Anandtech second review of 8600GT/GTS is very good

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87
young yacoub

Ah yes, must slide an ad hominem in there to ensure you sound superior, nay even wise and aged. It's not my fault the cards suck so don't take your angst out on me, chief. (Or should I call you "kid", so I sound old too?)

And

Originally posted by: Genx87
To be honest, I dont expect any of these first gen DX10 cards to be very good DX10 performers.

Funny, the 8800GTS and GTX seem to be quite amazing performers.

Lots of DX10 titles out there?

Didn't see you slip "DX10" in again but I'll address it directly since you asked: The extra improvements DX10 offers may add some effeciency but you can bet every big DX10 launch title is also going to be loading up the intensive DX10 graphical features to try to make it obvious what is so great about DX10 and thus they'll be anything but easy to run on anything less than a high-end GPU if you want to have high graphical settings.

And in the meantime, which could be quite a while, these cards show no real improvement over DX9 parts so again very little incentive to upgrade for gamers.

 

[chizow]

Would've been nice if they compared some OC'ing/scaling performance results, but I came across a review that showed differences in clockspeeds elsewhere. It confirmed there's very little hope for this part for the enthusiast. Stay away from this one until its price drops or there's actually a need for DX10 compliance.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I dont see how someone can still try to come up with stuff to try to justify the poor performance of these things *points at Genx87*

Seriously, who cares where the cards are SUPPOSED to fit? Fact of the matter is at the moment a x1950pro is much cheaper AND equal or faster, making the 8600GTS look like crap, and 8600GT well.. I wont even comment on it

To shine a different light on it. Next generation when the mid range cards barely beat the 8800 series are we all going to collectively cry ourselves to sleep that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range?

Let's try to figure out what you're saying:

• "Next generation"... okay so are you referencing the G80 refresh in six months, or the actual next generation that won't be out for another year or so? Because we're currently comparing the G70 refresh generation to the first round of a brand new generation, so the next generation is the G80 refresh in about six months' time.

• "[IF] the midrange cards barely beat the 8800 series"... well given that it will simply be a refresh of the 8000 series and not a whole new generation that's to be expected

• will we be upset "that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range"... wait what?! If you have a high-end 8800 series, you'd have no reason to look at a mid-range G80 refresh card to begin with. That is SUPPOSED to be lesser or equal in performance.

So your question doesn't even work logically if you keep things straight and compare apples to apples.

Of course they aren't going to "cry themselves to sleep" if the mid-range G80 refresh doesn't beat the G80 high-end. It isn't even designed to do that in the first place. It'll be designed to bring about process improvements for manufacturing, add in a couple "features" and also be designed to replace the 8600 series (which shouldn't be very hard to outperform lolol!!! )

See here's the concept you might not be grasping: If the cards that were just released - these 8600 series cards - were refreshes and not an entirely new generation of cards, we wouldn't be half as disappointed that there isn't much performance improvement and mostly just a couple added "features". That is a typical refresh launch. BUT these aren't refreshes, they're supposed to be a whiz-bang new generation card and yet they can barely demonstrate better performance than a last generation card! THAT is the travesty here. That this mid-range launch of a new hardware generation product is performing more like a refresh should than a new generation should.

 

[dreddfunk]

If we're looking at the 'next-gen' midrange cards and they barely beat the lowest of the low-end 8800 series (which we likely haven't even seen just yet), such as an 8800gs that hypothetically, relative to it's much costlier brethren, performs like a 7900gs does versus the 7900gt/7950gt/7900gtx, then I'll be really disappointed. The 7900gs, for all of it's 79xx-series pedigree, is not really a high-end part--it's a part that bridges the gap between the lowest segment of the real 'high-end' and the higher segments of the real 'mid-range'.

I feel the same about the x1950pro--it's not a true high-end part, despite its x19xx-series pedigree. It was always meant to compete in the elite part of the mid-range or the lowest, lowest end of the 'high-end' range.

By this I simply mean that saying something like, "the next generation midrange performs as well as the previous generation high-end," isn't really a very clear statement given the prevalence of huge numbers of cross-over cards based on scaled down versions of higher-end designs (7800gs, 7900gs, x1900gt, x1950gt, x1950pro).

If we're including the 7900gs or the x1950pro in the 'high-end' category simply because of their engineering pedigree, then it's fair to say that the current 8600-series measures up to that particular standard.

That's a fine standard and nothing to sneeze at, but it isn't quite the performance increase for which I was hoping. I was hoping for a more 6600gt-type jump given that I play Oblivion and it needs performance on the x1900/x1950xt and 7900gtx level to truly shine. I really wanted something much closer to that kind of performance with this midrange generation. It didn't have to be exactly the same, just a whole lot closer.

It's depressing to me that the x1900xt 256MB still shows such a large improvement over the 8600-series, especially with AA enabled, which is something I find I really want since I only have a 1280x1024 panel.

Still, I suspect that I have only to wait for the 'cross-over' parts to arrive (such as an 8800gs) in order to get the price/performance ration I want.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I dont see how someone can still try to come up with stuff to try to justify the poor performance of these things *points at Genx87*

Seriously, who cares where the cards are SUPPOSED to fit? Fact of the matter is at the moment a x1950pro is much cheaper AND equal or faster, making the 8600GTS look like crap, and 8600GT well.. I wont even comment on it

To shine a different light on it. Next generation when the mid range cards barely beat the 8800 series are we all going to collectively cry ourselves to sleep that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range?

Let's try to figure out what you're saying:

• "Next generation"... okay so are you referencing the G80 refresh in six months, or the actual next generation that won't be out for another year or so? Because we're currently comparing the G70 refresh generation to the first round of a brand new generation, so the next generation is the G80 refresh in about six months' time.

• "[IF] the midrange cards barely beat the 8800 series"... well given that it will simply be a refresh of the 8000 series and not a whole new generation that's to be expected

• will we be upset "that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range"... wait what?! If you have a high-end 8800 series, you'd have no reason to look at a mid-range G80 refresh card to begin with. That is SUPPOSED to be lesser or equal in performance.

So your question doesn't even work logically if you keep things straight and compare apples to apples.

Of course they aren't going to "cry themselves to sleep" if the mid-range G80 refresh doesn't beat the G80 high-end. It isn't even designed to do that in the first place. It'll be designed to bring about process improvements for manufacturing, add in a couple "features" and also be designed to replace the 8600 series (which shouldn't be very hard to outperform lolol!!! )

See here's the concept you might not be grasping: If the cards that were just released - these 8600 series cards - were refreshes and not an entirely new generation of cards, we wouldn't be half as disappointed that there isn't much performance improvement and mostly just a couple added "features". That is a typical refresh launch. BUT these aren't refreshes, they're supposed to be a whiz-bang new generation card and yet they can barely demonstrate better performance than a last generation card! THAT is the travesty here. That this mid-range launch of a new hardware generation product is performing more like a refresh should than a new generation should.

I believe he meant "G9x" when he said "next generation."

*pop*

(the sound of yacoub's logic balloon bursting)

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I dont see how someone can still try to come up with stuff to try to justify the poor performance of these things *points at Genx87*

Seriously, who cares where the cards are SUPPOSED to fit? Fact of the matter is at the moment a x1950pro is much cheaper AND equal or faster, making the 8600GTS look like crap, and 8600GT well.. I wont even comment on it

To shine a different light on it. Next generation when the mid range cards barely beat the 8800 series are we all going to collectively cry ourselves to sleep that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range?

If the next generation mid-range cards are released at a similar price as the previous generations flagship are selling for and are of lower performance, then yes people will bitch and moan. Since when should consumers just suck it up and enjoy paying more money for less performance?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ive been saying it since the specs were leaked a month ago.

The card is starved for bandwidth, and its a damn joke.

It will not perform well in DX10, common sense says games will be more demanding than DX9 games, even with the improvements in efficiency.

My biggest problem with Nvidias move is they failed to raise the lowest common denominator this generation, meaning programmers wont improve games all that much if the average joes hardware cant run it.

What is the lowest common denominator? Last generations mid range was the 7600 series. How does the 8600 series compare? i am looking at the benchmarks and the 8600GTS blows away the 7600GT, both cards were initially priced in the same bracket.

I'd say the lowest common denominator for the mid range has been moved up.

The 8600GT, which you are ignoring and which is the direct replacement for the 7600GT, does indeed raise the bar a whopping handful of fps in the tests shown. I guess if you care more about pedantic semantics than seeing a significant improvement, you're right.

No because you don't understand what each card is designed to replace.

The 8600 GT is a price replacement for the initial launch price of the 7600 GS, and has the performance of the previous generation 7600 GT.

The 8600 GTS is a price replacement for the initial launch price of the 7600 GT and has the performance of the previous generation 7900 GS or more.

While the 7900 GS was the new 199US card, it was the second mainstream refresh of the 7 Series, so it should be compared to a future refresh of the mainstream Geforce 8. Somrthing like a 8900 GS or 8700 GTS or whatever.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I dont see how someone can still try to come up with stuff to try to justify the poor performance of these things *points at Genx87*

Seriously, who cares where the cards are SUPPOSED to fit? Fact of the matter is at the moment a x1950pro is much cheaper AND equal or faster, making the 8600GTS look like crap, and 8600GT well.. I wont even comment on it

The X1950 Pro is more expensive to fabricate for ATI, so no greater performance for greater cost is not a win, it's tit for tat.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
If we're looking at the 'next-gen' midrange cards and they barely beat the lowest of the low-end 8800 series (which we likely haven't even seen just yet), such as an 8800gs that hypothetically, relative to it's much costlier brethren, performs like a 7900gs does versus the 7900gt/7950gt/7900gtx, then I'll be really disappointed. The 7900gs, for all of it's 79xx-series pedigree, is not really a high-end part--it's a part that bridges the gap between the lowest segment of the real 'high-end' and the higher segments of the real 'mid-range'.

I feel the same about the x1950pro--it's not a true high-end part, despite its x19xx-series pedigree. It was always meant to compete in the elite part of the mid-range or the lowest, lowest end of the 'high-end' range.

By this I simply mean that saying something like, "the next generation midrange performs as well as the previous generation high-end," isn't really a very clear statement given the prevalence of huge numbers of cross-over cards based on scaled down versions of higher-end designs (7800gs, 7900gs, x1900gt, x1950gt, x1950pro).

If we're including the 7900gs or the x1950pro in the 'high-end' category simply because of their engineering pedigree, then it's fair to say that the current 8600-series measures up to that particular standard.

That's a fine standard and nothing to sneeze at, but it isn't quite the performance increase for which I was hoping. I was hoping for a more 6600gt-type jump given that I play Oblivion and it needs performance on the x1900/x1950xt and 7900gtx level to truly shine. I really wanted something much closer to that kind of performance with this midrange generation. It didn't have to be exactly the same, just a whole lot closer.

It's depressing to me that the x1900xt 256MB still shows such a large improvement over the 8600-series, especially with AA enabled, which is something I find I really want since I only have a 1280x1024 panel.

Still, I suspect that I have only to wait for the 'cross-over' parts to arrive (such as an 8800gs) in order to get the price/performance ration I want.

Of course it does, the die size of the X1900 XT is twice as large as the 8600, not to mention the use of a 256Bit PCB as well the X1900 has the luxury of spend more of it transistors on performance rather then features vs the 8600, the 8600's are supposed to be cost efficient first, then next they have to increase is the feature set, and if there is any leftover transistor budget left then finally increase performance. It seems after the increase in feature set there wasn't any more room to put on performance functionality this generation. Not surprising considering DX10.

Remember the high end cards have the luxury of getting bigger dies to simply to everything in, in the mainstream die size has to remain at certain levels.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I dont see how someone can still try to come up with stuff to try to justify the poor performance of these things *points at Genx87*

Seriously, who cares where the cards are SUPPOSED to fit? Fact of the matter is at the moment a x1950pro is much cheaper AND equal or faster, making the 8600GTS look like crap, and 8600GT well.. I wont even comment on it

To shine a different light on it. Next generation when the mid range cards barely beat the 8800 series are we all going to collectively cry ourselves to sleep that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range?

Let's try to figure out what you're saying:

• "Next generation"... okay so are you referencing the G80 refresh in six months, or the actual next generation that won't be out for another year or so? Because we're currently comparing the G70 refresh generation to the first round of a brand new generation, so the next generation is the G80 refresh in about six months' time.

• "[IF] the midrange cards barely beat the 8800 series"... well given that it will simply be a refresh of the 8000 series and not a whole new generation that's to be expected

• will we be upset "that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range"... wait what?! If you have a high-end 8800 series, you'd have no reason to look at a mid-range G80 refresh card to begin with. That is SUPPOSED to be lesser or equal in performance.

So your question doesn't even work logically if you keep things straight and compare apples to apples.

Of course they aren't going to "cry themselves to sleep" if the mid-range G80 refresh doesn't beat the G80 high-end. It isn't even designed to do that in the first place. It'll be designed to bring about process improvements for manufacturing, add in a couple "features" and also be designed to replace the 8600 series (which shouldn't be very hard to outperform lolol!!! )

See here's the concept you might not be grasping: If the cards that were just released - these 8600 series cards - were refreshes and not an entirely new generation of cards, we wouldn't be half as disappointed that there isn't much performance improvement and mostly just a couple added "features". That is a typical refresh launch. BUT these aren't refreshes, they're supposed to be a whiz-bang new generation card and yet they can barely demonstrate better performance than a last generation card! THAT is the travesty here. That this mid-range launch of a new hardware generation product is performing more like a refresh should than a new generation should.

Ill type this a bit slower for you, the obvious easily escapes you.

Will we be crying if the next generation mid range(G9.x) doesnt beat the current high end (8800)?

How you got into refreshes is beyond me.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I dont see how someone can still try to come up with stuff to try to justify the poor performance of these things *points at Genx87*

Seriously, who cares where the cards are SUPPOSED to fit? Fact of the matter is at the moment a x1950pro is much cheaper AND equal or faster, making the 8600GTS look like crap, and 8600GT well.. I wont even comment on it

To shine a different light on it. Next generation when the mid range cards barely beat the 8800 series are we all going to collectively cry ourselves to sleep that we didnt get an upgrade path from last generations high end to this generations mid range?

If the next generation mid-range cards are released at a similar price as the previous generations flagship are selling for and are of lower performance, then yes people will bitch and moan. Since when should consumers just suck it up and enjoy paying more money for less performance?

Did the 7600GT greatly outshine the 6800Ultra?

 

[Munky]

If Nvidia had a monopoly in the video card market, then you can happily dance that the 8600gts outperforms the 7600gt. But the fact remains that there are numerous cards available for the same price which blow away the 8600 series. For the last few generations, the midrange card had about 1/2 the pixel shaders of the high end card. This time around it only has 1/4 the pixel shaders. Simply put, Nvidia got greedy and thought they could pass off a low end card for the price of a midrange card.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Did the 7600GT greatly outshine the 6800Ultra?

Yes last generation the performance limiting factor was mainly fillrate not bandwidth so the 7600 GT had 6.72GP vs the 6.4GP of the 6800 Ultra and won.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: yacoub
Well if the 8600GT blew away the 7600GT as well as the 8800GTS blows away the 7900GT, and the 8600GTS blew away the 7900GS as well as the 8800GTS blows away the 7900GT, then yeah, the 7900GT is the previous generation competitor for the 8800GTS. But given that the 8600GTS can barely keep pace with a 7900GS, there's a huge disparity there (because NVidia hacked down the 8600GTS too much on the stream processors and bus bandwidth).

That's not how I compare them:

8800GTX : 7900GTX
8800GTS : 7900GT
8800GTS 320 : 7900GS
8600GTS : 7600GT
8600GT : 7600GS

Seems more logical to me. I don't see why a #600 part should ever be compared to a #800 part, unless the #800 part had some serious downscaling that made it on par with the #600 part.

Heres the way I see it......

8800gtx..........7900gtx
8800gts 640......7950gt 512mb
8800gts 320......7900gt 256mb
8800gs.............7900gs
8600gts............ There was no 7600gts. I think it was put here to fill the gap between 8600gt and the 8800gs

8600gt.............7600gt
8500 ...............7300

Is there any other way?
There will be a 8800gs soon.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: munky
If Nvidia had a monopoly in the video card market, then you can happily dance that the 8600gts outperforms the 7600gt. But the fact remains that there are numerous cards available for the same price which blow away the 8600 series. For the last few generations, the midrange card had about 1/2 the pixel shaders of the high end card. This time around it only has 1/4 the pixel shaders. Simply put, Nvidia got greedy and thought they could pass off a low end card for the price of a midrange card.

Not exactly, the die sizes of the mainstream have always remained below 200mm2 for Nvidia thus far.

While on the high end you have the luxury of simply jacking up the price if you want too so you can do large die sizes.

The 8600 GTS has a considerably bigger die then the 7600 GT and is only 20% smaller then the 7900 core. There wasn't any possibility for increasing performance too much, as while the 8800 had the luxury of using a much larger die to accommodate the transistor functionality and performance increase. The 8600 did not, whatever transistor savings brought by the 80nm process had to be spent first on implementing DX10. Most of the performance increase comes from clockspeed only as the 8600 GT performs more or less the same as 7600 GT with a slight improvement in IPC I believe overall.

And if you compare the 8600 and 7600 cores Nvidia was already being nice as the die is larger this generation then both the 6600 or 7600 core. Any more and you have a die that is as big as the 7900's.

 

[fierydemise]

I don't really care where the stack up, the fact is the 6600GT beat the 9800 and the 7600GT beat the 6800Ultra. This is the first time the midrange card of the current generation can't top (and in some cases even compete with) the top end from previous generations.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Heres the way I see it......

8800gtx..........7900gtx
8800gts...........7950gt 512mb
8800gts 320......7900gt 256mb
8800gs.............7900gs
8600gts............ There was no 7600gts. I think it was put here to fill the gap between 8800gt and the 8800gs

8600gt.............7600gt
8500 ...............7300

Is there any other way?

Not exactly. You don't go by naming conventions you go by price points and it dpeends if oyur looking at the first iteration or second.

Second Iteration comparison.

8800 GTX compares to the 7950 GX2 equal MSRP as of launch 599 vs 599
8800 GTS 640 compares to 7900 GTX close MSRP's as of launch 449 vs 499
8800 GTS 320 compares to the 7950 GT 512 equal MSRP as of launch 299 vs 299
8600 GTS compares to the 7900 GS equal MSRP's as of launch 199 vs 199
8600 GT compares to the 7600 GT equal MSRP's as of launch 149 vs 149
8500 GT compares to the 7600 GS equal MSRP's as of launch 119 vs 119.

First Iteration Comparison

8800 GTX compares to the 7800 GTX first 599 card for G7x.
8800 GTS 640 compares to the 7800 GT first 449 card for G7x.
8800 GTS 320 compares to 7900 GT was the first 299US card for G7x. (this is much earlier this generation)
8600 GTS compares to 7600 GT was the first 199 card for G7x.
8600 GT compares to the 7600 GS was the first 149 card for G7x.
8500 GT compares to the 7300 GS was the first 99 card for G7x.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
I don't really care where the stack up, the fact is the 6600GT beat the 9800 and the 7600GT beat the 6800Ultra. This is the first time the midrange card of the current generation can't top (and in some cases even compete with) the top end from previous generations.

The 6600 GT had 1 full optical node over the 9800 Pro, as did the 7600 GT over the 6800 Ultra, the 8600 GTS only has a half node over the 7600 GT/7900 GS. So the transistor budget increase wasn't as large and hence Nvidia was left with less leeway to where they could spend resources on.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 6600 GT had 1 full optical node over the 9800 Pro, as did the 7600 GT over the 6800 Ultra, the 8600 GTS only has a half node over the 7600 GT/7900 GS. So the transistor budget increase wasn't as large and hence Nvidia was left with less leeway to where they could spend resources on.

I'm not talking about transistor count I'm just looking at the actual performance and the 8600 doesn't follow the trend that we have seen for the 2 generations. I think munky said it best

Simply put, Nvidia got greedy and thought they could pass off a low end card for the price of a midrange card.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: yacoub
Well if the 8600GT blew away the 7600GT as well as the 8800GTS blows away the 7900GT, and the 8600GTS blew away the 7900GS as well as the 8800GTS blows away the 7900GT, then yeah, the 7900GT is the previous generation competitor for the 8800GTS. But given that the 8600GTS can barely keep pace with a 7900GS, there's a huge disparity there (because NVidia hacked down the 8600GTS too much on the stream processors and bus bandwidth).

That's not how I compare them:

8800GTX : 7900GTX
8800GTS : 7900GT
8800GTS 320 : 7900GS
8600GTS : 7600GT
8600GT : 7600GS

That's your failure to compare the proper cards, then. If you're going to pretend the 8800GTS is two different levels simply because it has different RAM counts, then you have to differentiate the 7900GT and 7950GT as separate cards.

So once again you have:

8800GTX : 7900GTX
8800GTS : 7900GT
8600GTS: 7900GS
8600GT : 7600GT


And regardless the performance numbers speak for themselves as to how these cards fail.

You're right, the next generation midrange should perform as fast as the last generation high end. Like the 6600GT/X700PRO being as fast as the high end 9800XT, or the 7600GT/X1650XT being as fast as a 6800 Ultra or X800XT, but the 8600GT/s is barely as fast as a 7600GT, definitively something is wrong here. They simply suck!

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 6600 GT had 1 full optical node over the 9800 Pro, as did the 7600 GT over the 6800 Ultra, the 8600 GTS only has a half node over the 7600 GT/7900 GS. So the transistor budget increase wasn't as large and hence Nvidia was left with less leeway to where they could spend resources on.

I'm not talking about transistor count I'm just looking at the actual performance and the 8600 doesn't follow the trend that we have seen for the 2 generations. I think munky said it best

Simply put, Nvidia got greedy and thought they could pass off a low end card for the price of a midrange card.

And where do you think the performance comes from, more MHZ and larger transistor budgets, the past 2 generations have been lucky and process generations where enough to keep up with the pace Nvidia was going at. Right now they aren't, so concessions need to be made.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 6600 GT had 1 full optical node over the 9800 Pro, as did the 7600 GT over the 6800 Ultra, the 8600 GTS only has a half node over the 7600 GT/7900 GS. So the transistor budget increase wasn't as large and hence Nvidia was left with less leeway to where they could spend resources on.

I'm not talking about transistor count I'm just looking at the actual performance and the 8600 doesn't follow the trend that we have seen for the 2 generations. I think munky said it best

Simply put, Nvidia got greedy and thought they could pass off a low end card for the price of a midrange card.

And where do you think the performance comes from, more MHZ and larger transistor budgets, the past 2 generations have been lucky and process generations where enough to keep up with the pace Nvidia was going at. Right now they aren't, so concessions need to be made.

I dont see where youre coming from... Have you realized that both the 8800GTX and 7900GTX are 90nm? Have you realized the 8800GTX often DOUBLES the performance of the 7900GTX? Its a completely different architecture, whether or not there was a shrink is irrelevant, the 8600GTS should DOUBLE the 7600 GT

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: yacoub
Well if the 8600GT blew away the 7600GT as well as the 8800GTS blows away the 7900GT, and the 8600GTS blew away the 7900GS as well as the 8800GTS blows away the 7900GT, then yeah, the 7900GT is the previous generation competitor for the 8800GTS. But given that the 8600GTS can barely keep pace with a 7900GS, there's a huge disparity there (because NVidia hacked down the 8600GTS too much on the stream processors and bus bandwidth).

That's not how I compare them:

8800GTX : 7900GTX
8800GTS : 7900GT
8800GTS 320 : 7900GS
8600GTS : 7600GT
8600GT : 7600GS

That's your failure to compare the proper cards, then. If you're going to pretend the 8800GTS is two different levels simply because it has different RAM counts, then you have to differentiate the 7900GT and 7950GT as separate cards.

So once again you have:

8800GTX : 7900GTX
8800GTS : 7900GT
8600GTS: 7900GS
8600GT : 7600GT


And regardless the performance numbers speak for themselves as to how these cards fail.

You're right, the next generation midrange should perform as fast as the last generation high end. Like the 6600GT/X700PRO being as fast as the high end 9800XT, or the 7600GT/X1650XT being as fast as a 6800 Ultra or X800XT, but the 8600GT/s is barely as fast as a 7600GT, definitively something is wrong here. They simply suck!

This generation that wouldn't have been possible to do unless Nvidia moved to a 65nm process, and at about the same die size as the 7900, which completely defeats the main purpose of the mainstream line, which is cost to produce.

Cost to produce is paramount. They will only make it so that they are equal in performance as the older MSRP card. And they do, while providing better feature sets, and a reduced cost to produce.

Let me show you the reasoning.

Card equal to the 7900 GTX in performance on DX10.

Same cost or greater, better feature set, same performance, sold at lower price point.
Better for consumer, no point for Nvidia.

Card that was released the 8600 GTS
Lower cost, better feature set, same performance as 7900 GS, sold at the same price point.
Better for consumer (barely), better for Nvidia.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: happy medium

Heres the way I see it......

8800gtx..........7900gtx
8800gts...........7950gt 512mb
8800gts 320......7900gt 256mb
8800gs.............7900gs
8600gts............ There was no 7600gts. I think it was put here to fill the gap between 8800gt and the 8800gs

8600gt.............7600gt
8500 ...............7300

Is there any other way?

Not exactly. You don't go by naming conventions you go by price points and it dpeends if oyur looking at the first iteration or second.

Second Iteration comparison.

8800 GTX compares to the 7950 GX2 equal MSRP as of launch 599 vs 599
8800 GTS 640 compares to 7900 GTX close MSRP's as of launch 449 vs 499
8800 GTS 320 compares to the 7950 GT 512 equal MSRP as of launch 299 vs 299
8600 GTS compares to the 7900 GS equal MSRP's as of launch 199 vs 199
8600 GT compares to the 7600 GT equal MSRP's as of launch 149 vs 149
8500 GT compares to the 7600 GS equal MSRP's as of launch 119 vs 119.

First Iteration Comparison

8800 GTX compares to the 7800 GTX first 599 card for G7x.
8800 GTS 640 compares to the 7800 GT first 449 card for G7x.
8800 GTS 320 compares to 7900 GT was the first 299US card for G7x. (this is much earlier this generation)
8600 GTS compares to 7600 GT was the first 199 card for G7x.
8600 GT compares to the 7600 GS was the first 149 card for G7x.
8500 GT compares to the 7300 GS was the first 99 card for G7x.

Wheres the 8800gs? I disagree with price comparison. I bet there will be a 8850gx2 to compare to a 7950gx2. Remember the gx2 7950 was not a "launched" card ,it came later. Mabe prices are higher because theres no Ati cards? Your first iteration makes sense though.

The 8800gs will launch at 200.00$+ and perform about the same as a 7900gtx. What more do yo want? 8800gs will be the "true midrange".

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 6600 GT had 1 full optical node over the 9800 Pro, as did the 7600 GT over the 6800 Ultra, the 8600 GTS only has a half node over the 7600 GT/7900 GS. So the transistor budget increase wasn't as large and hence Nvidia was left with less leeway to where they could spend resources on.

I'm not talking about transistor count I'm just looking at the actual performance and the 8600 doesn't follow the trend that we have seen for the 2 generations. I think munky said it best

Simply put, Nvidia got greedy and thought they could pass off a low end card for the price of a midrange card.

And where do you think the performance comes from, more MHZ and larger transistor budgets, the past 2 generations have been lucky and process generations where enough to keep up with the pace Nvidia was going at. Right now they aren't, so concessions need to be made.

I dont see where youre coming from... Have you realized that both the 8800GTX and 7900GTX are 90nm? Have you realized the 8800GTX often DOUBLES the performance of the 7900GTX? Its a completely different architecture, whether or not there was a shrink is irrelevant, the 8600GTS should DOUBLE the 7600 GT

Because you don't seem to understand.
The high end is a different story, the die increased from 196mm2 to 480mm2 for Nvidia. Even compared to the 7950GX2, it is still more expensive to fabricate. They ATE ALL OF THE COST, to bring you better functionality and higher performance.

In the mainstream, the new card can't be more expensive the previous generation flagship.
If they made it as good as 7900 GTX in performance, all of the budget savings would be gone and the card is effectively the same to produce as the older high end, but Nvidia still needs to sell it at mainstream pricing. You can't expect Nvidia to eat all the cost on the mainstream too. These are volume products, cheap production is of the highest priority, features is second and if there is budget left you can increase performance.