It looks as if they 8600ultra 512 should outperform the 8800gts 320

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Genx87

And besides the 8800 GTS 320 is cheaper than the X1950

huh? you can get a 256mb x1950pro for $156, and a 512mb x1950pro for $199 @newegg...

how is that more expensive than the $299 320mb GTS?

Is there a slight chance he meant the X1950XTX? Because obviously the pro is less expensive.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Genx87

And besides the 8800 GTS 320 is cheaper than the X1950

huh? you can get a 256mb x1950pro for $156, and a 512mb x1950pro for $199 @newegg...

how is that more expensive than the $299 320mb GTS?

Is there a slight chance he meant the X1950XTX? Because obviously the pro is less expensive.

well, he was responding to the poster above, who we speaking of the PRO...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: munky
I doubt nvidia would make such a blunder as to let a $200 card outperform a $300 card. It's possible that the 320mb gts performs poorly in some cases due to driver bugs. It's also possible that the 8600ultra is a fake card. When was the last time a midrange card had an 'Ultra' designation? The best case scenario I can imagine is another 6600gt vs 6800 situation, where the less expensive 6600gt performed about the same as the 6800.

5700 Ultra. But I believe we all forcefully forgot that midrange generation

and:

5600Ultra
5200Ultra (lowend)

I HIGHLY doubt there are any FAKE cards in those that were announced. You thought it might be fake just because it has Ultra for the suffix? Why? What have you heard?

Those examples aren't valid because in those generations the highest end suffix was the 5800 Ultra, 5900/5950 Ultra for the high end.

It is inconsistent to have the Ultra suffix for the mid range and have the GTX suffix for the high end, especially so considering the Ultra suffix hasn't been in use for 1 full generation now. The logical course of action is to expect the GT suffix to be the high end suffix for the main stream, and low end SKU's. The GTX suffix remains exclusive to the high end.

 

[happy medium]

Just for your info................

Zipzoomfly has the 8800gts (320) with a free copy of Call of Duty 2 for 289.00$ + $15.00 off using Paypall! Not bad for $274.00


Heres the link I posted in the Hot Deals forum

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe...oductCode=321113&prodlist=pricegrabber

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Xarick
I have a feeling it is not a driver issue at all, but instead a hardware design issue. Hence the reason the MSRP is $100 cheaper. Nvidia knew that their 320 part would be severly crippled and thus would need a much lower price to be even considered.

I doubt this is true, the 320MB 8800 GTS should be outperforming everything else in it's price range considering it's a new introduction, it shouldn't have any difficulty against the 7950 GT 256MB, X1950 Pro 256MB, and X1950 XT 256MB. If it does it is very likely a driver issue, as the G80 core is substantially more advanced then the core listed above.

 

[CU]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: CU
I don't think the 8600 will only have 128 bit interface. My 6800 has 256bit clocked at 700+ and it is two generations behind. Also the 7600gt almost has the same amount of memory bandwidth at the 8600. I just don't see that happening.

Well from the leaked charts it looks like the X2600's are also looking like they have a 128Bit Memory Interface.

You also got to keep in mind the 8600 GT with 1.8GHZ GDDR3, will have more memory bandwidth, then the older 7600 GT, no to mention the 6800 Vanilla even with it's 256Bit interface.

There is a minor increase in memory bandwidth.

I though GDDR3 just allowed for high frequencies and that is what gave it more bandwidth. I though all ram (DDR, GDDR1,2,3,4) bandwidth was frequency * memory interface width.