Originally posted by: nRollo
Profits are down largely because margins are.
product quality (compare the look and feel of a 9800GTX+ to a 4850- the 4850 seems like something from days long gone)
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Phynaz
I also think discussing "less profits for NVIDIA" in a year where their main competitor decided slash the price of their high end product to 1999 levels in an effort to win back some marketshare is fairly pointless. Profits are down largely because margins are.
In other words Nvidia products are poor enough that Nvidia doesn't have pricing power. AMD has determined what Nvidia products sell for.
Not the best position to be in.
Hmmm. Or is it that NVIDIA products were good enough that AMD had to price their second place GPUs far below NVIDIA's first place GPUs to try and get some sales based on price, not performance?
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.
Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.
Originally posted by: ronnn
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.
To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Maybe the 9800 MUST exaust outside the case because it runs hot, while the 4850 doesn't need to.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Or maybe the 4850 is the hottest GPU in the world (and runs almost 50% hotter than the 9800GTX+) and it was just a bad choice
I'm not going to debate this any further- I realize the board has nothing to do with the chip, and vice versa.
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm pretty sure it ALSO has something to do with ATI selling more cards.
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company on Thursday reported a loss of $67 million
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm pretty sure it ALSO has something to do with ATI selling more cards.
Maybe, but AMD took yet another loss last quarter.
http://ap.google.com/article/A...csdvrrmfnPtRQD93RQP681
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company on Thursday reported a loss of $67 million
To be fair pretty much every single-slot card will dump heat into the case, as will any passively cooled video card. That?s the price you pay for not having active dual-slot cooling.Originally posted by: nRollo
The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: ronnn
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.
To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
Does that halo effect apply for NVIDIA because they have the highest performing GPU in the world?
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.
The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.
The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.
Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.
Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.
Here, see for yourself:
Which looks better to you?
Originally posted by: sourthings
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: ronnn
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.
To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
Does that halo effect apply for NVIDIA because they have the highest performing GPU in the world?
No, because you don't put a GPU in your video card slot, you put a video card, with a gpu(s) on the card, in it. And nvidia does not have the highest performing video card in the world.
To be fair, he didn't say highest performing video card. He said GPU, and he is correct.
And the whole comparison of the physical aesthetics of a 4850 vs a 9800gtx is laughable. Who cares, it's how the card performs. 4850s have no history of failing more than any other video card, so obviously their quality level is just fine.
Sure, sure. People care more about aesthetics than you realize. They even care about box art.
Don't ask me why. But, physical appeal or "perception" could play a role. Hold a 4850 in your left hand, and a 9800GTX in your right, and you tell me which card "feels" more expensive and which one feels cheap. I know it's in your interest to ignore all but performance in this particular mini discussion, but that's really not what is being talked about here.
You do a disservice to your job in promotions by grasping at straws so much.
Allrighty then. Feel free to add "High Road" to your sig. If you aren't in it, you might as well have the credit there if you are going to continue to single out Focus Group members with comments such as this. Because it doesn't seem like you put any effort into keeping things "un-personal" in any way, shape or form.
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.
The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.
The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.
Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.
Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.
Here, see for yourself:
Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way
For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.
The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.
The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.
Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.
Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.
Here, see for yourself:
Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way
For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
Yes, I can see how an advertised "800 shaders" would sound more appealing than "128 shaders" on the box.
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.
The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.
The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.
Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.
Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.
Here, see for yourself:
Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way
For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
Yes, I can see how an advertised "800 shaders" would sound more appealing than "128 shaders" on the box.
Cause they don't do a difference at all in heavy shaders game, right?
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
This has to be the most hilarious thread ever. Nrollo's pictures of both videocards, one with a fishing magazine beneath the videocard, one with the playboy's playmate of the month on the background. I mean, thats either just the lamest thing ever, or the best joke ever.
Also, keys, which consumers are going to a retailshop, and remove the videocards from their packaging, and then decide which one they want, based on one feeling more sturdy and looking 'better' ? You really are grasping at straws ... This thread should be closed though, it's offtopic as hell ...