That is why I put in 2 comparisons, the first iteration comparison is probably closer to what you agree too. But I can understand where other people are coming from as well hence my second iteration comparison.
The 8800 GS if Nvidia decides to bring us one, will be a performance-mainstream SKU. It would probably need to be on 80nm for it to be feasible and not disabled pipes but actually removed.
The second iteration is what each card is replacing given the most current MSRP. And it's fine because the 8600 GTS is about level with 7900 GS but with greater feature set.
The 8600 GT is also about level with the 7600 GT and is of greater feature set.
A newly launched card has to tie minimum or be better in some format, compared to the current generation at current MSRP's.
ATI's current MSRP on the X1950 Pro is $199 so, X2600 XT has to equal that minimum at the absolute lowest. With a 65nm process it maybe able to do just that.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
I realize it costs money and transistors to implement the new features, but I believe by making the 8600gts a 48 shader card and keeping everything else the same, Nv would have had a much more competitive product without increasing the cost too much.
I think Nvidia made that analysis and came up to the conclusion that at 48 SP it would effectively cost about as much as the lower end 7900 which wouldn't allow Nvidia to recoup R&D. As well Nvidia was already generous with G84 compared to the 7600, the die is already 33% larger and this still wasn't enough this generation sadly. This just shows how alarmingly efficient the 7900 line is from perf/transistor level and how expensive implementing DX10 really is as well as Pure Video 2. This was expected considering Nvidia was behind ATI last generation on features, so concentrated on that this generation.
Anyway Nvidia might be forced to bring out such a card if ATI's X2600 XT matches the X1950 Pro's MSRP of $199. The X2600 XT must match the X1950 Pro's performance minimum and at the same time delivering DX10 features.
It seriously depends on how competitive ATi this round, but given their past performance on the mid range, I am not holding my breath.
The only proper ATI mid range card was the 9600 Pro.
Everyone after that was imperfect in some way.
Better is no problem. 8600 GT is mildly better overall though. But you have to go by average scenarios and not best cases.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
To be frank, I don't care about nvidia's die size problems or ROI...I don't own nvidia stock. (To be fair, I have no plans to buy a new video card anytime soon so I don't really care one way or the other.) What I do know, is that this new part isn't worth its current asking price, compared to other, readily available parts.
Does ati make less profit per x1950xt they sell? Who cares? All I need to know is I can get one for around the same price as the 8600gts and it performs better in almost all situations. With the supply of last generation parts dry up eventually? Of course. But it'll be awhile, and that doesn't change the situation for a consumer with ~$200 to spend on a video card today.
Does ati make less profit per x1950xt they sell? Who cares? All I need to know is I can get one for around the same price as the 8600gts and it performs better in almost all situations. With the supply of last generation parts dry up eventually? Of course. But it'll be awhile, and that doesn't change the situation for a consumer with ~$200 to spend on a video card today.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
Some information on the upcomming 8800gs, 8900gtx, 8950gx2. 8900gt. Worth a look.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37655
Edit: So there will be a 8900gs. I read somewhere the newest drivers show a 8900gs also.
"The 8900 GS will be the cheapest G80-based card. The 80 nanometre based beast is clocked at 550MHz core and 1600MHZ memory. The card has the 256-bit memory controller and comes with 256 or 512MB of GDDR3 memory. It also has 96 Shaders. The 256MB version will cost $200 while 512MB incarnation will end up at around the $250 price mark"
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37655
Edit: So there will be a 8900gs. I read somewhere the newest drivers show a 8900gs also.
"The 8900 GS will be the cheapest G80-based card. The 80 nanometre based beast is clocked at 550MHz core and 1600MHZ memory. The card has the 256-bit memory controller and comes with 256 or 512MB of GDDR3 memory. It also has 96 Shaders. The 256MB version will cost $200 while 512MB incarnation will end up at around the $250 price mark"
I don't care either but being unable to see things from the other person perspective, means that your understanding is quite limited.
ATI does have a better product for now, as does Nvidia with the older generation. But like so you said, you eventually will not have a choice as Nvidia and ATi cut production of this cards, since they are less profitable.
I am just explaining why Nvidia has chosen to do with the 8600 GTS as it has which many people don't understand since they all they seem to care about is themselves which is normal for human beings but makes most of them shortsighted.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
I can understand their perspective, I very well may have done the same thing if I were nvidia. ATI is dragging its ass and the market seems to have a hard-on for DirectX10 parts even if there aren't any directX10 games available...this is a good way to squeeze some extra money out of consumers.
But from a consumers perspective, I just don't see why its relevant to me. They're looking out for their own, but I'm looking out for mine. Its not like nvidia is some charity thats squeeking by...they're a for profit company that wants to sell me a product.
So if you know Nvidia is looking out for their own why would you complain if in their place you would do the exact same thing?
Just accept it and buy the better product for you.
Cold - I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree really. For the consumer, it's too bad that this generation didn't bring the type of gains in midrange performance that nVidia's previous two did (I won't even mention AMD/ATI here; I was so disgusted with their true midrange offerings). I'm all for making a profitable card that works for the mainstream. That's always where I've felt that nVidia has been kicking AMD/ATI behind.
Regardless of the cost-effectiveness of the relative solutions, however, the 8600's are still a bit disappointing to me. The 7600gt was very competitive with the x850xt and with a better feature set. The 8600gts isn't very competitive with the x1900xt, but with a better feature set. Sure, it's competitive with the very, very low end of the 'high-end' (7900gs, x1950pro) and you've given some solid reasons for that: simply put the process shrinkage wasn't going to yield as much of a gain because it was a smaller shift. I buy that.
Indeed, the 8600s seem to be good parts for what they are, and I can't imagine thinking that they are some kind of disaster. If their price begins to push downward, they may very well end up being fantastic lower mid-ranged cards in the end. An 8600gts at around $150 and an 8600gt at $100 would be great buys.
I don't think nVidia made an illogical business decision at all here. They have to make money someplace and the mainstream is where it is at. In fact, the initial pricing here may simply reflect a lack of competition from, *cough* AMD/ATI. I'm just a bit disappointed that the massive leap we saw with the 8800 series isn't going to be replicated in the mainstream very soon. It seems clear that we got the lower mid-ranged cards, with nVidia perhaps waiting for AMD so that they don't tip their hand about the kind of performance gain they can achieve in the mid-range.
I feel a bit cheated, in a way, because I've bought into the 8800/R600 hype and what it might mean for the mainstream.
It's almost as if nVidia said, "let's build a behemoth of a high-end card in response to what we've heard about R600, eat some serious costs because it's going to be on the biggest die ever made until R600, get everyone excited about its performance and the potential for the mainstream, but then not deliver a similar mainstream card." It's a bit of a bait-and-switch: we'll deliver massive performance and feature-set gains by more than doubling the die size of our highest end parts but we'll just go ahead and make a regular-sized mainstream part.
My guess is that AMD planned basically the same thing, but just couldn't get their collective arses in gear to do it first.
Focusing on profitability is a great business move but I feel as if this is a bit of an admission that the 8800-series gains were more about transistor count and die size than a real revolution in architecture. If it's really about the architecture, why couldn't performance be scaled down in a more linear fashion?
I don't know squat about GPU design so someone with greater knowledge do the math and see if the performance of the 8600 series scales down pretty linearly with die size from the 8800?
That's the real question, and that probably will be the case if your argument is correct, Cold.
I guess there is more reason than ever to go with the higher-end parts if both players seem willing to eat costs on them to deliver performance. That's like giving the high-end buyers a tax break.
Regardless of the cost-effectiveness of the relative solutions, however, the 8600's are still a bit disappointing to me. The 7600gt was very competitive with the x850xt and with a better feature set. The 8600gts isn't very competitive with the x1900xt, but with a better feature set. Sure, it's competitive with the very, very low end of the 'high-end' (7900gs, x1950pro) and you've given some solid reasons for that: simply put the process shrinkage wasn't going to yield as much of a gain because it was a smaller shift. I buy that.
Indeed, the 8600s seem to be good parts for what they are, and I can't imagine thinking that they are some kind of disaster. If their price begins to push downward, they may very well end up being fantastic lower mid-ranged cards in the end. An 8600gts at around $150 and an 8600gt at $100 would be great buys.
I don't think nVidia made an illogical business decision at all here. They have to make money someplace and the mainstream is where it is at. In fact, the initial pricing here may simply reflect a lack of competition from, *cough* AMD/ATI. I'm just a bit disappointed that the massive leap we saw with the 8800 series isn't going to be replicated in the mainstream very soon. It seems clear that we got the lower mid-ranged cards, with nVidia perhaps waiting for AMD so that they don't tip their hand about the kind of performance gain they can achieve in the mid-range.
I feel a bit cheated, in a way, because I've bought into the 8800/R600 hype and what it might mean for the mainstream.
It's almost as if nVidia said, "let's build a behemoth of a high-end card in response to what we've heard about R600, eat some serious costs because it's going to be on the biggest die ever made until R600, get everyone excited about its performance and the potential for the mainstream, but then not deliver a similar mainstream card." It's a bit of a bait-and-switch: we'll deliver massive performance and feature-set gains by more than doubling the die size of our highest end parts but we'll just go ahead and make a regular-sized mainstream part.
My guess is that AMD planned basically the same thing, but just couldn't get their collective arses in gear to do it first.
Focusing on profitability is a great business move but I feel as if this is a bit of an admission that the 8800-series gains were more about transistor count and die size than a real revolution in architecture. If it's really about the architecture, why couldn't performance be scaled down in a more linear fashion?
I don't know squat about GPU design so someone with greater knowledge do the math and see if the performance of the 8600 series scales down pretty linearly with die size from the 8800?
That's the real question, and that probably will be the case if your argument is correct, Cold.
I guess there is more reason than ever to go with the higher-end parts if both players seem willing to eat costs on them to deliver performance. That's like giving the high-end buyers a tax break.
We arent talking about price to produce, learn to read.
Stop defending them like a rabid guard dog and look at the damn numbers.
They arent up to snuff for a "next generation product".
Yes, there are some logical reasons to make your flagship of the fleet as amazing as possible, because this produces the halo effect, and makes people assume the cheaper variants are just as good. Having a strong high end, enhances the mainstream sales.
The larger die size can be offset somewhat by either raising the MSRP, or the simple fact that most don't spend this much on video cards so production of these cards isn't in large volumes anyway.
I don't blame Nvidia for what it has done, but I know I will have to go for a 8800 GTS 320 minimum if I want decent performance for what my standards are in terms of decent of course.
Hence why you seem very close minded. Given their transistor budget and what they needed to accomplish, it just wasn't possible unless Nvidia was willing to take in the increase costs which it wasn't.
It's not disappointing at all once you see what they were able to do with the budget they did have.
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Who's complaining? I already bought a 8800gts before these came out, if anything these parts make my purchase decision more sound since the delta is so large for the extra money I spent.
I'm just explaining to you how it is.
Yeah and nothing which you told me I don't already know people only care about what they can get at what cost to themselves. This isn't new.
And that's what your post seems liked it was to me. If you already have a 8800 GTS, why would you care about the 8600 Series. You already have a superior card in terms of performance.
This stuff is important or else your going to be in for a big disappointment because you don't understand what is possible and what is not each process generation.
It's a stretch for me to say that it's not a disappointment once I accept the self-imposed limitations nVidia placed upon themselves. Do those self-imposed limitations make good business sense? Yes. Do they reveal that nVidia--like most companies--is only really interested in separating me from my money as quickly and as efficiently as possible? Yes.
It would have been nice for them to have tried to stretch their midrange budget a bit further and/or accept a little less profitability on the part. They didn't. That's a sound business decision. It's still a disappointment.
It would have been nice for them to have tried to stretch their midrange budget a bit further and/or accept a little less profitability on the part. They didn't. That's a sound business decision. It's still a disappointment.
It's a crappy card right now. /thread.
Sizes, manufacturing costs, etc. don't matter to the consumer with the buying potential because they're looking for bang-for-buck, which this card doesn't have at this price.
Sizes, manufacturing costs, etc. don't matter to the consumer with the buying potential because they're looking for bang-for-buck, which this card doesn't have at this price.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
Last gen ATI's midrange offerings were very good although most of them were never intended as midrange cards.
The fact that nVidia has had such good midrange cards the past few generations make the 8600 even more surprising.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
the x1600xt couldnt beat a 6800gt (nvidia's second highest card)
the 8600gt cant beat a 7900gt (nvidia's second highest card)
they are both crap.
Ati did that with the x1600's, and hardly anyone bought those. Do they expect Ati to repeat that mistake this time around?
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
they did it with the x600's too. then they did the same with the x1600's. they obviously didnt learn the first time
im HOPING ati doesnt make that mistake this round, or the entire midrange of this generation will suck
(until someone does a refresh)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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter