NVIDIA’s line

NVIDIA’s line

First of all, performance with high-end graphic cards is almost identical in 1024*768, 1024*768 AA 4x / Aniso 8x and 1600*1200. These graphic cards are not used to their full potential at these resolutions as they are restricted by the computer’s other components. If you want to play in 1024*768, a GeForce 6 6600 GT will provide the same results as a 6800 Ultra with current games requiring a high level graphic card performance, such as Far Cry. However, with the 6800 Ultra you will be able to reach the same fps in 1600*1200 AA 4x / Aniso 8x as the GeForce 6600 GT in 1024*768.

The performance of the GeForce FX 5900 is quite low, and it seems that NVIDIA lets this architecture fend for itself in terms of Direct X9 effects. We remind you that its architecture isn’t very comfortable with floating point calculations like with Pixel Shader 2.0. So far, NVIDIA used to manually replace game shaders by more optimised ones to improve performance. They have apparently stopped doing this, and the driver team seems to have focused on the GeForce 6.

Two graphic cards stand out for NVIDIA, the GeForce 6600 GT in AGP or PCI Express version, and the GeForce 6800 GT. The difference in performance between the 6800 Ultra and 6800 GT is quite small, and the GeForce 6800 SE is clearly of little interest. Yes, it is possible to sometimes unlock pixel and vertex shader units (the 6800 SE is a castrated 6800 GT) but most of the time these units aren’t fully functional. Without them the 6800 SE is less efficient than the cheaper 6600 GT.

With this in mind the GeForce 6800 is a better choice, because even if it doesn’t unlock certain units, it’s a little faster than the 6600GT. The price of the GeForce6 6200 is, however, too close to the GeForce 6600’s to justify the difference in performance.

ATI’s line

ATI’s line

More ATI graphic cards are included in this test, and so we divided them into either AGP or PCI Express:


Like with NVIDIA, high-end graphic cards performances are only reduced at the highest resolutions with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. For current games in 1024*768, the ‘’good old’’ 9700 Pro in AGP 8x or a X700 in PCI Express is enough to have an optimum framerate. A more powerful graphic card is required only with higher resolutions. For example, it’s possible to reach the same framerate level with a PCI Express X800 XT in 1600*1200 AA 4x / Aniso 8x as a X700 XT in 1024*768.

Unlike with NVIDIA, there is noticeable difference between the X800 Pro and X800 XT that makes each of these graphic cards attractive in its own way. The interest of the X800 SE is limited, however, because even if it’s clearly faster than the 9800 Pro in 1024*768 AA 4x / Aniso 8x, it is still quite expensive and not really faster than a X700 XT (PCI Express).

If we want to compare AGP and PCI Express, we can see that the 9800 Pro is actually in between a X700 and X700 Pro. The 9600 Pro and X600 Pro are quite similar. This result is logical as both graphic cards have the same architecture and frequency. The X600 XT is a little faster than the AGP counterpart, the 9600 XT, but this graphic card has a lower frequency. The X700 Pro is equipped with 256 MB of memory, but it is only useful in 1600*1200 AA 4x / Aniso 8x. The framerate isn’t high enough at this resolution for play. 256 Mb is good but only with very high-end graphic cards.

Conclusion

Conclusion

The first important thing to notice is that some graphic cards didn’t finish as expected whether it’s an ATI or NVIDIA. For NVIDIA, it is the GeForce FX, about to reach the end of its life, and also the GeForce 6200 and 6800LE. For ATI, there is the Radeon X600 Pro and XT in PCI Express and also the X800 SE in AGP.

In addition, it’s still almost impossible to find a GeForce 6800 Ultra and Radeon X800 XT more than 6 months after their release because of reduced supplies. It’s even more difficult to find graphic cards in PCI Express except for a few X800 XTs. (NVIDIA says this problem will be resolved before the end of December). If you are looking for a very high end PCI Express graphic card only the X800 XT is available at the moment. It is easier to find an AGP GeForce 6800 GT or X800 Pro, but prices are still high because of the small number of graphic cards available in the last 6 months.

Therefore, if the X800 XT is the most efficient of current graphic processors, its lack of availability and price reduce its interest. Between the GeForce 6800 GT and X800 Pro we choose the former as its more efficient and has several additional functions like Shader 3.0 support. Of course not everyone needs to play with the advanced settings that these graphic cards allow.

The new middle range represented by the GeForce 6600 and ATI Radeon X700 is a good choice, because it’s possible to play most current games requiring high graphic card performances at good resolutions. The only problem for ATI is that only the Pro version of the X700 is currently available, and also the X700 doesn’t have an AGP version unlike the GeForce 6600 GT. In AGP, the 9800 Pro (in 256 bits, avoid the 128 bits as it has half the bandwidth) is still around thanks to a lower price, but the GeForce 6 6600GT is better in terms of architecture and performance.

In PCI Express the Radeon X700 and GeForce 6600 offer something new as graphic cards so far were expensive and not really interesting. For the price of a 9800 Pro AGP it was possible to find a X600 XT PCI Express. Here again, NVIDIA is still favored due to the lack of X700 XTs and X700s. As the difference in price between the 6600 GT and X700 Pro becomes less, we choose NVIDIA’s graphic card. In December the X700 XT should be released but at a price more expensive than the 6600 GT. For this reason they won’t be too interesting. Standard X700s should be out in January.

All in all, NVIDIA seems be in a better position than ATI for the end of the year. This situation is mainly due to availability problems for the Canadian manufacturer’s more interesting products.