Rumor of possible yield problems with the G71

[Munky]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Acanthus
If there were actually yield problems there would be a flood of midrange and low end cards based on the chips with bad quads.

Would the now-abandoned 7800gs fit somewhere in that category?

But if it's abandoned, wouldn't that mean they didn't have enuf failed chips?

Or maybe between the gtx512, the gtx and the gt there was not enough chips, period? At this point in time, I believe it costs them much less to producs a last gen 6800gs than a 7800gs, and if they launched a 7800gs, it would have to be priced at no more than $250, with the 7800gt possibly driving down prices closer to $200. That in turn would have pushed the prices of the 6800gs even lower, so in the end they probably decided they'd make more profit by just releasing the 6800gs for a solid $200 and keep the price at that level for a while.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: Rollo


What goes around comes around.

Back in the days of 5800/5900s vs 9700/9800s I would try to make the point (like 5150) that angle independent AF is inherently a bit better.

The ATI crowd would respond with "BS! We cannot see the difference!" or "It's too small to care- hail ATI for faster AF performance!"

Now in 7800 vs X1800/X1900 days, those who like X18-19 cards try to convince 7800 owners that angle independent AF is better, and 7800 owners say "BS! We cannot see the difference!"

There's nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes.

Agreed, but this goes both ways. One of the biggest selling points that people where making for the nvidia 6x series was sm3 support when there was virtially no sm3 titles available. This back and forth argument has been going on even when 3dfx was in business. Sometimes these features make a difference sometimes its just hype, either way if you want to accuse one group of this act then to be fair and balanced you must accuse both.

HDR+AA is a noce feature no doubt, but largely irrelevant in my eyes, on this level of cards. There are two games I know of that support it, one of those with a beta patch is two years old. Also, single cards AA+HDR seems pretty limited in resolution, so it's a bittersweet win at best. (much like HDR on first gen nVidia cards- nice to be able to check it out, but not a deal maker)

Where you one of those people pimping the sm3 feature before any sm3 title being available? If you did I wouldn't be surprized if you did the same with HDR. If in fact you actually did this then you just proved my point above by not pimping a ATi feature with the same amount of support that those nividia cards had at the time.

My $.02, hopefully "flame free".

Disclaimer: this is not an attempt to flame or single out Rollo, as this could be directed twards anyone that referenced sm3 or HDR as a selling point for the 6x or possibily the 7x series (or even Rollo's example above). I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of pots out there claiming that the kettle is black no matter if they are from the ATi or the nvidia camp.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: justly
Agreed, but this goes both ways. One of the biggest selling points that people where making for the nvidia 6x series was sm3 support when there was virtially no sm3 titles available. This back and forth argument has been going on even when 3dfx was in business. Sometimes these features make a difference sometimes its just hype, either way if you want to accuse one group of this act then to be fair and balanced you must accuse both.

I did- I'm saying the argument is the same, just the "sides" have switched.

Where you one of those people pimping the sm3 feature before any sm3 title being available? If you did I wouldn't be surprized if you did the same with HDR. If in fact you actually did this then you just proved my point above by not pimping a ATi feature with the same amount of support that those nividia cards had at the time.

I was but with a caveat:
I applauded the nV40 for giving developers the tools to bring displacement mapping, EXR HDR, soft stencil shadows, and geometry instancing into the world so we could have games that play them years earlier than we would have if this were left up to ATI.
I was saying we need to reward nVidia for bringing features like this to market, because without that, no games.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: linkgoron

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

Sure 750$ is a good deal? LOL.

Apparently you and your buddies are having trouble with the concept of could, allow me to assist:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/could

2. Used with hypothetical or conditional force: If we could help, we would.

If you actually understand "could", I can only assume you're trolling due to jealousy, hatred, or small manhood.

What I said was clear and valid, a $750 7900GTX that outperforms a $1000+ X1900XT Crossfire rig would be a bargain, for example?

If you have further difficulty understanding, feel free to PM me, if you're trolling, save the board your nonsensical babble.

 

[M0RPH]

The thing is Rollo, you're a video card snob and you probably like the idea of $750 video cards because it makes it more of an exclusive club. Some of us don't think that video cards should ever cost $750, no matter how super duper they are. Of course every new generation is going to be faster that the previous, maybe even faster than dual cards from the previous. That doesn't mean that the price needs to go up every generation. The high end price should stay the same and the previous gen prices should go down. The way to make that happen is to say no to these overpriced high end cards.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: linkgoron

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

Sure 750$ is a good deal? LOL.

Apparently you and your buddies are having trouble with the concept of could, allow me to assist:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/could

2. Used with hypothetical or conditional force: If we could help, we would.

If you actually understand "could", I can only assume you're trolling due to jealousy, hatred, or small manhood.

What I said was clear and valid, a $750 7900GTX that outperforms a $1000+ X1900XT Crossfire rig would be a bargain, for example?

If you have further difficulty understanding, feel free to PM me, if you're trolling, save the board your nonsensical babble.

You read my post? I didn't say it's about performance at all. It's about video cards generally. They're priced too high. Even if the G71 gets 300 FPS in FEAR.

And why was I trolling? Hatred? I didn't flame. I just said that 750$ isn't a good price.
The fact that ATis price doesn't make an overprices G71 any better IMO.

 

[Spectre27]

Ok i gotta say something..
i may be old, but in the 15 years of building gaming rigs i've always paid $500 for a video card.. and i'm not a snob.. (i don't buy a new card every year though)
i will say my next card will likly be an r580.. but with GDDR4
everyone seems to be missing the fact that the chip (& memory controller) is designed for it
and i expect it will answer nicely the G71
-complete with HDR+AA and better IQ
imho

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: justly
Agreed, but this goes both ways. One of the biggest selling points that people where making for the nvidia 6x series was sm3 support when there was virtially no sm3 titles available. This back and forth argument has been going on even when 3dfx was in business. Sometimes these features make a difference sometimes its just hype, either way if you want to accuse one group of this act then to be fair and balanced you must accuse both.

I did- I'm saying the argument is the same, just the "sides" have switched.

Where you one of those people pimping the sm3 feature before any sm3 title being available? If you did I wouldn't be surprized if you did the same with HDR. If in fact you actually did this then you just proved my point above by not pimping a ATi feature with the same amount of support that those nividia cards had at the time.

I was but with a caveat:
I applauded the nV40 for giving developers the tools to bring displacement mapping, EXR HDR, soft stencil shadows, and geometry instancing into the world so we could have games that play them years earlier than we would have if this were left up to ATI.
I was saying we need to reward nVidia for bringing features like this to market, because without that, no games.

So why not reward ATi for bringing back angle dependent AF and HDR+AA as well?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
The thing is Rollo, you're a video card snob and you probably like the idea of $750 video cards because it makes it more of an exclusive club. Some of us don't think that video cards should ever cost $750, no matter how super duper they are. Of course every new generation is going to be faster that the previous, maybe even faster than dual cards from the previous. That doesn't mean that the price needs to go up every generation. The high end price should stay the same and the previous gen prices should go down. The way to make that happen is to say no to these overpriced high end cards.

You and I can't change a market trend when people all over the world are willing to pay $750 for a video card.

We don't have to buy them for that though, we can settle with less performance.

What i have a problem with is people saying "video cards shouldn't cost that much because they never did before".

This is the way of life. Pickup trucks never cost $35,000 before, but they do now. 1400sq ft ranch homes in my area of the world never cost $250,000 before, but they do now, and if I want one, that's what I have to pay.

Me posting on the internet "Revolt against the high price of pickup trucks and ranch houses! Do not buy them!" will not change the fact that other people will, and the market will set the price.

I literally spent $1000s on PC hardware last year. I do not want the price of hardware to be high any more than you do.

I wish there was a $50 price cap on all pc parts.

I'm a realist however, and I know that there is a cost to bring a product to market, and that supply and demand will set the price, no matter what I say.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Drayvn
So why not reward ATi for bringing back angle dependent AF and HDR+AA as well?

Kudos to ATI for bringing back angle independent AF and introducing HDR+AA?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Of course most of my post is speculation, this is a rumor thread or did you not read the title? As for AF, nVidia Quality AF is terrible and I say this with 5+ months of experience with the 7800 GTX and having posted videos to document this. But when I mentioned HQ AF I was referring to angle independent AF which nVidia does not have.

What goes around comes around.

Back in the days of 5800/5900s vs 9700/9800s I would try to make the point (like 5150) that angle independent AF is inherently a bit better.

The ATI crowd would respond with "BS! We cannot see the difference!" or "It's too small to care- hail ATI for faster AF performance!"

Now in 7800 vs X1800/X1900 days, those who like X18-19 cards try to convince 7800 owners that angle independent AF is better, and 7800 owners say "BS! We cannot see the difference!"

There's nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes.

HDR+AA is a noce feature no doubt, but largely irrelevant in my eyes, on this level of cards. There are two games I know of that support it, one of those with a beta patch is two years old. Also, single cards AA+HDR seems pretty limited in resolution, so it's a bittersweet win at best. (much like HDR on first gen nVidia cards- nice to be able to check it out, but not a deal maker)

My $.02, hopefully "flame free".

The difference is that the nVidia cards could never run angle independent AF without a massive performance hit so thats why it was dismissed back in the day. I think now the way ATi has implemented angle independent AF with minimal perf. penalty, it's something nVidia really needs to match in both IQ and performance to stay competitive w/their next part. You remember the vids I posted of Quality AF settings on my GTX right? They highlighted how bad nVidia's implementation of AF was even compared to ATi Quality AF settings so both aren't even equal with angle dependent AF. That was the biggest gripe I had with my GTX, other than that it was a fantastic card.

HDR+AA looks really nice and you know like SM 3.0 it's a checkmark feature that nVidia needs to match now, especially wtih a refresh of a refresh (G71). Sorta like how people professed SM 3.0 during the 6800/X800 days even though there were and still are only a handful of SM 3.0 games.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

I'd have to disagree Rollo, no way would I ever think $750 is a "bargain" for any kind of card. I think even the $650 I paid for the XTX was a complete rip off and am disgusted by the rapid inflation of prices for vid cards. I realize nVidia/ATi are pouring more R&D dollars into these things but there's no way it costs that much, especially for cores they leverage across several product lines. I think ATi priced their products accordingly (XT anyway), they woudln't price them at a point where it would hurt their profit levels. Of course if they can get it in the range they did, they'll make money and gain market share so its a win-win situation.

 

[Ackmed]

ATi isnt giving us X1900XT's for $500, they have a $550 MSRP. Its just that there are actually a lot of cards available, so they are selling under the MSRP. All the $500 versions I have seen, are OEM, not retail. The $550 MSRP is for a retail card, so of course OEM's will be cheaper. GTX's dropped in price very fast after launch, I guess NV was worried about the X1800 and wanted to sell a lot before they came out? I doubt it. There was just a good supply, and as with all things that have good supply, the price drops. Some people are really stretching now days.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Rollo

HDR+AA is a noce feature no doubt, but largely irrelevant in my eyes, on this level of cards. There are two games I know of that support it, one of those with a beta patch is two years old. Also, single cards AA+HDR seems pretty limited in resolution, so it's a bittersweet win at best. (much like HDR on first gen nVidia cards- nice to be able to check it out, but not a deal maker)

I've told you this before but you just refuse to hear it and keep to your same story.

People do not buy high end cards solely for the games that are currently out. They buy the cards for the games that are coming out in the next year or two that they plan to have the card. There are a lot of people who can't afford to buy a high end card every year, so if they buy something like the 1900XT, they plan to keep it a couple years. You can get bet your ass there will be plenty of HDR-enabled games coming out in the next year or two.

(edit for typo)

Because nVidia brought EXR HDR to market in 2004 and developers have had time to implement it in games, and knowledge there would be a user base?

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

I'd have to disagree Rollo, no way would I ever think $750 is a "bargain" for any kind of card. I think even the $650 I paid for the XTX was a complete rip off and am disgusted by the rapid inflation of prices for vid cards. I realize nVidia/ATi are pouring more R&D dollars into these things but there's no way it costs that much, especially for cores they leverage across several product lines. I think ATi priced their products accordingly (XT anyway), they woudln't price them at a point where it would hurt their profit levels. Of course if they can get it in the range they did, they'll make money and gain market share so its a win-win situation.

This sums up what I was trying to say, but you didn't answer, so now someone agrees with me. Is he a troll?

 

[Demoth]

I will openly admit being biased more towards ATI then NVIDIA, however, I feel the need to defend what Rollo said which people are twisting into something else. He said a $750 COULD be a bargain DEPENDING ON PERFORMANCE.

There is no one that should logically disagree with this statement. If a single $750 card out performs any lesser cards running in SLI or crossfire and the combined cost for the SLI or crossfire cards was greater then $750, then anyone previously thinking of going the dual card route from scratch WOULD be getting a bargain going with a new $750 single card.

This is far different then if Rollo had said I think $750 for a new NVIDIA card will be a bargain as some here will try to twist his words to sound and use that against him ad nauseum in every discussion.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The difference is that the nVidia cards could never run angle independent AF without a massive performance hit so thats why it was dismissed back in the day. I think now the way ATi has implemented angle independent AF with minimal perf. penalty, it's something nVidia really needs to match in both IQ and performance to stay competitive w/their next part. You remember the vids I posted of Quality AF settings on my GTX right? They highlighted how bad nVidia's implementation of AF was even compared to ATi Quality AF settings so both aren't even equal with angle dependent AF. That was the biggest gripe I had with my GTX, other than that it was a fantastic card.

ATIs AF is a little better these days, but many reviews say image quality is roughly the same.

People aggrandize minutia in an effort to rationalize purchases and ameliorate the phenomenon of "buyer's remorse".

HDR+AA looks really nice and you know like SM 3.0 it's a checkmark feature that nVidia needs to match now, especially wtih a refresh of a refresh (G71). Sorta like how people professed SM 3.0 during the 6800/X800 days even though there were and still are only a handful of SM 3.0 games.

There's a LARGE difference between true SM 3 and HDR + AA:
SM3 is the MS standard. It's fairly likely many games will use it's features.

HDR+AA is a developer implemented, at developer cost, bonus feature that the tiniest possible percentage of the installed user base can use. History shows us that high end ATI specific features are not widely or readily adopted by the software community.

How many games have TrueForm? In 7500 days, how many games utilised triple textured pixels? How many games use ATI's latest texture compression?

The fact of the matter is that ATI specific features generally are stillborn, and even the guys at Rage3d have posted that more than once. ATI just doesn't seem to be willing to pay the devs to implement their features, so they go largely unnoticed.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: linkgoron

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

Sure 750$ is a good deal? LOL.
They're giving us the x1900XT at 500$ because that's the price for the seconds best card.
Maybe you forgot, but 500$ was 6800U's price. I don't remember, but I think that the 7800GTX's price was 550$? Bargain? 750$ ? a 50% price rise in a year and a half? WOOT!
even 650$ MSRP for the x1900XTX IS WAYYY too much.

thats how it is my friend....if you cant afford it, dont buy it. the prices are like this for many reasons, and judging by the 7800GTX 512 theres plenty of people out there to pony up the cash for a 700+ dollar card.

if i can sell my stuff for 700 (because people are buying it) im gonna sell my stuff at 700!

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
ATi isnt giving us X1900XT's for $500, they have a $550 MSRP. Its just that there are actually a lot of cards available, so they are selling under the MSRP. All the $500 versions I have seen, are OEM, not retail. The $550 MSRP is for a retail card, so of course OEM's will be cheaper. GTX's dropped in price very fast after launch, I guess NV was worried about the X1800 and wanted to sell a lot before they came out? I doubt it. There was just a good supply, and as with all things that have good supply, the price drops. Some people are really stretching now days.

Well put.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The difference is that the nVidia cards could never run angle independent AF without a massive performance hit so thats why it was dismissed back in the day. I think now the way ATi has implemented angle independent AF with minimal perf. penalty, it's something nVidia really needs to match in both IQ and performance to stay competitive w/their next part. You remember the vids I posted of Quality AF settings on my GTX right? They highlighted how bad nVidia's implementation of AF was even compared to ATi Quality AF settings so both aren't even equal with angle dependent AF. That was the biggest gripe I had with my GTX, other than that it was a fantastic card.

ATIs AF is a little better these days, but many reviews say image quality is roughly the same.

People aggrandize minutia in an effort to rationalize purchases and ameliorate the phenomenon of "buyer's remorse".

Well I'm speaking directly from experience. I don't know about other people but if I had buyers remorse, I wouldn't have ran out and upgraded from an XT to XTX yesterday Besides not all websites can be trusted, it was HardOCP that claimed there was no such thing as shimmering and people cited that as proof - then I posted those vids

HDR+AA looks really nice and you know like SM 3.0 it's a checkmark feature that nVidia needs to match now, especially wtih a refresh of a refresh (G71). Sorta like how people professed SM 3.0 during the 6800/X800 days even though there were and still are only a handful of SM 3.0 games.

There's a LARGE difference between true SM 3 and HDR + AA:
SM3 is the MS standard. It's fairly likely many games will use it's features.

HDR+AA is a developer implemented, at developer cost, bonus feature that the tiniest possible percentage of the installed user base can use. History shows us that high end ATI specific features are not widely or readily adopted by the software community.

The difference is that we are in an era of increasing demand for high image quality. That trend began with nVidia's introduction of EXR HDR which isn't part of SM 3.0. EXR HDR gained much accolades from the community and it was heavily advertised as a needed feature by nVidia 6800 users at the time (despite the low performance). The pressure was on ATi to top that feature and they have and now the ball is back in nVidia's court to match it or be labeled inferior.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

I'd have to disagree Rollo, no way would I ever think $750 is a "bargain" for any kind of card. I think even the $650 I paid for the XTX was a complete rip off and am disgusted by the rapid inflation of prices for vid cards. I realize nVidia/ATi are pouring more R&D dollars into these things but there's no way it costs that much, especially for cores they leverage across several product lines. I think ATi priced their products accordingly (XT anyway), they woudln't price them at a point where it would hurt their profit levels. Of course if they can get it in the range they did, they'll make money and gain market share so its a win-win situation.

Interesting.

When I was a kid, doctors charged $60-$70/hour for their time. Will you be charging that after med school because hourly doctor rates are too high? Why not? I think it's "disgusting" anyone could think their work is worth $150-$350 per hour.

When you prescribe anitbiotics for a stuffy nose will you review time be worth 5X what my Dr.s was then?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: linkgoron

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

Sure 750$ is a good deal? LOL.
They're giving us the x1900XT at 500$ because that's the price for the seconds best card.
Maybe you forgot, but 500$ was 6800U's price. I don't remember, but I think that the 7800GTX's price was 550$? Bargain? 750$ ? a 50% price rise in a year and a half? WOOT!
even 650$ MSRP for the x1900XTX IS WAYYY too much.

thats how it is my friend....if you cant afford it, dont buy it. the prices are like this for many reasons, and judging by the 7800GTX 512 theres plenty of people out there to pony up the cash for a 700+ dollar card.

if i can sell my stuff for 700 (because people are buying it) im gonna sell my stuff at 700!

People have paid $600+ for the novelty of owning a voodoo 5 6000 and other morons have paid thousands of dollars for William Shatners kidney stone. The same idiots dole out cash for high end cards while nVidia and their stock holders laugh it up all the way to the bank.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW- I think launch price of $750 could be a bargain, not necessarily a bad deal, depending on performance.

My guess is that ATI pretty much knows what nVidia has in the works as they share OEMs and FABs.

It's also my guess that ATI is pricing their products very aggressively at launch to try and sell some cards before March, because they realize they'll be beaten at the high end again then.

It would make some sense, I don't think ATI is giving us X1900XT performance for $500 because they don't want to make more money.

The cards perform on par and sometimes better than 512MB GTXs, and ATI has seen 512 GTXs selling at $800-$1000 a card, so they KNOW the market will bear the price up to a certain level of demand.

They could have easily started at $600, $700 and if you think they didn't because ATI is looking out for you- :roll:

I'd have to disagree Rollo, no way would I ever think $750 is a "bargain" for any kind of card. I think even the $650 I paid for the XTX was a complete rip off and am disgusted by the rapid inflation of prices for vid cards. I realize nVidia/ATi are pouring more R&D dollars into these things but there's no way it costs that much, especially for cores they leverage across several product lines. I think ATi priced their products accordingly (XT anyway), they woudln't price them at a point where it would hurt their profit levels. Of course if they can get it in the range they did, they'll make money and gain market share so its a win-win situation.

Interesting.

When I was a kid, doctors charged $60-$70/hour for their time. Will you be charging that after med school because hourly doctor rates are too high? Why not? I think it's "disgusting" anyone could think their work is worth $150-$350 per hour.

When you prescribe anitbiotics for a stuffy nose will you review time be worth 5X what my Dr.s was then?

Doctors are life savers, video cards are not. Furthermore doctors are prone to lawsuits for the smallest thing so they have to get very expensive medical malpractice insurance. If ya want lower doctor premiums, talk to the HMOs and then lobby to have legislation in place to reduce malpractice lawsuits. As for inflation of price, cost of living hasn't increased nearly enough to justify a $750+ video card. If this was the year 2020 I might agree with you but we're not there yet. National salary averages in the last 5 years have virtually remained static.

 

[Ronin]

Wow...that has to be about the most idiotic comparison I've ever seen.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Well I'm speaking directly from experience. I don't know about other people but if I had buyers remorse, I wouldn't have ran out and upgraded from an XT to XTX yesterday Besides not all websites can be trusted, it was HardOCP that claimed there was no such thing as shimmering and people cited that as proof - then I posted those vids

And yet many people never even notice the shimmering, which varies highly by game and in may does not exist at all. I have a small dent in the back corner of my boat that no one else ever notices, but my eye is drawn to it everytime I look at my boat. Moral: image quality is subjective.

The difference is that we are in an era of increasing demand for high image quality.

Really? How is now different than any other time? ATI specific features just don't enjoy a lot of implementation. If you disagree with this, please name 1 or 2 that did?

That trend began with nVidia's introduction of EXR HDR which isn't part of SM 3.0. EXR HDR gained much accolades from the community and it was heavily advertised as a needed feature by nVidia 6800 users at the time (despite the low performance). The pressure was on ATi to top that feature and they have and now the ball is back in nVidia's court to match it or be labeled inferior.

That was two years ago and I believe there are four HDR games? One of which is officially patched, one with a beta patch. At this rate, we'll all be old before we're playing many HDR+AA games?