ATI months ahead of NVIDIA with DirectX 11 GPU schedule?

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Do you think that if the 4870 was the top GPU they would have sold it for the same price? Nope.

If it was the top GPU, ATi would've released a cut down version to compete with nVidia's top offering, much like nVidia released the GTX216+ to complete with the 4870, and the GTX275 to compete with the 4890.

You might not like ATi, but the fact is the 4xxx series caused massive price reductions in nVidia?s product line which benefitted all consumers, including you.

It's a shame you can't seem to acknowledge this fact.

Those are very, very minor in comparison.

How are they very minor given nVidia implemented HDR + AA and multi-GPU AA as fast as possible?

Also you mentioned Purevideo? IIRC that was broken on several models of nVidia video cards, and we never got a straight answer as to what really happened. Anyway, AVIVO was no slouch in terms of being a competitor.

Also we are talking about the X1800 era here.

Great, then you know X1950XTX was the fastest single card overall during that era, especially when newer titles started using shaders more heavily. Compare the X1950XTX to the 7900 GTX in newer games and you'll see ATi generally outrunning nVidia:

http://www.computerbase.de/art...rmancerating_qualitaet

The fact is ATi?s prediction of shader proliferation turned out to be more correct than nVidia?s more texture oriented approach with the 7xxx series.

ATi only really dropped the ball with the 2900; I consider that ATi?s 5800 Ultra. The 3870 wasn?t that great either, but at least the die-shrink allowed them start digging their way out of the hole they had created for themselves.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The current trend for Nvidia right now appears to design a "mega core" video card and then either deactivate part of it or just use the old cards for the midrange and lower range. But then for the lower range how easy will it be to downsize G92 to 40nm for this purpose?

As of right now, the only spot where I would say nV had a very clear edge over ATi would be in the 4670 versus 9600GT comparison. I mention this mainly as if we see nV bring out a 9800GTX based chip built on 40nm as the new lowest end part I would expect that it would be significantly faster then an alternative crippled newer core. This generation all of ATi's parts that truly shine are those based on the 48xx core, the rest are at best middling, some not competitive at all really. Is nVidia going to push the GTX250 down to replace the 9400GT? No idea, but if they dead it would be one hell of a ~$50 part.

No, the "Phantom Edition" was clocked at 520mhz.

Really?

LMAO, by that measurement the x800xt also "overwhelmingly obliterated" the 6800U.

Really? x800xt- 11 wins versus the6800U, 6800U 25 wins versus the x800xt. Obviously the PE did it's job giving people a lasting albeit inaccurate impression of relative performance.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

If it was the top GPU, ATi would've released a cut down version to compete with nVidia's top offering, much like nVidia released the GTX216+ to complete with the 4870, and the GTX275 to compete with the 4890.

That does not answer the question. Do you think they would have sold the top card for the same price?

Also you mentioned Purevideo? IIRC that was broken on several models of nVidia video cards, and we never got a straight answer as to what really happened. Anyway, AVIVO was no slouch in terms of being a competitor.

It worked better than AVIVO (which did not exist at the time). Also to this day AVIVO is still very CPU dependent.

Great, then you know X1950XTX was the fastest single card overall during that era,

That would be the X1900 era. I'm not sure how that could not be more clear.

ATi only really dropped the ball with the 2900; I consider that ATi?s 5800 Ultra. The 3870 wasn?t that great either, but at least the die-shrink allowed them start digging their way out of the hole they had created for themselves.

The X1800 was a steaming pile as well.

 

[geoffry]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Just learning
If this is true I think it will really help ATI.

I mean seriously when was the last time they were considered "the best" and "first to market"? Wasn't it in 2003 with the 9800 series cards?

Yeah the R300 launched in 2002 and they have pretty much struggled ever since. After that NVIDIA launched the 6xxx series with SLI, SM3 and Purevideo. ATI pretty much just played catch up.

Why is this guy still allowed to be posting

Why are you calling someone out personally?

You are the only one in this thread violating ToS.





On topic, what is the point of DX11 capable cards before W7 goes retail?

NVDA released their 8800's before Vista and DX10 came out...it was only a few months but it looks like Windows 7 will be coming out later this year so these rumoured release dates might not be too far ahead of DX11 release date in relation to 8800--->vista release.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
If it was the top GPU, ATi would've released a cut down version to compete with nVidia's top offering, much like nVidia released the GTX216+ to complete with the 4870, and the GTX275 to compete with the 4890.

You might not like ATi, but the fact is the 4xxx series caused massive price reductions in nVidia?s product line which benefitted all consumers, including you.

It's a shame you can't seem to acknowledge this fact.

They already had a cut down version, the 4850 and later the 4830, so naturally those would've been more expensive as well and not the bargain they were seen at launch.

The fact is Nvidia forced ATI into their current pricing strategy just as much as any new "little core" strategy simply because ATI parts since G80 weren't able to compete and as such, needed to provide value as a 2nd place part. Personally I think the failed launches of the 2900 and 3800s forced ATI to low-ball the 4800, even though they had produced the first truly competitive part in years. Even though it was still a 2nd place part, it forced Nvidia to cut prices on their parts in response.

What I find a shame is that since that initial price cut, Nvidia has been doing the same and undercutting or forcing ATI to drop prices on their parts, yet no one on these forums acknowledges it. Wonder why? Does anyone really think the 4890 would've dropped from a $269 price expectation pre-launch, to a $249 part at launch, to a $229 part AR a few days after launch, to what it is now - a $200-$220 part, if the GTX 275 didn't beat it in the majority of reviews and benchmarks? The 4890 dropped nearly 20% before the GTX 275 was even widely available in channel!

Its just much of the same for ATI as many are arguing over performance since R300. Sure its been competitive in the time frame between R300 and G80, but much like it is now, ATI is either running 2nd, running late, or running hot, resulting in any victories and winning parts being short-lived. As a result of these historical trends, many consumers will simply wait for Nvidia's offering before making any purchasing decisions, ultimately resulting in losses for ATI (both figuratively and literally) in the long-run and overall big picture.

 

[taltamir]

meanwhile, according to The Inquirer web-site, Nvidia?s GT300 will only be shipped on October 15, if everything goes as planned.

Wow, the inq has bad things to say about nvidia! SHOCK AND AWE!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
If it was the top GPU, ATi would've released a cut down version to compete with nVidia's top offering, much like nVidia released the GTX216+ to complete with the 4870, and the GTX275 to compete with the 4890.

You might not like ATi, but the fact is the 4xxx series caused massive price reductions in nVidia?s product line which benefitted all consumers, including you.

It's a shame you can't seem to acknowledge this fact.

They already had a cut down version, the 4850 and later the 4830, so naturally those would've been more expensive as well and not the bargain they were seen at launch.

The fact is Nvidia forced ATI into their current pricing strategy just as much as any new "little core" strategy simply because ATI parts since G80 weren't able to compete and as such, needed to provide value as a 2nd place part. Personally I think the failed launches of the 2900 and 3800s forced ATI to low-ball the 4800, even though they had produced the first truly competitive part in years. Even though it was still a 2nd place part, it forced Nvidia to cut prices on their parts in response.

What I find a shame is that since that initial price cut, Nvidia has been doing the same and undercutting or forcing ATI to drop prices on their parts, yet no one on these forums acknowledges it. Wonder why? Does anyone really think the 4890 would've dropped from a $269 price expectation pre-launch, to a $249 part at launch, to a $229 part AR a few days after launch, to what it is now - a $200-$220 part, if the GTX 275 didn't beat it in the majority of reviews and benchmarks? The 4890 dropped nearly 20% before the GTX 275 was even widely available in channel!

Its just much of the same for ATI as many are arguing over performance since R300. Sure its been competitive in the time frame between R300 and G80, but much like it is now, ATI is either running 2nd, running late, or running hot, resulting in any victories and winning parts being short-lived. As a result of these historical trends, many consumers will simply wait for Nvidia's offering before making any purchasing decisions, ultimately resulting in losses for ATI (both figuratively and literally) in the long-run and overall big picture.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but clearly you've missed the somewhat more meaningful and real point that without the 48XX chips, we'd be stuck with nvidia gouging the consumer shamelessly, making what one could argue amount to unconscionable profits out of the GTX chips.

What price did the GTX 260 and 280 launch at?

What price are they now?

Who drove that?

ATI/AMD.

You think we should be grateful that the GTX 275 magically drove 4890 prices down? Talk about missing the big picture

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: dug777
Talk about missing the big picture

People only see what they want to see.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: dug777
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but clearly you've missed the somewhat more meaningful and real point that without the 48XX chips, we'd be stuck with nvidia gouging the consumer shamelessly, making what one could argue amount to unconscionable profits out of the GTX chips.

What price did the GTX 260 and 280 launch at?

What price are they now?

Who drove that?

ATI/AMD.

You think we should be grateful that the GTX 275 magically drove 4890 prices down? Talk about missing the big picture

Oh I'm well aware of that point, AMD proved they don't know how to turn a profit even when they do have a winning part (and by winning part for AMD, I mean firmly 2nd place but actually competitive), meaning they're only going to suffer more when they don't actually have a winning part which is the end result more often than not.

What you and other AMD fans don't realize is they're not doing themselves or their fans any favors by low-balling and undercutting when the end result is them becoming financially insolvent and going away in the long-run. Just check out their latest financial statements for direct corroboration of these finer points on product pricing, margins and costs.

Edit: And yes the 4890 directly illustrates this point, as they've been forced to sell their "new" high-end part for $200-$220 a few weeks after launch. At that point one needs to wonder why bother? Its selling for about the same price as the part it replaced just weeks ago.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
Source Xbitlabs

The new generation of graphics processors with DirectX 11 capabilities will not only further boost functionality of chips, but will also bring new levels of performance. Since there are months before the launches of both RV870 and GT300, specifications of the newcomers have not leaked yet. According to Heise Online, AMD plans to release its RV870 in late July or early August; meanwhile, according to The Inquirer web-site, Nvidia?s GT300 will only be shipped on October 15, if everything goes as planned.

I always wanted DX11 hardware to go with my WinXP!

Honestly though, these two products don't have to launch at all until Windows 7 is released, and even then it'll be nothing more than a novelty until DX11 games hit the market.

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
Source Xbitlabs

The new generation of graphics processors with DirectX 11 capabilities will not only further boost functionality of chips, but will also bring new levels of performance. Since there are months before the launches of both RV870 and GT300, specifications of the newcomers have not leaked yet. According to Heise Online, AMD plans to release its RV870 in late July or early August; meanwhile, according to The Inquirer web-site, Nvidia?s GT300 will only be shipped on October 15, if everything goes as planned.

I always wanted DX11 hardware to go with my WinXP!

Honestly though, these two products don't have to launch at all until Windows 7 is released, and even then it'll be nothing more than a novelty until DX11 games hit the market.

I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to point that out.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: dug777
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but clearly you've missed the somewhat more meaningful and real point that without the 48XX chips, we'd be stuck with nvidia gouging the consumer shamelessly, making what one could argue amount to unconscionable profits out of the GTX chips.

One could also say that, thanks to NVIDIA having the most powerful GPUs this forced AMD to launch at a much lower price than they would have liked to. Saving us all.

Otherwise we would have had to buy a mid-range chip like the 4870 for a high end price. Thank you NVIDIA for your heroism.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow
Oh I'm well aware of that point, AMD proved they don't know how to turn a profit even when they do have a winning part (and by winning part for AMD, I mean firmly 2nd place but actually competitive), meaning they're only going to suffer more when they don't actually have a winning part which is the end result more often than not.

Have you seen the latest AT Video Card Buyer's Guide - Spring 2009performance/dollar recommendations?

$75 Recommendation
ATI Radeon HD 4670
Nvidia GeForce 9600GT


$100 Recommendation
TBD


$130-$150 Recommendation
ATI Radeon HD 4850


$165 Recommendation
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB



$180 Recommendation
ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GB
Nvidia GTX 260 core 216



$180-$280 Recommendation
TBD


$280-$400 Recommendation
ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2



$400+ Recommendation
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2



Nvidia may currently have the fastest single card, but ATI makes the cards that are being most often recommended for purchase. Looks like Nvidia is firmly in second place there.

Originally posted by: chizow
What you and other AMD fans don't realize is they're not doing themselves or their fans any favors by low-balling and undercutting when the end result is them becoming financially insolvent and going away in the long-run. Just check out their latest financial statements for direct corroboration of these finer points on product pricing, margins and costs.

So, you have a detailed breakdown of the financial report for the ATI division of AMD and whether it made or lost money this quarter? And have compared it to Nvidia's financials to see if it's the economy or undercutting that's causing the losses? Great! Please share this info with us. We'd all love to see it.

Originally posted by: chizow
Edit: And yes the 4890 directly illustrates this point, as they've been forced to sell their "new" high-end part for $200-$220 a few weeks after launch. At that point one needs to wonder why bother? Its selling for about the same price as the part it replaced just weeks ago.

I think you're confused. The only vendor that has been "forced" to lower prices weeks after launch has been Nvidia. Remember those former $650 GTX280s and $400 GTX260s? ATI's cards have smaller dies and a less complex PCB, thus they can make them cheaper and can pass that savings on to their customers.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage


One could also say that, thanks to NVIDIA having the most powerful GPUs this forced AMD to launch at a much lower price than they would have liked to. Saving us all.

No, Wreckage, ATi forced down the prices on Nvidia cards, since Nvidia was the first to release those 400-600$ parts. If there wasn't for the 4870, that came out at very low prices, with just as much performance as GTX 260, you would have still used your 8800 GT today, probably. Or maybe, you could have saved 400$ for that mid range GTX 260. Even if 4870 was at the same performance level with gtx 280, prices would still have gotten lower, since ATi would have been able to cut down their price to those cheapy 55nm gpus and still make a profit out of it. Anyway you look at it, ATi saved your pocket, but you just can't, at least, give them credit for that.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Otherwise we would have had to buy a mid-range chip like the 4870 for a high end price. Thank you NVIDIA for your heroism.

Hahahahaha, amazing. :laugh:

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: dug777
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but clearly you've missed the somewhat more meaningful and real point that without the 48XX chips, we'd be stuck with nvidia gouging the consumer shamelessly, making what one could argue amount to unconscionable profits out of the GTX chips.

One could also say that, thanks to NVIDIA having the most powerful GPUs this forced AMD to launch at a much lower price than they would have liked to. Saving us all.

Otherwise we would have had to buy a mid-range chip like the 4870 for a high end price. Thank you NVIDIA for your heroism.

If you spin that any harder, it's liable to catch fire. Nvidia was the one overcharging their own customers. They could have chosen to introduce the GTX280 and GTX260 at a lower price point, yet chose not to. It wasn't until ATI released their 48X0 series that Nvidia was forced to pull their hands out of their customers wallets.

Could you at least try to create posts that are based in reality?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig

Nvidia may currently have the fastest single card, but ATI makes the cards that are being most often recommended for purchase. Looks like Nvidia is firmly in second place there.

Yes but if you look at a more objective site like TR they recommend NVIDIA as the top choice in 3 out of 4 systems. They only gave the nod to ATI in the "econobox"

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16721

Not to mention that NVIDIA still has greater marketshare.

Their flawless execution of the GTX275 prevented ATI from gouging their customers and forced them to take a bath on the 4890 causing a price drop almost immediately.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
Have you seen the latest AT Video Card Buyer's Guide - Spring 2009performance/dollar recommendations?

Nvidia may currently have the fastest single card, but ATI makes the cards that are being most often recommended for purchase. Looks like Nvidia is firmly in second place there.

Uh ya, because he's taking performance and price into consideration. As usual they're forced to cut their prices in order to compete. I'm sure if you looked at a similar CPU comparison their recommendations would be riddled with X3 and X4s but that doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming majority willing to pay a premium for better performance and a better product.

So, you have a detailed breakdown of the financial report for the ATI division of AMD and whether it made or lost money this quarter? And have compared it to Nvidia's financials to see if it's the economy or undercutting that's causing the losses? Great! Please share this info with us. We'd all love to see it.

Financial statements for both firms are public and available for anyone to see. AMD's latest quarterly for the GPG indicates 1 million in profits on $222 revenue before any allocated expenses or one time charges, but they were still losing money prior to the current recession at the very peak of RV770's popularity at the end of Q2 and throughout Q3. So while RV770 was a critical success amongst reviewers and end-users (even though it was firmly a 2nd place part), that certainly didn't translate into profits or even significant gains in market share. All market indicators also reflect this, with Nvidia regaining any market share lost in that period with roughly equal market penetration of 4800 compared to 200 series since launch.

I think you're confused. The only vendor that has been "forced" to lower prices weeks after launch has been Nvidia. Remember those former $650 GTX280s and $400 GTX260s? ATI's cards have smaller dies and a less complex PCB, thus they can make them cheaper and can pass that savings on to their customers.

LMAO. Tell me, how much was 2900XT and 2900XTX Dragon Head and Lil' Dragon Head supposed to retail for at launch? How much did the X1950XTX debut at? Now look at how much the 3870 launched at. The only reason it was even able to keep its launch price was because of the excessive price gouging on Nvidia's G92 8800GT, which contrary to popular belief, actually offered high-end performance at mainstream prices long before RV770. If you think for a second that ATI would've lowered prices in each iteration if they had the performance lead, you're either being disingenuous or extremely naive. Or you're acknowledging AMD's poor business acumen and decision-making.

And yes its pretty obvious ATI was forced to lower prices on their 4890 because its slower than the GTX 275, which accurately reflects the following financial statement comments: While the the number of graphics chips sold were also down, but their prices were up. Sales in AMD's graphics division fell 15 percent to $222 million.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Their flawless execution of the GTX275 prevented ATI from gouging their customers and forced them to take a bath on the 4890 causing a price drop almost immediately.

Flawless execution my arse. They've taken a memory chip out from the gtx 285, scraped a couple of mhz out from the gpu and memory and there you have the 275.

 

[Grinja]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Genx87
Just sickens me to think how stupid the decision to buy ATI was for AMD.

It's AMD's CPU business that's crap. After Core2 came out it just went downhill for the CPU business and the ATI 2900 or 3000 series didn't help the matter though.

I think it was just bad timing ...
Intel came back with a fury, AMD suffered setbacks with Phenom and ATI's 2900 also suffered setbacks.

If ATI brings out a card that is faster than nVidia's offering at the time, I'm sure that there will be people who will buy it, DX11 will just be a bonus. I don't imagine there will be enough DX 11 games within the year for it to matter.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: dug777
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but clearly you've missed the somewhat more meaningful and real point that without the 48XX chips, we'd be stuck with nvidia gouging the consumer shamelessly, making what one could argue amount to unconscionable profits out of the GTX chips.

One could also say that, thanks to NVIDIA having the most powerful GPUs this forced AMD to launch at a much lower price than they would have liked to. Saving us all.

Otherwise we would have had to buy a mid-range chip like the 4870 for a high end price. Thank you NVIDIA for your heroism.

Wasn't the jiste of what you are saying the reverse? If it wasn't for ATI's HD48xx we would be paying higher prices.

Competition is good. This is why I am hoping ATI finally gets the Foothold into the first adopter market this year. Too many years playing the role of "value" eats into this profit I am speaking about (that Nvidia always seems to get)

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig

Nvidia may currently have the fastest single card, but ATI makes the cards that are being most often recommended for purchase. Looks like Nvidia is firmly in second place there.

Yes but if you look at a more objective site like TR they recommend NVIDIA as the top choice in 3 out of 4 systems. They only gave the nod to ATI in the "econobox"

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16721

Not to mention that NVIDIA still has greater marketshare.

Their flawless execution of the GTX275 prevented ATI from gouging their customers and forced them to take a bath on the 4890 causing a price drop almost immediately.

Anandtech.com is now a biased web site? When in the heck did that happen? If you're claiming AT is not "more objective" than other web sites then they must have a bias.

So when Derek Wilson was criticizing the state of ATI's drivers a few months back you saw fit to quote him and even use it as your signature so it shows up in every single post on this board with your name on it. Now when Derek writes an article listing recommendations and most of it lists ATI cards he (and AT) is a biased web site?

I'm just curious, what made you change your mind and decide AT was biased or less objective than other web sites?

What does marketshare have anything to do with performance or how good a technology is? I can easily point to many technologies and products over the year that have been inferior to its competition but has succeeded. One of the most recognizable, and early one, is VHS vs Beta.

And it's been nVidia that has price gouged its customers. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure ATI would do the same thing if it was in a position to do so. They're a corporation and corporations are all in it to make money. But do not sit there and spin it like nVidia has been in it to help consumers. They've been grossly overpricing their video cards for years simply because they've been on top.

How you can somehow spin ATI forcing nVidia to lower its video card prices into nVidia forcing ATI to lower its video card prices is a little beyond me. The ATI 4870 I bought for $230 was a fantastic value compared to the $400 I paid for an 8800 GTX. And if not for the great value of the 4870 ($300 MSRP, but found early on for $250'ish) some who bought a GTX 260 for $250 would instead be paying the $330 MSRP when it was first released.


For everyone else, these are pure speculation as far as specs go. We know nothing for a fact at this time. Sure, the specs sound great but if what XBit Labs report is true, that ATI will have a head start in the next round of the video card wars, it's not out of the question that some of these rumors were started by nVidia itself. After all, unless one is blind or biased, both ATI and nVidia have had less than pristine pasts. Both have used questionable tactics.

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: Creig
Have you seen the latest AT Video Card Buyer's Guide - Spring 2009performance/dollar recommendations?

Means absolutely nothing to someone who shops well. The GPU classes are very close in performance for the most part and they can't possibly take into account all the variances in build design and sales by different vendors. An HD 4850 isn't always the best in that price class for example. Anyone that has read reviews and price shopped knows that more often than not a GTS 250 could be the best buy.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: jaredpace
id guess rv870 is 1.4 times faster than rv770, at most. most likely 1.25 average

What if ATI increases the die size though?

Am I right in saying that thus far only Nvidia has increased Die size (when the GT200 debuted).

Doesn't the current ATI product HD48xx run on a smaller die size than Nvidia?

Whatever the situation ends up being it may be that a larger than usual amount of "gains" next generation come from software (DX 11) related issues.

you're being WAY too pessimistic. rv790 is 10% faster and is rumored to possess better oc potential, too. 1.25 times faster than rv770 would be about 14% faster than rv790. Sorry, but past results don't lead to that conclusion. also, amd has the flexibility to increase die size significantly if necessary to get more performance increase.

I would figure that if you take a 4890 for amd and a gtx 285 for nvidia, you should see 1.5-2.0 x performance increase this time around.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Really?

You should read your own sources a little better:
"ATI Radeon X800 XT: 16 pipes, 500 core, 1000 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: 16 pipes, 520 core, 1120 mem"

Really? x800xt- 11 wins versus the6800U, 6800U 25 wins versus the x800xt. Obviously the PE did it's job giving people a lasting albeit inaccurate impression of relative performance.

Way to run DX9 benches at 1999 settings, without AA or AF. Maybe you'd like to tell me who wins at running 16-bit color? I already linked a review form a more competent site, which contradicts your findings. And since the 7950gx2 was released half a year after the x1900xt, lets see how the 6800U compares to later r480 cards:
x850xtpe overwhelmingly obliterates 6800U

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Just learning
If this is true I think it will really help ATI.

I mean seriously when was the last time they were considered "the best" and "first to market"? Wasn't it in 2003 with the 9800 series cards?

Yeah the R300 launched in 2002 and they have pretty much struggled ever since. After that NVIDIA launched the 6xxx series with SLI, SM3 and Purevideo. ATI pretty much just played catch up.

Well, the X800XT was arguably the fastest card of its time.

6800 Ultra vs X800XT might have been a toss-up but didn't SLI work a whole lot better than Crossfire in that era?

So in the time period after ATI 9800 series (that I mentioned in post #2 of this thread) I think Nvidia had the better and first to market tech with respect to multi-GPU technology. (See my post above this for the Nvidia advantage in subsequent years).

I think it is fair to say this DX11 launch for ATI could be the beginning of good fortunes for them.

yeah, it could be the beginning of their good fortune because 4xx0 just stunk up the marketplace...