Which card is better ???

BFG is a good brand, but the GTX will outperform the GT.

Get the GTX. You won't be disappointed.

BFG offers a lifetime warranty...so...it depends on what you want. GT OC will be slower than GTX, but both are screaming fast...so...yea

I would realy wait until ATi comes out with there next gen card. It willl just blow the GTX away, like ATi always does The GTX is jsut not worth your money. But i can bet you this, ATi will have a much better card.

jsut like the 9800 XT vs 5950 Ultra

And X850XT vs. 6800 Ultra

ATi will always be better than Nvidia, i'm sorry to say it.

So basicaly if you need it now, go with the GTX, if you can wait a few weeks, do that because you will get more bang for your buck.

^fanboy


sorry man but thats just how it sounds. and don't flame me as an nvidia fanboy, i own computers with both ATi and nVidia cards and have no preferance towards one nor the other

I'm not realy picking sides here, i'm jsut laying out the facts and just letting him know whats coming and how the performance factor has been over the past couple of years.

LOL no doubt. ATI had the best performing card for a year and a half or so, but before that, it was all nVidia. nVidia has the crown again, and I am sure ATI will at some point retake it. You can wait forever for the next best thing but one thing is for sure: you will always be waiting and never buying.

Someone has a very short term memory

Accualy no, jsut because Nvidia has SLI doesnt mean it has better cards. Every benchmark it shows the ATi card much much higher than the 6800 Ultra.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...charts-02.html

your very wrong, thats almost 1000 points higher than the 6800 Ultra in the benchies.

Your wrong again, I wait when the technology is just about to evolve. About 3 to 4 months ago i would not have waited. i belive your ignorant and dont get your facts straight before you talk. ATi is on the verdge of releasing there card, so its worth the wait.

Perhaps you should delve a little further and look at real world performance instead of the benchies. Benchmarks are fine if you are going to play the benchmark and not the game.

I don't know what point you are attempting to argue, but a single 7800GT or GTX (non SLI) hammers the x850. I'm not even talking 6800, ultra or otherwise (of course neither was the OP). The facts in the matter are, ATI has enjoyed a couple years on top. Their first, and nVidia's first time off the top since 3dfx days. As for the name calling simply because you don't know facts, that will be a mistake. I don't partake in arguments with fanboys that just like to flame/troll/call names when they don't know what they are talking about.

Fact: ATI has nothing to come close to nVidia right now

Fact: ATI is not on top right now, but you can wait.

Fact: When/if ATI gains the crown, you can wait again and nVidia will most likely take it back. Then you can wait again and ATI will most likely take it back take it back.

Fact: Technology doesn't evolve. Technology IS evolution.

Fact: Even the link you posted shows the real world performance of the 6800 Ultra (not even nVidia's top or second offering) being not much different ... better in some case, equal in some cases, worse in some cases ... than the x850XT (ATI's best current offering).

Am I an nVidia fanboy? most certainly not. I have two nVidia machines (the newest of which is an ancient 4600Ti), and three ATI machines. I am a realist who actually knows the facts.

Hey guys he wanted to know which card was better, not to try and switch over

bwhahaha that's great!! ^^^

The difference between the GT & the GTX is the GT has 20 pipelines and 7 shaders and the GTX has 24 pipelines and 8 shaders (i think thats what they're called) ... So yea you're only going to see 10-20 FPS more on the GTX than the GT... which to me is not worth the extra $250. You can get a good EVGA 7800GT for $380 right now from newegg.com...

IN a lot of tests I have seen, it's not even a 10 FPS difference. A lot of that is due to the current processors being the bottleneck when comparing those two cards though. When put at extremely high resolutions with AA enabled (i.e. 2048x1536 with 4x AA) the gap widens though. The GPU becomes more of a factor and the CPU less of a factor then, showing the real difference between the two cards.

nVidia is defniately the best choice for graphics currently. Yes, the r520 is ready to be launched soon, but as far as we know, it will be a 16pipe card. Possibly 24. Definately NOT 32! That means at most it will be slightly better than the 7800gtx. Perhaps it will be slower than the 7800gtx. Either way, good yields from nVidia suggest that they may launch a 7800ultra type card to completely overwhealm ATI's r320 after it's launch. Not to mention the constant delays of the r520 itself, suggesting possible heat and architecture issues. No matter what way you look at it, nVidia is the better chocie right now. Yes, you can wait and ATI might have a better card, but the chances of it being significantly faster are slim, not to mention you would end up waiting 2 + months for it. At one point, ATI had some good cards and was the king of video cards...but gone are those days. Perhaps one day they'll be on top again, but not right now.
And no, I'm in no way a nVidia fanboi. I've only owned 1 nVidia card before, but i've had 3 ATI machines. Furthermore, I would suggest ATI cards to anyone in search of a low-medium end computer. The 9800pro would be a better choice, IMO than a 5900. The 9600XT is a better choice than a 5500. the x800GT is a good competitor aganist the 6600gt, but I don't know which is a better choice in that area yet. However, I can say that the high end is dominated by nVidia right now, and for at least the next half year or more. The 6800ultra was a great card for its time, and now the 7800gtx owns any other single card by a wide margin (except for the 7800gt, which it owns by a small margin ).

True, altho how many ppl have monitors that go that high? Not me Of course I would love to get a monitor like that...

Do you think the AMD64 FX55 San Diego core would be a bottleneck for the 7800GT?

bottlenecks are relative. if you run any game at like 640x480 resolution, then yea, of course the cpu is a bottleneck. However, if you run a decently modern game at high resolutions (1600x1200 +?), then the cpu shouldn't be a bottleneck

What unfall' said is very true. At lower resolutions, the CPU is the bottleneck with a kick butt GPU ... even an FX-57. However, like you said, the monitor is the ultimate limiting factor in many cases. Especially with the masses starting to buy LCD's that won't go over 1280x1024. Even at 1280x1024 with some AA, most tests (not benchmarks like 3dmark, but real world framerates in actual games) have shown the CPU to be the bottle neck. The GPU's potential isn't even being fully realized. Look at some reviews and you will see the 7800GT and 7800GTX being very very close at up to a couple notches below the highest res., and in many cases being not much faster than a 6800 Ultra or X850 at extremely low resolutions. This is because the GPU isn't processing much at these resolutions.

I cant remember the last time I ran a game at 640x480 well, yes I can... Doom I and Wolfenstien I... lol