New mid-range cards for ATI aren't necessary EDIT:The Inquirer Says So

[PrayForDeath]

nVidia has released a totally new architecture this spring with many new features while ATI have revised their previous architecture by adding pipelines, increasing clockspeeds, using GDDR3 memory etc..etc....
nVidia had to introduce a new mid-range series to back up their new high-end series with the same features and a close if not similar architecture since most of their profits depend on mid-range rather than high-end sales; ATI on the other hand, don't need to develop a new mid-range series because they didn't bring a new technology to the light, they just revised their old one, so what's the point of having an X### with 8 pipelines, core speed of around 450Mhz and 128/256Mb of 256mbit memory while they already have this card? The 9800Pro/XT. nVidia can not do that because their FX series is horrible in new games (9800XT doubling the performance of 5950 in FarCry) meaning it's not as futureproof as the 9800 series, and because their new architecture has Doom III in its silicon, so introducing a mid-range series based on this architecture gives them a very good place to start, and as I mentioned before, their main profits come from mid-range sales, high-end sales take only a small percentage in their profits.
As for X800SE, first of all, there are no news concerning this card yet, and IF ATI decides to release such card their main goal of doing so will be PCI-Express since it's an 8x Pipeline card so it should perform just like a 9800Pro/XT or maybe a little faster.
That's why the X600 is a revision of the well-known 9600series and same goes for X300, ATI don't need a card to compete with the 6600GT, they already have one, and at the same price, which is the 9800Pro.
Feel free to comment, but no flame wars and bias posts please.

 

[SneakyStuff]

How does the 9800 pro compete with the 6600 GT when the 6600 GT clearly beats it. over 8k in 3dmark03, say all you want about 3dmark, they didn't make it just for fun. Text Just curious what your 9800 pro notches.

EDIT: And that "potency test" is at 1024 x 768, not 800 x 600.

 

[PsharkJF]

fanboy

 

[PrayForDeath]

I cannot trus this site, and if the 6600GT actually gets 8K 3Dmakrs then it would kill the 6800 vanilla sales since it scores 8k too, I think we'll have to wait for official numbers before we judge.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: PsharkJF
fanboy

me or him? I'm showing you a benchmark, not my opinion.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
I cannot trus this site, and if the 6600GT actually gets 8K 3Dmakrs then it would kill the 6800 vanilla sales since it scores 8k too, I think we'll have to wait for official numbers before we judge.

How would that kill the 6800? Text

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: PsharkJF
fanboy

You serious? Can you indicate the fanboism in my post? I didn't say "Nvidia sucks" or "X800 beats 6800 easily" or something like that, and what I said about the 5950 is a fact

edit: the 9800XT has triple the performance of a 5950 here!!

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
I cannot trus this site, and if the 6600GT actually gets 8K 3Dmakrs then it would kill the 6800 vanilla sales since it scores 8k too, I think we'll have to wait for official numbers before we judge.

How would that kill the 6800? Text

Can you justify paying 75 more dollars for 300 more marks? And as I said before, we cannot judge until we see the real product benchmarked in a trusted site (Anand for example)

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
I cannot trus this site, and if the 6600GT actually gets 8K 3Dmakrs then it would kill the 6800 vanilla sales since it scores 8k too, I think we'll have to wait for official numbers before we judge.

How would that kill the 6800? Text

Can you justify paying 75 more dollars for 300 more marks? And as I said before, we cannot judge until we see the real product benchmarked in a trusted site (Anand for example)

What isn't trustworthy about the site? nVidia themselves said it would notch over 8k the day it was released on paper. Are they reputable enough?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: PsharkJF
fanboy

How could you possibly call the OP a fanboy when he praised both the 9800 cards AND the new nVidia midrange cards?

You posted a single word and it's pure flamebait. Go find another forum if that's your attitude.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
I cannot trus this site, and if the 6600GT actually gets 8K 3Dmakrs then it would kill the 6800 vanilla sales since it scores 8k too, I think we'll have to wait for official numbers before we judge.

How would that kill the 6800? Text

Can you justify paying 75 more dollars for 300 more marks? And as I said before, we cannot judge until we see the real product benchmarked in a trusted site (Anand for example)

What isn't trustworthy about the site? nVidia themselves said it would notch over 8k the day it was released on paper. Are they reputable enough?

nVidia always exaggerates when introducing their new products, remember when they first announced the 6800Ultra, they said it will easily get 14000+ 3Dmark2k3 score and 10000 Will be a dream for ATI, the real result was ~12500 for both (+/-500).

 

[klah]

ATI don't need a card to compete with the 6600GT, they already have one, and at the same price, which is the 9800Pro.

The x700xt will offer similar performance while going from a 150nm to 110nm process and 256-bit to 128-bit memory controller. This means cheaper, smaller dies and less expensive PCB costs for the AIBs.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: klah

ATI don't need a card to compete with the 6600GT, they already have one, and at the same price, which is the 9800Pro.

The x700xt will offer similar performance while going from a 150nm to 110nm process and 256-bit to 128-bit memory controller. This means cheaper, smaller dies and less expensive PCB costs for the AIBs.

And also slower, it's like a 128bit 9800Pro, but this product hasn't been confirmed yet.

edit: does it have the X800 series features? (3Dc, PS2.0b, overdrive....)

 

[zephyrprime]

They need to new card if for nothing else than to take advantage of speed binning. Also, producing a lot of 9800's on the old .15 process can't be very economical. They will get more dies per wafer thus lowering their costs.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
nVidia always exaggerates when introducing their new products, remember when they first announced the 6800Ultra, they said it will easily get 14000+ 3Dmark2k3 score and 10000 Will be a dream for ATI, the real result was ~12500 for both (+/-500).

I get almost 12K in 2k3 with a GT, and my system isnt the fastest. 14K should be attainable with a fast rig.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
They need to new card if for nothing else than to take advantage of speed binning. Also, producing a lot of 9800's on the old .15 process can't be very economical. They will get more dies per wafer thus lowering their costs.

That's right, and right.

I get almost 12K in 2k3 with a GT, and my system isnt the fastest. 14K should be attainable with a fast rig.

Are you overclocking?

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
They need to new card if for nothing else than to take advantage of speed binning. Also, producing a lot of 9800's on the old .15 process can't be very economical. They will get more dies per wafer thus lowering their costs.

That's right, and right.

I get almost 12K in 2k3 with a GT, and my system isnt the fastest. 14K should be attainable with a fast rig.

Are you overclocking?

No. It is a BFG GT OC, but the card is at stock for the OC. System is in my sig. I would think anyone who pays attention to 3DM would probably have a faster system then mine.

 

[PrayForDeath]

I did a search on Futuremark website, and found out that the 6800Ultra users that have 14000+ score are overclocking either their CPU or their video card. Anyway, this is not my point, even if the Ultra actually scores 14000, it's not yet certain that the 6600GT scores 8000 especially for the reason I said before.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The 9800 Pro is based on 0.15 micron process which is expensive to produce (considering ATI and Nvidia already had 0.11 micron GPUs) and runs very hot, so ATI won't simply take the R3xx GPU to make their mid-range lineup.

And also the X600s is pure garbage and will not stand a chance against the 6600GT, ATI needed a new mid-range in the form of the X700s.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Prayfordeath, you just aren't seeing this, look past the 128 bit memory bus, the 6600 GT core is a generation ahead of the 9800 pro. Don't get me wrong, the 9800 pros a nice card and all, but I'd rather have a 6600 GT for the same price.

 

[TStep]

New cards are needed from ATI for at least two reasons:

Marketing - no matter how good a card is, your average Joe needs to have something newer/better stuck in his face to make the purchase. Even on an enthusiast forum such as this, it is incredible to realize how many folks are somewhat unknowledgable to the basic performance capabilities of various card classes. Midrange is bread and butter money.

Evolution - the 9600 could be looked upon as a guinea pig for the next generation. Trylinear optimization were tested right under our noses without anyone realizing it. Also smaller .13 process was tested and run in the 400mhz-500mhz range while the king of the hill 9800 was still chugging along in the 300-400 range on .15 process. Viola, X800 series incorporates .13, 400-500 clockspeeds, and trylinear optimization.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: klah

ATI don't need a card to compete with the 6600GT, they already have one, and at the same price, which is the 9800Pro.

The x700xt will offer similar performance while going from a 150nm to 110nm process and 256-bit to 128-bit memory controller. This means cheaper, smaller dies and less expensive PCB costs for the AIBs.

You mean itll compete with the 6600? Too bad itll likely cost more. How much is that x600xt again? What performance does it offer again? :/

 

[zephyrprime]

One more thing, the new cores from nVidia and ATI also are more transistors efficient. The R420 XT has ~50% more transistors than the R360 but offers ~100% more performance. Admittedly, some of this gain is due to higher speed memory but not all of it. So with the same performance of the R360, an R420 derivative could be made with a smaller die and hence more cheaply.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: TStep
Marketing - no matter how good a card is, your average Joe needs to have something newer/better stuck in his face to make the purchase. Even on an enthusiast forum such as this, it is incredible to realize how many folks are somewhat unknowledgable to the basic performance capabilities of various card classes. Midrange is bread and butter money.

Forgive my ignorance :disgust:

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
You mean itll compete with the 6600? Too bad itll likely cost more. How much is that x600xt again? What performance does it offer again? :/

He's not saying the X600 will compete with the 6600, he said the X700 will do that, and I agree with him since going to 110nm process gives higher clockspeeds while maintaining the 9800 power.

 

[TStep]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: TStep
Marketing - no matter how good a card is, your average Joe needs to have something newer/better stuck in his face to make the purchase. Even on an enthusiast forum such as this, it is incredible to realize how many folks are somewhat unknowledgable to the basic performance capabilities of various card classes. Midrange is bread and butter money.

Forgive my ignorance :disgust:

Not directed at you Pointing out the fact that the money is made in the midrange market. Most people do not know what they are buying, and new product names are need to sell cards even though the card s being sold are basically the same. A 9600xt is bascially the same as a new X600XT (other than a slight memory boost and PCI-E), but there is a $60 upcharge and the card being sold has a similar naming scheme as the current top of the line ATI product. Or take the fact that many will believe an FX5200 is a better card than a 4200. Higher number = better card. This is nothing more than a comment on marketing, and why ATI needs new midrange cards to stay competative.