Nvidia 270, 290 and GX2 roll out in November

[nRollo]

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.

Most misleading/untrue post ever.

4850 ~= 9800GTX+
GTX260 Core 216 ~=HD4870 1GB
GTX280>HD48701GB
4870X2>>GTX280

There's the $150-$550 price range, I see AMD "way ahead" in the Crossfire on a stick market only.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
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.

Yeah, that's swell how the 4850 is considerably hotter than all known cards and dumps all that heat right into your case.

The 4870 1GB keeps alive the Radeon HD 4000-series tradition of high GPU temperatures.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
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.

Errrrr...yeah. I'm sure AMD wanted to sell their fabs and another 10% of their company, not to mention go through their 8th straight quarter of losses. They're also probably ecstatic the combined value of AMD and ATi is hovering a little above half the value of NVIDIA.

I don't even get the point of posting stuff like this- not like we don't all read the same info and know it's all false.

 

[Zillatech]

I just hope that Nvidia makes the new cards a little shorter because the HD4870 is about the max I can fit in my case. That's why I can't even consider a GTX260 or 280 right now. I only have a choice of 4850 or 4870 now and I'm not thrilled with either. No one has come out with a decent cooler for the HD4870 that isn't extra large or extra loud & Nvidia's top end is just too damn big. I'm really wishing 40nm would get here a lot sooner!

Guess I'll have to stick with my 8800GTS (512) a little longer ~

I really hope Nvidia makes the most out of 55nm on the GTX series, if nothing else, I would like it to fit in my Mid-tower case.

 

[sourthings]

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.).

It's just not worth it with this guy. Someone should let him know the NV focus group is all full and he can't stop hoping and posting tripe all the time to paint NV the bestest.

GTX 260/280 released before 4870, 4870 released, was just as fast as 260, they priced it $200 less. What on earth are you talking about that NV forced them into a price war ? ATI forced NV to drop prices. If they wanted to price them higher, they could of and they would of sold.

4870X2 released and can be had for $550, it's 30-50% faster than a GTX280, and is priced cheaper than the 280 was at release.

But wait, yes. I could care less what you have to say now. Because you are some sort of nv fanatic, who will refute anything to try to stir the pot. Enjoy your 260, I can guarantee you NV lost money on the sale to you, whereas ATI made money on my 4870X2 purchase.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: sourthings

It's just not worth it with this guy. Someone should let him know the NV focus group is all full and he can't stop hoping and posting tripe all the time to paint NV the bestest.

Ah the ole pot calling the kettle black trick. :roll:

GTX 260/280 released before 4870, 4870 released, was just as fast as 260, they priced it $200 less. What on earth are you talking about that NV forced them into a price war ? ATI forced NV to drop prices. If they wanted to price them higher, they could of and they would of sold.

I forgot that AMD was some sort of video card charity, giving out cards as a non-profit organization. If the GTX2xx did not exist they would have sold the 48xx cards much higher. They would have been stupid not to. Unless you think they like losing money.

4870X2 released and can be had for $550,

What a rip off clearly they are gouging the customers, these cards should be no more than $30

 

[Extelleron]

I forgot that AMD was some sort of video card charity, giving out cards as a non-profit organization. If the GTX2xx did not exist they would have sold the 48xx cards much higher. They would have been stupid not to. Unless you think they like losing money.

They are a business and pricing the HD 4870 was a "sweet point" between acheiving good margins and selling a lot of units. Priced at $399 the HD 4870 would have been highly competitive, but priced at $299 it made a huge splash on the market and made the $399 GTX 260 look rediculous. nVidia was forced to lower prices, and selling a GTX 260 for $299 is not good for nVidia.

They are making plenty of money selling HD 4000 series cards at the current prices. Can't say the same for nVidia with $200 GTX 260s, $100 8800GTs, and $60 9600GSOs.

[Most misleading/untrue post ever.

4850 ~= 9800GTX+
GTX260 Core 216 ~=HD4870 1GB
GTX280>HD48701GB
4870X2>>GTX280

There's the $150-$550 price range, I see AMD "way ahead" in the Crossfire on a stick market only

You're missing a very crucial part of the equation - profitability. nVidia is competing right now, but with what and at what cost? AMD is competing with the HD 4870 at the $200-250 range with the GTX 260, but that product was intended to be sold in the $399-449 range, while the HD 4870 was intended to sell in the ~$250 range from the beginning. With a 576mm^2 GPU, 896MB GDDR3, 448-bit bus, expensive cooler, and taking vendor & retail markup into account, I can virtually guarantee that nVidia is not making money when they sell a GTX 260.

It's the same basic problem in the <$200 market. The 9800GTX+ vs. HD 4850 isn't too bad, the PCB/cooler costs are higher for nVidia, but chip/memory costs should be similar. But what about a $100 9800GT 512MB, or a $60 9600GSO? That $60 9600GSO is based on G92, a 324mm^2 chip. I'm pretty certain that nVidia isn't making a dime on either of those cards.

So overall, for the consumer.... nVidia is competitive right now. But is it sustainable/is it good business? Absolutely not. It's a bit like R600 was; competitive with the competition, but at the wrong price range.

I'm not saying that nVidia is finished, they will come back and they may even do it soon with the cards mentioned in the OP. If nVidia can replace the GTX 260 / 280 with the 270 / 290, which should be cheaper to produce, slightly faster, and consume less power/OC better, they will be in a better position both financially and in providing a good value to consumers. A GX2 variant will without a doubt beat the HD 4870 X2 because SLI continues to scale better than CF in a lot of games.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

You're missing a very crucial part of the equation - profitability.

I guess I'm missing it because as an end user this element of the equation means less to me than any other.


Never once have I considered whether something I was purchasing was "profitable" to the seller.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: nRollo

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.

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.

now THAT is how you argue for you team. are there any blind fanboys out there taking notes? argue intelligently and you'll make your point AND possibly get some converts.

sorry, rollo. back onto our discussion:

1. certainly the 4xxx is based upon previous gen, but it's not THE EXACT SAME CARD only with slightly higher clocks. 4xxx has 2.5 x tmus and 2.5 x shaders etc. that's hardly the exact same card with a different name dumped on it for marketing purposes.

2. it's amazing how when 8800gt was killing 3870 especially with AA enabled how important AA performance seemed to be to nvidia fans. Now, it's not so much, or it's only mentioned as "8xAA". While 4850 absolutely destroys 9800gtx(+) with 8xAA, it's still generally faster with 4xAA, too. The whole point of upper midrange + performance is to get a better gaming experience. Cranking up the AA provides that, leading us to point # 3:

3. The lower cost that amd has allows them to charge less for the card. Even assuming that their performance is generally close enough to be considered a tie, if you can find a 4850 for $139 and a 9800gtx+ for $169, if you're impartial you're probably going to get the 4850. Last time I checked the nvidia cards weren't selling as well as they had anticipated, so if they COULD drop their prices more to be more competitive then they certainly would.

The ancillary benefits of the two cards mean a LOT for some people but mean nothing for most. If you want a 2nd gpu for physx then 9800gtx is the card to get. If you somehow currently have or plan to amass a vast library of dx10.1 games then 4850 is a nobrainer. The superior cooling solution of the 9800gtx(+) is definitely an advantage for many users, but the single slot design of 4850 is an advantage for others. I personally prefer the dual slot cooling design that 3870 and 9800gtx have, I just didn't prefer it for $25 or so more money and for slightly less performance to boot.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Extelleron


They are a business and pricing the HD 4870 was a "sweet point" between acheiving good margins and selling a lot of units. Priced at $399 the HD 4870 would have been highly competitive, but priced at $299 it made a huge splash on the market and made the $399 GTX 260 look rediculous. nVidia was forced to lower prices, and selling a GTX 260 for $299 is not good for nVidia.

They are making plenty of money selling HD 4000 series cards at the current prices. Can't say the same for nVidia with $200 GTX 260s, $100 8800GTs, and $60 9600GSOs.

ATI (now AMD) has always lagged behind NVIDIA in profitability. AMD has not made a profit in 2 years (since buying ATI ironically).

Now I'm going to state this for the rest of the ATI fanboys like you.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO MAKE A VIDEO CARD!

I know a lot of people think they know exactly how much either company spends on making a card, but no one has proven it.

So until then I will go by financial results. As there is more to making a card than materials.

Based on those results I can say that AMD is hurting really, really, really bad by their 48xx sales (or lack there of).

Let's do a quiz, who is worth more NVIDIA or AMD?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Wreckage


Let's do a quiz, who is worth more NVIDIA or AMD?

This only matters to stockholders dude. We are end users. Why on earth should we care who is worth more? We are hardware enthusiasts (most of us), not financial analysts. So, can we just talk about the hardware, and leave the "business" to the corporations?

This goes out to Extelleron as well.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Wreckage


Let's do a quiz, who is worth more NVIDIA or AMD?

This only matters to stockholders dude. We are end users. Why on earth should we care who is worth more? We are hardware enthusiasts (most of us), not financial analysts. So, can we just talk about the hardware, and leave the "business" to the corporations?

This goes out to Extelleron as well.

Seeing as how you are basically an employee of one of the companies you probably do care.

My comments regarding worth, was in regard to profits, which was in regard to video card sales. True enough that has dragged things far off topic and I will just ignore Extelleron in this thread as it's going no where.

 

[Keysplayr]

Just the hardware bud. That is all that really matters for us when it comes to computers. Nobody should care about how a companies stock plummets or rises except investors. Not dudes and dudettes who are gamers and intrigued by hardware. Granted, there are some investors here and there on these forums, but let them worry themselves to death about a company's financial health.
Focus on the hardware, and the games we all enjoy playing.

The only money we should be concerned with, is bang per buck. And that is final, really.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995


now THAT is how you argue for you team. are there any blind fanboys out there taking notes? argue intelligently and you'll make your point AND possibly get some converts.

Heh- thanks for the kudos. :beer:

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
sorry, rollo. back onto our discussion:

1. certainly the 4xxx is based upon previous gen, but it's not THE EXACT SAME CARD only with slightly higher clocks. 4xxx has 2.5 x tmus and 2.5 x shaders etc. that's hardly the exact same card with a different name dumped on it for marketing purposes.

While this is true, I don't see how being a larger modification of previous gens is incentive to purchase given comparable performance at common settings, not necessarily differentiating performance at seldom used settings, huge heat difference, and lack of some proprietary features is in play.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
2. it's amazing how when 8800gt was killing 3870 especially with AA enabled how important AA performance seemed to be to nvidia fans. Now, it's not so much, or it's only mentioned as "8xAA". While 4850 absolutely destroys 9800gtx(+) with 8xAA, it's still generally faster with 4xAA, too. The whole point of upper midrange + performance is to get a better gaming experience. Cranking up the AA provides that, leading us to point # 3:

This is fairly misleading. First I don't know if it can be said the 4850 is "generally faster" at 4X. Most of the benches I've seen show these cards within 2-3 frames of each other either way, which would not be perceptible in gaming. That carries through to 8X AA to some extent, while the margins are larger here, and the 4850 always wins with 8XAA, the 9800GTX+ still offers playable performance in many 8XAA situations.

There's a HUGE difference between the 2900/3800 AA situation and this:
Running 4X AA vs no AA often results in a very large difference in image quality and level of immersion, so it was a very big deal the last two gens of ATi cards had such poor performance with AA enabled.

Running 8XAA vs 4XAA never results in a very large difference in image quality and level of immersion, it's a small improvement in IQ. (diminishing returns)

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
3. The lower cost that amd has allows them to charge less for the card. Even assuming that their performance is generally close enough to be considered a tie, if you can find a 4850 for $139 and a 9800gtx+ for $169, if you're impartial you're probably going to get the 4850. Last time I checked the nvidia cards weren't selling as well as they had anticipated, so if they COULD drop their prices more to be more competitive then they certainly would.

It could also be that vendors feel a card that runs almost 20C at load cooler, dumps the heat outside the case instead of into your cpu fan, has more flexible multi card drivers, CUDA, PhysX, and stereo is worth $30 more?

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
The ancillary benefits of the two cards mean a LOT for some people but mean nothing for most. If you want a 2nd gpu for physx then 9800gtx is the card to get. If you somehow currently have or plan to amass a vast library of dx10.1 games then 4850 is a nobrainer. The superior cooling solution of the 9800gtx(+) is definitely an advantage for many users, but the single slot design of 4850 is an advantage for others. I personally prefer the dual slot cooling design that 3870 and 9800gtx have, I just didn't prefer it for $25 or so more money and for slightly less performance to boot.

On this we agree.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Extelleron


They are a business and pricing the HD 4870 was a "sweet point" between acheiving good margins and selling a lot of units. Priced at $399 the HD 4870 would have been highly competitive, but priced at $299 it made a huge splash on the market and made the $399 GTX 260 look rediculous. nVidia was forced to lower prices, and selling a GTX 260 for $299 is not good for nVidia.

They are making plenty of money selling HD 4000 series cards at the current prices. Can't say the same for nVidia with $200 GTX 260s, $100 8800GTs, and $60 9600GSOs.

ATI (now AMD) has always lagged behind NVIDIA in profitability. AMD has not made a profit in 2 years (since buying ATI ironically).

Now I'm going to state this for the rest of the ATI fanboys like you.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO MAKE A VIDEO CARD!

I know a lot of people think they know exactly how much either company spends on making a card, but no one has proven it.

So until then I will go by financial results. As there is more to making a card than materials.

Based on those results I can say that AMD is hurting really, really, really bad by their 48xx sales (or lack there of).

Let's do a quiz, who is worth more NVIDIA or AMD?

Who cares who is worth more? Dubai investors just spent 8 billion dollars on a chunk of AMD - add 8B$ to AMD's net worth

Fact .. we can tell approximately how much it costs to make a video card.

And *fact* is, AMD is doing exceptionally well in the desktop segment, and they have significantly lower costs than Nvidia.

However do not miss this fact: AMD's growth in the desktop market does NOT hurt Nvidia's growth that much since they continue to dominate AMD in the notebook and professional markets.

---this has degenerated into one of the silliest "discussion" threads here in a long time

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Fact .. we can tell approximately how much it costs to make a video card.

And *fact* is, AMD is doing exceptionally well in the desktop segment, and they have significantly lower costs than Nvidia.

You just posted 2 lies as a "fact". I don't think I will ever be able to take you seriously.

Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card. Ohter wise I am flat out calling you a liar.

Also please link to how well AMD is doing on the desktop and a comparison of their costs compared to NVIDIA.

Good luck.... I know you are just making this stuff up and that's why I'm here to call you out on it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

Fact .. we can tell approximately how much it costs to make a video card.

And *fact* is, AMD is doing exceptionally well in the desktop segment, and they have significantly lower costs than Nvidia.

However do not miss this fact: AMD's growth in the desktop market does NOT hurt Nvidia's growth that much since they continue to dominate AMD in the notebook and professional markets.

You just posted 2 lies as a "fact". I don't think I will ever be able to take you seriously.

Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card. Ohter wise I am flat out calling you a liar.

Also please link to how well AMD is doing on the desktop and a comparison of their costs compared to NVIDIA.

Good luck.... I know you are just making this stuff up and that's why I'm here to call you out on it.

Don't confuse your personal inability to understand what i am actually saying with your fantasy of what you think i am saying. i added back what you left out of my context.

is that a threat to never take me seriously? like you ever did before?; i never cared about what YOU called me before and i will never care what your personal opinion is except perhaps to ridicule it. .. i never take anything you post seriously except to occasionally dispute or agree with it, as i feel like it

Are you still working on either your weak reading comprehension OR your strawman arguments and misrepresenting what i posted? i never see ANY facts from you or ANY links from you when your spew your own opinion; i don't see anything factual that YOU posted in this thread, nor ANY links


i cannot tell which personal issue you have, comprehension or deliberately putting false words in my mouth; as i factually stated that we do know APPROXIMATELY how much it costs to manufacture a videocard; at least i do - when i have time i will post a blog about it on my own site.

Everyone here but the most rabid Nvidia apologists know that 48x0 is less expensive to produce than Nvidia's more complex Tesla series - where much of Tesla's die is devoted to other than gaming performance.

And as i said, WHO friggin' CARES?; only Nvidia and its partners and AMD and theirs .. and do you ALSO want to dispute the part of my statement where i said Nvidia is doing better in the Pro market and with notebooks than AMD is?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card.

Still waiting. Like a politician you danced around the issue but you still did not back up your statement.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card.

Still waiting. Like a politician you danced around the issue but you still did not back up your statement.

For you

absolutely not

You *demand* that i meet standards you cannot begin to even approach

You call me a liar without justification or provocation

You never apologize when i explained or proved anything to you in the past

So to every reasonable poster on this board, i already explained about "my statement" - it is still up there unaltered by me and they can clearly see how you are trying to twist it for your own ends; worst of all, you apparently cannot comprehend even what i wrote already

No wonder everyone else ignores you

 

[Keysplayr]

Guys? The hardware?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Guys? The hardware?

What do you mean by "guyS"

i was singled out for making an opinion, several statements and i was called a liar - several times .. and it was the twisted version of my statement that was unjustly attacked - even after i tried to explain about "approximate" manufacturing costs..

i have been trying to stay on topic but it is hard to ignore personal attacks and character defamation when you are singled out by name


We are talking about Nvidia's coming product and i believe that Nvidia has certain advantages in the pro and notebook markets - over AMD as they spend time bringing Fusion to light - even though AMD may have other more readily apparent ones in desktop AtM

.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card.

Still waiting. Like a politician you danced around the issue but you still did not back up your statement.

For you

absolutely not

You *demand* that i meet standards you cannot begin to even approach

You call me a liar without justification or provocation

You never apologize when i explained or proved anything to you in the past

So to every reasonable poster on this board, i already explained about "my statement" - it is still up there unaltered by me and they can clearly see how you are trying to twist it for your own ends; worst of all, you apparently cannot comprehend even what i wrote already

No wonder everyone else ignores you

:laugh: Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card.

You just admitted you can't do it.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Guys? The hardware?

I'm fine with that, I just wish poppy would stop spreading false information and lies. It really brings the entire forum down.

As for the original topic I guess we only have to wait till next month to see what's up.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card.

Still waiting. Like a politician you danced around the issue but you still did not back up your statement.

For you

absolutely not

You *demand* that i meet standards you cannot begin to even approach

You call me a liar without justification or provocation

You never apologize when i explained or proved anything to you in the past

So to every reasonable poster on this board, i already explained about "my statement" - it is still up there unaltered by me and they can clearly see how you are trying to twist it for your own ends; worst of all, you apparently cannot comprehend even what i wrote already

No wonder everyone else ignores you

:laugh: Please link to the exact cost to design, manufacture and market each card.

You just admitted you can't do it.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Guys? The hardware?

I'm fine with that, I just wish poppy would stop spreading false information and lies. It really brings the entire forum down.

As for the original topic I guess we only have to wait till next month to see what's up.

Again

you are rude beyond what is normal

i wish you would stop spreading false information and lies about me .. it DOES bring the entire forum down when you single out a member for abuse and it is forbidden here.

i admitted *nothing* to you because i did not say what you are FALSELY claiming i said
:thumbsdown:

You are again using troll tactics and i appeal to the moderators to take action

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin


Again

you are rude beyond what is normal

i wish you would stop spreading false information and lies about me .. it DOES bring the entire forum down when you single out a member for abuse and it is forbidden here.

i admitted *nothing* to you because i did not say what you are FALSELY claiming i said
:thumbsdown:

You are again using troll tactics and i appeal to the moderators to take action

You were baiting. A troll tactic. I am not attacking you just this post...

Fact .. we can tell approximately how much it costs to make a video card.

And *fact* is, AMD is doing exceptionally well in the desktop segment, and they have significantly lower costs than Nvidia.

I asked you to post a link for these "facts".

I know you are just trying to draw me into a flame war to get the mods to side with you.... I tried to take it to PM, but you blocked that after sending me a nasty message. :roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin


Again

you are rude beyond what is normal

i wish you would stop spreading false information and lies about me .. it DOES bring the entire forum down when you single out a member for abuse and it is forbidden here.

i admitted *nothing* to you because i did not say what you are FALSELY claiming i said
:thumbsdown:

You are again using troll tactics and i appeal to the moderators to take action

You were baiting. A troll tactic. I am not attacking you just this post...

Fact .. we can tell approximately how much it costs to make a video card.

And *fact* is, AMD is doing exceptionally well in the desktop segment, and they have significantly lower costs than Nvidia.

I asked you to post a link for these "facts".

Look .. you called me a LIAR
-ME, not "just this post"

- and you did it before you asked me for ANYTHING

again .. i originally said we can APPROXIMATE how much it costs to make a video card; it has been calculated in the past and it will be done again. Approximately. Do you own research, rude one

i do not intend to respond to you with any more posts - or PMs - until i get an apology.

i do not like being called a liar. i do like to have words stuffed in my mouth and then be attacked again as a liar when i deny rightly that those twisted words of yours were ever mine .. they are NOT *my* words that you are attacking. Just your misreading of them; and it appears purposeful when the request for me to back anything up came along with the false accusation of "Liar"

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Look .. you called me a LIAR

- before you asked me for ANYTHING

again .. i said we can APPROXIMATE how much it costs to make a video card. it has been calculated in the past and it will be done again. Approximately. Do you own research, rude one

Give me those "approximate numbers" for both video cards and for "significantly lower costs than Nvidia. " and I will take it back. :beer:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

Look .. you called me a LIAR

- before you asked me for ANYTHING

again .. i said we can APPROXIMATE how much it costs to make a video card. it has been calculated in the past and it will be done again. Approximately. Do you own research, rude one

Give me those "approximate numbers" for both video cards and for "significantly lower costs than Nvidia. " and I will take it back. :beer:

i done with you - i am not compromising with you. Your rudeness to me - singling me out and calling me a liar; continuing what you told me before would be your own personal campaign to discredit me - precludes any further discussion with you.

The forum harmony will appreciate it as i no longer respond to ANY of your posts. Nor shall i read them.