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?
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.
Facebook
Twitter