why won't nvidia drop their prices?

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: v8envy
And then there's Linux. ATI's drivers for Linux are simply terrible. I did some hardware shuffling last night with the end result of fglrx on an ATI AGP. It's still broken beyond description. Unbelievable amount of flickering with flash (ironic naming, that) with a composited desktop. And that's just for starters.

For me there is some value in not needing a reboot to play games. I'd settle for second fastest while more expensive if it meant I don't have to reboot my machine twice a day. If it wasn't for NV's latest bout of lock-in madness, that is.

ATi has been doing much better with their Linux support on modern drivers and cards, but it is as terrible as ever on their legacy drivers and old cards.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I will say right now and go ahead and quote me on this so you can reference it later: Fermi will not take the performance crown when it launches.

How do you know? Are you guessing, hoping, or have actual facts that you are under NDA and can't tell us?

We should keep this quote handy so in case Fermi takes the performance crown it will be SIG worthy.

It won't take the performance crown if Hemlock (HD5870x2) is already out, that's what he means I think

About the prices of high end nV cards, I believe they will see a drop when Windows 7 releases or soon after. But we'll see.

That is exactly what I mean.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: happy medium
The same reason you buy a Corvette instead of a Mustang. If you have the money to buy, you buy the best name in reliability and performance. Even though some of us know better, overall the Nvidia name still like a Corvette. Most buyers outside of enthusiast forums like this still go with the product that is traditionally the best, Nvidia. [/L]

But nvidia hasn't traditionally been the best since the Geforce4 series. ATI's have performed better and had better driver support since then. Nvidia's are more like Volkswagens. Check any game tech support forum in the last 8 years, there are many more problems with nvidia cards than ATI. You are always trying to find out which drivers work best. With ATI, you just download the latest. If you have any problems.

One developer made a comment about the slogan Nvidia has in games. He said Nvidia was always there to help make the game work on their hardware, tweaking things and updating drivers and whatnot. Which is great and all... but the game just always worked on ATI. They didn't need ATI's help with anything. ATI only falls behind in marketing.

Wow, so 2-3x more nvidia users have problems over ATI users... Oh wait there's 2-3x more nvidia users overall than ATI... not so impressive now... I've been issue free just downloading the newest nvidia drivers, and I've seen plenty of threads in various forums over the years about which cats to use and having to revert back to old cats. They both have their issues, but larger number of complaints that corelates with larger market share isn't really a strike against nvidia.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: happy medium
The same reason you buy a Corvette instead of a Mustang. If you have the money to buy, you buy the best name in reliability and performance. Even though some of us know better, overall the Nvidia name still like a Corvette. Most buyers outside of enthusiast forums like this still go with the product that is traditionally the best, Nvidia. [/L]

But nvidia hasn't traditionally been the best since the Geforce4 series. ATI's have performed better and had better driver support since then. Nvidia's are more like Volkswagens. Check any game tech support forum in the last 8 years, there are many more problems with nvidia cards than ATI. You are always trying to find out which drivers work best. With ATI, you just download the latest. If you have any problems.

One developer made a comment about the slogan Nvidia has in games. He said Nvidia was always there to help make the game work on their hardware, tweaking things and updating drivers and whatnot. Which is great and all... but the game just always worked on ATI. They didn't need ATI's help with anything. ATI only falls behind in marketing.

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

I think the 7800/x1800 series was a push.

Now the 7900 series I also remember droves of people buying a 7900gt.
Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

Overall it seems if you want the fastest you went Nvidia. If you wanted almost as fast and to pay less you went Ati.

Think of this if you went out and bought a 4890 for 180/200$ in the past few months (its only been out 6), chances are your spending more money to upgrade to this generation. Wheres the value? If I paid 350$ for a gtx 280 a year and a half ago and want to upgrade now, I enjoyed 4890 speeds for a year more for 150/180$. It all equals out in the end.
4870/gtx260 was a push.
The 4850 was a good value for the money but if you had a 8800 gts/gtx from 3 years ago (and many did) it was no upgrade.

If most of what I was saying was not true how do you explain the Nvidia dominance in sales and market share. Are all these people just fanboys who buy there cards? I think not.
I'm in know way saying that Ati hasn't been competative but except for the 9700 pro they just seem 1 step behind. Mabe with the 5800 series they will keep the performance edge but I think the gt300 will be much faster although late. Mabe Nvidia wants to play Ati's game and always come late and faster? Who knows.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: happy medium


If most of what I was saying was not true how do you explain the Nvidia dominance in sales and market share. Are all these people just fanboys who buy there cards? I think not.
I'm in know way saying that Ati hasn't been competative but except for the 9700 pro they just seem 1 step behind. Mabe with the 5800 series they will keep the performance edge but I think the gt300 will be much faster although late. Mabe Nvidia wants to play Ati's game and always come late and faster? Who knows.

I agree with most of what you said, but I highly doubt Nvidia is releasing late by choice.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: happy medium


If most of what I was saying was not true how do you explain the Nvidia dominance in sales and market share. Are all these people just fanboys who buy there cards? I think not.
I'm in know way saying that Ati hasn't been competative but except for the 9700 pro they just seem 1 step behind. Mabe with the 5800 series they will keep the performance edge but I think the gt300 will be much faster although late. Mabe Nvidia wants to play Ati's game and always come late and faster? Who knows.

I agree with most of what you said, but I highly doubt Nvidia is releasing late by choice.

I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I agree that Ati caught them off gaurd this round but mabe like me Nvidia really didn't see a market for these superfast cards untill windows 7 and some direct x 11 games get released. I guess the 5800 series is good for multi- monitor setups and 2500x1600 resolution but how many people have that? 5%?
What games really don't play well @ 1650x1050 or 1920x1080 (the resolutiuon that most gamers play at) with current high end cards?

I think you get my point.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: happy medium
If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.

Since nVidia was born, it was always better than ATi until the 9700PRO which was much faster than any GeForce FX could ever be.

The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The X800XT was already faster than the 6800 Ultra, so that's why they released the 6800 Ultra Extreme which was slower than the X800XT PE.

Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

The X1950XTX was barely faster than the X1900XTX because it wasn't bandwidth starved, the X1900 since it was released was always on par with the 7900 series and in newer games, it took a command lead over the 7900GTX because of its better architecture.

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

While the GTX 280 was faster overall, the HD 4870 had the 90% of its performance by less than a half of the GTX 280 price, and the competition for the GTX 280 was the HD 4850X2 which was faster overall by a considerably margin.

If most of what I was saying was not true how do you explain the Nvidia dominance in sales and market share. Are all these people just fanboys who buy there cards? I think not.
I'm in know way saying that Ati hasn't been competative but except for the 9700 pro they just seem 1 step behind. Mabe with the 5800 series they will keep the performance edge but I think the gt300 will be much faster although late. Mabe Nvidia wants to play Ati's game and always come late and faster? Who knows.

AMD had the performance lead for more than 3 years with the Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 compared to the Pentium 4, but never gained enough market share, so is just a matter of brand name and nVidia definitively is more popular in branding. If ATi was never able to snatch much of nVidia's market share with their succesful R300, R4x0, R580 and RV770 series, I don't think that will ever happen unless if they invest in marketing propaganda like Get In The Game, Sweeptakes etc.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: happy medium
If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.

Since nVidia was born, it was always better than ATi until the 9700PRO which was much faster than any GeForce FX could ever be.

The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The X800XT was already faster than the 6800 Ultra, so that's why they released the 6800 Ultra Extreme which was slower than the X800XT PE.

Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

The X1950XTX was barely faster than the X1900XTX because it wasn't bandwidth starved, the X1900 since it was released was always on par with the 7900 series and in newer games, it took a command lead over the 7900GTX because of its better architecture.

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

While the GTX 280 was faster overall, the HD 4870 had the 90% of its performance by less than a half of the GTX 280 price, and the competition for the GTX 280 was the HD 4850X2 which was faster overall by a considerably margin.

If most of what I was saying was not true how do you explain the Nvidia dominance in sales and market share. Are all these people just fanboys who buy there cards? I think not.
I'm in know way saying that Ati hasn't been competative but except for the 9700 pro they just seem 1 step behind. Mabe with the 5800 series they will keep the performance edge but I think the gt300 will be much faster although late. Mabe Nvidia wants to play Ati's game and always come late and faster? Who knows.

AMD had the performance lead for more than 3 years with the Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 compared to the Pentium 4, but never gained enough market share, so is just a matter of brand name and nVidia definitively is more popular in branding. If ATi was never able to snatch much of nVidia's market share with their succesful R300, R4x0, R580 and RV770 series, I don't think that will ever happens unless if they invest in marketing propaganda like Get In The Game, Sweeptakes etc.

No comment on the 6800gt,7900gt 8800gt sales and popularity and dominance? And 8800 series dominance?
If your gonna post please try to look at all the statements ,not just pointing out the few Ati positives.

In a nut shell Nvidia has been the performance leader regardless of price.
I said it once and seen others say it "you pay a premium for the high end" and Nvidia owns the highend in my eyes untill now.

Now excuse me while I put my flamesuit on and prepare for the fireworks:

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: happy medium

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The 6800GT was the bang for the buck card, that's why it sold like hotcakes (plus the fact that it was faster than the X800 Pro). It was a great card for the money. The X800XT and X850XT were overall faster than the 6800 Ultra though. I tested the X800XT PE version and a 6800GT@Ultra speeds and the Radeon was faster across the games I tested.

The only time SM3.0 ever came up was being able to run HDR in FarCry.

I think the 7800/x1800 series was a push.

When launched the two were neck and neck, but after a month or two the X1800XT was the faster card by a decent margin. Of course the 512MB 7800GTX launched and beat the X1800XT but it was pretty much non-existent except for Rollo and few other people.

Now the 7900 series I also remember droves of people buying a 7900gt.
Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

Funny, I remember a ton of people running out to buy the X1900 series cards. Overall they were faster than the 7900 series and that lead only grew when the X1950 series launched ~6 months later.

The G80 definitely gave Nvidia the lead for quite a while. The 2900XT was ATI's most pathetic launch since I was paying attention. The 8800GT was another great bang for the buck card. 85% the performance of the 8800GTX for 1/2 the price.

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

The GTX280 was the fastest out until the 4870X2 launched 2 months later.

Overall it seems if you want the fastest you went Nvidia. If you wanted almost as fast and to pay less you went Ati.

I'd agree with that statement if you look back only as far as the G80 vs. 2900 series until Sept. 21, 2009.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: happy medium

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The 6800GT was the bang for the buck card, that's why it sold like hotcakes (plus the fact that it was faster than the X800 Pro). It was a great card for the money. The X800XT and X850XT were overall faster than the 6800 Ultra though. I tested the X800XT PE version and a 6800GT@Ultra speeds and the Radeon was faster across the games I tested.

The only time SM3.0 ever came up was being able to run HDR in FarCry.

I think the 7800/x1800 series was a push.

When launched the two were neck and neck, but after a month or two the X1800XT was the faster card by a decent margin. Of course the 512MB 7800GTX launched and beat the X1800XT but it was pretty much non-existent except for Rollo and few other people.

Now the 7900 series I also remember droves of people buying a 7900gt.
Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

Funny, I remember a ton of people running out to buy the X1900 series cards. Overall they were faster than the 7900 series and that lead only grew when the X1950 series launched ~6 months later.

The G80 definitely gave Nvidia the lead for quite a while. The 2900XT was ATI's most pathetic launch since I was paying attention. The 8800GT was another great bang for the buck card. 85% the performance of the 8800GTX for 1/2 the price.

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

The GTX280 was the fastest out until the 4870X2 launched 2 months later.

Overall it seems if you want the fastest you went Nvidia. If you wanted almost as fast and to pay less you went Ati.

I'd agree with that statement if you look back only as far as the G80 vs. 2900 series until Sept. 21, 2009.

Ok fastest single card. Sorry
Then the 4870x2 got its ass handed to it by the gtx295 5 months later. And the gtx285 was launched to futher the single gpu dominance.
It took a underpriced 4890 and a ton of rebates for the 4890 to become competative with even the gtx275. Personally I think the 4890 is and was a great card for the money but is a little late.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=12764&Itemid=1

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: happy medium
Ok fastest single card. Sorry
Then the 4870x2 got its ass handed to it by the gtx295 5 months later. And the gtx285 was launched to futher the single gpu dominance.
It took a underpriced 4890 and a ton of rebates for the 4890 to become competative with even the gtx275. Personally I think the 4890 is and was a great card for the money but is a little late.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=12764&Itemid=1

Yeah, and the cycle continues. Ati and Nvidia have traditionally traded places being the fastest. Only in few cases like the r300 or the g80 has one side really dominated the other. Saying Nvidia has generally been better or faster is just false.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: happy medium
Ok fastest single card. Sorry
Then the 4870x2 got its ass handed to it by the gtx295 5 months later. And the gtx285 was launched to futher the single gpu dominance.
It took a underpriced 4890 and a ton of rebates for the 4890 to become competative with even the gtx275. Personally I think the 4890 is and was a great card for the money but is a little late.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=12764&Itemid=1

Yeah, and the cycle continues. Ati and Nvidia have traditionally traded places being the fastest. Only in few cases like the r300 or the g80 has one side really dominated the other. Saying Nvidia has generally been better or faster is just false.

I agree with the trading places part.

I still think Nvidia as a whole in the past 7 years or so has generally been the better and more popular company. Besides the fx5800 dustbuster ,its been fairly consistant.

Until, if and when Nvidia fails then Amd gets my money. Unless Amd pulls off a G80 series ,my money stays where the consistant performance and drivers are.(not saying Amd's drivers or performance sucks)

In other words I'll stay with whats been working for me till Nvidia screws me. And to stay within topic is why I'll pay a little more for a Nvidia card and might be a reason for Nvidia not needing to lower their prices.
Even though I think they should.:thumbsup:

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: happy medium

I agree with the trading places part.

I still think Nvidia as a whole in the past 7 years or so has generally been the better and more popular company. Besides the fx5800 dustbuster ,its been fairly consistant.

More popular sure, they have ~2/3 of the market. Better company? That is debatable.

Until, if and when Nvidia fails then Amd gets my money. Unless Amd pulls off a G80 series ,my money stays where the consistant performance and drivers are.(not saying Amd's drivers or performance sucks)

In other words I'll stay with whats been working for me till Nvidia screws me. And to stay within topic is why I'll pay a little more for a Nvidia card and might be a reason for Nvidia not needing to lower their prices.
Even though I think they should.:thumbsup:

I am amazed that poor drivers is STILL used as an excuse to not buy Radeon cards. Being that you have never used an ATI card (at least that's what I can assume from your post), how would you know if the drivers are inconsistent?


To each their own in regards to which company they want to buy from, but my personal opinion is that buying from just one company because you just kinda like them, even though they charge more money for the same performance, is rather short-sighted. I mean that in regards to whatever competitive market you want to talk about.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: happy medium

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The 6800GT was the bang for the buck card, that's why it sold like hotcakes (plus the fact that it was faster than the X800 Pro). It was a great card for the money. The X800XT and X850XT were overall faster than the 6800 Ultra though. I tested the X800XT PE version and a 6800GT@Ultra speeds and the Radeon was faster across the games I tested.

The only time SM3.0 ever came up was being able to run HDR in FarCry.

I think the 7800/x1800 series was a push.

When launched the two were neck and neck, but after a month or two the X1800XT was the faster card by a decent margin. Of course the 512MB 7800GTX launched and beat the X1800XT but it was pretty much non-existent except for Rollo and few other people.

Now the 7900 series I also remember droves of people buying a 7900gt.
Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

Funny, I remember a ton of people running out to buy the X1900 series cards. Overall they were faster than the 7900 series and that lead only grew when the X1950 series launched ~6 months later.

The G80 definitely gave Nvidia the lead for quite a while. The 2900XT was ATI's most pathetic launch since I was paying attention. The 8800GT was another great bang for the buck card. 85% the performance of the 8800GTX for 1/2 the price.

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

The GTX280 was the fastest out until the 4870X2 launched 2 months later.

Overall it seems if you want the fastest you went Nvidia. If you wanted almost as fast and to pay less you went Ati.

I'd agree with that statement if you look back only as far as the G80 vs. 2900 series until Sept. 21, 2009.

Ok fastest single card. Sorry
Then the 4870x2 got its ass handed to it by the gtx295 5 months later. And the gtx285 was launched to futher the single gpu dominance.
It took a underpriced 4890 and a ton of rebates for the 4890 to become competative with even the gtx275. Personally I think the 4890 is and was a great card for the money but is a little late.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=12764&Itemid=1

Ass handed to it? You need to read up on history a bit. The GTX 295 was in general slightly faster than the 4870x2(No more than 5-10%). The 4870x2 was still faster than the GTX 295 in several games. The GTX 295 was always over $100 more expensive than the 4870x2.

The 4890 was always on par with the GTX 275. The fact that it was just as good but cheaper is what made it the superior card. If the cards were priced the same, people would NOT choose the GTX 275 over the 4890, they would be about 50/50. The 4850x2 was cheaper than the GTX 280 and faster than the GTX 285 ever since they have all been out. To people who have been informed, there was never a reason to buy the GTX 285, it was never a good card for its price and performance segment.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: happy medium

I agree with the trading places part.

I still think Nvidia as a whole in the past 7 years or so has generally been the better and more popular company. Besides the fx5800 dustbuster ,its been fairly consistant.

More popular sure, they have ~2/3 of the market. Better company? That is debatable.

Until, if and when Nvidia fails then Amd gets my money. Unless Amd pulls off a G80 series ,my money stays where the consistant performance and drivers are.(not saying Amd's drivers or performance sucks)
In other words I'll stay with whats been working for me till Nvidia screws me. And to stay within topic is why I'll pay a little more for a Nvidia card and might be a reason for Nvidia not needing to lower their prices.
Even though I think they should.:thumbsup:

I am amazed that poor drivers is STILL used as an excuse to not buy Radeon cards. Being that you have never used an ATI card (at least that's what I can assume from your post), how would you know if the drivers are inconsistent?


To each their own in regards to which company they want to buy from, but my personal opinion is that buying from just one company because you just kinda like them, even though they charge more money for the same performance, is rather short-sighted. I mean that in regards to whatever competitive market you want to talk about.

I never said Amd drivers were poor. I meant I know from experience that Nvidia drivers work for me consistantly. Please read it again.

I don't or won't buy from just one company just because i like em. On the other hand if one company does me good then it will take a g80 product or really nice prices at the right time at the right performance for me to switch to a compeditor. Fair enough?

Right now I'm waiting for the 5770 or Nvidia equivilent to upgrade my 8800gt.
Say the 5770 comes in at 180$ and the equally performing gt350 comes in at 195$. I'll buy the gt350. Now if the 5770 comes in at 180$ and the gt350 comes in at $220 at comparable performance. I'll be happy to jump ship.:beer:

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: dguy6789


The X1800 wasn't any later than Fermi is going to be.

You left it out because it sucked. Besides Fermi will most likely crush the competition. The x1800 was an epic failure.

X1800 was NOTHING compared to that UTTER PIECE OF SH!T called GeForce FX 5800 that debuted with 128-bit memory bus and got immediately CRUSHED by the RULING, long-shipping 9700 Pro.

If someone wants to see THE #1 EPIC FAILURE in VGA history it's still Nvidia's GeForce FX 5800, that is.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: happy medium

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The 6800GT was the bang for the buck card, that's why it sold like hotcakes (plus the fact that it was faster than the X800 Pro). It was a great card for the money. The X800XT and X850XT were overall faster than the 6800 Ultra though. I tested the X800XT PE version and a 6800GT@Ultra speeds and the Radeon was faster across the games I tested.

Correct, my X800XT PE pretty much owned everything NV had released back then.

Same goes to X1900XT vs 7900 and I never had to buy into X1950.

Then came the 8800GTX 768MB and I ruled all games again...

...then came 4870...

... and since the early days of this year my 4850X2 2GB is still going strong and I'm pretty sure it will work just fine until 5850X2 2GB launches...

... unless NV shows up something faster for the same price (sub-$400) or less.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: happy medium

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

The 6800GT was the bang for the buck card, that's why it sold like hotcakes (plus the fact that it was faster than the X800 Pro). It was a great card for the money. The X800XT and X850XT were overall faster than the 6800 Ultra though. I tested the X800XT PE version and a 6800GT@Ultra speeds and the Radeon was faster across the games I tested.

The only time SM3.0 ever came up was being able to run HDR in FarCry.

I think the 7800/x1800 series was a push.

When launched the two were neck and neck, but after a month or two the X1800XT was the faster card by a decent margin. Of course the 512MB 7800GTX launched and beat the X1800XT but it was pretty much non-existent except for Rollo and few other people.

Now the 7900 series I also remember droves of people buying a 7900gt.
Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

Funny, I remember a ton of people running out to buy the X1900 series cards. Overall they were faster than the 7900 series and that lead only grew when the X1950 series launched ~6 months later.

The G80 definitely gave Nvidia the lead for quite a while. The 2900XT was ATI's most pathetic launch since I was paying attention. The 8800GT was another great bang for the buck card. 85% the performance of the 8800GTX for 1/2 the price.

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

The GTX280 was the fastest out until the 4870X2 launched 2 months later.

Overall it seems if you want the fastest you went Nvidia. If you wanted almost as fast and to pay less you went Ati.

I'd agree with that statement if you look back only as far as the G80 vs. 2900 series until Sept. 21, 2009.

Ok fastest single card. Sorry
Then the 4870x2 got its ass handed to it by the gtx295 5 months later. And the gtx285 was launched to futher the single gpu dominance.
It took a underpriced 4890 and a ton of rebates for the 4890 to become competative with even the gtx275. Personally I think the 4890 is and was a great card for the money but is a little late.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=12764&Itemid=1

Ass handed to it? You need to read up on history a bit. The GTX 295 was in general slightly faster than the 4870x2(No more than 5-10%). The 4870x2 was still faster than the GTX 295 in several games. The GTX 295 was always over $100 more expensive than the 4870x2.

The 4890 was always on par with the GTX 275. The fact that it was just as good but cheaper is what made it the superior card. If the cards were priced the same, people would NOT choose the GTX 275 over the 4890, they would be about 50/50. The 4850x2 was cheaper than the GTX 280 and faster than the GTX 285 ever since they have all been out. To people who have been informed, there was never a reason to buy the GTX 285, it was never a good card for its price and performance segment.

Ok I retract the ass handed statement. OK the gtx295 was faster then the 4870x2 and retook the performance crown no matter what the price.

I never said the 4890 was not on par with the gtx275.
I never said it was not a good card.
The 300$+ 4850x2 was a nice card but I remember it having driver problems at first. It was only made by like 2 vendors. Yes it was faster then the gtx 280 but it was 2 cards and launched too late in my opinion. If you already had a gtx280 there was no good reason to upgrade to a 4850x2 at that time.
I not gonna debate you in every single aspect of every single card released. Jeez

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: dguy6789


The X1800 wasn't any later than Fermi is going to be.

You left it out because it sucked. Besides Fermi will most likely crush the competition. The x1800 was an epic failure.

X1800 was NOTHING compared to that UTTER PIECE OF SH!T called GeForce FX 5800 that debuted with 128-bit memory bus and got immediately CRUSHED by the RULING, long-shipping 9700 Pro.

If someone wants to see THE #1 EPIC FAILURE in VGA history it's still Nvidia's GeForce FX 5800, that is.

fx 5800 followed real close by the 2900 series. I agree

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Malak
But nvidia hasn't traditionally been the best since the Geforce4 series. ATI's have performed better and had better driver support since then. Nvidia's are more like Volkswagens. Check any game tech support forum in the last 8 years, there are many more problems with nvidia cards than ATI. You are always trying to find out which drivers work best. With ATI, you just download the latest. If you have any problems.

One developer made a comment about the slogan Nvidia has in games. He said Nvidia was always there to help make the game work on their hardware, tweaking things and updating drivers and whatnot. Which is great and all... but the game just always worked on ATI. They didn't need ATI's help with anything. ATI only falls behind in marketing.

I don't know if I'd say that ATI has performed better or had better driver support than nVidia but ATI has improved tremendously over the years. Aside from the hiccup of the underpowered (compared to the competition) Radeon 2xx0 and 3xx0 series and the late cards which I believe were the 1800 series.

As for games just working on ATI hardware...ATI has its fair share of issues with games as well. I would definitely not say either company has run away with the award as far as quality goes. I'd say it's somewhat of a wash. Suffice to say each company has had its ups and downs.

nVidia has performed amazingly well from a market share standpoint but ATI has had it's fair share of decent performers even if the market hasn't embraced them. The 4xx0 series was definitely a winner for ATI even if it didn't show up in sales numbers. I think it did get ATI back in the game. We're all expecting nVidia's Fermi to beat ATI but if it doesn't do so convincingly in the main area that counts, games, then I think we'll see the tide shift a bit and see ATI gain back some market share. GPGPU is great and all, and I see the nVidia fanboys touting it, but most people here buy video cards to game on and not encode video.

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: happy medium
Ok fastest single card. Sorry
Then the 4870x2 got its ass handed to it by the gtx295 5 months later. And the gtx285 was launched to futher the single gpu dominance.
It took a underpriced 4890 and a ton of rebates for the 4890 to become competative with even the gtx275. Personally I think the 4890 is and was a great card for the money but is a little late.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=12764&Itemid=1

Yeah, and the cycle continues. Ati and Nvidia have traditionally traded places being the fastest. Only in few cases like the r300 or the g80 has one side really dominated the other. Saying Nvidia has generally been better or faster is just false.

The problem is the nVidia fanboys who constantly claim nVidia has been kicking ATI's rear as far as how well the cards perform. If you want to argue financial state and market share then yeah, ATI is getting it's rear end handed to them. There's always this memory wipe whenever they recall anything bad that nVidia has done or the flops nVidia has had but every single fault of ATI, perceived or not, gets magnified beyond belief.

 

[Leyawiin]

I imagine Nvidia not dropping prices is similar to AMD not dropping prices on the PII's in the wake of the new i5/i7 CPUs. Maybe they can't?

 

[djnsmith7]

If Nv felt compelled to drop the price, they would. Since they don't, they won't, until they feel the need to. Just because it doesn't satisfy us, the consumer, doesn't mean it's not a smart business decision. If they were that worried about it, they'd be reading these forums every day & base their decisions on what we like & don't like. That will never happen. In the meantime, we have other, more cost-effective options, like the new 5870 cards.

I agree, the GTX295 should be $399 by now.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: dguy6789


The X1800 wasn't any later than Fermi is going to be.

You left it out because it sucked. Besides Fermi will most likely crush the competition. The x1800 was an epic failure.

In terms of maximum performance?

Maybe.


In terms of performance per dollar?

Not a chance.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: happy medium
The same reason you buy a Corvette instead of a Mustang. If you have the money to buy, you buy the best name in reliability and performance. Even though some of us know better, overall the Nvidia name still like a Corvette. Most buyers outside of enthusiast forums like this still go with the product that is traditionally the best, Nvidia. [/L]

But nvidia hasn't traditionally been the best since the Geforce4 series. ATI's have performed better and had better driver support since then. Nvidia's are more like Volkswagens. Check any game tech support forum in the last 8 years, there are many more problems with nvidia cards than ATI. You are always trying to find out which drivers work best. With ATI, you just download the latest. If you have any problems.

One developer made a comment about the slogan Nvidia has in games. He said Nvidia was always there to help make the game work on their hardware, tweaking things and updating drivers and whatnot. Which is great and all... but the game just always worked on ATI. They didn't need ATI's help with anything. ATI only falls behind in marketing.

If memory serves me correct since the 9700pro Nvidia has been traditionally better.
The 6800 series was out first and I remember droves of people buying a 6800gt. I also remember many people buying a 6800 series to unlock it.It was not till later with the x800xtpe that Ati was faster. And these cards didn't have sm 3.0 which many needed just to run a game later.

I think the 7800/x1800 series was a push.

Now the 7900 series I also remember droves of people buying a 7900gt.
Now the x1900xt was on par with the 7900gtx ,but it was not till the 1950xtx refresh that ati took a commanding lead in perfromance. But that lead was short lived when the 8800 series blew the 2900 series and the 3800 series out of the water. At this time wasn't the 8800gt the hottest card?

In the last round gtx200/4800 ,I remember the gtx 280 being the top dog for about a year and actually never was matched buy any cards from Ati untill the 4890 just 6 months ago. Ati launch second with cheaper slower cards which made Nvidia adjust thier prices. So simply last round if you wanted the fastest cards you went Nvidia.

Overall it seems if you want the fastest you went Nvidia. If you wanted almost as fast and to pay less you went Ati.

Think of this if you went out and bought a 4890 for 180/200$ in the past few months (its only been out 6), chances are your spending more money to upgrade to this generation. Wheres the value? If I paid 350$ for a gtx 280 a year and a half ago and want to upgrade now, I enjoyed 4890 speeds for a year more for 150/180$. It all equals out in the end.
4870/gtx260 was a push.
The 4850 was a good value for the money but if you had a 8800 gts/gtx from 3 years ago (and many did) it was no upgrade.

If most of what I was saying was not true how do you explain the Nvidia dominance in sales and market share. Are all these people just fanboys who buy there cards? I think not.
I'm in know way saying that Ati hasn't been competative but except for the 9700 pro they just seem 1 step behind. Mabe with the 5800 series they will keep the performance edge but I think the gt300 will be much faster although late. Mabe Nvidia wants to play Ati's game and always come late and faster? Who knows.

Good memory.....I would have to agree with most of that!

 

[Jovec]

What makes anyone think prices are going to drop quickly?

Last gen Nvidia was first out of the gate with high prices, so ATI countered with 90% of the performance as 70% of the price (or whatever).

This gen ATI is first out of the gate but with higher prices (than the 4xxx line). The GT300 is not going to be a cheap chip to manufacture, and I can easily imagine it selling in the $400-$500 range if it manages somewhat better performance than the 5870. IOW, if the Nvidia part is higher performing than its ATI counterpart, there is little need to get into a price war.