Nvidia 270, 290 and GX2 roll out in November

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Janooo

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2005
1,067
13
81
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Perfect. Thank you. Although they are from July and from Fudzilla, this is the best we have so far. And FYI, these links would have went well with your original post.

Now, lets see what happens now if this line doesn't pan out:

"So now we can easily say that this won?t happen and a more affordable HD 4000 will come with RV710 and 730 at some point in September / October time."

If RV710 and 730 are delayed, will AMD go ahead with the rename scheme if they can't deliver these GPU's to fill that market segment. Who knows. September is gone, October is 1/3 gone. So there is some bit of time left.
What delay? What are you talking about?
4670 was released awhile ago and it is 730 isn't it? And what are 4350 and 4550?
Please, stop spreading misinformation about AMD/ATI. It's not nice from your position.
Watch it Janoo.

Anyway, yes the 4670 seems to be 730, but we are talking about budget value cards here that ATI was going to rebrand. Calling them the 43xx and 45xx series when they really were 3xxx series or RV610/630 cores.

What I was SIMPLY saying, was that September is gone. October is 1/3rd gone. No value/budget 4xxx series cards yet IN SPITE of the 4670 having a 730 core.
I was just SIMPLY speculating on why that is.
What is not NICE, is you accusing me of spreading misinformation when we are only trying to have a discussion here. And I'm trying to find out the information for myself in the first place. Understand this.

So have the discussion. Without all the drama. Thank you. ;)
And more misinformation. 4350 is RV710.
If you do not bother to check what you are talking about then please, stick to NV cards only.

 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
probably not. I expected 4850 to continue dropping as 260 classic v1.0 dropped down, but unfortunately we haven't seen 260 for under $200 yet. if 260 drops down to $180 or so AR then we might see 4850 drop a bit, but, unfortunately, amd has somehow managed to control the high ground from the middle. go figure.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Perfect. Thank you. Although they are from July and from Fudzilla, this is the best we have so far. And FYI, these links would have went well with your original post.

Now, lets see what happens now if this line doesn't pan out:

"So now we can easily say that this won?t happen and a more affordable HD 4000 will come with RV710 and 730 at some point in September / October time."

If RV710 and 730 are delayed, will AMD go ahead with the rename scheme if they can't deliver these GPU's to fill that market segment. Who knows. September is gone, October is 1/3 gone. So there is some bit of time left.
What delay? What are you talking about?
4670 was released awhile ago and it is 730 isn't it? And what are 4350 and 4550?
Please, stop spreading misinformation about AMD/ATI. It's not nice from your position.
Watch it Janoo.

Anyway, yes the 4670 seems to be 730, but we are talking about budget value cards here that ATI was going to rebrand. Calling them the 43xx and 45xx series when they really were 3xxx series or RV610/630 cores.

What I was SIMPLY saying, was that September is gone. October is 1/3rd gone. No value/budget 4xxx series cards yet IN SPITE of the 4670 having a 730 core.
I was just SIMPLY speculating on why that is.
What is not NICE, is you accusing me of spreading misinformation when we are only trying to have a discussion here. And I'm trying to find out the information for myself in the first place. Understand this.

So have the discussion. Without all the drama. Thank you. ;)
And more misinformation. 4350 is RV710.
If you do not bother to check what you are talking about then please, stick to NV cards only.
Since you do not understand what I am talking about, and that I obviously cannot make you understand. Lets drop this for now. Because all this will turn into is a mess when two people can't mesh.

Thanks.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: 450R
Would these releases have any effect on pricing for 4850s?
I don't think the 4850 will drop. We'll surely see the 4870 512mb/1024 mb, going down in price, since the 55 nm GTX 260/270 will probably be clocked higher and thus be faster, but Nvidia doesn't releases nothing new in the 4850 segment. Only if 9800 GTX+/9800 GTX will cost less, maybe ATI will have to cut down the price for the 4850. But there is no information about that now.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
at some point nvidia is going to release a new midrange card based upon the 2xx series (256 bit gddr5 anyone?), but you are correct in stating that until they do the 4850 should continue to maintain its current price.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
at some point nvidia is going to release a new midrange card based upon the 2xx series (256 bit gddr5 anyone?), but you are correct in stating that until they do the 4850 should continue to maintain its current price.
Since the 9800GTX+ is as good or better than the 4850, they are already competing well at that level.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
9800gtx+ is a retread (9800gtx) of a retread (8800gts 512) and is based upon last generation technology. It also doesn't handle AA nearly as well as 4850. It also costs nvidia more to build it. It also...never mind, why am I discussing this with you?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
9800gtx+ is a retread (9800gtx) of a retread (8800gts 512) and is based upon last generation technology. It also doesn't handle AA nearly as well as 4850. It also costs nvidia more to build it. It also...never mind, why am I discussing this with you?
What does how its made or how much it costs to make matter once you plug it in and bench it? :confused:
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
9800gtx+ is a retread (9800gtx) of a retread (8800gts 512) and is based upon last generation technology. It also doesn't handle AA nearly as well as 4850. It also costs nvidia more to build it. It also...never mind, why am I discussing this with you?
What does how its made or how much it costs to make matter once you plug it in and bench it? :confused:
ok, you handled the last and least important item I mentioned. Care to comment on the other things? You are so clearly biased that it's not worth having a discussion with you. Look, I like nvidia a lot. I just bought a 9600gso, I also have a 6600gt in my mom's rig and a 7300gt in my htpc. However, when they have tons more money and still allow amd to kick their ass in the midrange they're going to catch a little bit of criticism. If you can't take that then get off the internet because it's not likely to change until they bring gt200 to the midrange. Even then, they'd better do it before 5xxx comes out or they'll risk getting stuck in the same catch up mode that amd is in for the cpu market.
 

blanketyblank

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,149
0
0
I like the way nvidia is going with these new cards. At least it's using different names.
8800 GT, 9800 Gt, etc... is the worst system ever since the name is no indication at all how well the card performed. Intuitively 8800gts 512 should be worse than a 8800gts 640, but not at all and it turns out even the 8800gt is faster.
If it's a die shrink and it's faster I see nothing wrong with them calling it a gtx 270 or gtx+ or what have you.
For me nvidia's main weaknesses are its sli support sucks so you can only run it on their motherboards and it's only compatible with the same model card. The second is their hdmi audio support is pretty bad since a lot don't support hdmi audio, and for those that do they require a pass through cable they often don't provide. If they fix that I might go back to nvidia since their driver support does seem better.
I get this annoying black border when I try to play dx10 games with my 4850 which I didn't get with my 8800gts 512.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
9800gtx+ is a retread (9800gtx) of a retread (8800gts 512) and is based upon last generation technology. It also doesn't handle AA nearly as well as 4850. It also costs nvidia more to build it. It also...never mind, why am I discussing this with you?
What does how its made or how much it costs to make matter once you plug it in and bench it? :confused:
ok, you handled the last and least important item I mentioned. Care to comment on the other things? You are so clearly biased that it's not worth having a discussion with you. Look, I like nvidia a lot. I just bought a 9600gso, I also have a 6600gt in my mom's rig and a 7300gt in my htpc. However, when they have tons more money and still allow amd to kick their ass in the midrange they're going to catch a little bit of criticism. If you can't take that then get off the internet because it's not likely to change until they bring gt200 to the midrange. Even then, they'd better do it before 5xxx comes out or they'll risk getting stuck in the same catch up mode that amd is in for the cpu market.
I'll address your points bryan.

1. Retread- Personally I wouldn't mind if the 9800GTX+ was a retread of the TNT2 if it offered comparable performance and IQ. The 48xx series are "retreads" of the 38 series, which were "retreads" of the 2900 series as well. The difference is what the 9800GTX+ was didn't need to be changed as much to compete.

2. AA- For most people, the AA differences in these cards will not be a big deal. The 4850 does do 8XAA better, but the difference in IQ between 4X and 8X is small. It's also questionable how often the difference in 8X AA performance would be noticeable in gameplay

3. Costs to build- Unless the buyer is also the owner of the company, this is irrelevant. I see this "argument" in 90% of the threads supporting AMD products, and it always baffles me. I can see why "costs less to build" matters to the people making more profits from the sale, but where's the motivation to be one of the people giving them the money? "YES! By purchasing a 4850 I helped AMD make $10 more than NVIDIA would have made on a 9800GTX+! Woot!". Don't get it.

Your points also leave out that AMD buyers miss PhysX, stereo, and CUDA entirely, while NVIDIA buyers miss out on DX10.1 and tesselator functionality, so I won't go into these here. (not to mention most 9800GTX+s have superior cooling)

On Topic:

I reiterate:

There is nothing to debate here. If these cards launch they will bring the two highest performing single GPU parts to market, and either a new single slot champ or a choice for people who prefer SLi drivers and features to CF drivers and features.

As such, every single buyer on the planet benefits. More choices, and/or higher performance, is only good for all of us.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: nRollo

As such, every single buyer on the planet benefits. More choices, and/or higher performance, is only good for all of us.
That should have been the whole idea of this thread, but it had to transform itself into a " Who's better : ATI or Nvidia" thread, evidently.

Everyone buys what they want to buy. There isn't a 9800GTX+ better then a 4850 , or backwards. One wins in the 8X AA department, the other one wins in Crysis performance, one has better cooling, the other doesn't, one has PhysX, the other has directX 10.1. You buy what is more convenient to you and that is all.

Let's just take a look at our videocards market today. We have like 15 gaming cards to choose from. Where were we situated last year in the same period? Nowhere: we had to choose from 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS 640 or 8800 GTS 320 and X2900 XT. All of them were very expensive and many of us couldn't afford them. There were the 8600 and x2600 series, but those lacked gaming performance badly.

Now, no matter how much money I have in my pocket, I'm still able to find myself a card that does at least, decent, in any game that is on the market now. Last year I couldn't do that. This is a product of our beloved competition between ATI and Nvidia, so the more cards are released, the better we'll all "game". ;)
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I'm getting a 48xx if I got the cash for my next upgrade from 8800GT. This Nvidia thing is looking like AMD's lackluster reintro of old chips for lack of new parts over the last year or so.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
9800gtx+ is a retread (9800gtx) of a retread (8800gts 512) and is based upon last generation technology. It also doesn't handle AA nearly as well as 4850. It also costs nvidia more to build it. It also...never mind, why am I discussing this with you?
What does how its made or how much it costs to make matter once you plug it in and bench it? :confused:
ok, you handled the last and least important item I mentioned. Care to comment on the other things? You are so clearly biased that it's not worth having a discussion with you. Look, I like nvidia a lot. I just bought a 9600gso, I also have a 6600gt in my mom's rig and a 7300gt in my htpc. However, when they have tons more money and still allow amd to kick their ass in the midrange they're going to catch a little bit of criticism. If you can't take that then get off the internet because it's not likely to change until they bring gt200 to the midrange. Even then, they'd better do it before 5xxx comes out or they'll risk getting stuck in the same catch up mode that amd is in for the cpu market.

What is "mid-range" to you?


The 9600GT is on sale all the time
8/9800 GT is still a good card.
The 9800GTX+ is roughly equal to the 4850
The GTX260 is roughly equal to the 4870
The GTX 280 is the fastest single GPU
The 9800GX2 is fairly inexpensive and is > 4870.

The last 3 I consider high-end, but I still dont see an asskicking since nV had to cut the price.



Please point out where they are getting thier "ass-kicked"

As far as being biased, i'm pulling the trigger on a 4870X2 here soon. The only reason I havent already is because my monitor (1680X1050) doesnt really do it justice. But i've got "new toy" fever, and I dont think rationally.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
61
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
9800gtx+ is a retread (9800gtx) of a retread (8800gts 512) and is based upon last generation technology. It also doesn't handle AA nearly as well as 4850. It also costs nvidia more to build it. It also...never mind, why am I discussing this with you?
What does how its made or how much it costs to make matter once you plug it in and bench it? :confused:
ok, you handled the last and least important item I mentioned. Care to comment on the other things? You are so clearly biased that it's not worth having a discussion with you. Look, I like nvidia a lot. I just bought a 9600gso, I also have a 6600gt in my mom's rig and a 7300gt in my htpc. However, when they have tons more money and still allow amd to kick their ass in the midrange they're going to catch a little bit of criticism. If you can't take that then get off the internet because it's not likely to change until they bring gt200 to the midrange. Even then, they'd better do it before 5xxx comes out or they'll risk getting stuck in the same catch up mode that amd is in for the cpu market.

What is "mid-range" to you?


The 9600GT is on sale all the time
8/9800 GT is still a good card.
The 9800GTX+ is roughly equal to the 4850
The GTX260 is roughly equal to the 4870
The GTX 280 is the fastest single GPU
The 9800GX2 is fairly inexpensive and is > 4870.

The last 3 I consider high-end, but I still dont see an asskicking since nV had to cut the price. Please elaborate.



Please point out where they are getting thier "ass-kicked"

As far as being biased, i'm pulling the trigger on a 4870X2 here soon. The only reason I havent already is because my monitor (1680X1050) doesnt really do it justice. But i've got "new toy" fever, and I dont think rationally.
9600GT = Nice card
8800/9800GT = Nice card and rehashed like mash potatoes
9800GTX+ still slower than the HD 4850 overall, still based on old rehashes
GTX 260 slower than the HD 4870
GTX 260 Core 216 as fast as a HD 4870 1GB
GTX 280 the fastest single GPU
9800GX2 quite cheap and of course that's faster than the HD 4870, but still the same old rehash of the old and tired G92 GPU.

Originally posted by: nRollo

I'll address your points bryan.

1. Retread- Personally I wouldn't mind if the 9800GTX+ was a retread of the TNT2 if it offered comparable performance and IQ. The 48xx series are "retreads" of the 38 series, which were "retreads" of the 2900 series as well. The difference is what the 9800GTX+ was didn't need to be changed as much to compete.

2. AA- For most people, the AA differences in these cards will not be a big deal. The 4850 does do 8XAA better, but the difference in IQ between 4X and 8X is small. It's also questionable how often the difference in 8X AA performance would be noticeable in gameplay

3. Costs to build- Unless the buyer is also the owner of the company, this is irrelevant. I see this "argument" in 90% of the threads supporting AMD products, and it always baffles me. I can see why "costs less to build" matters to the people making more profits from the sale, but where's the motivation to be one of the people giving them the money? "YES! By purchasing a 4850 I helped AMD make $10 more than NVIDIA would have made on a 9800GTX+! Woot!". Don't get it.

Your points also leave out that AMD buyers miss PhysX, stereo, and CUDA entirely, while NVIDIA buyers miss out on DX10.1 and tesselator functionality, so I won't go into these here. (not to mention most 9800GTX+s have superior cooling)

On Topic:

I reiterate:

There is nothing to debate here. If these cards launch they will bring the two highest performing single GPU parts to market, and either a new single slot champ or a choice for people who prefer SLi drivers and features to CF drivers and features.

As such, every single buyer on the planet benefits. More choices, and/or higher performance, is only good for all of us.
Well retreads are simply easy ways to improve performance without using brand new technology to innovate, only performance improvements which are quite needed, but I remember people bashing the X800 architecture for being based on the old 9800 architecture, but 2.5 times faster, and now these people are saying that the nVidia's way or rehashing is good, good grieve!

Is true that the difference between 8x and 4x is small, but is more pronounced in ATi hardware because it has better Anti Aliasing quality with true sparse pattern, so overall the ATi FSAA image quality is better, but pretty much the same people which claims that the image quality difference is very small, also critizice ATi for not using the near perfect AF on nVidia hardware, but hey, in reality, the difference is small. "It's also questionable how often the difference between the ATi's vs nVidia AF quality would be noticeable in gameplay".

Believe me, if a card is very expensive to build, the less money the company gets, the less money is invested in new technology, and both, the company and the user gets affected by the lack of innovation and the lack of sales. Your point is null because if that was true, then we could by the GTX 280 for 99 bucks. AMD users will miss CUDA which is a nice feature, PhysX and stereo, but DirectX is what drives the market, so all those features will remain dormant like the DX10.1 and the tesselator, but a usable feature which ATi users enjoy which you didn't mention is the better 2D image quality and the better Video Playback quality and HD acceleration of VC-1 which nVidia doesn't have.

With such choices like you say will benefit only the brand loyal fans (nVidiots and fanATics alike) and the greedy companies which loves green money and that's all.
 

sourthings

Member
Jan 6, 2008
153
0
0
While this won't matter to everyone, and probably not even a very large minority. Part of my preference towards ATI at this point is that if it were not for the 4X00 series of cards, we would still be forced into outrageous prices from nvidia. Were it not for ATI introducing their cards, at the prices they did, NV would still be trying to charge us $650-$700 for a GTX 280, and $500-$550 for the GTX 260. Much like they charged $500-$600 for an 8800GTX from it's release, all the way until they released their new cards and so did ATI.

ATI arguably released products they could of priced higher than they did considering their performance. Looking at the 260, they could of priced the 4870 at $400-$450, and it still would of been a great deal, they could of priced it at the same price and it would still of sold, but granted nowhere near as well.

Obviously they did not necessarily do this for the good of all our wallets. But they had the foresight to develop fantastic products that directly compete with nvidia's lineup on an equal performance level, not allowing nvidia to claim better performance for their price, but were able to price them much cheaper than nvidia did, forcing NV to drop prices. That in my books, makes them get my money. NV would still be trying to rape my wallet if not for them.

Plus they took the performance crown with X2, and I like the bragging rights :beer: Another card which is priced $100 less than the GTX 280 initially was, yet performs a good 30-50% faster than the 280 does.
 

rjc

Member
Sep 27, 2007
99
0
0
Originally posted by: Zap
Everyone keeps saying that. Has anyone done a study of the BOM for a GT200 card? Anyone know what exactly TMSC charges for manufacturing chips for NVIDIA?
Just following up, have been hunting round trying to find some manufacturing cost, could not find anything official but its widely quoted on various groups(b3d, xtremesystems) that each die from TSMC costs around $5000.

For the GT200, there are 94 chips per board, so with 100% yield they each GT200 would cost $53. If the inquirer article was true and they are now getting 60% yield then each costs around $88. As well as the per die cost their is an up front cost to set up the production line.

Based on other published numbers(intel and amd) can guess at defect density see here for an example calculated by savantu half way down the page.

On the board costs is even vaguer, various people appear to have got info from AIBs indicating about $140 or so. This was back when the card was introduced, might have done a redesign later(ie for 8800gt i think they redid board from 10 layer to 6 layer to bring the cost down).

Just found this:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_quadro_cx_us.html
It has 192 sp's and a 384 bit bus. Maybe a 55nm gt200?
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: sourthings
While this won't matter to everyone, and probably not even a very large minority. Part of my preference towards ATI at this point is that if it were not for the 4X00 series of cards, we would still be forced into outrageous prices from nvidia.
So you think if NVIDIA was not beating them on performance, amd would not charge more for their cards? :laugh:

The only reason they had to take such a bath on the 48xx series is because the GT2XX was already out and so they had to dramatically drop the price. AMD is not a charity. In fact this price war has taken a terrible toll on AMD, they have just posted their 8th consecutive quarterly loss.

I can personally say I am very happy for the 48xx launch and price war. I got a GTX260 dirt cheap. Unfortunately I don't think AMD can afford to do this much longer.

I even considered a 4870 but it lacked in to many areas that I required (memory, folding@home, overclocking, etc.).
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: sourthings
While this won't matter to everyone, and probably not even a very large minority. Part of my preference towards ATI at this point is that if it were not for the 4X00 series of cards, we would still be forced into outrageous prices from nvidia.
So you think if NVIDIA was not beating them on performance, amd would not charge more for their cards? :laugh:

The only reason they had to take such a bath on the 48xx series is because the GT2XX was already out and so they had to dramatically drop the price. AMD is not a charity. In fact this price war has taken a terrible toll on AMD, they have just posted their 8th consecutive quarterly loss.

I can personally say I am very happy for the 48xx launch and price war. I got a GTX260 dirt cheap. Unfortunately I don't think AMD can afford to do this much longer.

I even considered a 4870 but it lacked in to many areas that I required (memory, folding@home, overclocking, etc.).
nVidia isn't anywhere near beating AMD in performance, AMD is way ahead right now in virtually every segment of the market.

AMD isn't "taking a bath" on the 48xx series, the margins are great the way that they are and this is where AMD had planned to price the cards in the first place. The HD 4850 and 4870 are both cheap to produce; only 512MB memory, 260mm^2 GPU, 256-bit, no need for an expensive cooler.

The company that was forced to lower prices was nVidia, not AMD. nVidia is the one selling what was supposed to be a $449 GTX 260 for $250 or less, and the one selling a $649 GTX 280 for $400 or less. AMD is selling the 4850 for under $200 and the HD 4870 at around the $250 price point. The one suffering in the price war is nVidia, not AMD.

AMD isn't the one to worry about in terms of finances. AMD is on the rebound in every market and they posted a solid operating income in Q3 largely because of how strong their GPU division is. And with 45nm coming their CPU division is going to get a boost as well. nVidia, on the other hand, is being forced to fight a price war with expensive hardware that they intended to sell for much higher prices. nVidia is taking a loss selling a GTX 260 for $200. AMD is not taking a loss selling an HD 4870 for $200. With products like Fusion and Larrabee on the horizon and AMD having such a strong lineup, I would be more concerned about nVidia's health than AMD's.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: Extelleron


nVidia isn't anywhere near beating AMD in performance, AMD is way ahead right now in virtually every segment of the market.
They have the top 2 single fastest GPUs with the core 216 and the 280GTX. Plus ATI fans made it very clear back in the day that "duct taping" 2 GPUs together is not acceptable.

AMD isn't "taking a bath" on the 48xx series, the margins are great the way that they are and this is where AMD had planned to price the cards in the first place. The HD 4850 and 4870 are both cheap to produce; only 512MB memory, 260mm^2 GPU, 256-bit, no need for an expensive cooler.
Do you have numbers to back this up? Nope. I can look at their finances and see that they are bleeding money faster than gold plated AOL disks.
The company that was forced to lower prices was nVidia, not AMD. nVidia is the one selling what was supposed to be a $449 GTX 260 for $250 or less, and the one selling a $649 GTX 280 for $400 or less. AMD is selling the 4850 for under $200 and the HD 4870 at around the $250 price point. The one suffering in the price war is nVidia, not AMD.
Gee I wonder why NVIDIA has been profitable 7 of the last 8 quarters and AMD has been 0 for 8.

AMD isn't the one to worry about in terms of finances. AMD is on the rebound in every market and they posted a solid operating income in Q3 largely because of how strong their GPU division is. And with 45nm coming their CPU division is going to get a boost as well. nVidia, on the other hand, is being forced to fight a price war with expensive hardware that they intended to sell for much higher prices. nVidia is taking a loss selling a GTX 260 for $200. AMD is not taking a loss selling an HD 4870 for $200. With products like Fusion and Larrabee on the horizon and AMD having such a strong lineup, I would be more concerned about nVidia's health than AMD's.
AMD is so heavily in debt they had to sell off the a chunk of the company to the middle east. They have not made a profit in over 2 years and they had to incur $billions in debt because of ATI.

Everything you stated was so far from reality, makes me wonder if you even know who AMD is.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Wreckage: "So you think if NVIDIA was not beating them on performance, amd would not charge more for their cards?"

Extelleron: "nVidia isn't anywhere near beating AMD in performance, AMD is way ahead right now in virtually every segment of the market."

Lets hold it right there for a minute guys. Are you both right? Are you both wrong?

How is it you both see things soooo differently in the exact same market?

You are both from Earth, yes?

Before you go any further, I would like to ask each of you to back up each ones claims just on this little matter.

Mind you, I don't care who is right and who is wrong here, I just am soo tired of the FUDDAGE.
And in the end, you both have to agree in one direction. Because there is only one direction.
So have at it, in a civil way.

Thanks in advance,

Keys
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY