Putting a second 6600GT wouldn't even be worth it..
You are only going to the level of a 6800GT or possibly less.. Might as well wait, sell the 6600GT and buy a improved and cheaper G70 variant when they are available.
Putting a second 6600GT wouldn't even be worth it..
You are only going to the level of a 6800GT or possibly less.. Might as well wait, sell the 6600GT and buy a improved and cheaper G70 variant when they are available.
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
Well Current GeForce 6 or ATI X800 series should be good for at least a year (for low-mid) or a year and a half (higer end)
If you don't care maximum quality settings, etc for the games at least they will last for at least 2 years (Counting longhorn out of equation)
It would be silly to spend $600 on a new gen graphics card.
Unless $300 mid-range next-gen cards are available.
If you don't care maximum quality settings, etc for the games at least they will last for at least 2 years (Counting longhorn out of equation)
It would be silly to spend $600 on a new gen graphics card.
Unless $300 mid-range next-gen cards are available.
If it cant beat 6800GT sli, i know my next upgrade 
24 pipes @ 430mhz with a die shrink sounds on the slow side for next gen. 8 Vertex shaders isnt great either.
Ill wait for anand to get ahold of one (im sure he already has).
24 pipes @ 430mhz with a die shrink sounds on the slow side for next gen. 8 Vertex shaders isnt great either.
Ill wait for anand to get ahold of one (im sure he already has).
600 sounds a bit to high to me. I wouldn't purchase a card much over 300 so it looks like I'll we waitng for hot deals lol. Esspecially with those specs. It hardly seems like it will perform that great with only 8 more pipes and 2 more vertex shaders. You would think with the die shrink they could have put out a little bit highier core clock?
Why? They have been the fastest two cards for over a year. And they were about twice as fast as the gen of cards before them. So whats the difference?
New cards will be price gouged like crazy, unless you can find one in a brick and mortar store upon release. Which isnt likely is this gen is like the last few.
Under MSRP is a good thing. $500 can be seen as a small fortune to some people though.
Sylvanas
Diamond Member
- Jan 20, 2004
- 3,752
- 0
- 0
Some of you say you wont spend that much, but once the reviews start rolling in of these new cards hitting 10k+ in 3dmark 05 and making your games run a 6xaa 16xaf, youll crack
But yes I agree that does sound high, I shudder to think what that means in Aussie dollars...
But yes I agree that does sound high, I shudder to think what that means in Aussie dollars...
Wifey will need a computer shortly. I see a 7800GT in my future on an SLI MB
Hopefully supply will be plenty so the prices dont remain as high as the 6800s did through their lifetime.
Hopefully supply will be plenty so the prices dont remain as high as the 6800s did through their lifetime.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
No worries. $250 6800GT/x800XLs will happily feel the void for most people who can't afford over $300. Besides, if ATI cards are 32 pipes, the X900 Pro (or whatever it'll be called) will alone force Nvidia to lower the price on that G70 card.
Also...
1) Numbers just dont add up. 6800Gt is 16x350 = 5600 fill-rate. If G70 is nothing but NV40 with 2 vertex shader and more pipes that puts it at 10320 (84% faster), given same efficiency. The additional 2 vertex shaders should add a bit more performance too. Given this, performance increases should be large and a 7700 score in 3dmark05 is too low.
2) Nvidia most likely saved an Ultra version for a rainy day when ATI brings something ridiculous like a 500mhz 32-pipeline card. This would mean that the GTX version probably will not stay at $599 level for too long as the Ultra will take over. Nvidia could very well announce the Ultra version at the time of ATI's launch. Finally, the GT version is likely to still have 24 pipes but say 375 mhz clock speeds. That still gives it a 9000 fill-rate figure - much higher than 6800Ultra today - and this card will probably be close to $399 (I also think $599 is the price for 512mb version and $499 will be for 256mb one).
Also...
1) Numbers just dont add up. 6800Gt is 16x350 = 5600 fill-rate. If G70 is nothing but NV40 with 2 vertex shader and more pipes that puts it at 10320 (84% faster), given same efficiency. The additional 2 vertex shaders should add a bit more performance too. Given this, performance increases should be large and a 7700 score in 3dmark05 is too low.
2) Nvidia most likely saved an Ultra version for a rainy day when ATI brings something ridiculous like a 500mhz 32-pipeline card. This would mean that the GTX version probably will not stay at $599 level for too long as the Ultra will take over. Nvidia could very well announce the Ultra version at the time of ATI's launch. Finally, the GT version is likely to still have 24 pipes but say 375 mhz clock speeds. That still gives it a 9000 fill-rate figure - much higher than 6800Ultra today - and this card will probably be close to $399 (I also think $599 is the price for 512mb version and $499 will be for 256mb one).
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: Sylvanas
Some of you say you wont spend that much, but once the reviews start rolling in of these new cards hitting 10k+ in 3dmark 05 and making your games run a 6xaa 16xaf, youll crack
But yes I agree that does sound high, I shudder to think what that means in Aussie dollars...
as always a fortune
when i bought my 9800 pro last year, the 9800XT was about twice as much (over $800 in perth). We are only just seeing 6600GTs availiable (last few months i guess) at sensible prices, so i guess it will be a rather long time before we see the 7800/r520s here
i usually order stuff through the uni computer shop here, much more range and reasonble prices (relatively anyway).
Per the Inquirer update posted earlier today, benchmarks of the 7800 Ultra in SLI will be available next Wednesday.
Originally posted by: VIAN
If this keeps happening, I might just have to go back to just consoles. Much cheaper, although I'd have to say goodbye to FPSs.
I wouldn't be supprised if many people decided to take this path instead. (I am myself. $599 for a video card? No way) Why pay $599 for a video card ALONE when a $299 console can do almost the same thing?-
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Originally posted by: SirDude
Originally posted by: VIAN
If this keeps happening, I might just have to go back to just consoles. Much cheaper, although I'd have to say goodbye to FPSs.
I wouldn't be supprised if many people decided to take this path instead. (I am myself. $599 for a video card? No way) Why pay $599 for a video card ALONE when a $299 console can do almost the same thing?-
Yeah it seems PC gaming is becoming a niche market for really hardcore gamers (ie. those that have a lot more money than those who buy consoles). Who can afford to buy every new high-end generation videocard every year? That's $400/500 x 5 years (average span of a console). A lot of $$$.
mooncancook
Platinum Member
- May 28, 2003
- 2,874
- 50
- 91
It's outrageous!
I know consoles make money differently... but still, it cost way more than a XBox with 3 CPUs and next next generation graphic chips. it does kind of make me wanna just get a xbox 360 and hook it up to my 20" Dell for HD gaming
I know consoles make money differently... but still, it cost way more than a XBox with 3 CPUs and next next generation graphic chips. it does kind of make me wanna just get a xbox 360 and hook it up to my 20" Dell for HD gaming
Ok fine... I agree that a computer requires $$ to purchase and keep operating... but to expect that people will go to councles because they are spending $500/yr on upgraded video card is ridiculous.
I purchased my $2000 Dell 8200 4 years ago. It's ready for a complete refresh (replacement)... but it still meets the recommended requirements, and the only thing that I have had to do is replace my graphic's card once ($120 9600SE).
If you figure that the $500 21" Trition monitor will last another 2 years, that means that I have spent about $500/year on my pc... not $500/year on just my GPU. Even if I was going to buy a pc purely for office/email use, I would be spending $100/year ($500 whitebox, replaced every 5 years)... so the cost of my gaming is $400/year extra (or $1.10 a day... much less than I spend on cable).
Sure, I agree... I'm not running HL2 at max res.... but it's still has better graphics that the PS2.
I'm not hardcore games with money to burn... I just like games... and I think that $500/year to play on the PC (better graphics, storylines, ect) when I'm going to use that machine anyway for other uses (business, email, documents, etc) is a fairly efficent use of money.
I purchased my $2000 Dell 8200 4 years ago. It's ready for a complete refresh (replacement)... but it still meets the recommended requirements, and the only thing that I have had to do is replace my graphic's card once ($120 9600SE).
If you figure that the $500 21" Trition monitor will last another 2 years, that means that I have spent about $500/year on my pc... not $500/year on just my GPU. Even if I was going to buy a pc purely for office/email use, I would be spending $100/year ($500 whitebox, replaced every 5 years)... so the cost of my gaming is $400/year extra (or $1.10 a day... much less than I spend on cable).
Sure, I agree... I'm not running HL2 at max res.... but it's still has better graphics that the PS2.
I'm not hardcore games with money to burn... I just like games... and I think that $500/year to play on the PC (better graphics, storylines, ect) when I'm going to use that machine anyway for other uses (business, email, documents, etc) is a fairly efficent use of money.
I think there will always be the $200 card though, you know. The mainstream card that everyone can afford. So I'm not too bummed out about it.
But it's still alot of money to keep maintenance on your PC.
Say you speed 200 bucks every year, and then a new CPU every two years + RAM, maybe more with the slowness of that industry. You're still spending a lot of money.
You are looking at a lot of dough.
But if I keep each peice that I have to buy from not going over 200 bucks, that won't be as bad.
But it's still alot of money to keep maintenance on your PC.
Say you speed 200 bucks every year, and then a new CPU every two years + RAM, maybe more with the slowness of that industry. You're still spending a lot of money.
You are looking at a lot of dough.
But if I keep each peice that I have to buy from not going over 200 bucks, that won't be as bad.
Future PCs:
300$-PPU
500$-CPU (Amd X2)
600$-Graphics card
150$-MB (I don't know how much MBs cost though)
600/700$-Ram (2 GB DDR2 1000 ram won't be free)
60$-Sound card
150$- speakers
300$- PSU
2700$That's without a top of the line CPU, and no sli, and no case
with sli+top of the line CPU-
3800$, not mention how much power it will probably take...
maybe even 200$ for a case with good airflow and all that...
so 4000$ for a top of line PC... Who needs consoles...
Mainstream will probably cost 2000$, but then again what do I know,
I'm probably just pesimistic(er...SP)
300$-PPU
500$-CPU (Amd X2)
600$-Graphics card
150$-MB (I don't know how much MBs cost though)
600/700$-Ram (2 GB DDR2 1000 ram won't be free)
60$-Sound card
150$- speakers
300$- PSU
2700$That's without a top of the line CPU, and no sli, and no case
with sli+top of the line CPU-
3800$, not mention how much power it will probably take...
maybe even 200$ for a case with good airflow and all that...
so 4000$ for a top of line PC... Who needs consoles...
Mainstream will probably cost 2000$, but then again what do I know,
I'm probably just pesimistic(er...SP)
$300 for a PSU? No.
Memory (specifically DDR2) will come down when DDR is dropped. And I don't know if it's a technical limitation, but the market is really calling for 768MiB sticks right now. Dual core will also come down in price when more is produced.
The extra money you pay for a PC as opposed to a console is the price of generalization. Quality hardware (which is not always true) at not-so-massive quantities is not the most cost effective. Live with it, because it's only going to get worse. Oh, and don't forget inflation.
If you want to go overboard, you can buy PCs now that cost just that much or more. Most enthusiasts are going to get the best price-performance they can. If DDR2-1000 doesn't give much of a boost over DDR2-800, then it won't be bought, for example. Either way, no matter what timeframe we're speaking of, there are easy ways to overload the price of a computer. Just like now, I still believe that computers that will give 90% of the performance of a $3000 PC will still cost 30% less in the future.
memory is so freaking overhyped its rediculous.
300% increase in cost to go from PC3200 CAS3, to top of the line ddrII, for what? 4%?
Oh wait, superpi and sandra are fun and productive!
300% increase in cost to go from PC3200 CAS3, to top of the line ddrII, for what? 4%?
Oh wait, superpi and sandra are fun and productive!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 409
-
Facebook
Twitter