7900 cards are scarce because it's outselling its ATI competitor by a ratio of 4:1

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
well, no munky is certainly not me, lol... and frankly rather illogical for you to think so.

still, you cannot post comparitively, as your hardware is not capable of running HDR and AA at the same time.

also, here's a review of XFX's XXX version (560Mhz/1.32GHz) which shows the GT needs to run at a substantially higher clock than reference just to keep up with even an x1800xt (mine is clocked a bit higher, but i didn't need to void my warranty to do so, nor did i need a conductive pen!), let alone an x1900xt.

the 7900GT is certainly a nice card and it has its share of strengths, but the ati cards certainly have their strengths as well (strong performance, lower price vs nv, and more features). i just found it amusing you used one of the nvidia's weaknesses (oblivion performance, lack of ability to run both HDR & AA) to try and put down the ati card.

illogical to think it was him when you answered my question directed at munky specifically?

anyhow, i'm not like most ati fanbois trying to incite any bs on other branded cards, i just wanted to understand why he, munky, was playing at such a low res without HDR + AA when he has a x1800/x1900? it's kinda funny how defensive ya'll get even with a simple little query.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Wow, this is old "news".

1. There are zero facts to back up their claims of 4 to 1 in some reselers. You're taking their baseless claims, and making a huge blanket statement that it carries over to all stores, and thats just dumb.
2. Thats not the reason they are scarce.

Want proof? The 7800GTX and 7800GT were NEVER in such low supply. Why is the 7900 series? The 7800 series at launch pretty much had no competition, since ATi was late with their X1800's. So anyone wanting a high end card, had only NV to look at. That is far from the case today, as ATi has cards to compete in price, and performance. What does that tell you? It tells me that NV sold more 7800 cards in the same time frame as the 7900 series, all the while never having the availability problems that they have now, and the 7800 series was WELL under MSRP. While that is not the case with the 7900 series.

no offense, but there's more to support the 4:1 statement than there is to support your "proof".

frankly there could be a multitude of reasons why the market is different from the 7800 release to the 7900 release. one logical one would be the time of release - the 7900 in march, when everyone is getting tax refunds, compared to a late summer release for the 7800GT (the GT was released in aug iirc, a month or so after the intial 7800 release).

 

[golem]

edit - to Ackmed. You know why? we all know the G70 core is the NV47. The NV47 "was" supposedly the refresh of the NV45 to counter the R480 which was the X850 series refresh. However there was no need as the NV45 was neck to neck with the R480 and the "nv47" wouldve killed the idea of SLI at that time. (We all know a 7800GTX can kill a 6800GT SLI setup most of the time). NV had lots of time stocking "nv47" cores all over the place. This is why i am led to believe that NV had never faced any supply problems. but we also have to remember that most were waiting for the R520 to compare.

This actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
well, no munky is certainly not me, lol... and frankly rather illogical for you to think so.

still, you cannot post comparitively, as your hardware is not capable of running HDR and AA at the same time.

also, here's a review of XFX's XXX version (560Mhz/1.32GHz) which shows the GT needs to run at a substantially higher clock than reference just to keep up with even an x1800xt (mine is clocked a bit higher, but i didn't need to void my warranty to do so, nor did i need a conductive pen!), let alone an x1900xt.

the 7900GT is certainly a nice card and it has its share of strengths, but the ati cards certainly have their strengths as well (strong performance, lower price vs nv, and more features). i just found it amusing you used one of the nvidia's weaknesses (oblivion performance, lack of ability to run both HDR & AA) to try and put down the ati card.

illogical to think it was him when you answered my question directed at munky specifically?

anyhow, i'm not like most ati fanbois trying to incite any bs on other branded cards, i just wanted to understand why he, munky, was playing at such a low res without HDR + AA when he has a x1800/x1900? it's kinda funny how defensive ya'll get even with a simple little query.

i'm not answering for him, i'm just stating i do (and i know many others do, just check any video forums, incl. this one), and found it silly, as well as incorrect, for you to (seemingly) suggest that HDR+AA was useless due to performance considerations.

 

[akugami]

Wait, I have to show you proof that you are talking out of your rear end after I ask you for proof that your words are true?!? Let me break it down in simple terms for you Crusader because even a 10 year old can understand what I'm saying.

1) I say your claims are not scientifically accurate and thus can't be taken as any sort of true measure of industry sales.

2) I say that there are not enough sales data available to the general public to support your claims that the Steam survey is a good measurement of actual sales.

3) If 2 is true that means I can't prove you're wrong because such data is not available, but by the same measure since such data is not available, your claims that the Steam survey is an accurate representation of sales is also unprovable thus falsifying your statements.

4) It is then up to you to prove me wrong. By the very nature of my statements, I can't prove I'm right. But by that very same measure, I'm also saying that you can't prove your words are true because such data does not exhist in the public sector. Thus making your words false.

If you can prove you're right, do so. Until you do, it's just another case of you talking out of your rear. And I won't comment again in this thread about this subject until you can provide proof. Which I am 99.99% positive you can't.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
well, no munky is certainly not me, lol... and frankly rather illogical for you to think so.

still, you cannot post comparitively, as your hardware is not capable of running HDR and AA at the same time.

also, here's a review of XFX's XXX version (560Mhz/1.32GHz) which shows the GT needs to run at a substantially higher clock than reference just to keep up with even an x1800xt (mine is clocked a bit higher, but i didn't need to void my warranty to do so, nor did i need a conductive pen!), let alone an x1900xt.

the 7900GT is certainly a nice card and it has its share of strengths, but the ati cards certainly have their strengths as well (strong performance, lower price vs nv, and more features). i just found it amusing you used one of the nvidia's weaknesses (oblivion performance, lack of ability to run both HDR & AA) to try and put down the ati card.

illogical to think it was him when you answered my question directed at munky specifically?

anyhow, i'm not like most ati fanbois trying to incite any bs on other branded cards, i just wanted to understand why he, munky, was playing at such a low res without HDR + AA when he has a x1800/x1900? it's kinda funny how defensive ya'll get even with a simple little query.

i'm not answering for him, i'm just stating i do (and i know many others do, just check any video forums, incl. this one), and found it silly, as well as incorrect, for you to (seemingly) suggest that HDR+AA was useless due to performance considerations.

lol, where did I insinuate that it was useless? You are either confused or must be a hardcore fanATIc if you even think I suggested that. In fact, I am very tempted to go to a complete ATI solution myself to match up the specs for the rest of my system (3.0GHz Opty 165, 42" 1920X1080p LCDTV, etc.), but I need more definitive information on PQ, performance, overclocking potential, etc., which in all honesty the response has been dismal with a bunch of hoopla and article referencing on the ATI side. Sorry I just don't switch out blindly when the X1900XT board i will purchase will cost an extra $200, not too mention another $200 on the ATI xfire mobo solution which hasn't been completely stable according to the latest AT articles.

as i said previously before, since i have the luxury of just testing out both boards, i might do that and give a first hand account myself. you fanbois are just waaaayyyy too much...lol

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: ST
lol, where did I insinuate that it was useless? You are either confused or must be a hardcore fanATIc if you even think I suggested that.

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: munky
How exactly is slower performance and worse IQ better?

so why again aren't you running HDR+AA for Oblivion on your X1900?

maybe you can explain why he doesn't utilize hdr+aa, except at lower res (1024x768)?

those 2 statments insinuate an x1900 isn't capable due to performance limitations, when in fact, it's useful even on an x1800xt.

and the "hardcore fanatic" is really funny, as i'm forever accused of being an nvidiot. seems when you look at things from a largely unbiased point-of-view, you get crap from both sides!

Originally posted by: ST
In fact, I am very tempted to go to a complete ATI solution myself to match up the specs for the rest of my system (3.0GHz Opty 165, 42" 1920X1080p LCDTV, etc.), but I need more definitive information on PQ, performance, overclocking potential, etc., which in all honesty the response has been dismal with a bunch of hoopla and article referencing on the ATI side. Sorry I just don't switch out blindly when the X1900XT board i will purchase will cost an extra $200, not too mention another $200 on the ATI xfire mobo solution which hasn't been completely stable according to the latest AT articles.

how are multiple independant reviews by hardware sites "hoopla"?

Originally posted by: ST
as i said previously before, since i have the luxury of just testing out both boards, i might do that and give a first hand account myself. you fanbois are just waaaayyyy too much...lol

actually it's always better to "test drive" yourself (i have the several gens, and own & use both nv and ati products daily), however disregarding info available from reviews is silly, and so is resorting to calling ppl fanboys when in fact it's your own statements that scream "bias".

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Wow, this is old "news".

1. There are zero facts to back up their claims of 4 to 1 in some reselers. You're taking their baseless claims, and making a huge blanket statement that it carries over to all stores, and thats just dumb.
2. Thats not the reason they are scarce.

Want proof? The 7800GTX and 7800GT were NEVER in such low supply. Why is the 7900 series? The 7800 series at launch pretty much had no competition, since ATi was late with their X1800's. So anyone wanting a high end card, had only NV to look at. That is far from the case today, as ATi has cards to compete in price, and performance. What does that tell you? It tells me that NV sold more 7800 cards in the same time frame as the 7900 series, all the while never having the availability problems that they have now, and the 7800 series was WELL under MSRP. While that is not the case with the 7900 series.

no offense, but there's more to support the 4:1 statement than there is to support your "proof".

frankly there could be a multitude of reasons why the market is different from the 7800 release to the 7900 release. one logical one would be the time of release - the 7900 in march, when everyone is getting tax refunds, compared to a late summer release for the 7800GT (the GT was released in aug iirc, a month or so after the intial 7800 release).

Sure the "tax time" could have an impact, but I doubt its nearly big enough to make a difference. Most people do not do their taxes the last minute anyways. Blowing a hole in your time frame. The fact is, the only highend choice at the time, for a long time, was an nVidia card. I prefer ATi, but I bought a 7800GTX. Then later another. Why? Because there was no ATi card to compete. Thats why I think 7800 cards sold more in the same time frame as the 7900 cards. I do think the month later release of the 7800GT could have an impact, as Ive said in the past. Of course there is no absolute proof of this either way, because we do not have hard numbers. I do not doubt NV sells more cards, I do doubt they sell 4 to 1 7900GTX's over the X1900 cards though. Im sure you can find a store that does, but if you look hard enough, you can find anything you want.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Why do the mods allow these threads to even occur? All they do is start flame wars.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
(We all know a 7800GTX can kill a 6800GT SLI setup most of the time).

Which 7800GTX-- the 256 or 512? And define "most of the time"... because Anandtech's old benches don't support that:

BF2 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......66.7
6800U SLI....67.4

Doom3 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......54.2
6800U SLI....75.4

HL2 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......119
6800U SLI....118.4

Splinter Cell: CT 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......56.5
6800U SLI....53.7

 

[Jayczar]

mmmmm ........ video forum barbecue

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Sure the "tax time" could have an impact, but I doubt its nearly big enough to make a difference. Most people do not do their taxes the last minute anyways. Blowing a hole in your time frame. The fact is, the only highend choice at the time, for a long time, was an nVidia card. I prefer ATi, but I bought a 7800GTX. Then later another. Why? Because there was no ATi card to compete. Thats why I think 7800 cards sold more in the same time frame as the 7900 cards. I do think the month later release of the 7800GT could have an impact, as Ive said in the past. Of course there is no absolute proof of this either way, because we do not have hard numbers. I do not doubt NV sells more cards, I do doubt they sell 4 to 1 7900GTX's over the X1900 cards though. Im sure you can find a store that does, but if you look hard enough, you can find anything you want.

wow.. reply just disappeared =/

so, for the second time...

feb/mar is a time many ppl get their returns, but that's just one aspect.

consider also that when the 7800 was released, there really wasn't anything out that just made that didn't run well on 6800GT or x850 (sure, maybe not at 1600 and higher res, but alot of ppl still run 1280 or lower). i know there wasn't anything out that i couldn't play with decent performance in IQ with my 6800GT - certainly nothing which made me desire to spend $500 for an upgrade with virtually no additional features.

another consideration is that there were alot of people who had some decent money invested in nice AGP boards, and they just felt PCI-e did not offer a good enough reason for them to dump their high-end AGP boards to not only buy a PCI-e mb, but a video card as well (excluding the real hardcore who jumped on sli).

a year later, i'm sure it was easier to justify. not only migrating to pci-e, but you have to consider the 7900GT was coming out at the $300 pricepoint, not the $400 price point the GT came out at a year ago. not only that, but it offered similar performance to the highly talked about but not often seen 512mb GTX.

and then of course, there's oblvion...

ati did not fare very well in a couple areas. first was that almost every game came with an nvidia logo stating it ran well on nvidia cards. this obvioulsy influences buyers regardless of whether it ran well on ati hardware as well.

secondly, ati was late coming in with pricedrops to position themselves against nvidia, and all the media attention was pretty much in nvidia's favor. then there's the perception that he card ati positioned against the GT, the x1800XT is "old" hardware (releasing an x1900 certainly added to this, even tho the card is "only" 6 mo old today).

i'm sure more can be speculated, but it seems to me those are all contributing factors to where ati finds themselves today in terms of sales....

 

[lopri]

Umm.. I think the logic behind the shortages (or the lack of them) is somewhat flawed and mis-understood. If my observation is correct, due to the delay of R520, NV didn't have competition at the time of 7800GTX's introduction - so there were many speculations regarding the "conservative" clock speed, which is also explained by the many OC-versions of 7800GTX on the market. Many people considered 7800GTX 512MB's cherry-picked 7800GTX, or 7800 Ultra - which NV might as well have to introduced had the R520 not been delayed. Then we'd have seen the shortages of "real" 7800GTX.

I don't have much to say about current market situation since I haven't paid much attention to video cards, but above is my understanding as far as last year's video card maket is concerned.

 

[jkyle]

Yep and Packard Bells outsold everyone 5 to 1 at one time... See how well that worked out...

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: munky
How exactly is slower performance and worse IQ better?

so why again aren't you running HDR+AA for Oblivion on your X1900?

"...was playing at 1280x960 with maxed out settings (HDR but no AA) and the frames would sometimes drop into the 20's outside..."

X1900xt HDR+AA Ftw.

1 liners ftl =/

maybe you can explain why he doesn't utilize hdr+aa, except at lower res (1024x768)?

Or better yet, actually help some of your fellow ATI brotherins and their problems with X1900s and performance issues : http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1844863&enterthread=y

Could really care less what he uses.
1 liner? cry more just because you cant use HDR+AA

hehehheheheheheehehehe

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Sure the "tax time" could have an impact, but I doubt its nearly big enough to make a difference. Most people do not do their taxes the last minute anyways. Blowing a hole in your time frame. The fact is, the only highend choice at the time, for a long time, was an nVidia card. I prefer ATi, but I bought a 7800GTX. Then later another. Why? Because there was no ATi card to compete. Thats why I think 7800 cards sold more in the same time frame as the 7900 cards. I do think the month later release of the 7800GT could have an impact, as Ive said in the past. Of course there is no absolute proof of this either way, because we do not have hard numbers. I do not doubt NV sells more cards, I do doubt they sell 4 to 1 7900GTX's over the X1900 cards though. Im sure you can find a store that does, but if you look hard enough, you can find anything you want.

wow.. reply just disappeared =/

so, for the second time...

feb/mar is a time many ppl get their returns, but that's just one aspect.

consider also that when the 7800 was released, there really wasn't anything out that just made that didn't run well on 6800GT or x850 (sure, maybe not at 1600 and higher res, but alot of ppl still run 1280 or lower). i know there wasn't anything out that i couldn't play with decent performance in IQ with my 6800GT - certainly nothing which made me desire to spend $500 for an upgrade with virtually no additional features.

another consideration is that there were alot of people who had some decent money invested in nice AGP boards, and they just felt PCI-e did not offer a good enough reason for them to dump their high-end AGP boards to not only buy a PCI-e mb, but a video card as well (excluding the real hardcore who jumped on sli).

a year later, i'm sure it was easier to justify. not only migrating to pci-e, but you have to consider the 7900GT was coming out at the $300 pricepoint, not the $400 price point the GT came out at a year ago. not only that, but it offered similar performance to the highly talked about but not often seen 512mb GTX.

and then of course, there's oblvion...

ati did not fare very well in a couple areas. first was that almost every game came with an nvidia logo stating it ran well on nvidia cards. this obvioulsy influences buyers regardless of whether it ran well on ati hardware as well.

secondly, ati was late coming in with pricedrops to position themselves against nvidia, and all the media attention was pretty much in nvidia's favor. then there's the perception that he card ati positioned against the GT, the x1800XT is "old" hardware (releasing an x1900 certainly added to this, even tho the card is "only" 6 mo old today).

i'm sure more can be speculated, but it seems to me those are all contributing factors to where ati finds themselves today in terms of sales....

You can make "contributing factors" for either side. What we are left with is the facts. The fact is, the 7800 series has not had the availability, and price problem of the 7900 series. Thats the bottom line. What is up for grabs, is why that is. I do think the $300, and $500 MSRP of the GT could be a factor. But, a month after the 7800GTX came out, it was about $500 anyways. And now, the 7900GTX are still generally above $500. I dont think its the "tax time", or anything like that. I think they are just having production problems, possibly because after moving to a smaller core, and using the same memory (I think, 1.1ns?) as the 7800GTX 512MB.

Without the hard numbers of how many sold (not shipped), we wont know. And are just left to speculate. One thing I believe, is that if this was ATi with availability and price problems, they would get MUCH more bad press about it. As it is, NV has pretty much gotten a free pass. And I dont think ATi would had. NV has taken steps backwards, and ATi has gone forwards in availability, to me.

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
well, no munky is certainly not me, lol... and frankly rather illogical for you to think so.

still, you cannot post comparitively, as your hardware is not capable of running HDR and AA at the same time.

also, here's a review of XFX's XXX version (560Mhz/1.32GHz) which shows the GT needs to run at a substantially higher clock than reference just to keep up with even an x1800xt (mine is clocked a bit higher, but i didn't need to void my warranty to do so, nor did i need a conductive pen!), let alone an x1900xt.

the 7900GT is certainly a nice card and it has its share of strengths, but the ati cards certainly have their strengths as well (strong performance, lower price vs nv, and more features). i just found it amusing you used one of the nvidia's weaknesses (oblivion performance, lack of ability to run both HDR & AA) to try and put down the ati card.

illogical to think it was him when you answered my question directed at munky specifically?

anyhow, i'm not like most ati fanbois trying to incite any bs on other branded cards, i just wanted to understand why he, munky, was playing at such a low res without HDR + AA when he has a x1800/x1900? it's kinda funny how defensive ya'll get even with a simple little query.

i'm not answering for him, i'm just stating i do (and i know many others do, just check any video forums, incl. this one), and found it silly, as well as incorrect, for you to (seemingly) suggest that HDR+AA was useless due to performance considerations.

lol, where did I insinuate that it was useless? You are either confused or must be a hardcore fanATIc if you even think I suggested that. In fact, I am very tempted to go to a complete ATI solution myself to match up the specs for the rest of my system (3.0GHz Opty 165, 42" 1920X1080p LCDTV, etc.), but I need more definitive information on PQ, performance, overclocking potential, etc., which in all honesty the response has been dismal with a bunch of hoopla and article referencing on the ATI side. Sorry I just don't switch out blindly when the X1900XT board i will purchase will cost an extra $200, not too mention another $200 on the ATI xfire mobo solution which hasn't been completely stable according to the latest AT articles.

as i said previously before, since i have the luxury of just testing out both boards, i might do that and give a first hand account myself. you fanbois are just waaaayyyy too much...lol

Wow, If your accusing Cainam of being a fanATIc then you havent been around here very long.

And since when is a xfire mobo required to run a single x1900xt.

 

[golem]

You can make "contributing factors" for either side. What we are left with is the facts. The fact is, the 7800 series has not had the availability, and price problem of the 7900 series. Thats the bottom line. What is up for grabs, is why that is. I do think the $300, and $500 MSRP of the GT could be a factor. But, a month after the 7800GTX came out, it was about $500 anyways. And now, the 7900GTX are still generally above $500. I dont think its the "tax time", or anything like that. I think they are just having production problems, possibly because after moving to a smaller core, and using the same memory (I think, 1.1ns?) as the 7800GTX 512MB.

Without the hard numbers of how many sold (not shipped), we wont know. And are just left to speculate. One thing I believe, is that if this was ATi with availability and price problems, they would get MUCH more bad press about it. As it is, NV has pretty much gotten a free pass. And I dont think ATi would had. NV has taken steps backwards, and ATi has gone forwards in availability, to me.

You're very inconsistant in your demand for FACTS. When there is an agrument you don't subscribe to, you demand facts and push aside that argument because of lack of facts. Even tho. there seems to be a lot of supporting factors that lead support to that argument.

Then you turn around and put forth another statment that isn't related to the first argument and back it up with what you think. How can you brush aside other's argument for lack of facts and then put forth an argument of your own with no backup besides "you think"?

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: jkyle
Yep and Packard Bells outsold everyone 5 to 1 at one time... See how well that worked out...

Those numbers are exaggeration right? I know they were the biggest seller of consumer computers at one time, but not by a 5 to 1 margin. and the reason they sold so many was because they were cheaper than everyone else. In this case, one company is selling more than the other and charging more. I think Packard Bell eventually died because they sold a crappy product and the dells of the world were able to match their prices. I don't see the connection in this case, Nvidia doesn't sell a crappy product, maybe not the best in all segments. But hardly crappy.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You can make "contributing factors" for either side. What we are left with is the facts.
The fact is, the 7800 series has not had the availability, and price problem of the 7900 series. Thats the bottom line.

but that's no "bottom line"... what you ignore is the "fact" that those facts (and i think the word "fact" is a bit strong here; it was just a perception as no one complained they couldnt' get a 7800) mean absolutely nothing without being put into any type of context.

if they made 10,000 7800's, but only sold 1,000 it's a "success", cause they were "available", but if they made 10,000 7900's avail at launch, and 9,000 sold the first day, it's a failure due to "out of stock" issues as some places?

as opposed to ati getting flamed because it was confirmed they had production problems and they had almost none avail. at all?

all we know is some retailers stated nv sales were very successful, selling as much as 4:1 over ati at some places. sounds like a success to me.. and not sure why, without anything to support it, you want to flame nv for it...

at any rate there's no point in continuing to go in circles. we have what we have - comments made by some people who sell the products stating they are selling very well. until we have something that refutes that, there's no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[5150Joker]

All this speculation about sales is pointless until we find out from ATi/nV conference calls on how well they're selling their cards and what profits they're making.


/thread.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: munky
How exactly is slower performance and worse IQ better?

so why again aren't you running HDR+AA for Oblivion on your X1900?

"...was playing at 1280x960 with maxed out settings (HDR but no AA) and the frames would sometimes drop into the 20's outside..."

X1900xt HDR+AA Ftw.

1 liners ftl =/

maybe you can explain why he doesn't utilize hdr+aa, except at lower res (1024x768)?

Or better yet, actually help some of your fellow ATI brotherins and their problems with X1900s and performance issues : http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1844863&enterthread=y

Could really care less what he uses.
1 liner? cry more just because you cant use HDR+AA

hehehheheheheheehehehe

You really should stop living up to your name.


@CaiNaM, ST asked munky a question about HDR+AA on his X1900, nothing to do with putting ATI down or X1800's.


I think most people forget that the 7800 series wasn't all launched at the same time which helped to build inventory of bad cores that could be rebadged. I don't doubt for 1 second that the 7900's are in high demand (altho stock seems to last longer in the UK than in the US).

Overall sales wise it's been pretty 50/50 between them but in certain segments one has more sales than the other.

As for ATI's availability, the lack of the X1900 XL/GT means they have to use a discontinued IC (R520) to fill the gap. They should be rectifying this shortly but again, supply may fall short of demand there.

There's no question ATI has better performance in the ultra high (and low sales) area & better features in it's X1800/X1900 cards but without marketing them effectively they'll not reach the sales they perhaps should. But then, if they did hit those kinda sales, who's to say they won't run into demand outstripping supply.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: munky
How exactly is slower performance and worse IQ better?

so why again aren't you running HDR+AA for Oblivion on your X1900?

"...was playing at 1280x960 with maxed out settings (HDR but no AA) and the frames would sometimes drop into the 20's outside..."

X1900xt HDR+AA Ftw.

1 liners ftl =/

maybe you can explain why he doesn't utilize hdr+aa, except at lower res (1024x768)?

Or better yet, actually help some of your fellow ATI brotherins and their problems with X1900s and performance issues : http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1844863&enterthread=y

Could really care less what he uses.
1 liner? cry more just because you cant use HDR+AA

hehehheheheheheehehehe

You really should stop living up to your name.

cry more

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
(We all know a 7800GTX can kill a 6800GT SLI setup most of the time).

Which 7800GTX-- the 256 or 512? And define "most of the time"... because Anandtech's old benches don't support that:

BF2 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......66.7
6800U SLI....67.4

Doom3 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......54.2
6800U SLI....75.4

HL2 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......119
6800U SLI....118.4

Splinter Cell: CT 1600x1200 4xAA
7800GTX......56.5
6800U SLI....53.7

Ok maybe i was exaggerating.

But the question is would you buy 2 6800U for SLi OR a "6850U" (NV47/G70) that performed the same and provided single slot, less power, heat etc?

 

[Wreckage]

Even if actual sales numbers came out supporting the article by the Tech Report, there are a few here who clearly have there own agenda.

Most people can see past a few FPS here and there and pick a reliable well supported card that is better overall.

I would never buy a card based on one game or any fps for that matter. Quality, cost, reliability, support, etc. all come in to play. Heck I bet the number is higher than 4 to 1.