5150Joker
Diamond Member
:thumbsup:
That's
part :heart: of his charm. :shocked:-where's the beef-
:thumbsdown: :light: :evil:
:thumbsup:
That's
part :heart: of his charm. :shocked:-where's the beef-
:thumbsdown: :light: :evil:
Bateluer
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2001
- 27,730
- 8
- 0
I fall to see the problem with the X1800XT. The card outperformed its competitors at release, despite being late to the market. And its refreshes in the X1900s and X1950s held onto the crown until the 8800 was released. And even now, the tw0 8800 cards that can outperform it, the GTX and GTS 640, cost significantly more.
How come no one rips on Nvidia for delaying the release of the 8600s? Some times I think people forget what life would be like if only 1 GPU manufacturer survived. 1000+ dollar graphics cards anyone?
How come no one rips on Nvidia for delaying the release of the 8600s? Some times I think people forget what life would be like if only 1 GPU manufacturer survived. 1000+ dollar graphics cards anyone?
Only when you're under the influence of a controlled substance. Otherwise it's all just meaningless gibber.
apoppin
Lifer
you seem to understand really well
:Q
for someone under the influence of AMD's brand-damaging FUD
where the HELL is r600?
:roll:
:thumbsdown:
nvidia ... clearly can deliver product ... they are *waiting* for AMD before they release their new GPUs ... unlike AMD ... *smart*
:thumbsup:
apoppin
Lifer
in case you Jr ATi Trolls don't remember Wendy's big ad"Originally posted by: 5150Joker
:thumbsup:
That's
-where's the beef-
:thumbsdown: :light: :evil:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2423864
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_the_beef%3F
so ... Where's the Beef?
:roll:
there isn't even a big fluffy bun ... just FUD and the ATi trolls doing the *Fud dance*
:music: nice shoes ... so outta style with the buckle ...:music:
:roll:
:laugh:
where the HELL is r600 ?
really
The relevant question isn't "where the HELL is r600?" The relevant question is, why does R600's delay seem to matter so much to so few? The only viable answer is that the few have lost all sense of perspective on their own value as consumers.
How large is R600/G80 market compared to the mainstream market? Do problems in one member of a vastly diversified and different product family automatically signal problems for the rest of the members of that family?
The answer to the first question, whether or not the people on this board want to admit it, is "damn small." The answer to the second question is, "not at all."
The money will be made in the mainstream segments. The compelling factor in nVidia's current dominance was the exceptional success of the 6600 & 7600 series relative to their ATI counterparts. The differences between nVidia and ATI high-end parts are almost insignificant when it comes to their impact on their respective companies' financials. What mattered was that the x700/x1600/x1650s were poor price/performance competitors when compared to their 6600/7600 counterparts. nVidia used 6800 variants to fill small gaps in price/performance where it made the most economic sense. ATI had to drop in x800/x850/x1800/x1900/x1950 variants into the mainstream segment in order to be competitive at all, undoubtedly with some effect on the products' profit margins.
The real battle here is between the 8600 series and AMD's midrange offering. All else is just a "big fluffy bun." In reality, it's just a bunch of purportedly 'grown men' squabbling over who gets the privilege of being 'right' about the cause for the delay.
How large is R600/G80 market compared to the mainstream market? Do problems in one member of a vastly diversified and different product family automatically signal problems for the rest of the members of that family?
The answer to the first question, whether or not the people on this board want to admit it, is "damn small." The answer to the second question is, "not at all."
The money will be made in the mainstream segments. The compelling factor in nVidia's current dominance was the exceptional success of the 6600 & 7600 series relative to their ATI counterparts. The differences between nVidia and ATI high-end parts are almost insignificant when it comes to their impact on their respective companies' financials. What mattered was that the x700/x1600/x1650s were poor price/performance competitors when compared to their 6600/7600 counterparts. nVidia used 6800 variants to fill small gaps in price/performance where it made the most economic sense. ATI had to drop in x800/x850/x1800/x1900/x1950 variants into the mainstream segment in order to be competitive at all, undoubtedly with some effect on the products' profit margins.
The real battle here is between the 8600 series and AMD's midrange offering. All else is just a "big fluffy bun." In reality, it's just a bunch of purportedly 'grown men' squabbling over who gets the privilege of being 'right' about the cause for the delay.
While the high end market may make a small percentage of their sales it does offer a much higher profit margin. It's also good for their reputation. "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday."
Blade - I agree absolutely. I don't think anyone would advocate giving up the high-end. I just don't think it's placed in its proper perspective on these boards.
What is the point of these boards then? To talk about how great the x700/x1600/x1650 v 6600/7600 battle was? No - this forum is here explicitly for the consumers who are interested in the high-end market and the latest and greatest technology. Also, I don't believe that the R600 delay will have as small an impact on AMD's financial performance as you seem to think. Obviously AMD isn't going to go under because of this delay, but I think it's valid to discuss the implications the delay will have on their place in the high-end graphics marketplace. Like it or not, without high-end cards there would be no such thing as the "midrange" cards you claim are the only important factor. I also think it's valid to question the marketing and PR associated with this launch on the part of AMD - again, IMO how they handle this situation is just another indicator of their long-term prospects in the discreet graphics marketplace. Bottom line, you can only have so many chances with consumers before they just don't trust you anymore.
The X1800XT was a failure BECAUSE of it's delay. What good is a GPU that is so late to the market that it is replaced in 3 months?
Yes, it was faster than the 7800GTX, but the 7800GTX had no competition for 8 months. The same thing is happening right now. R600 might smoke 8800GTX by 20%, but by the time it gets here, 8800GTX will have reigned supreme for an entire product cycle without any competition at all.
My problem with AMD/ATI is not the products they release, but they way they release them and overall how they run their company. I thought ATI would benefit from having AMD management, but so far it looks like AMD is coming down to ATI's level.
I know they're working on something, but it ticks me off the way they are trying to spin this whole situation. They keep telling us that nothing is wrong, no delays, very high performance, WHQL Vista drivers, but we still have no product! Why? So they can launch all the products at the same time? I call BS.
I actually want to see this card release because I am very much in the market for a high end video card. This X1900XTX just doesnt cut it at 1920x1200. Every day that passes I kick myself for not just jumping on G80 months ago when it had no competition because now I have to wait to see what R600 can do and then I'll probably end up waiting even longer to see what Nvidia counters with.
The problem with the X1800XT is how quickly it was replaced. Those who bought X1800XT's when they were $550 really got screwed when the X1900XT came out 3 months later and significantly outperformed it for an even lower price.
Lets put this into perspective. Let say America decides to build an autobahn with a 200mph speed limit and says it will be completed by 2010. A year later General Motors releases it's new car and says it will do 200mph. Many people buy it even though it's full potential will not be available for years. sure it has great acceleration on todays highway but besides that nothing else to offer. Six months before the highway opens Ford releases their car, and it too will do 200mph. Is ford really late to the party? I would say they arrived on time, and GM early. IS there anything wrong with this? no, maybe Ford would loose some sales but not a huge margin as most people continue to buy regular cars anyway.
Now replace GM and Ford with Nvidia and AMD, and 200mph with DX10. Yea AMD missed some sales but whats the point with no DX10 games? If you want faster performance buy now, otherwise wait till it's useful.
Now replace GM and Ford with Nvidia and AMD, and 200mph with DX10. Yea AMD missed some sales but whats the point with no DX10 games? If you want faster performance buy now, otherwise wait till it's useful.
I don't quite agree with your analogy. I went from a Geforce 7800GTX to a Geforce 8800GTS 640MB and since I am running a 30" monitor, the difference is like night and day. Now I can turn up all the 3d features so the IQ looks much better. I can also run games at the monitors native resolution which also makes it look much better.
Oh. I almost forgot to mention...I can actually play Flight Simulator X now
Obviously, this isn't about DX10 at all. No one is buying for DX10 because as you point out there are no games. But to say that G80 was released "too early" simply because it supports DX10 completely ignores the fact that it offers DX9 performance comparable to last-gen SLi - sometimes even more in higher resolutions. Right now DX9 performance is why people buy... DX10 is a bonus at this point. AMD isn't just missing out on "some sales"... not only are they not playing in the DX10 realm at all, but even worse they are locked out of the high-end DX9 market and have been for months now.
I really don't understand how or why anyone would try to spin this delay as a good thing for AMD and the release of G80 as a bad thing for nVidia.
Originally posted by: SexyK
Obviously, this isn't about DX10 at all. No one is buying for DX10 because as you point out there are no games. But to say that G80 was released "too early" simply because it supports DX10 completely ignores the fact that it offers DX9 performance comparable to last-gen SLi - sometimes even more in higher resolutions. Right now DX9 performance is why people buy... DX10 is a bonus at this point. AMD isn't just missing out on "some sales"... not only are they not playing in the DX10 realm at all, but even worse they are locked out of the high-end DX9 market and have been for months now.
I really don't understand how or why anyone would try to spin this delay as a good thing for AMD and the release of G80 as a bad thing for nVidia.
No one, and he didnt... I kind of agree with the analogy, except even for DX9, the 8 series completely blow everything else out of the water, but lets think about it... The real money maker comes with the 8600 series and stuff, and R600 will have a whole family by then, so AMD didnt loose THAT much
SexyK - not to be snarky, but the last time I checked, this was called a "video" forum, not a "high-end only for those who want to buy on the bleeding edge" video forum. Sure, the high-end equipment garners a lot of interest in this crowd. Nor am I implying that it is somehow not a fit topic for conversation. I was actually only implying that it represents a very small share of the market, and since many folks around here are in that small market segment they tend to forget that there is any other market segment, especially when criticizing a business decision by AMD or nVidia. By all means, talk away. Just remember that businesses do what they feel is in their best interests, even if that means antagonizing a small part of their customer base from time to time. I'd guess that the delay of the 8600 series is more disappointing to many mainstream consumers than any delay in R600.
Matt2 - of course you're free to call BS on the idea that R600 was delayed for the purpose of a joint launch. It may very well be BS. I don't think the facts support a de facto conclusion as yet, however. There aren't any DX10 games. The vast majority of gamers don't game at extreme resolutions like 19x12. What will make a difference in either AMD or nVidia's bottom line is having the fastest family of DX10 cards (the best value in each pricing segment) when compelling DX10 games become available. That will be later this year. If I'm AMD, I see no reason to tip my hand to nVidia right now, and give them plenty of time to refresh their lineup just as DX10 games become available. I'd want them behind the curve as long as possible right around that time. The same goes for nVidia. I think they'd be pleased as punch to see R600 out, so they know right now the bar they need to jump over with the G80 refresh. If they know that now, they've got plenty of time to tweak the refresh in time for any fall DX10 releases.
Personally, I just think DX10 timing issues are driving this delay more than anything. You're in a difficult position, without a doubt, but your situation is fairly rare in the grand scheme of things: you're willing to plunk down $500+ on a GPU in order to run current games at extreme resolutions, with the hope of good DX10 performance when those titles become available. Fairly common on AT video, not very common in the general consumer graphics market. If the first incarnations of G80 and R600 fail to perform to your expectations in must-have DX10 titles, you might very well choose to upgrade again. I see a lot of talk about that on these boards. That's just not the situation that most consumers find themselves in.
I'd like a new card to play Oblivion with--I purchased an x850xt after extensive research because it was the best price/performer at the time. It was a big jump from a 9700 pro, but, unfortunately, I'm just not satisfied with the visuals it provides. Oblivion has a lot more to offer. I'm not going to jump on an x1900/x1950 variant, however, because DX10 is around the corner. Nor do I believe that $350+ for a full 8800gts or above is money well spent without seeing any DX10 benchmarks whatsoever. I simply can't afford to plunk down $350+ just to run Oblivion like I want. If I spend that money, I need a little more evidence of longevity. There's never a lot of longevity in this business, but the 9700pro lasted me quite a while.
The real reason for the difficulty in both of our situations is the great unknown: DX10 performance. Will G80 and R600 be like the 9700pro and offer the best performance on the previous DX iteration as well as great performance on the next? No one knows yet. I suspect they will, but guessing and a $350-$600 purchase don't go hand in hand for me (they might for others).
I really, really, really want to see the 8600 benchmarks. I'd much rather get a midrange card that runs Oblivion really well, and just save my money until another game comes along that I have to have. I don't game that much, and the games I really want to play are few and far between. If the x850xt ran Oblivion as well as I'd like, I wouldn't care about this mess in the least, but it doesn't.
Good luck with the upgrade, btw. While there's always something better around the corner, I expect most of the angst we see here will be long gone once R600 and DX10 titles arrive. G80 and R600 refreshes aren't likely to produce more than a 10-20% boost in performance, and once DX10 games are benchmarked, everyone will have a decent idea what to expect from both players. Then we can make an informed purchasing decision.
Cheers.
Matt2 - of course you're free to call BS on the idea that R600 was delayed for the purpose of a joint launch. It may very well be BS. I don't think the facts support a de facto conclusion as yet, however. There aren't any DX10 games. The vast majority of gamers don't game at extreme resolutions like 19x12. What will make a difference in either AMD or nVidia's bottom line is having the fastest family of DX10 cards (the best value in each pricing segment) when compelling DX10 games become available. That will be later this year. If I'm AMD, I see no reason to tip my hand to nVidia right now, and give them plenty of time to refresh their lineup just as DX10 games become available. I'd want them behind the curve as long as possible right around that time. The same goes for nVidia. I think they'd be pleased as punch to see R600 out, so they know right now the bar they need to jump over with the G80 refresh. If they know that now, they've got plenty of time to tweak the refresh in time for any fall DX10 releases.
Personally, I just think DX10 timing issues are driving this delay more than anything. You're in a difficult position, without a doubt, but your situation is fairly rare in the grand scheme of things: you're willing to plunk down $500+ on a GPU in order to run current games at extreme resolutions, with the hope of good DX10 performance when those titles become available. Fairly common on AT video, not very common in the general consumer graphics market. If the first incarnations of G80 and R600 fail to perform to your expectations in must-have DX10 titles, you might very well choose to upgrade again. I see a lot of talk about that on these boards. That's just not the situation that most consumers find themselves in.
I'd like a new card to play Oblivion with--I purchased an x850xt after extensive research because it was the best price/performer at the time. It was a big jump from a 9700 pro, but, unfortunately, I'm just not satisfied with the visuals it provides. Oblivion has a lot more to offer. I'm not going to jump on an x1900/x1950 variant, however, because DX10 is around the corner. Nor do I believe that $350+ for a full 8800gts or above is money well spent without seeing any DX10 benchmarks whatsoever. I simply can't afford to plunk down $350+ just to run Oblivion like I want. If I spend that money, I need a little more evidence of longevity. There's never a lot of longevity in this business, but the 9700pro lasted me quite a while.
The real reason for the difficulty in both of our situations is the great unknown: DX10 performance. Will G80 and R600 be like the 9700pro and offer the best performance on the previous DX iteration as well as great performance on the next? No one knows yet. I suspect they will, but guessing and a $350-$600 purchase don't go hand in hand for me (they might for others).
I really, really, really want to see the 8600 benchmarks. I'd much rather get a midrange card that runs Oblivion really well, and just save my money until another game comes along that I have to have. I don't game that much, and the games I really want to play are few and far between. If the x850xt ran Oblivion as well as I'd like, I wouldn't care about this mess in the least, but it doesn't.
Good luck with the upgrade, btw. While there's always something better around the corner, I expect most of the angst we see here will be long gone once R600 and DX10 titles arrive. G80 and R600 refreshes aren't likely to produce more than a 10-20% boost in performance, and once DX10 games are benchmarked, everyone will have a decent idea what to expect from both players. Then we can make an informed purchasing decision.
Cheers.
Cutter - thanks; I just hope I don't offend anyone, that's not my intent. I'm a little cynical, I guess, and I don't immediately interpret "bad for me" as "bad for a company's business."
I think nVidia has been running their business better, and kicking the crap out of ATI on timing issues. Having even a 3-4 month lead on R&D and manufacturing is an unbelievable advantage in this market right now. Nearly every time ATI has come out with a non-high-end part, nVidia has a better one ready. The ultra-high end has been a bit more of a stalemate.
I think AMD needs to change that cycle, even if it means ticking off the enthusiast market for a few months. They cannot afford to let G80/G84/G86 refreshes beat their lineup just as DX10 games become available.
I think nVidia has been running their business better, and kicking the crap out of ATI on timing issues. Having even a 3-4 month lead on R&D and manufacturing is an unbelievable advantage in this market right now. Nearly every time ATI has come out with a non-high-end part, nVidia has a better one ready. The ultra-high end has been a bit more of a stalemate.
I think AMD needs to change that cycle, even if it means ticking off the enthusiast market for a few months. They cannot afford to let G80/G84/G86 refreshes beat their lineup just as DX10 games become available.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
You forgot the fact that the DX9(c) and earlier highways have no speed limits and you can drive that GM car at 200mph the day you drive it off the showroom floor.
apoppin
Lifer
sure the relevant question IS "where the HELL is r600?"
trying to cloud the issue is your job
:thumbsdown:
AMD is LATE [period]
and it makes them look *stupid* when they to explain it
their fans fare much worse
:roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter