Anand R420 review analysis

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Who won? I did... you did... we all did. ATi raised the bar and made nVidia get down to the nitty gritty. These cards are the results... anyone who scoffs at a 100% increase in performance AND new features needs to have their head examined.

What card you buy will be determined by the games you play and your budget... or at least it should be

The only game I play current is Unreal Tournament 2004. The best game ever.. seriously since Kings Quest 3 (my first PC game), and since Rampage on my Commodore 64 (my first "computer" game) it is the hands down best overall game I've ever played.

So if I was to buy off of what games I play, I have the correct conclusion right?

 

[SickBeast]

Not really, depending on what you're using now. A 5800/9700 or greater will manhandle UT2004 to the point where you can run it at 1280x1024 w/ 4XAA/16XAF at 60FPS. Unless you have an uber-monitor, there would be no point in "upgrading" to a card that delivers 500fps when you would never be able to physically see the difference. Unless of course you require bragging rights, in which case be my guest...

 

[ss284]

Where is the dual dvi love ati?

=(

 

[Edge3D]

BTW, GT is $400US. Ultra is $500. Ultra Extreme is TBD. Non-Ultra (vanilla 6800) I'm not sure if its been replaced by the GT or not.. but its supposed to be a 12pipe part and probably be $300US.

The Pro is $400, the XT is $500.

I think the XT and Ultra are actually too close to call, but to the XTs credit it DOES seem to runaway more.

My logic, which is in contrast to Grevious.. is why drop $500 and not have PS/VS3.0?
I've read all the papers, and seen the techdemos. It WILL increase IQ. It also, when properly implemented WILL increase performance. Its silly to spend THAT much money and not get SM3.0 compliance.

The 800XT is not THAT much faster to forgo PS/VS3.0 support. I would agree if it was something like 70% faster, which was the percentage number buzzing around before the launch.
If that had been true, then HELL YEAH I'd buy it!!!!!!

So I wish the VS/PS3.0 haters would sit down. It doesnt make sense to hate a superior technology, at all. It screams fanboyism and is actually duplicating exactly what ATI themselves are saying.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Edge3D
I am curious about all the votes for the 800XT... with no one backing up with a post with a reason WHY they are going that way.

Also, anyone who buys the 6800 Ultra Extreme OR the 800XT would typically have owned the 9800XT or 5950 Ultra.. if they didnt, I honestly doubt their sincerity because those cards (XT and NVs extremely uber cards) are for those with money, that are willing to shell out the money.
If so many are willing to get such an expensive, extreme card then I would only believe it if they currently own a 9800 XT or 5950 Ultra.
Looks like brand votes, not logic votes.
Just trying to keep it real here and in perspective.

I voted for the 800XT, and I'm currently running a 9700PRO. I don't see how someone's current videocard should factor into anything, but whatever, you have the right to your opinion.

In retrospect I probably should have voted for the GT, but I didn't even know what it was until I read some of the posts about it on the forums here.

That said, money aside, the X800XT is the best card of the bunch whether you'd like to admit it or not (I would say "not" in your case as you obviously "prefer" nVidia). I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but it seems like you started this thread because you didn't like what Anand wrote in his conclusion so you decided to come up with something of your own. If you read some of the other hardware sites you will find that they also concluded that the X800XT was superior to nVidia's offerings. Tom's Hardware and HardOCP come to mind off the top of my head, and to me the 3 most read and probably the most respected hardware sites are Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, and HardOCP. So: the top 3 hardware sites all say that the X800XT wins, and then you have some junior member of the AT forums who likes to believe that it's the other way around. Sorry, maybe when you have a hardware website of your own with 1,000,000 hits per month and all the newest graphics cards in your hand I will grant you more credibility. At this point I'm going to listen to Anand, Kyle, and Tom.

Then again with all those hits, u have to make profit somehow.... But im not saying anything is a definate on that either. But just because he thinks differently doesnt make him wrong. One thing, nobody said anyone really won by much of anything. NV owns on res but ATI owns on AA/AF, it just depends what u play and what u bench.

As far as farcry goes, i find it interesting how as it scales up in settings the ati card comes down closer to the nv score.... basically im saying the drivers arent final and these arent even retail boards/drivers all in the test. Personally, I just call it a tie and say think of whats more important to you as features go (ex power,ps3.0,etc) cuz drivers and hardware can mean a world of difference between the cards. (not to mention what retailers sell them for on pricewatch)

Fanboy? Not quite I. Personally I'm not going to buy any of these cards and am looking more forward to the price drop of the 9800 series. I just like to think of things myself and wonder y ppl say what they do and what can change and y it could change.

 

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Not really, depending on what you're using now. A 5800/9700 or greater will manhandle UT2004 to the point where you can run it at 1280x1024 w/ 4XAA/16XAF at 60FPS. Unless you have an uber-monitor, there would be no point in "upgrading" to a card that delivers 500fps when you would never be able to physically see the difference. Unless of course you require bragging rights, in which case be my guest...

Thanks for the reply. Actually I'm buying a new monitor specifically for this upgrade. Either one capable of 1600x1200 or might go with this certain Iiyama capable of 2048x1536 at 85hz.
I'm not buying one of these new cards until I get a monitor to do it justice.. and CPU to limit it as little as possible.
Thinking a 22" Iiyama monitor and a A64 3400+ on NF3-250.. the NF3s are optimized for NV cards as well so I should get better performance than Anands review showed.

Thats why I want to see which of the cards does the best at 2048 in UT2K4. Anyone got a link?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

...I voted for the 800XT, and I'm currently running a 9700PRO. I don't see how someone's current videocard should factor into anything, but whatever, you have the right to your opinion...

...In retrospect I probably should have voted for the GT...

The 9700Pro was a smart buy in it's day, and it appears that the 6800GT will be as well. Given the fact that the 6800GT is already being touted as the best bang/buck card in the new round and that you currently still own a 9700Pro, if I had to guess which card you would have picked, I would have guessed that you would pick the 6800GT (unless you were biased towards ATi). Past buying habits have a direct correllation to future buying habits. That's why grocery stores have those discount clubs- so they can keep track of what you buy to know what you will most likely buy in the future.

Anyway, back on topic. The release date is going to be a deciding factor for me. I will most likely lean towards nVidia, but I will have to see what I can get and when - I have another PC to build for someone else that is waiting for the FX 5900 in my current rig. I don't want to wait months for a 6800GT even it is $100 less than a 6800Ultra if the Ultra is available sooner - "time is money".

 

[SickBeast]

Thats why I want to see which of the cards does the best at 2048 in UT2K4. Anyone got a link?

Here it is

They also have benches of the coveted 6800U Extreme or whatever it's called. Strangely enough the X800XT soundly defeats it in both UT2004 and Far Cry. I haven't read the rest of the article. Strange yet interesting. 58FPS at 1600x1200 w/ 4XAA 8XAF is incredible, but I was honestly expecting even more than that. And only 50FPS from the 6800U Extreme? Wow is all I have to say. I mean, that's just 1 resolution step above what I'm currently running with my 9700pro.

 

[ShinX]

the low overclocks on the x800XT shows that it is , truley the final squeeze of the
x800 line

 

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Thats why I want to see which of the cards does the best at 2048 in UT2K4. Anyone got a link?

Here it is

They also have benches of the coveted 6800U Extreme or whatever it's called. Strangely enough the X800XT soundly defeats it in both UT2004 and Far Cry. I haven't read the rest of the article. Strange yet interesting. 58FPS at 1600x1200 w/ 4XAA 8XAF is incredible, but I was honestly expecting even more than that. And only 50FPS from the 6800U Extreme? Wow is all I have to say. I mean, that's just 1 resolution step above what I'm currently running with my 9700pro.

That link doesnt contain 2048x1536 results...

Edit- should note.. at that res you DEFINITELY shouldnt need any AA/AF So I'm concerned with 2048x1536 results with no AA/AF.. I HIGHLY doubt ANY of these cards would be playable at that resolution.
It would be a stretch if any play the game w/o AA/AF to begin with. But whatever one does, is my winner.
Things might change if I get to see the result of 2048, but for now, I'm pretty sure the GT is my best pick.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Edge3D

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Who won? I did... you did... we all did. ATi raised the bar and made nVidia get down to the nitty gritty. These cards are the results... anyone who scoffs at a 100% increase in performance AND new features needs to have their head examined.

What card you buy will be determined by the games you play and your budget... or at least it should be

The only game I play current is Unreal Tournament 2004. The best game ever.. seriously since Kings Quest 3 (my first PC game), and since Rampage on my Commodore 64 (my first "computer" game) it is the hands down best overall game I've ever played.

So if I was to buy off of what games I play, I have the correct conclusion right?

Yup, I'd agree with you... however... the 6800GT isn't a 16 pipe card... is it????

*EDIT* Oh it is... hmmm... I was thinking it was a 12 pipe... well... it has suddenly become more attractive =) Overclocker's wet dream =)

 

[SickBeast]

Well, there aren't many monitors in existence that can run at that resolution. I don't think I've EVER seen a hardware review with benchmarks at that resoultion. Good luck, and post back if you find something. There are at least 30 reviews of the X800XT floating around, I guess you have some reading to do.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Well, I didn't vote since I won't be building my new computer until around X-mas.

However, unless things change significantly by that time, I would get the 6800GT.

My reasons are as follows:
1. GT seems to have a decent price and it is "fast enough" for my needs. Therefore, good performance for the money.
2. Nvidia has always had better CAD support in my experience (Pro/E user, so OpenGL is what I need). Now, I'd be interested in hearing more about the poor CAD performance of the 6800, but really, for my needs, even the original GeforceSDR is fine.
3. I've had better luck with Nvidia drivers (this doesn't mean that they are better per se, just that they have been better in my case) in the following ways:
3a. User interface - I greatly prefer the user interface of the Nvidia Drivers over the interface of the ATI ones. I've found the layout to be easier to navigate and use.
3b. Stability - I first played CoD on my GF3 Ti200, and wasn't too happy with the framerates (although they were decent for the most part). I bought a 9700Pro to tide me over to X-mas, and am very happy with the performance, but CoD crashed about 5 or 6 times. It never crashed once with the GF3. And I reformatted my HDD so I know that it wasn't driver conflicts.

Anyhow, with further driver updates I expect the Nvidia cards to increase their performance @ a greater rate than the ATI cards (simply because the ATI core is relatively well known), but I'm not really counting that since it is just speculation.

So, I guess I'll be waiting for reviews of the PCI-E (or X or whatever the hell it's called) versions of these cards, since that's what I'll probably be getting. We'll see how they compare in 6 months, but for now I'm leaning slightly towards the 6800GT.

-D'oh!

 

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Well, there aren't many monitors in existence that can run at that resolution. I don't think I've EVER seen a hardware review with benchmarks at that resoultion. Good luck, and post back if you find something. There are at least 30 reviews of the X800XT floating around, I guess you have some reading to do.

I pretty much only stick with Anands.. Ive read many many sites in the past and honestly, they suck.

I ONLY trust Anand for fair, balanced and accurate reporting on computer hardware.

You can find good, cheap(er) CRTs that can do it. Heck, this one does for $533! And at 88hz at that.

If I end up buying that monitor this summer, then I'll buy whatever card does 2048 the best. I dont have any brand loyalty. I'm actually EXTREMELY curious on 800XT performance at that res in that game!

But I am at LEAST getting a 1600x1200@85hz capable monitor, so for my game of choice (UT2K4) it appears NV wins by default until then. Plus, I really dont want to spend $400+ and get a card with less features that will very highly likely end up looking uglier without VS3.0 (vertex displacement mapping.. VERY good looking feature) and PS3.0 (more speed, which equals higher resolution).

But if ATI's 800XT runs away greatly in 2048 over all of NV's offerings.. I'd have to go that route.

Someone, please produce a link for me!

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: JBT
I'll be going for the GT in late summer.

same for me. GT owns.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Edge3D
I am curious about all the votes for the 800XT... with no one backing up with a post with a reason WHY they are going that way.

Also, anyone who buys the 6800 Ultra Extreme OR the 800XT would typically have owned the 9800XT or 5950 Ultra.. if they didnt, I honestly doubt their sincerity because those cards (XT and NVs extremely uber cards) are for those with money, that are willing to shell out the money.
If so many are willing to get such an expensive, extreme card then I would only believe it if the majority of these people currently own a 9800 XT or 5950 Ultra. And few people I've came across in this forum own one.
Looks like brand votes, not logic votes.
Just trying to keep it real here and in perspective.

Why I voted for it? Because I think its the best, and Im going to get it. I dont know why you think we have to justify our reason to purchase some hardware.

You dont know anyone with a 9800XT or 5950U? Oh well, I know lots. I had a GF2 Ultra when it came out, I got a GF3 the first week it was out, a Ti4600 in about the same timeI had a 9700 Pro when it came out, a 9800 Pro when it came out, and now a 9800XT. I plan to get the X800XT because I think its the best, what is so hard to understand about that? I like having top of the line hardware, because I like to play with everything on high, with the res cranked up.

Try keeping it real and in perspective without assuming.

 

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: AnnoyedGrunt
Well, I didn't vote since I won't be building my new computer until around X-mas.

However, unless things change significantly by that time, I would get the 6800GT.

My reasons are as follows:
1. GT seems to have a decent price and it is "fast enough" for my needs. Therefore, good performance for the money.
2. Nvidia has always had better CAD support in my experience (Pro/E user, so OpenGL is what I need). Now, I'd be interested in hearing more about the poor CAD performance of the 6800, but really, for my needs, even the original GeforceSDR is fine.
3. I've had better luck with Nvidia drivers (this doesn't mean that they are better per se, just that they have been better in my case) in the following ways:
3a. User interface - I greatly prefer the user interface of the Nvidia Drivers over the interface of the ATI ones. I've found the layout to be easier to navigate and use.
3b. Stability - I first played CoD on my GF3 Ti200, and wasn't too happy with the framerates (although they were decent for the most part). I bought a 9700Pro to tide me over to X-mas, and am very happy with the performance, but CoD crashed about 5 or 6 times. It never crashed once with the GF3. And I reformatted my HDD so I know that it wasn't driver conflicts.

Anyhow, with further driver updates I expect the Nvidia cards to increase their performance @ a greater rate than the ATI cards (simply because the ATI core is relatively well known), but I'm not really counting that since it is just speculation.

So, I guess I'll be waiting for reviews of the PCI-E (or X or whatever the hell it's called) versions of these cards, since that's what I'll probably be getting. We'll see how they compare in 6 months, but for now I'm leaning slightly towards the 6800GT.

-D'oh!

I experienced all 3 of those things personally as well with my 9800 Pro.. your experiences are NOT limited to yourself. I used to think the same thing. Its known.
I've had better luck with NV drivers as well, they've been famous for many years for that. The interface is much better as well. And COD, same here, exactly.
I think the issues are cleared up in COD and maybe that ANNOYING BLOCK SMOKE IN AGE OF MYTHOLOGY(!!!) on 9800 Pros.. but I dont know, I ditched mine on ebay some time back.

I thought to myself, for giving $350 to ATI for this card I expect better support.
Thats why to me, speed is secondary when you've got things like PS/VS3.0 on the table from a company such as Nvidia (with the proper support and all).

Plus, dont know if you're aware.. but I sometimes use a dual monitor setup and boy.. is NV drastically superior there. Their new dual DVI thing is not bad if you have a LCD too, might be useful for someone like yourself.

 

[SickBeast]

I dunno man, the more I read your posts the more biased you seem. You say you want to run at 1600x1200 with 4XAA/8XAF? Anandtech says the X800XT is faster than anything made by nVidia!!!
HERE
Add to this that every other review I have read shows the X800XT as faster than the 6800U or even the Extreme whatever it's called in UT2004.

I'm through arguing with you about this. You obviously are an nVidia fanboy. No benchmarks, definitive info, reason, or logic is going to sway your opinion, it's 100% apparent to me. If you have such brand loyalty you should take some honest advice and keep it to yourself and not post it on the forums. It's just going to cause flame wars and people will start to resent you and will not even read or respect your posts anymore. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, I'm just being honest. Don't be surprised if I no longer respond to your nVidia vs. ATi threads; I'm pretty sure I've made my point by now and I'm tired of kicking the poor dead horse as it's already dead and my feet are getting tired.

EDIT: You want no AA/AF for some reason, then fine, apparently you'll get 5fps more on the 6800U. Keep in mind that other sites got other results though. I grabbed this from Tom's Hardware:
"Without quality enhancing features such as FSAA enabled, all cards are more or less CPU limited. The ATi cards seem to take a little more of the load off the CPU, however, as their frame rate is just a touch higher."
I don't know why you would want to be CPU limited and disable the eye candy on that card, but whatever.

 

[Edge3D]

I wasnt calling anyone out specifically.. its just the first time in the history of computing I've seen so many people jump straight to the $500 card.

Now that you've told me why you are going XT, that isnt hard to understand, thank you.

But it is very strange to see so many people plopping down $500 on a video card.. now THAT, I do not understand. I dont think thats "assuming" or out of perspective, or "unreal".

I wish I had your jobs. Oh, and YOUR life Ackmed

 

[ronnn]

I voted pro, but maybe not by the end of the summer. As I am sure prices will fall quickly on these, same as the 9800pro, but I think my next upgrade will be pci express, so probably more like the end of the year. With soft mod, will be best deal of the year. I seem to be one of many still grasping onto their 9700pro - as that wavey dave guy said.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

My reasoning is that something is fishy, or needs time to work itself out (drivers) when the GT beats it in 3 of Anands benchmarks.. thats my only thing. I'd save my extra money.. plus by mid summer hopefully my GT will be down a bit from $400.. who knows.

The X800s drivers are still in beta. If we compare the 6800U first series of drivers to current X800 XT performance, we'd have an ATI landslide. 6800U has had significant jumps from 60.72 to 61.11

But to quibble at you benchmark analysis a bit: ATI's lead in UT2k4 (6 fps), is rather big percentagewise (15%).

Bottom line for me: ATI leads in Farcry and UT2k4, which IMO are really the only 2 benches needed. If you can run those 2, you're set. UT2k4 may not be DX9, but by the nature of the game it merits a higher FPS to play it well.

But it is very strange to see so many people plopping down $500 on a video card

It's actually just about as strange to plunk down $400 on a card.

 

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I dunno man, the more I read your posts the more biased you seem. You say you want to run at 1600x1200 with 4XAA/8XAF? Anandtech says the X800XT is faster than anything made by nVidia!!!
HERE
Add to this that every other review I have read shows the X800XT as faster than the 6800U or even the Extreme whatever it's called in UT2004.

I'm through arguing with you about this. You obviously are an nVidia fanboy. No benchmarks, definitive info, reason, or logic is going to sway your opinion, it's 100% apparent to me. If you have such brand loyalty you should take some honest advice and keep it to yourself and not post it on the forums. It's just going to cause flame wars and people will start to resent you and will not even read or respect your posts anymore. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, I'm just being honest. Don't be surprised if I no longer respond to your nVidia vs. ATi threads; I'm pretty sure I've made my point by now and I'm tired of kicking the poor dead horse as it's already dead and my feet are getting tired.

No man.. I said I want to see who does best at 2048x1536 with NO AA/AF. I doubt any card can do this, let alone 2048 with 4xAA/16xAF... seriously.
But I *think* that "naked" 2048 might be a possiblity.

You think I'm biased? I'll say right now, produce naked 2048 results and if the 800XT is faster and playable, watch me turn into a ATI fanboy.
Period.
Or at least as much of a fanboy as you THINK I am an "NV fanboy". Laughable. If only you knew me.
I'm a networker. I'm not pro-Microsoft, not pro-Linux, not pro-Novell. I'm not pro-ANYTHING.
Let me tell you straight.
IM BEST OF BREED!
Take THAT to the damn store and buy yer self a clue, cuz its offensive to my character. Fanboy I am not.

I dont speak out of "fanboyism" like many do around here. I speak what I know and think.
Like I said, naked 2048 is what I am looking for. If ATI can produce that.. they are "mine"! That to me, would outweigh PS/VS3.0 support.

Does it REALLY appear fanboyish to go with a cheaper card, that has HUGE bang for the buck in my game of choice (UT2K4) where it beats the 800XT in everything but 1600 with 4xAA/8xAF?
In which the X800XT gets 45fps?? That isnt playable online. My god people.
Then on top of that, it has PS/VS3.0 which are VERY valuable features.

Like I said, SM3.0 compliance would be outweighed IMO if 2048 is rendered playable by the 800XT.. or the 6800 Ultra Extreme for that matter (but it does include SM3.0, but likely will be more than the XT's $500 price and that is my limit).

 

[Pete]

Edge, why do you keep omitting the leading "X" in X800? Maybe it'll help if you read it as "ten-eight-hundred," as I do (9800 -> 10800 = X800).

Though the need for AA may be reduced at higher res, the need for AF is basically independent of res. 20x15 will feature textures just as blurry as 10x7, and AF will help just as much. This may interest you if you can forego AA at 20x15, since the X800 series seems to take much less of a performance hit than the 6800 series with AF.

As for why so many ppl are choosing $500 cards, keep in mind mainly the hardcore 3D fans will be looking at or interested in buying a new card at release, when prices are closest to MSRP. Given the big delta in performance between the X800XT and Pro, it seems obvious to go for the XT. The 6800U/GT seems to be a closer call, and I actually think I'd favor a GT over a Pro in the $400 bracket.

I'm not sure how ATi's and nV"s drivers fare in older games, but I'm disappointed ATi hasn't tossed in a SSAA mode for the oldies but goodies that run so fast on current HD that SSAA's extra performance hit will be moot.

20x15 is tempting, but remember that ATi's HD doo-dads all top out at 16x12/19x10. Higher resolutions don't benefit from fullscreen HyperZ and the like, just partial savings (up to 16x12/19x10, per TR's review).

 

[Edge3D]

Originally posted by: Pete
Edge, why do you keep omitting the leading "X" in X800? Maybe it'll help if you read it as "ten-eight-hundred," as I do (9800 -> 10800 = X800).

Merely simplification. Tired of Ultra, Pro, Extreme Edition, Z9000, Ultra2, GTX, XTY..
Just want to let people know exactly what card I am referring to, omitting the X in X800XT doesnt stop anyone from understanding me. But omitting the XT does
I'm sure EVERYONE is tired of a zillion cards and revisions.. /sigh. Remember the 5600 Ultra Rev.1 and 2 hoopla? 9600SE, non pro, ect.. all such a pain in my arse.

As for why so many ppl are choosing $500 cards, keep in mind mainly the hardcore 3D fans will be looking at or interested in buying a new card at release, when prices are closest to MSRP. Given the big delta in performance between the X800XT and Pro, it seems obvious to go for the XT. The 6800U/GT seems to be a closer call, and I actually think I'd favor a GT over a Pro in the $400 bracket.

Agreed. But why get a card for $500 (half a grand!) that doesnt have its competitors features like SM3.0? Which WILL be implemented into FarCry, Painkiller and many other games that are even already on sale floors? Hmmmm....
Seems clear to me people are buying from brand loyalty, not features AND performance. For that kind of money you could get yourself a Ultra or maybe a UExtreme with SM3.0.
I promise ye forum goers. It will be a major loss for the 800XT. You will have buyers remorse sooner, rather than later when SM3.0 is implemented into games.

20x15 is tempting, but remember that ATi's HD doo-dads all top out at 16x12/19x10. Higher resolutions don't benefit from fullscreen HyperZ and the like, just partial savings (up to 16x12/19x10, per TR's review).

I dont follow. Please elaborate.

 

[Pete]

omitting the X in X800XT doesnt stop anyone from understanding me
In context, yes, but it seems a little close to a 9800P/XT to be saving one measly letter.

Agreed. But why get a card for $500 (half a grand!) that doesnt have its competitors features like SM3.0? Which WILL be implemented into FarCry, Painkiller and many other games that are even already on sale floors? Hmmmm....
Seems clear to me people are buying from brand loyalty, not features AND performance. For that kind of money you could get yourself a Ultra or maybe a UExtreme with SM3.0.
I promise ye forum goers. It will be a major loss for the 800XT. You will have buyers remorse sooner, rather than later when SM3.0 is implemented into games.
I think you're far too quick to paint prospective X800XT owners as fanboys, and to assume that SM3.0 will allow the 6800U to make up the quite large ground between it an the X800XT. I haven't read or seen anything that indicates SM3.0 will be a big leap in terms of either performance or IQ. I feel that the 6800GT's support for SM3.0 gives it an advantage over the relatively similarly-performing X800P, but I don't think SM3.0 will erase the X800XT's generally noticable performance lead over the 6800U with AA+AF.

I dont follow. Please elaborate.
From the TechReport review:

Better performance at higher resolutions ? Each pixel quad in the R420 has its own Z compression and hierarchical Z capability, including its own local cache. ATI has sized these caches to allow for Z-handling enhancements to operate at resolutions up to 1920x1080. (The R300's global Z cache was sized for resolutions up to 1600x1200, the RV3xx-series chips' to less.) Also, on the R420, if the screen resolution is too high for the Z cache to accommodate everything, the chip will use its available Z cache to render a portion of the screen, rather than simply turning off Z enhancements.

B3D says that the four-quad X800XT will be able to fully process up to 4MP resolutions, though, so maybe just the X800P is limited to full performance at up to 3MP (2048 * 1536 =~ 3.14MP, so a bit over the 3MP limit):

With 4 quads enabled the Hierarchical Z-Buffer has around 4 mega pixels of (lower level) Z buffer storage capabilities, which should be good for over 2048 resolutions, which means that high definition resolutions like 1920x1080 are fully covered. Should the screen resolution exceed that of the maximum capabilities of the Hierarchical Z-Buffer it is not disabled entirely, instead a portion of the Z-buffer is setup in the Hierarchical Z-Buffer to its maximum storage capability and then anything that falls out of that range falls back to the early pixel level reject, so the majority of the screen can still captured by the Hierarchical Z-Buffer.

About AF: I just read THG's X800 review, and Lars seems to say that the 6800 shows less texture shimmer than the X800 with AF. That's worth further investigation, and hopefully we'll see more in-depth IQ analysis in a month or two, once reviewers have some time with retail cards and updated drivers. Less texture shimmer may be worth less performance--at the very least, the 6800 gives you that option, along with SSAA.