Good morning,some hrs ago first benchmarks of the ATI X800 Pro, X800 XT vs. Nvidia 6800 Ultra (450 Mhz GPU) have been discovered.Benchmark images are from THG, while all official reviews will be published later today. Yet no MSFS specific benchmarks are available.First Source - Rage 3D Forum (english):http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php...readid=33756628http://www.meristation.com/img-filer/artic...no/P1010017.JPGhttp://www.hx3.de/ext/farcry/ATIBilder/image014.gifhttp://www.hx3.de/ext/farcry/ATIBilder/image033.gifhttp://www.hx3.de/ext/farcry/ATIBilder/image045.gifhttp://www.hx3.de/ext/farcry/ATIBilder/image051.gifhttp://www.hx3.de/ext/farcry/ATIBilder/image061.gifhttp://www.hx3.de/ext/farcry/ATIBilder/image062.gifTo be MSFS specific, it might happen that the 6800 Ultra will be dominated by the X800 PRO, only beaten by the X800 XT.

1st official review in Spanish, Ol

Things sure seem to go ATI:s way again...However none of these reviews are really perfect.First of all why don

FS2004 Benchmarks, ATI & NV !! :http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDY=Qoute:This graph shows how powerful these video cards really are in a game like this. The Radeon 9800XT at 1280x1024 2XAA/8XAF averages only 33fps in this game as you can see from its graphed line it stayes around the lower framerates for an extended period of time. However the Radeon X800Pro is able to do 1280x1024 4XAA/16XAF and is able to maintain a much higher framerate and averages 40fps. The Radeon X800XT Platinum Edition does even better at 1600x1200 2xaa/16xaf. The GeForce 6800Ultra plays best at 1280x104 4xaa/16xaf and averages around the same as the X800XT at this lower resolution. In Flight Sim 2004 resolution and anisotropic level tend to effect performance the most. The higher resolution you go the more demanding the game is, so it is a testament to the X800XT

You're right, none of the reviews are perfect - mainly because they don't test Flight Sim! But then, with all gamers so hung up on those extra precious fps, why should they?However, the first clues are there - when you crank the cards up to higher levels of AA and AF the GF Ultra shows sigs of strain way before the ATI Pro. Given that the price differential is going to favour the ATI Pro (it looks like it will be around the same price as the basic GF 6800, maybe slightly more expensive) it looks like ATI will become the simmers bestest friend.One slightly better picture for the GF (hah!) is that the new image quality benches can't really find a favoured card, so it looks like Nvidia have raised their game in the image quality stakes. Just not high enough in the raw horsepower. Especially if you have to fork out for a new PSU for a lower-performing GF card. Right this minute ATI have it in the bag. But perhaps we should wait and see what the specifically FS benchies say.Oh it's going to be a GREAT summer (currently, I'm mostly thinking AMD 64 3000, Ati X800 Pro as the `dream ticket`).Allcott

>But perhaps we should wait and see what the specifically FS benchies >say.Lol, u posted this 1 second after I posted the link for an MSFS bench ...It seems the X800 XT is the ultimative MSFS killer GPU.

Well that the 9700 PRO already was just that. But perhaps the X800XT will be for 2006 what the 9700 PRO was for FS 2004... And to be honest the R420 isn

Maybe someone can explain this .. why Hardocp while testing for benchmarks uses different AA/AF and resolution setting for all 4 cards. It is very confusing and makes results a bit hard to compare. What's going on ? Unless it is somewhere explained but I had no patience to read the whole thing from A to Z.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/6800x800pro/maxxing.htm Check out www.driverheaven.net where they actually max out the cards.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDQ=-"Warning!Be aware that not all results represent "apples to apples" comparisons. We try to find the highest playable resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering settings for each card in each game. Keep that in mind as you look at the graphs and find that each card may be set at a different resolution, AA and AF level. What we strive to illustrate to our readers is consistency in performance and which cards provide the highest level of gameplay performance. Should you need apples to apples benchmarks that focus on average framerates, there are plenty of other hardware sites to deliver that content to you. HardOCP.com "video card reviews" have stopped being video card reviews. We are truly trying to measure the level of gaming experience the hardware can provide. Average frame rates only tell the real gaming experience story if every frame is "average," and we all know that is far from being the case.That being said, it is HardOCP's goal to provide our readers with information that should help you understand what level of gameplay experience would be provided by the hardware in a similar computer of your own."--------------http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDg=-"Apples to Apples:There are many people out there that still see some benefit to evaluating game performance in an

There must be something wrong with the Driverheaven benchies. The R420 aren

The HardOCP testing is actually a meaningful comparison when you look at what the comparison says, rather than the number crunching it uses to say it. In simple terms they are saying "If you take out a 5900XT and replace with an X800 Pro, this will be the result: Run faster, at higher levels of detail with more AA and AF".Looked at from the basis of the `"What do I get for my investment?" and in the light of all the other benchmarks that are available and will be available to do the direct comparisons, I'd have to say that the HardOCP testing makes perfect sense. It actually uses the cards in the wat that most users use the change of a card - more fps, AND better/more detail.What it doesn't do is tell the same story for a lower-end processor. In other words, how much any increase in FS is down to the card, how much to the CPU. If they had included the same testing procedure for a low-end processor, we really would have had an answer to the question of whether you get better results by changing the card, or the CPU. Guess we'll have to wait for the `proper` FS testing to get an insight into that!Allcott

Nothing wrong with the benchmarks. It's the same ole, same ole. Only they're both a bit faster. This unfortunately reflects just the truth. Without all the skewing.When I buy a graphics card and pay for it with my dollars, I want to run high resolution and with high levels of AA & AF with playable framerates. In other words, I'm paying for a pretty picture. Not jaggies and alaising or a 1024x768 low quality resolution. What intelligent person would pay through the nose for a high end graphics card only to find out you can't run it with all the bells and whistles turned on. Only those who are fooled. Not me, I actually look to see which will run where I want and how fast when they are maxed out. After all, that's why I pay the money. Saying any apples to apples comparison doesn't involve running the AA & AF maxed is ridiculous. If I want to run without AA & AF, I'd go buy a cheap low end card. If I want to pay for high quality, I better get high quality and performance with lots of AA & AF. Having said that, the driverheaven reviews are the best I've read so far this morning.

Oh hell,Allcott, now you've jiggered my order up. I know jack S about computers, all I want is for fs9 to run nice and smooth, where as guys like you know your stuff and I respect your views. I'd just decided on the AMD64 3200+/9800pro. Then I see your preference was the 64 3000. Was that for value, or do you think it's better? Please excuse my ignorance but I'm about to spend up to

The reasen people buy lower clocked A64 is of course to save money. The lower clocked the more bang for the buck ;) Also lower clocked overclock relatively higher so you can get near A64 3200+ performance anyway. However you won