
>
>Mike
>
Well we are not talking about a x1600pro now as i've re-read the post.
But if he want the top of the line of an old tech then go for it as it
will be able to keep up with a lot of game for a few more years.

I wander why he switch to a x850xt over the 7800gs... that card was
made in response of these x850 series card and are better advence?
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/...uy/page11.html

in that link the 7800gs is compare to the x850xt pe witch is the top
of the line of this x850 series. and both card are head to head, and
more than often the 7800 is the winner.

When the scores center around 1000 a couple hundred is a huge difference.
And the x800xl is slower than the x850xt as well.

Mike

"DDC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:49:24 -0500, MB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:30:15 +0100, DDC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:27:20 GMT, "billyzoom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"johns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> 1600 is equivalent to nVidia 6800. I've tested the 6800, and
>>>>> it is sort of OK , and sort of not. It is faster than the 9800,
>>>>> but the graphics are not as sharp and detailed at high
>>>>> settings. I sent the 6800 back and kept my 9800.
>>>>>
>>>>> johns
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I almost bought a nvidia 7800gs for $349.00, thank god I was smart
>>>>enough to
>>>>make the guy at best buy let me use his internet connect to check the
>>>>specs
>>>>on 'techpowerup.com'. I'm going to go on new egg and buy a 850xt pe for
>>>>$346
>>>>w/next day shipping.
>>>>
>>>i think the x1600xt score the same in 3dmark06 than a x850xt
>>
>>Where are you getting your information from??? That's physically
>>impossible... the 850xt will stomp all over the x1600xt without
>>breaking a sweat..... not even close.
> my mistake but see www.futuremark.com and check the result for the
> x800xl vs the x1600xt
> x1600xt at 1280x1024 no oc
> http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=186916
> http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=130816
>
>
> x800xl these are not oc running at 1280x1024
> http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=89235
>
> the are not very far from each other only by a few 100 points witch
> make not much difference in game.
>