Gigabyte GeForce 6800 Ultra vs ASUS AX800XT: total Deathmatch

Introduction

NV40 / R420. This combination of digits/letters can be called a live legend. Before the official release there were so many talks, hopes, sometimes incredible assumptions around. All were astonished when these products were finally presented to the public, and the results of first tests announced. And the reviewers... These "tears invisible to the world" when you can't believe your eyes on seeing the FPS output. Is it reality or an illusion, "Matrix" hallucinations?

ASUS AX800XT
GPU chip	R420 (0.13 low-k)
Memory	256Mb DDR; 256Bit; Samsung 1.6 ns
Frequencies:	525MHz/1,250MHz DDR
Bus:	AGP 8X
Category:	Ultra High-End
Price:	$660

All this is behind. First delights are over, those who fainted awakened, and the bodies of those who failed to come to the senses were brought out. Initially raw drivers seemed to be brushed up. All started to think, hardly finding their ways in new video card lines and lots of specifications that fell upon the readers' heads from all hardware editions.

Now it's all behind. What is currently going on used to be dubbed as "interlunation". Cards have been released, all are about to guess what each looks like, some even have got them on hands (such semi-mythical persons enjoy an immense popularity on forums of the respective topics), but at the same time the high price (we are now talking only about ultra high-end cards) and the scanty quantities of the boards in the retail are serious obstacles in the way to the cherished box.

But those who are going to buy such a video card for their home computers (simply, the vast majority) are excited and pleased to follow the fight for leadership "at the Olympus summit". This "third person view" can be compared to how fans are watching the games of their favorite teams in the Champions League over TV. Yes, they do see (the test results) with their own eyes, therefore they can produce own impression, which sometimes differs from that of the arbiter. Also, during the whole match we always hear the commentator's voice (the reviewer's comments) who distinctly and as impartially as possible assesses the situation that has shaped up (because football is a very dynamic game, so are computer games) thus assisting the audience (the reader) in finding their ways, analyzes the situation on the field (on the video cards market) that's currently going on in the market creating the effect of own presence, at least, on the stadium stand. We have now presented to you a description of the ideal commentator. It's up to you to decide on the analogies in this regard. But it's hardly arguable that this comparison fully expressed the essence of what is going to be today on these pages.

Two products of the ultra high-end products, a major advance in science and technology, will be competing today for the title of absolute champion with Catalyst 4.8 and ForceWare 61.77 drivers that has gained the latest WHQL certification. The Nightmare tier. No kidding.

We won't be repeating for the hundredth time the technical specifications describing the specifications for each solution in detail. To refresh those detail in memory, just look at the following table:

Video cards	NVIDIA GeForce 6800Ultra	ATI Radeon X800XT
Chip code name	NV40	R420
Process technology	0,13	0.13 low-k
Q-ty of transistors	222 mln	160 mln
Memory bus	256 Bit (GDDR3)	256 Bit (GDDR3)
AGP	AGP 3.0, 8X	AGP 3.0, 8X
Memory	256Mb	256Mb
Chip clock speed	400MHz	525MHz
Memory speed	550MHz(1100MHz DDR)	575MHz(1150MHz DDR)
Q-ty of Vertex Pipelines	6	6
Pixel pipelines	16	16
Vertex shader version	3.0	2.0
Pixel shader version	3.0	2.0b/w 3Dc
DirectX version	9.0+	9.0+
Bits per color channel	10	10
Q-ty of monitor outputs	2	2
General optimizations	CineFX 3.0, Intellisample 3.0, UltraShadow II, MPEG4/WMV-decoding, Improved adaptive deinterlacing, NVIDIA® nView, DVC 3.0, NVIDIA HPDR, Displacement Mapping, MRT, EMBM.	Temporal AA, TrueForm, Fullstream, VideoSoap, MPEG-II decoding, deinterlacing, 3Dc, HyperZ, VideoShader, SmoothVision, Z-compression, Fast Z Clear, Hierarchial Z, Early Z, Z/Stencil Cache, Color Compression
Antialiasing modes	2x, Quincunx 4x, 4xS, 6xS, 8x, 16x	MSAA 2/4/6x, frame compression, Temporal AA.
Anisotropic filtering	2/4/8/16	2/4/8/16

Gigabyte GeForce 6800Ultra Features

Package bundle

While visiting the presentation on GeForce 6 Series, we admired the box on the manufacturers' stand. Now it's time we held it in our hands. I must say, it looks more impressive upon a closer look than on the expo stand. You can easily imagine what the person holding even the box itself in the hands feels. But if we look inside...

Inside it, we found the following:

1. Gigabyte GeForce 6800 Ultra video card
2. Two 15-pin D-Sub/DVI adapters;
3. S-Video/RCA adapter;
4. A detailed manual.
5. A few CDs including:

a) Drivers, DirectX 9.X, Gigabyte's V-Tuner2 utility;
b) PowerDVD 5 DVD player;
c) Games: Joint Operations - Typhoon Rising, SpellForce - The Order of Dawn, and Thief - Deadly Shadows.

Design and layout

Looking at this board, you unwittingly recall the very first NV40 samples. This is no wonder because the PCB design of Gigabyte 6800Ultra is an absolute replica of NVIDIA reference design, and needless to say, the board is made on green textolyte.

Gigabyte GeForce 6800Ultra *1200x727; 105Kb

Gigabyte GeForce 6800Ultra *800x473; 55Kb

Gigabyte GeForce 6800Ultra *1200x689; 217Kb

The cooling system on this board also fully matches that we are used to seeing on NVIDIA reference boards. The difference is merely in Gigabyte's name engraved on the radiator's lid, logo sticker on the fan, and the changed color of the lid itself. In all the other respects, nothing has changed. The same technical implementation of the cooling system, so many times described in varied reviews.

There is a separate aluminum radiator on the GPU, a heat pipe of original design with a radiator on the video memory, and a lid with a fan mounted into it - that's just the structure that covers both the chip and all the memory circuits on the front side of the board.

GPU 6800Ultra offers nominal frequency 400 MHz, which fully matches the frequencies declared by NVIDIA for its product. Judging by the marking, the chip was made on the 23rd week of year 2004 and has revision A1. On the frame that NVIDIA started using to preserve the chip against damages, there is a label showing that it is a genuine GeForce 6800Ultra.

There is 256 Mb DDR memory with a 256-bit data transmission bus assembled with eight K4J55323QF-GC16 chips made in the BGA form factor, of 1.6 ns access time, which is equivalent to the operating frequency 625 MHz (1250 MHz DDR). For 6800 Ultra, the declared memory frequency is 550(1100) MHz at which the memory on this particular specimen is running. Therefore, the memory offers a good guaranteed overclocking potential. All the eight video memory chips are positioned on the boards's front side.

Drawing your attention at the very two connectors for additional power supply - a distinguishing feature of 6800 Ultra, around which there were so many arguments, with quite serious claims imposed upon it. Putting it straight, the capacity of the power supply unit is 480 W originally recommended for these boards shocked many, but it turned out later that the card is able functioning safely and even overclocking thus allowing to use quite good-quality 400W PSUs. So you can stay absolutely assured and not panic about this.

On the board, there is the following set of outputs - two digital and one TV-OUT.

That was a candidate for the title of absolute champion of the ultrahigh-end video accelerators sector to date. Now let's look at ATI's retaliation - X800XT in ASUS make.

ASUS AX800XT Features

The fact that the video card is manufactured by ASUS traditionally means a superb package bundle aimed at the most exigent consumer. Especially, for ultra high-end cards. This time has outdone itself and presented a truly royal package bundle worth of the product itself - AX800XT. In the giant violet box we found the following contents:

1. ASUS AX800XT video card;
2. 15-pin D-Sub/DVI adapter;
3. A kit of 9-pin adapters with a S-Video/Composite VIVO splitter;
4. A splitter for additional power supply;
5. CDs containing drivers, utilities, and DirectX 9.0a
6. A few manuals and colorful brochures on ASUS products;
7. Bright orange CD-Case(!) containing the following CDs:

a) Games: Counter Strike-Condition Zero, and Deus Ex Invisible War;
b) Software: Power Director 3; Media Show; Ulead Cool 3D 2.0 + Photo Express 4.0SE (2 in 1)
â) ASUS DVD XP

Design and layout

At last we admired ASUS package bundle to the full and took the AX800XT board itself in our hands. We breathed the smell of textolyte, so precious to us, and got down to examining the cards. There was something worth to look at. This time, ASUS always following its own way and adhering to manufacturing boards on its own PCB design decided not to depart from ATI standard.

The PCB design of ÀÕ800ÕÒ is fully identical to that of the reference board Radeon Õ800ÕÒ. But the spice is that ASUS has made a board on orange textolyte familiar to us since the times of Radeon 9800XT. That is, not merely purchased a ready card from ATI, as it is normal with hi-end produce, but anyway manufactured them on its own.

ASUS AX800XT *1200x789; 159Kb

ASUS AX800XT *1200x802; 215Kb

ASUS AX800XT *1200x772; 225Kb

At the matter of cooling system, ASUS decided not to experiment either and took on ATI's standard cooling system thus having identified belonging to its own product line with only stickers on the radiator bearing the company logo and card model. The main distinction is in that the radiator on the board's front side in this case fully covers memory chips positioned on this side. Actually, this solution is of purely cosmetic character, because the 4 remaining video memory chips positioned on the reverse side of the board are left without any heat-spreaders. This deviation from the standard is not in fact a departure but "a look back", towards Radeon 9800XT whose design of the cooling system fully coincides with what we see on the card in question.

From the technical viewpoint, the cooling system appears to be a radiator with a copper plate and heat-spreading fins, with a traditional fan having transparent blades on the left, covering the GPU and 4 video memory chips positioned on the board's front side.

With no efforts we were able to disconnect the cooling system from the board - merely three bolts. The graphic processor R420 was made on the 19th week of year 2004 as is seen from the marking. The nominal operating frequency of the GPU is 525 MHz, which fully meets the declared specifications.

There is 256 Mb GDDR3 memory with a 256-bit data transmission bus assembled with eight K4J55323QF-GC16 chips made in the BGA form factor, of 1.6 ns access time, which is equivalent to the operating frequency 625 MHz (1250 MHz DDR). Remember that the same memory type is installed also on GeForce 6800Ultra, but on AX800XT it runs at 575 MHz(1150 MHz DDR).

The memory chips are positioned as follows - 4 chips on the left side, with 4 others on the reverse side.

The connector for additional power supply on ÀÕ800ÕÒ is also of violet color - the yellow connector is of unknown purpose arousing lots of questions among the readers is also there, although ATI assured us it would be on samples only.

The card offers a standard set of outputs - analogous, digital, and TV-OUT.

And the last point to draw your attention is support for the VIVO implemented onboard via the ATI Rage Theater chip.

So, every card has been examined to the slightest detail, all the specifications announced, all the details pronounced, and it's about time we held the Deathmatch.

Test configuration:

CPU	P4 3.2Mhz 800FSB (Northwood D1)
Mb	Epox 4PDA2+ (i865PE)
Memory	PC2700 2x256Mb 400Mhz in the dual-channel mode Latency timings - 2.5-8-4-4
VGA	Gigabyte GeForce 6800 ASUS AX800XT
OS	WinXP + SP1
Drivers	ForceWare 61.77 Catalyst 4.8

Test software:

Synthetic benchmarks:

1. 3DMark2003 Patch 340;
2. 3DMark2001SE Patch 330;
3. Codecreatures v1.0.0 (a DirectX 8.1 application, shaders on, Hardware T&L);

   Gaming benchmarks:
   

4. Unreal Tournament 2003 (Direct3D, Hardware T&L, vertex shaders, Dot3, cube texturing.);
5. Unreal Tournament 2004 (Direct3D, Hardware T&L, vertex shaders, Dot3, cube texturing.);
6. AquaMark 3 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L, AquaMark3 Triscore mode);
7. HALO: Combat Evolved 1.2 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L, quality set to the maximum possible);
8. Gun Metal Benchmark 2 v1.20s (a DirectX 9.0 benchmark, Vertex Shaders 2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1, Hardware T&L);
9. Final Fantasy XI Official Benchmark 2 (a benchmark for assessing the performance in Final Fantasy XI. The developers haven't presented any data on the gaming engine);
10. X2: The Threat Demo (Direct3D, multitexturing, Dot3, running in the benchmark mode embedded in the demo version);
11. Half-life 2 leaked beta (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 2.0, Pixel Shaders 2.0);
12. FarCry ver1.1 (DirectX 9.0, Pixel Shaders 2.0, our own demo "3Dnews001" was used).
13. DOOM 3(timedemo demo1.demo).

Results for synthetic benchmarks:

3DMark2003

We are starting a Deathmatch in the so familiar and repeatedly run 3DMark 2003.

These are the first maps. Even with the complexity of Nightmare, they are quite easy to walk through, and it doesn't make much sense making global conclusions about the rivals' ranking and the alignment of forces.

However, the preliminary totals are such that 6800Ultra won the first round.

Õ800ÕÒ took the second, aka the last, place. But the gap is not that wide to talk about a complete knock-out. Running ahead, I am telling you that X800XT will win back, several times. Now let's look at the detailed alignment of forces over the tests:

Benchmark No.1. Used are vertex shaders of ver. 1.1.

Pixel shaders of ver. 1.1 and 1.4, Dynamic Shadows and Depth Of Field effects.

But in the Nature benchmark fully made up of pixel and vertex shaders of ver 1.1, 1.4, and 2.0, Õ800ÕÒ delivers a heavy blow.

3DMark2001SE

In 3DMark2001 SE, the situation changes to the reverse;) 1:1.

Codecreatures

Under 4õÀÀ and 8õAF, the Õ800ÕÒ looks more attractive. However, this is merely synthetics. In what follows, there go more complicated tiers. Gaming benchmarks. Only there it will be fully clear who will get more frags in the end.

Aquamark3

This is a semi-gaming semi-synthetic benchmark where the major accent is made on the pixel and vertex shaders. 6800Ultra wins back completely.

Villagemark

At HSR test, both cards exceeded 200fps, but as is known, VillageMark does not understand results higher than this bar...

X2 - The Threat

A demo version of the game "X2 - The Threat". This benchmark is quite hard for video cards, at which both rivals make quite a good showing.

Final Fantasy XI

A complete parity. The results differ within measurement errors.

UT2003

It seems like a bottleneck was found in 6800Ultra. It doesn't like high resolutions in the demanding quality modes. It was absolutely useless testing these cards without AA and AF and, needless to say, with the Low Quality settings, because both these solutions have "overgrown" most benchmarks in which their performance is tested. That is seen even on the above graphs.

HALO

This benchmark that uses mainly pixel and vertex shaders of ver. 2.0 at which NVIDIA is normally a winner has not let down either - it's no wonder though.

HALF-LIFE 2

It's up to you decide whether to believe the results of this benchmark or not. We simply bring in the figures. We are looking forward to the time when we can test the card not with this shabby demo that sometimes shows quite dubious results, but with the final version of the game. Actually, it is not improbable that we'll get the same picture which we now observe in DOOM3 (but in the reverse), of which we already wrote.

But anyway it is good that GeForce 6800 Ultra was tested with this demo. In the previous versions of ForceWare drivers, NVIDIA cards of the sixth series for this application were locked, like about other five tests. From this list, only TRAD is left:

Tomb Rider: Angel of Darkness

FireStarter

Far Cry. ver 1.1

This is already a more serious battlefield for such advanced contenders. It is a game of our time which can be regarded as a worship game. Incredibly popular among the gamers, which is quite justified considering its gameplay and the nice scenery it gives. But you can fully enjoy the scenery only with video cards of the respective class, at the maximum quality settings. All these conditions were strictly met, and judging by the results we see that the rivals are worth of one another. Remarkably, the use of 4õAF does not affect the graph result.

Comanche 4

That is a test that came from the DX7 epoch. We used it only as a tribute to traditions. Once again, the heavy lag at 8xAF against the background of overall prevalence of 6800Ultra appears to be an alarming architectural signal.

UT2004

At UT2004, we see a picture similar to that in UT2003. We are ignoring the graphs produced under the Low and High settings without aggressive quality settings because they are absolutely uninteresting in terms of performance comparisons of two super-top solutions - there are merely horizontal lines for them.

DOOM3

One month ago, exigent readers waited for the Far Cry results as a dessert, and now results for DOOM3 are in the same demand. All is predictable enough - the NVIDIA card offers comfortable gameplay in Hi Quality up to 1280x1024 (70 fps), while that of ATI's - up to 1024x768.

Since half the office enjoy playing DOOM3 at home with quite standard computers on R9600XT, then it's an immense happiness when there is a chance to get at a spare VGA monitor, 1GB RAM and a 3.2GHz processor! You take off something like 800XT or 6800Ultra from the shelf and enjoy the gameplay in DOOM3 with a 21" monitor getting the cherished 70 fps without any delays at all :-).

We have already prepared some curious figures for another review, and can't help sharing them with you. Unfortunately, our "guinea pigs" are not reflected in this graph. I would call it exotics of the PCI-Ex class, so it is of only academic interest just to demonstrate the huge performance gap for one and the same card run with a "prehistoric" driver (when there was no DOOM3) and the most recent WHQL-certified driver:

Final Words

This part is the most puzzling. Those who expected to get the findings like "X finally knocked out Y" or "X lost to Y without a score" are in for a disappointment - the cards are are about equal and demonstrate fantastic performance with their already mature drivers for which there is no reason to be ashamed of. I believe, those who simply wanted to have a nice time watching the fierce struggle in the ultra high-end sector have got a real pleasure reading this material.

It goes without saying, we did not expect anything radical or shocking from the test results. Proceeding from the situation on the market that we observed before the release of NV40/R420, we could foretell that NVIDIA simply couldn't help producing something that immediately makes you forget about the history with NV30, but ATI in turn can't afford to drop speed and rest on the laurels.

In fact, that has come true as we expected. There is absolutely no "total domination" in the top sector. Some sort of parity has been established, which is to the benefit for the consumer - the war should switch to the price niche. Meanwhile, we shouldn't forget that these "masterpieces" require respective frames - simply speaking, hardly can you expect a fantastic performance boost from Õ800ÕÒ or 6800Ultra on a Celeron-powered PC. The system has to be well-balanced, which also applies to a comfortable gameplay.

Now regarding the games. The very powerful and sharp upward leap on the market of video cards has resulted in the most games turned out to be "piece of cake" tasks for new video cards. Of course, nature abhors a vacuum. Take for instance the Ultra Quality mode in DOOM3 which a priori forces even the most confirmed gamer to upgrade the card in some time even though the card is a super-top :). But that relates more to the "psychological pressure" the marketing strategy is notorious for in varied fields. It's no use setting hopes for that, because it was, is and will be that way.

As regards the price bar, there is some sort of parity at that. The recommended price for 6800Ultra and Õ800ÕÒ to date is approximately equal - 500$. Note also that the price is recommended, and it may radically differ from that shown in the price list of a neighboring shop. In this case it is useless and illogical to set hopes for NVIDIÀ or ATI. Firstly, for ultrahigh-end solutions the production is more complicated technically than in the middle-end sector and thus costs an order of magnitude higher.

Secondly, the number of such cards in the retail is scanty. To date, this topic is urgent as never before, and according to all the market laws this fact provokes some pricing mess. For now, both these cards are in great shortage, but we held the first samples in the hands as early as in April!!! (the review was released in May after the NDA period expired). There hasn't been such a delayed announcement in history yet.

But let's not talk about the sad. Today we have "touched the legend", which brought us an immense pleasure, because as every fan of their business we are delighted to deal with hardware, especially so perfect, and explore its features in detail. Before us, we face further stages of progress, new video cards, new tests, but in any case the period of running "6800Ultra VS X800XT" Deathmatch at the very summit of video accelerators is already a thing of the past history.

VGA Roundup `2003:

Read more on this topic: