R600 reviews at midnight EST?

[Sniper82]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

Not I, I'll quit gaming before I start paying even more crazier prices then they already are for a video card. I've been 4 months without a decent video card I can quit altogether at this point.

 

[bigsnyder]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

If that ever happens, then the consoles will reign supreme, and gaming on the PC platform
will die.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

Or you could just buy the GTX version instead of the Ultra and get 97% of the performance for 50% of the price.

Come on guys, give Nvidia credit where credit is due. They could have been charging $1000 for 8800GTX for the last 7 months while AMD sat there with their thumbs up their asses, but they didnt. They kept the prices reasonable desspite having 0 competing products from the competition.

I think a lot of you need to start putting the blame on AMD for high GPU prices instead of Nvidia.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

Or you could just buy the GTX version instead of the Ultra and get 97% of the performance for 50% of the price.

Come on guys, give Nvidia credit where credit is due. They could have been charging $1000 for 8800GTX for the last 7 months while AMD sat there with their thumbs up their asses, but they didnt. They kept the prices reasonable desspite having 0 competing products from the competition.

I think a lot of you need to start putting the blame on AMD for high GPU prices instead of Nvidia.

nvidia doesn't *care* to sell the ultra ... it is a "middle finger" to ATi

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

Or you could just buy the GTX version instead of the Ultra and get 97% of the performance for 50% of the price.

Come on guys, give Nvidia credit where credit is due. They could have been charging $1000 for 8800GTX for the last 7 months while AMD sat there with their thumbs up their asses, but they didnt. They kept the prices reasonable desspite having 0 competing products from the competition.

I think a lot of you need to start putting the blame on AMD for high GPU prices instead of Nvidia.

nvidia doesn't *care* to sell the ultra ... it is a "middle finger" to ATi

At its current price, I see the ultra as a middle finger to the consumers. Even a card as infamous as the 7800gtx-512 offered a better value, as ironic as it may seem.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

So assuming ATI's product is inferior to Nvidia on the GPU side, and Amd chip is inferior to Intel's on the CPU side you would still purchase all AMD components?

1) If everyone was like you, what incentive would amd/ati have to put out good products if people will purchase their so so ones?
2) If you're purchasing inferior products in fear of your wallet being violated in the future, don't worry about, ur wallet is being violated now.

Even if their products are fairly competitive with Nvidias/Intels, you're still rewarding AMD for overcharging for their 939 x2 products for all of 2006 and sitting on Athlon 64 tech for 2 years and rewarding ATI for being 7 months late.

 

[apoppin]

i don't agree, munky ... it is a *status* card ... nothing more .. nothing less

the people that desire *status* or must have the "best" - damn the costs - will buy this proud turkey

the other - more frugal buyers - will make a OC'd GTX perform to 95% of the ultra's spec.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

Or you could just buy the GTX version instead of the Ultra and get 97% of the performance for 50% of the price.

Come on guys, give Nvidia credit where credit is due. They could have been charging $1000 for 8800GTX for the last 7 months while AMD sat there with their thumbs up their asses, but they didnt. They kept the prices reasonable desspite having 0 competing products from the competition.

I think a lot of you need to start putting the blame on AMD for high GPU prices instead of Nvidia.

nvidia doesn't *care* to sell the ultra ... it is a "middle finger" to ATi

At its current price, I see the ultra as a middle finger to the consumers. Even a card as infamous as the 7800gtx-512 offered a better value, as ironic as it may seem.

Why was the 7800GTX 512MB "infamous?"

And I wouldn't call $600 for a videocard "reasonable." During launch week (or two), yeah sure, that's normal. But not for the months after that. Something is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. $600 is far from reasonable to me.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't agree, munky ... it is a *status* card ... nothing more .. nothing less

the people that desire *status* or must have the "best" - damn the costs - will buy this proud turkey

the other - more frugal buyers - will make a OC'd GTX perform to 95% of the ultra's spec.

Try getting a GTX to 720mhz on air and let me know how far you get. Some people are speculating that there is a link between the memory clock speed and the speed of the double-pumped shaders.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't agree, munky ... it is a *status* card ... nothing more .. nothing less

the people that desire *status* or must have the "best" - damn the costs - will buy this proud turkey

the other - more frugal buyers - will make a OC'd GTX perform to 95% of the ultra's spec.

Try getting a GTX to 720mhz on air and let me know how far you get. Some people are speculating that there is a link between the memory clock speed and the speed of the double-pumped shaders.

i dunno ... i doubt it ... anand's review called it a "waste"

the only thing the Ultra seems to have going for it is fast vRAM ...
and you can certainly get within a few percentage points of it with an OC'd GTX ...

less than +10% performance is not worth 40% more $$$ ... to the usual buyer
but then this is only for bragging rights ... and to pad nvidia's big fat margin

 

[Agent11]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

So assuming ATI's product is inferior to Nvidia on the GPU side, and Amd chip is inferior to Intel's on the CPU side you would still purchase all AMD components?

1) If everyone was like you, what incentive would amd/ati have to put out good products if people will purchase their so so ones?
2) If you're purchasing inferior products in fear of your wallet being violated in the future, don't worry about, ur wallet is being violated now.

Even if their products are fairly competitive with Nvidias/Intels, you're still rewarding AMD for overcharging for their 939 x2 products for all of 2006 and sitting on Athlon 64 tech for 2 years and rewarding ATI for being 7 months late.

If there was a huge performance hit I would feel differently perhaps but that isn't the case.
Also, Amd is very competitive in the mid-mid high segment right now and I like to stay a little ways off of the bleeding edge for most things.
P.S. No dx10 games, I feel no need to jump on a dx10 card at the moment. When R600 comes out I may get one a month or so later.

The point is, Amd has many very fine things on market for competitive prices.. And I would not like a world with only Intel and nVidia.

And for the guy saying that ATI's prices are horrible..
You can get a 1950 pro for pretty cheap if you shop around.
It's a good card, and if you aren't getting the performance you expect you may want to look at the rest of your system.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't agree, munky ... it is a *status* card ... nothing more .. nothing less

the people that desire *status* or must have the "best" - damn the costs - will buy this proud turkey

the other - more frugal buyers - will make a OC'd GTX perform to 95% of the ultra's spec.

If it was clocked by default higher than any other vendor OC'd gtx, then I could see it as the best. But currently, there's nothing better about it than those OC'd gtx's. Unless someone with more cash than brains buys into the whole mentality of "It costs more, so it must be better."

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't agree, munky ... it is a *status* card ... nothing more .. nothing less

the people that desire *status* or must have the "best" - damn the costs - will buy this proud turkey

the other - more frugal buyers - will make a OC'd GTX perform to 95% of the ultra's spec.

If it was clocked by default higher than any other vendor OC'd gtx, then I could see it as the best. But currently, there's nothing better about it than those OC'd gtx's. Unless someone with more cash than brains buys into the whole mentality of "It costs more, so it must be better."

yet - strangely - it beats those vendor OC'd GTXes ...

being even 1% faster makes it the *best*

they can ask whatever they want for it

are you jealous of people with more cash than brainy you?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Agent11
I've been using nothing but amd for every system I have built for a while now. .cpu/chipset/videocard.

They may not be on the bleeding edge right now, but nvidia is giving us a window into the future if amd leaves the video card business.
I don't know about you but I dont like the idea of shelling out 1k for a graphics card. .

You can bet your ass nvidia is feeling out the market, and if they think they can get away with it they will do it.
If ATI is out of the picture expect your wallet to be violated.

Or you could just buy the GTX version instead of the Ultra and get 97% of the performance for 50% of the price.

Come on guys, give Nvidia credit where credit is due. They could have been charging $1000 for 8800GTX for the last 7 months while AMD sat there with their thumbs up their asses, but they didnt. They kept the prices reasonable desspite having 0 competing products from the competition.

I think a lot of you need to start putting the blame on AMD for high GPU prices instead of Nvidia.

nvidia doesn't *care* to sell the ultra ... it is a "middle finger" to ATi

At its current price, I see the ultra as a middle finger to the consumers. Even a card as infamous as the 7800gtx-512 offered a better value, as ironic as it may seem.

Why was the 7800GTX 512MB "infamous?"

It's infamous because the supply was nowhere near the demad, which caused the street price of the card to go up as high as $1000, even though the MSRP was about $650. But at least that card offered a big performance gain over any other 7800gtx. The 8800u is just the opposite.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't agree, munky ... it is a *status* card ... nothing more .. nothing less

the people that desire *status* or must have the "best" - damn the costs - will buy this proud turkey

the other - more frugal buyers - will make a OC'd GTX perform to 95% of the ultra's spec.

If it was clocked by default higher than any other vendor OC'd gtx, then I could see it as the best. But currently, there's nothing better about it than those OC'd gtx's. Unless someone with more cash than brains buys into the whole mentality of "It costs more, so it must be better."

yet - strangely - it beats those vendor OC'd GTXes ...

being even 1% faster makes it the *best*

they can ask whatever they want for it

Sometimes it loses.

are you jealous of people with more cash than brainy you?

No way.

 

[apoppin]

Unless someone with more cash than brains buys into the whole mentality of "It costs more, so it must be better."

that gave me pause to question you ... that's all

and Ultra appears to 'win' more than it loses ... THAT makes it the *best*
... and in SOME people's minds - "worth buying"

as i am *cheap* i would tend to agree with you - for myself

but i know people who don't mind spending 10x the price to buy a 'name' that means *best*
-to them

wouldn't it be *ironic* if both of us bought this very card ... in about 18 months ... for $200 as best bang-for-buck ... then
:shocked:

you never know ... i ended up with a 9800XT and a P4EE ... all "way-overpriced" at launch