This whole R600/G80 benchmarks thing is nonsense.

[coolpurplefan]

I think the cards that will sell the most are the ones that offer the best performance for the price and also working drivers for Vista (and other operating systems).

The race for the higher end card has gotten so silly it doesn't make sense. Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT. This is crap and they should know we won't fall for that. Why do they think everyone is retarded? Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card! I won't even pay $300 CDN! I'll be paying something around $250 CDN at the most. Better yet, I'd aim for under $200 CDN but would only go over that if I really can't resist a card at $250 CDN (That might be like $215 US.)

 

[swtethan]

Some people are willing to pay for high end cards.

Nvidia wants to steal ATI's thunder.

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
I think the cards that will sell the most are the ones that offer the best performance for the price and also working drivers for Vista (and other operating systems).

The race for the higher end card has gotten so silly it doesn't make sense. Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT. This is crap and they should know we won't fall for that. Why do they think everyone is retarded? Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card! I won't even pay $300 CDN! I'll be paying something around $250 CDN at the most. Better yet, I'd aim for under $200 CDN but would only go over that if I really can't resist a card at $250 CDN (That might be like $215 US.)

Good point I will not fall for the R600.....

 

[humanure]

If there were no high end cards, the mid range would be high end

 

[HannibalX]

Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card!

Me either. I paid $175.00 for my X1950 Pro. Thats about as high as I will go.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
I think the cards that will sell the most are the ones that offer the best performance for the price and also working drivers for Vista (and other operating systems).

The race for the higher end card has gotten so silly it doesn't make sense. Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT. This is crap and they should know we won't fall for that. Why do they think everyone is retarded? Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card! I won't even pay $300 CDN! I'll be paying something around $250 CDN at the most. Better yet, I'd aim for under $200 CDN but would only go over that if I really can't resist a card at $250 CDN (That might be like $215 US.)

The thing is, it seems that an "Ultra" 8800 is not going to be needed. And, who can't get 612MHz out of there GTX core eh? and with a Five Hundreths of a volt modification, 2200MHz GDDR3 is almost guaranteed. So basically, everyone who currently owns an 8800GTX, owns a 8800 Ultra. Done. Actual 8800 Ultra is not needed against the R600. Or so it would seem.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan

Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT.

Sure, sure... now where's this alleged XTX?

 

[Dainas]

ATI could still very easily eat Nvidia's lunch in the midrange, all they would have to do is release a 256bit DX10 card with decent performance nd HD playback support for less than $200 and they would have it.

Am halfhearted about these benchmarks is that there's always the chance that there was a major driver screwup. If not ATI is effectively dead in the top end as a R600 core at 850mhz running these drivers won't save the XTX. I don't think the HD2900xt will be cheap enough to manufacture that they will end up as bargains against the 8800GTS, but the XT could still do well with OC'd variants.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card!

Me either. I paid $175.00 for my X1950 Pro. Thats about as high as I will go.

Problem is, those cards aren't capable of running games at the resolutions I require.

This is at only 1680x1050, what will the situation be like in a year when I step up to a 24in panel?

400 to 450 is my top price for video cards though, and the performance has to justify it.

 

[coolpurplefan]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
I think the cards that will sell the most are the ones that offer the best performance for the price and also working drivers for Vista (and other operating systems).

The race for the higher end card has gotten so silly it doesn't make sense. Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT. This is crap and they should know we won't fall for that. Why do they think everyone is retarded? Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card! I won't even pay $300 CDN! I'll be paying something around $250 CDN at the most. Better yet, I'd aim for under $200 CDN but would only go over that if I really can't resist a card at $250 CDN (That might be like $215 US.)

Good point I will not fall for the R600.....

I believe the X1950 Pro is now dominating.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Dainas
ATI could still very easily eat Nvidia's lunch in the midrange, all they would have to do is release a 256bit DX10 card with decent performance nd HD playback support for less than $200 and they would have it.

You know, that's very true and possible. Nvidia has been known for the best bang-for-buck midrange cards lately, but perhaps ATI will switch that around...with Nvidia taking the best performance crown?

Who knows.

I'm too poor to spend more than $100 on a video card.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
I think the cards that will sell the most are the ones that offer the best performance for the price and also working drivers for Vista (and other operating systems).

The race for the higher end card has gotten so silly it doesn't make sense. Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT. This is crap and they should know we won't fall for that. Why do they think everyone is retarded? Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card! I won't even pay $300 CDN! I'll be paying something around $250 CDN at the most. Better yet, I'd aim for under $200 CDN but would only go over that if I really can't resist a card at $250 CDN (That might be like $215 US.)

you DO know IF AMD could do this to nvidia they would

the "performance crown" IS *critically* important to both companies ... it ultimately translates to sales of the big money makers to OEMs and end users ....

therefore This whole R600/G80 benchmarks thing is *not* nonsense
-- it is dead serious and worth many many millions of dollars

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card!

Me either. I paid $175.00 for my X1950 Pro. Thats about as high as I will go.

Problem is, those cards aren't capable of running games at the resolutions I require.

This is at only 1680x1050, what will the situation be like in a year when I step up to a 24in panel?

400 to 450 is my top price for video cards though, and the performance has to justify it.

*Holds his CRT in arms*

I wanted to move to the LCD Widescreen world a few weeks ago, but then I realized that the GPU's needed to run my games at the LCD's native resolution along with 8x to 16x A-F and maybe some A-A would have to be high-end, which I cannot afford. Heck the LCD itself is $150 less than the suggested price for the HD 2900XT ! How ridiculous. So I'll stay with my CRT, which allows me to play my games at 1024x768, or 1280x960, or even 800x600 if I really want to, so I can buy myself the mid-range cards and see them perform as good as an high-end part would at higher resolutions, problem solved.

 

[apoppin]

and what do you do when it *dies* ?



buy another CRT

my 19" CRT died after 7 years

... and i am SO glad i kept my x1950p to run my current LCD at middlin' 14x9 that i bought to replace it
[btw, WS IS nice ]

 

[Zenoth]

When my CRT will die I'm pretty sure that the 8800/8900 GTX and the HD 2900XT/XTX will all be priced so low that I'll be able to finally afford one. My CRT is a LG Flatron F900B, it's three years-old only, and it functions as well today as it did the very first day I opened it. I doubt that it'll "die" before another three or four years, at least. Heck I still have my old CRT I used with my 486, the screen is scratched and isn't very clean, but it still works fine if I had to use it, it wouldn't be a problem, and it's now at least 6 years-old.

 

[aka1nas]

More realistically, Zenoth, by the time your CRT dies LCD scaling technology should have improved to the point that most LCDs shouldn't look like too bad displaying lower resolutions.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: apoppin
and what do you do when it *dies* ?



buy another CRT

my 19" CRT died after 7 years

... and i am SO glad i kept my x1950p to run my current LCD at middlin' 14x9 that i bought to replace it
[btw, WS IS nice ]

It all depends on the quality of the CRT.

My main Philips 109P20 crt is still going strong, looks as good as the day it was purchased. I expect it to last a lot longer yet.

I have a Commodore 1084S monitor as well, purchased at the same time I purchased my Amiga 500 (1987). It is still going and in regular use (make great video monitors). The company behind the Commodore nametag was also Philips.

 

[HannibalX]

I have a 22" LCD now and run 1680x1050 with no problems. All my games run max details at a min of 50 fps. If I went to a 19x res I may have problems though.

 

[5150Joker]

I could never go back to CRT after having used a 37" WS LCD.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan Hell, I'm not paying $350 US for a graphics card! I won't even pay $300 CDN! I'll be paying something around $250 CDN at the most. Better yet, I'd aim for under $200 CDN but would only go over that if I really can't resist a card at $250 CDN (That might be like $215 US.)

so then why even worry about how the cards that sell for over $250CDN perform?

why whine about what ppl are saying about them if you have no interest in them whatsoever...

 

[coolpurplefan]

I'm not worrying about the cards. And I don't care if people chat about the benchmarks.

What I'm pointing out is that I think it's a total farce a pure PR (public relations) for these companies to release the kind of information they want, when they want. I just think these moves imply that they think we're unbelievably stupid and we don't know what's going on. Come on, a SOFT LAUNCH to impress people with benchmarks? Come on.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
I'm not worrying about the cards. And I don't care if people chat about the benchmarks.

What I'm pointing out is that I think it's a total farce a pure PR (public relations) for these companies to release the kind of information they want, when they want. I just think these moves imply that they think we're unbelievably stupid and we don't know what's going on. Come on, a SOFT LAUNCH to impress people with benchmarks? Come on.

Truth is always hard to digest. ATi fans are in shock...anyway ignorance is bliss.

 

[terentenet]

We havent really seen R600 benchmarks yet. Perhaps it's not that bad, perhaps it will give 8800GTX a run for its money. Perhaps it will beat it in all benchmarks. Or perhaps not. Let's not make an assessment over this "G80 is better than R600". NDAs were not lifted yet, surprises may come.
Let's wait and see more benchmarks from different sources. Only then we may say who won the high-end market.

8800 Ultra? A speed bumped GTX, or that's what I was led to believe. I would have been more interested if they mentioned extra shader units. That's where power is.
As a poster above said, all GTX owners can volt mod their cards and reach Ultra speeds. Just have it cooled properly. Water recommended i'd say.

When will 8900GTX come out? I believe it won't be long, it's been 6 months since 8800 is out. 8900 cards should be ready and testing by now. That's really what I'm waiting for. More shader units, higher clocked, lower process; 80nm or even 65nm.
What do we know? Nvidia said G80 is capable of 512bit memory interface. 8900 might bring that to us, forced by R600.

 

[hans007]

i seriously doubt most people care that much about the vista thing. both of them will work at least somewhat even if nvidia's drivers arent perfect. not to mention, most people are not even running vista. by the time most people upgrade to vista the drivers will be perfect.

so.... i really doubt vista has any effect at all on these cards now.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
Now Nvidia is the one that decided to come out with the SPECS (not the card as this is a soft launch for Nvidia) of the 8800 Ultra on May 2. You know what this means? It means they don't have the card ready for shipment but simply want to brag about the specs and benchmarks the very same day ATI is coming out with their XT.

I'd think the opposite. NV must have been piling up the best G80 dice in store to counter R600. They do have the cards but just like 7800 GTX 512, these will be available in limited quantity, and will just be a stop-gap until 7900s show up.

The first half of year 2007 will be remembered in GPU history. It's obvious that NV vs AMD rivalry has been over, or will be in a very different shape in the future. I also think NV has begun relocating their resources from '3D gaming on PC' to somewhere else. I'd say it's a bad time for 3D, but we never know how things will span in the future.

But for the time being, gamers won't benefit from fierce competition between AMD and NV. 8800 GTX prices haven't changed since launch, and neither do 7900 series cards for a long time. Hell, even 7600 GT price is the same as almost a year ago. The only price drops have been 8800 GTS (640/320) and I'd think it's basically because of supply > demand.

On the other hand, as far as CPU market is concerned, I haven't seen (or even imagined) anything like this. E4300 can be had for as low as $115, and most (if not all) will overclock to X6800 level, which is a $1K CPU.