5900 NU price dropping like a STONE in DEEP water!?

[Budarow]

I gotta say...the price of the 5900 NU seems to be dropping every day by a buck or 2 over the last couple of weeks. Seems like every day there is a "new" low price leader at Pricewatch on the XFX 5900 NU. It's now down to $188.00 with no rebates and including shipping!

It also seems like the better pricing on the 5900 NU is starting to put some downward pricing pressure on the 9800 NP (and maybe the 9800 Pro). The 9800 Pro seems like it rarely dropped below $300.00 and now there are a few e-tailers with the 9800 Pro at $290.00.

It about time the higher end cards to trended lower in price...$300+ for video cards that have been out for 6 months or more is pretty steep in my opinion.

 

[klah]

The only thing to watch out for is the slower 2.8ns memory instead of 2.2ns on the cheaper 5900nu cards. Even that XFX card that had 2.2ns memory for $200 now appears to have switched to 2.8ns.

 

[JammingJay]

Price dropping like stone is a good thing.

 

[Schadenfroh]

the only way it would be better is if they were 2.2 ns

 

[Genx87]

This will also put pressure on the 9600 XT pricing.

Going to be hard for ATI to sell a 9600 XT for 150 bucks + give away a copy of HL2 and make a buck.

 

[Nebor]

I think a stone drops at the same rate no matter the depth of water it's in. Physics guys, back me up.

 

[RollWave]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I think a stone drops at the same rate no matter the depth of water it's in. Physics guys, back me up.

You are correct sir!

 

[Vonkhan]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I think a stone drops at the same rate no matter the depth of water it's in. Physics guys, back me up.

Wrong again Nebor. I could go into detail, but its not worth it ... u have to figure in the factors whether the stone was in motion before it hit the water, or was it static ... well, utilmately, it'll reach terminal velocity (uniform speed) at which it'll be sinking

 

[CraigRT]

I'll take the 9800 Radeon too.. wicked prices!

 

[pelikan]

The 5900 is performing well to with the latest drivers. Very tempting to take advantage of Nvidia's bad rep. It won't last forever.

 

[austin316]

Originally posted by: klah
The only thing to watch out for is the slower 2.8ns memory instead of 2.2ns on the cheaper 5900nu cards. Even that XFX card that had 2.2ns memory for $200 now appears to have switched to 2.8ns.

where did you hear it switched memory to the 2.8?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan

Originally posted by: Nebor
I think a stone drops at the same rate no matter the depth of water it's in. Physics guys, back me up.

Wrong again Nebor. I could go into detail, but its not worth it ... u have to figure in the factors whether the stone was in motion before it hit the water, or was it static ... well, utilmately, it'll reach terminal velocity (uniform speed) at which it'll be sinking

So you're saying that if we drop a rock from the same height, into the water, @ 25 foot depth and at 1 foot depth, that the rock will achieve a depth of 6" faster in the 25 foot deep water?

The depth the rock has to fall doesn't effect the rate at which it falls...

 

[jsp0000]

Originally posted by: austin316

where did you hear it switched memory to the 2.8?

One of the newegg user comments said their card was clocked at 400core/700 memory. Several other people have posted the same at the xfxforce.com forums. Apparently the new cards with the slower memory are labeled "version 2.2". I have one coming from newegg now; should arrive tomorrow. Will be disappointed if it is the slower memory version, but that's what I expect. Wish newegg and XFX would get the specs right though: both say the memory clock is 800 not 700. Isn't a normal 5900 NU clocked at 400/850, while the 2.8ns memory "light" versions are clocked at 400/700?

Also, see this thread here at anadtech forums: http://tinyurl.com/xkf1

BTW, is there any way for sure to identify the memory speed short of peeling the memory heat sinks off? The default memory clock is a clear clue, but doesn't seem definitive.

 

[Rage187]

Well technically if the deeper water was indeed colder (IE the ocean), it is possible that the rock would slow down once it reach the lower depths.

 

[nRollo]

So you're saying that if we drop a rock from the same height, into the water, @ 25 foot depth and at 1 foot depth, that the rock will achieve a depth of 6" faster in the 25 foot deep water?

The depth the rock has to fall doesn't effect the rate at which it falls...

You are missing the point- nVidia cheated on 3dMark 2003!

LOL

 

[Keysplayr]

What price are the 5700Ulra's at now, are they even selling at all? No one in their right mind would buy a 5700U with the 5900 being offered cheaper.

The cheapest I see at NEWEGG is eVGA's 5700U at 185.00.

I'd pay 3.00 more for even the 2.8 ns 5900nu.

LOL

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan

Originally posted by: Nebor
I think a stone drops at the same rate no matter the depth of water it's in. Physics guys, back me up.

Wrong again Nebor. I could go into detail, but its not worth it ... u have to figure in the factors whether the stone was in motion before it hit the water, or was it static ... well, utilmately, it'll reach terminal velocity (uniform speed) at which it'll be sinking

No, he actually is right (assuming you're talking about dropping from rest at both points). Ie, a stone going from rest to dropping from just below the water's surface will have the same speed as one dropped from 100 feet below.

Of course if this is the same stone we're talking about then obviously it will be faster at the lower point due to acceleration as long as terminal velocity has not yet been reached in the first case.

But he is right, the stone drops at the same rate (ie acceleration) no matter where it is in the water. And in this sense he is right about deep water making no difference - the depth of the water does not matter on the stone's rate of descent.

 

[chsh1ca]

Hmm, this makes me hopeful I'll be able to go from GF3Ti200 - FX5900 a lot sooner than I had planned.

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
No, he actually is right (assuming you're talking about dropping from rest at both points). Ie, a stone going from rest to dropping from just below the water's surface will have the same speed as one dropped from 100 feet below.

That's assuming uniform water pressure and density, which we know factually doesn't exist. Due to the weight of the water, the pressure and density of it goes up the deeper you go, therefore the rate of acceleration of a rock dropped at 100ft depth would by necessity be different than a rock dropped at 0ft depth. You do have to take things like buoyancy into account in this kind of absurd rambling tangent.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: pelikan
The 5900 is performing well to with the latest drivers. Very tempting to take advantage of Nvidia's bad rep. It won't last forever.

Do the latest drivers still cheat at DX9? Was reading a review on toms from september that showed the nvidia cards 30 to 40% slower with the older drivers and they claim the newer driver results are invalid because they don't render the scene's correctly? Is this still true?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: trikster2

Originally posted by: pelikan
The 5900 is performing well to with the latest drivers. Very tempting to take advantage of Nvidia's bad rep. It won't last forever.

Do the latest drivers still cheat at DX9? Was reading a review on toms from september that showed the nvidia cards 30 to 40% slower with the older drivers and they claim the newer driver results are invalid because they don't render the scene's correctly? Is this still true?

Tom is about as reputable as any one of us.... It's just that he posts his opinions on a web page, and we post ours on this message board.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
That's assuming uniform water pressure and density, which we know factually doesn't exist. Due to the weight of the water, the pressure and density of it goes up the deeper you go, therefore the rate of acceleration of a rock dropped at 100ft depth would by necessity be different than a rock dropped at 0ft depth. You do have to take things like buoyancy into account in this kind of absurd rambling tangent.

I was thinking the same thing, that water density/pressure may retard acceleration at lower depths.

(I'm ignoring the potentially thorny issue of whether either stone will "optimize" for gravity with hand-coded fluid dynamics or clip planes. )

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: trikster2

Originally posted by: pelikan
The 5900 is performing well to with the latest drivers. Very tempting to take advantage of Nvidia's bad rep. It won't last forever.

Do the latest drivers still cheat at DX9? Was reading a review on toms from september that showed the nvidia cards 30 to 40% slower with the older drivers and they claim the newer driver results are invalid because they don't render the scene's correctly? Is this still true?

You're referring to Lars' Aquamark 3 comparison of the Det 44 and Det 45? A later review (either the article on nV's response to ATi's Shader Days or a subsequent 5700U?5950U review) showed that the Det 52's kept (and even improved on) the speed gains from Det 44 to Det 45 and fixed most or all of the IQ problems. I'm not sure if nV is cheating (as they *doubled* their scores in AM3 with subsequent drivers, whereas ATi has stayed relatively constant), but they're at least rendering things correctly.

 

[baj2904]

One of the newegg user comments said their card was clocked at 400core/700 memory. Several other people have posted the same at the xfxforce.com forums. Apparently the new cards with the slower memory are labeled "version 2.2". I have one coming from newegg now; should arrive tomorrow. Will be disappointed if it is the slower memory version, but that's what I expect. Wish newegg and XFX would get the specs right though: both say the memory clock is 800 not 700. Isn't a normal 5900 NU clocked at 400/850, while the 2.8ns memory "light" versions are clocked at 400/700?

I am in the same boat as you. I ordered the XFX card from newegg before I found out about them changing the memory specs. A post I read on the XFX forums authored by the board Admin confirms that the new revision of this card ships with 2.8ns memory clocked at 700 Mhz. My card has already been shipped and will arrive this Friday. I called newegg and told them that I was not happy about getting a card that does not match their specs on the product description page. They told me to refuse shipment and they will give me a refund for the full price when the shipment arrives back at newegg. You might want to give them a call and see if you can do the same.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Hmm, this makes me hopeful I'll be able to go from GF3Ti200 - FX5900 a lot sooner than I had planned.

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
No, he actually is right (assuming you're talking about dropping from rest at both points). Ie, a stone going from rest to dropping from just below the water's surface will have the same speed as one dropped from 100 feet below.

That's assuming uniform water pressure and density, which we know factually doesn't exist. Due to the weight of the water, the pressure and density of it goes up the deeper you go, therefore the rate of acceleration of a rock dropped at 100ft depth would by necessity be different than a rock dropped at 0ft depth. You do have to take things like buoyancy into account in this kind of absurd rambling tangent.

Yes, but I assumed we are holding all other variables constant, ie the ideal case (which is usually assumed to be true in simplistic examples, such as this).

Anyways, it's gotten out of hand.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: jsp0000

Originally posted by: austin316

where did you hear it switched memory to the 2.8?

One of the newegg user comments said their card was clocked at 400core/700 memory. Several other people have posted the same at the xfxforce.com forums. Apparently the new cards with the slower memory are labeled "version 2.2". I have one coming from newegg now; should arrive tomorrow. Will be disappointed if it is the slower memory version, but that's what I expect. Wish newegg and XFX would get the specs right though: both say the memory clock is 800 not 700. Isn't a normal 5900 NU clocked at 400/850, while the 2.8ns memory "light" versions are clocked at 400/700?

Also, see this thread here at anadtech forums: http://tinyurl.com/xkf1

BTW, is there any way for sure to identify the memory speed short of peeling the memory heat sinks off? The default memory clock is a clear clue, but doesn't seem definitive.

That is very sneaky marketing that the new ones (probably with 2.8 ns memory) are labelled as "version 2.2" since the "2.2" part obviously is to trick people into thinking it's the one with 2.2ns memory.