Fudzilla confirms GT200 based cards are in terribly short supply

[happy medium]

I don't really count the few years here and there that intel has more 1337 cpus than AMD either...

lol fanboy.

I don't respond to this imaturity.

 

[cbn]

GF102 should fill this gap nicely.

When does it launch? 384 CUDA cores built with some process technology lessons learned from GF100 might end up much more efficient. 768 CUDA core Dual GPU card anyone?

 

[Unkle_Tar]

They should have kept manufacturing 200 series, they would still sell well to people who normally buy nVidia graphics cards looking for an upgrade.

 

[RussianSensation]

ok, Consitantly except for a few quarters. Better?

The results I posted are for the 12 months ended...

The point is: (1) shortage of last gen GT200/b cards did hurt Nvidia. If they had GTX260/275 and even 285 in stock, a ton of people who bought 5850s and 5770s may have considered them. I would have surely picked up a GTX275 for $165 over a 5770. Also if NV had GTX275s at $190-200 when I purchased my 4890, I would have bought the GTX275 over the 4890 as well; but mysteriously they were selling for $230-240. Now they have no cards > $90 (other than occassional GTS 250 1GB on sale for $80 after MIR) to recommend and no GTX470/480 cards still....

 

[ArchAngel777]

Sucks to hear that.
Hey, you might get lucky and get a gtx 4xxx series!
They should have plenty of gtx 470's in a week or two.

I would not complain if they did that, but I doubt they would. One could always wish

I have a backup 8800GT I am using for now... Works decently, I just disable the AA.

 

[cbn]

I would have surely picked up a GTX275 for $165 over a 5770.

Same here.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

The only reason that they stopped making GT200 has to be the lack of profitability (or for some reason they stopped making them and stuck to that decision even after fermi was delayed). But I don't see how this makes sense. Even after Fermi ships in a couple of weeks they will essentially have nothing between the old tech GT250 and the GTX470 for at least 3 months even if they started working on fermi derivatives asap.

But Juniper prices are getting dangerously close to the 120$ mark and it's hard to see how a half Fermi could compete here with a much bigger chip and probably much wider memory bus (ie would cost a lot more to make) but at least they would be able to get "full parts" into the hands of customers for that chip.

 

[edplayer]

I cannot fathom your point. People who want the fastest card on the market are looking for a gtx285?

you have to consider the time frame.

from when the 5870 came out till the GTX480 is available, ATi is ruling. But apart from that it was all Nvidia

 

[edplayer]

Even after Fermi ships in a couple of weeks they will essentially have nothing between the old tech GT250 and the GTX470 for at least 3 months even if they started working on fermi derivatives asap.

But Juniper prices are getting dangerously close to the 120$ mark and it's hard to see how a half Fermi could compete here with a much bigger chip and probably much wider memory bus (ie would cost a lot more to make) but at least they would be able to get "full parts" into the hands of customers for that chip.

My guess is that they have been working on mid range cards for a long time already. But, rumors still are for a something around June launch...

but your point about Juniper is good. I think ATi is making a lot more than they have historically on their 57X0 cards. They are not that much bigger than the 4770 and ATi felt comfortable to launch those at a $99 msrp. I wouldn't be surprised if they could make the 57X0 cards cheaper than the 4770. They could probably make a small profit even selling those at $80 (retail).

I don't think Nvidia will have anything competitive when you factor in price/performance till at least their next generation and maybe not even that!

 

[TurtleCrusher]

What you question that the 8800gtx and gtx 285 where not the fastest cards in the past few years? ANd now the gtx 480.

If you say dual gpu ,you have the 9800gx2 and the gtx 295 and ...yet to be announced gtx 4xxx.

Since the 1950xtx,they have had the fastest cards. Period end of story.
I don't count the fews months here and there that ATI held the crown.

You don't count the few months in between? It has been going both ways, back and forth for more than a year now.

IIRC, the 4870 was the top card, then the 280 came out, then the 4890, then the 285, then the 5870 (and this lasted for quite a long time), then the 5970 and finally Fermi comes around. ATI had been on top for a long time as video cards go.

The other poster calling you a fanboy isn't too far off due to the fact you don't realize these trends.

Go green?

 

[Joepublic2]

It's a shame but reading about TSMC's 40nm node problems it's not surprising.

edit lol: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...e=&srchInDesc=

 

[RussianSensation]

IIRC, the 4870 was the top card, then the 280 came out, then the 4890, then the 285, then the 5870 (and this lasted for quite a long time), then the 5970 and finally Fermi comes around. ATI had been on top for a long time as video cards go.

1. GTX280 came out before 4870
2. 4870 was 80% of the performance of GTX280.
3. 4890 was 90-95% of the performance of GTX280 but it wasn't faster (maybe current drivers push it ahead?) So NV had a full 12 months lead.
4. And how did you mysteriously forget the awesome price/performance that GeForce 4200 was, or 6600GT/6800GT were, or 7900GT? or 8800GT/9800GT? NV had some great price/performance cards.
5. Other than during 9700Pro/9800Pro time, ATI has not had a clear homerun series against NV until HD4xxx series. So I wouldn't say ATI had been on top for a long time.

 

[Leyawiin]

I would have surely picked up a GTX275 for $165 over a 5770.

I bought a $174 new factory OC'd GTX 260 (650 Mhz) over an HD 5770 three weeks ago. I knew that was a deal since I couldn't go over $200 (and its definitely gone now along with most other GTX 260s).

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The results I posted are for the 12 months ended...

The point is: (1) shortage of last gen GT200/b cards did hurt Nvidia. If they had GTX260/275 and even 285 in stock, a ton of people who bought 5850s and 5770s may have considered them. I would have surely picked up a GTX275 for $165 over a 5770. Also if NV had GTX275s at $190-200 when I purchased my 4890, I would have bought the GTX275 over the 4890 as well; but mysteriously they were selling for $230-240. Now they have no cards > $90 (other than occassional GTS 250 1GB on sale for $80 after MIR) to recommend and no GTX470/480 cards still....

Considering the GTX200 chips are 470-578mm^2 coupled with a memory interface no less than 448bit vs. the 256-282mm^2 4800s + 256 bit memory interfaces, the GTX200s simply couldn't be produced to compete with the price/performance of the 4800s. The 5700s made it even worse considering they became even more cost effective @ 170mm^2 and 128 bit. Even the 5800s @ 334mm^2 and 256bit still undercut the GTX200s and have the obvious performance advantage.

nVidia won't have made a unique part specifically meant to compete in the upper midrange since the G92. While the GTX260 might have counted considering its eventual price points, it was still a cutdown GT200 and thus not cost effective for nVidia to keep producing. It won't be until the GF104 until we finally see something new from nVidia that is not just a cut down part meant to compete in that niche.

 

[HurleyBird]

1. GTX280 came out before 4870
2. 4870 was 80% of the performance of GTX280.
3. 4890 was 90-95% of the performance of GTX280 but it wasn't faster (maybe current drivers push it ahead?) So NV had a full 12 months lead.

People still tend to overestimate how fast GTX280 was, when in reality it wins some and loses some against GTX275 (and is maybe 1-2% faster overall).

In general

GTX 285 is ~10% faster than GTX275/GTX280/HD4890 which is in turn ~10% faster than GTX260/HD4870.

 

[Fox5]

They should have kept manufacturing 200 series, they would still sell well to people who normally buy nVidia graphics cards looking for an upgrade.

They should have kept up with the 8000/9000 series. The 200 series offered nothing interesting feature wise (not even in compute), yet had poor die efficiency. The g92 chips competed well with ati on die size/performance (and probably could have been tweaked to be better, lower the texture units and raise the shaders), if nvidia had a separate line of suped up g92 chips for the midrange they'd be in a much better situation.

A DX11 40nm g92 chip with 256 shaders would fit well in the midrange. (though even a 40nm gt200 wouldn't be all that bad)