X-Bit Labs - Modern Games and Modern GPUs:

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: munky
The x1k models have sm3 and they still fall behind. And I highly doubt VTF has anything to do with it, because from what I've read at b3d the few games that have this feature result in a huge performance hit on the gf6 and gf7 cards when enabled. I'm gonna do some more searching about this issue.

Well according to the article...

more likely because the RADEON X1800-series does not typically outperform the GeForce 7800 family in cases where many pixel shaders are used at once.

 

[BFG10K]

That's the general misconception that goes around here: people think the 7800gt is light years ahead of the x850xt pe, where in most benches the two cards are kinda even, give or take a few fps.

That and they're also quite happy to compare ATi cards to paper-launched 512 GTXs while slamming the X1800 XT for paper launching in the past.

The 6800 and X800 cards take very big hits above that resolution and fall way behind the 7800 cards

The X800 series' caches operate up to 1920x1020 and above that they still fit in as much as is possible. This is unlike the 6800 series.

You guys are forgetting that the X850XT PE are running all those new games in S.m2.0 mode.

Half of the games in that article probably don't even have SM 3.0.

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
You guys are forgetting that the X850XT PE are running all those new games in S.m2.0 mode. All the others are running S.M 3.0. Notice the performance diff in AOE3? The X850XT PE is faster than the X1800XT!!! Thats because its using S.M 2.0. There is big IQ difference as Xbitlabs mention bewteen the two shader models.

I agree with Munky's final conclusion absed on xbitlabs roundup. However, is it me or the 6800GS seems to performace really well? Despite being a 12 pipe card.

I thought there should be minimal differences in IQ (except HDR) since the the major improvement in SM3 is rendering the same thing in SM2 in a more efficient way. I remember seeing that the 6800U was faster in SM3 mode than it was in SM1.1 while x800xt was faster than then 6800U in SM3 while being in 1.1

It's true that 6800GS has 12 pipes, but it doesn't really mean anything. Well, you see that the x1800xt has 16 pipes and it's keeping up with the 24 pipes GTX.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

That and they're also quite happy to compare ATi cards to paper-launched 512 GTXs while slamming the X1800 XT for paper launching in the past.

The GTX512 was not paper launched, it sold out.

The X800 series' caches operate up to 1920x1020 and above that they still fit in as much as is possible. This is unlike the 6800 series.

Here is a nice article using a 6800ultra at 2048x1536. ATI gives a vague response as to their resolution cut off.
http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q3/hires-gaming/index.x?pg=1

Half of the games in that article probably don't even have SM 3.0.

Many do, and soon many more will. The performance hit they are taking in SM3.0 games will become more obvious with each new game release.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: munky
That's the general misconception that goes around here: people think the 7800gt is light years ahead of the x850xt pe, where in most benches the two cards are kinda even, give or take a few fps. I also noticed that in most cases when you crank up the res and eye candy the lead of the x1800xt over the 256gtx is much bigger than the lead of the 512gtx over the xt, and yet the I keep seeing post like "the 265 gtx and the xt are evenly matched, the xt is not worth the $50 difference". If anything, the 512gtx is not worth the $200 difference, or even a $100 difference if it was available for that price. Both the xt and the 512 gtx are in a league of their own comared to the 256gtx.

Yeah, agreed.

I guess if there are people who don't like AA & AF, then the 7800GTX 256 MB is the card for them 😕

But as soon as AA & AF come into play, pretty much all the ATi cards take a far smaller hit, which puts them on top, whether it's the X1800XT vs. 7800GTX 256 MB, or X800XL vs. 6800GS.

I'd say that nVidia cards = better value for those who don't like AA + AF; ATi cards = better value for those who like eye candy.

Course, i think one has to also pick the card they buy sorta based on the games they play, since there are a few titles where ATi's cards just choke for whatever reasons.

Your post is overly simplistic and generalizes.

1. The 256MB 7800GTX released in June is not a competitor to the 512MB X1800XT, released November. The fact that lack of sales and level of performance has driven the X1800XT closer to the 256MB GTX than it's real competition, the 512MB GTX that came out within 10 days of it, is irrelevant.

2. 7800GTXs are a close third for the fastest gaming video card on the planet, and exceed the second place card at some games.

3. Reading a guy with a X850XT PE say "I guess if there are people who don't like AA & AF, then the 7800GTX 256 MB is the card for them 😕" is a little like listening to a wino yell out of his refridgerator box,"Houses suck!".You have to acknowledge the bum's right to say it, but it's hard to give it much credence when he's so far beneath the homeowners.

If the 7800GTX, that stomps your card flat and wipes it's feet on the stain, is for people who don't like AA/AF, who is your card for? People who like Excel? 😉

 

[Stoneburner]

Rollo, how can the 512 gtx phantom edition be competition when it is practically vapor?

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Your post is overly simplistic and generalizes.

1. The 256MB 7800GTX released in June is not a competitor to the 512MB X1800XT, released November.

Then what is the competition, the XL, the X1600, maybe the X1300?

ATi's competition to the 512 GTX will either be an announced PE part or the OC models coming out.

The fact that lack of sales and level of performance has driven the X1800XT closer to the 256MB GTX than it's real competition, the 512MB GTX that came out within 10 days of it, is irrelevant.

Lack of sales? LOL

You think its lack of sales that a card is available LOL :laugh:. Of course all those idiots buying the 512GTX, makes NVIDIA look like it paper launched a Press Edition, damn them.

3. Reading a guy with a X850XT PE say "I guess if there are people who don't like AA & AF, then the 7800GTX 256 MB is the card for them 😕" is a little like listening to a wino yell out of his refridgerator box,"Houses suck!".You have to acknowledge the bum's right to say it, but it's hard to give it much credence when he's so far beneath the homeowners.

If the 7800GTX, that stomps your card flat and wipes it's feet on the stain, is for people who don't like AA/AF, who is your card for? People who like Excel? 😉

Wow, yet again you turn to attack the poster when you can't defend NVIDIA.

There was no comparison made between the X850 and the GTX and ATi cards do run faster with AA/AF (HQ IQ) then NVIDIA cards.

 

[Blastman]

..............X1800XT vs. 512MB 7800GTX......256MB 7800GTX vs. X1800XT
.............................% slower.................................% slower

AOE3...........................87.4....................................32.5(faster)
BF2.............................0.8......................................23.7
COD2..........................3.3.......................................53.5
FEAR...........................10.3(faster)...........................44.4
Quake 4......................11.11...................................16.8
Serious Sam 2.............13.6.....................................47
Splinter Cell: CT...........3.7.....................................29.3

The X1800XT is so close to the 7800GTX 512, if you ran the GTX 512 in HQ mode (instead of Q) and take a 10 -15% drop in performance overall -- the X1800 would end up ahead (except for AOE3). Who?s going to run a 7800GTX in only Q mode, with the shimmering and MIPS lines complaints I?ve seen.

beyond3d

Homeworld 2, Dawn of War and Half-Life to mention a few I've seen very obvious MIP lines in, and Painkiller suffered from very visible MIP lines on the detail texturing layer last I played that.

Being a stickler for IQ ,I am in the process of selling off my 7800GTs now. I am not happy I have all this muscle in graphics yet can not control my AF to the extent I could on an ATi product. I am also tired of shimmering and the way AA seems to "run" and vibrate when I am in motion in a game. I may as well leave the "jaggies" as it is almost as distracting and annoying. Yes I have tried clamping negative LOD bias in addition to other things I have mentioned. The bottom line is I am sick of optimizations I can not control that negatively impact IQ. ATi have listened and responded with their current HQ AF option.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: nts

Originally posted by: Rollo
Your post is overly simplistic and generalizes.

1. The 256MB 7800GTX released in June is not a competitor to the 512MB X1800XT, released November.

Then what is the competition, the XL, the X1600, maybe the X1300?

It's a good question. If the five months later, twice the RAM, higher cost X1800XT is supposedly competition for the 7800GTX, does nVidia get 5 months to put out a competitor to the X1800XT? And why isn't the 512MB GTX, put out within 10 days of the XT, it's competition?

ATi's competition to the 512 GTX will either be an announced PE part or the OC models coming out.

Errr, ok- so does nVidia get soem time to brew up new OCd parts to compete with these? I don't buy ATI PR speak. They can tell me all day long how a card that came out close to half a year later with RAM that wasn't available back when the 256 7800GTX was being built is it's competitor, but I don't buy it. They need to compete with similar cards released in the same month.

The fact that lack of sales and level of performance has driven the X1800XT closer to the 256MB GTX than it's real competition, the 512MB GTX that came out within 10 days of it, is irrelevant.

Lack of sales? LOL

Level of performance...

We shall see on the level of sales. I don't think the XT is going to be a big seller. If it was, it would have held it's price more than a week or two.

Wow, yet again you turn to attack the poster when you can't defend NVIDIA.

There was no comparison made between the X850 and the GTX and ATi cards do run faster with AA/AF (HQ IQ) then NVIDIA cards.

A. I don't "defend nVidia".
B. Why not compare the GTX and the X850XT PE? They're only seven months apart, and comparing cards launched a half a year later seems ATIs battle cry lately.
C.I didn't attack anyone, it's a fair question. The colorful analogy only serves to illustrate it.

 

[dev0lution]

I was also pleasantly surprised at how well my X800XL scaled when I got a better monitor and bumped up the resolution to 1600x1200 with AA and AF still maxed in HL2 and CS:S. It doesn't do too bad in COD2 either.

7800GTX's are still tops, but I was a bit underwhelmed in the price I'd have to pay to get 2x 7800GTX cards vs. the benefit I'd see (work rig vs. home). Or even to get an X1800 series card for that matter...

Oh, and the 7800GTX 512's weren't a paper launch. There was stock for the actual launch, just not a whole lot after 😉

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Blastman

..............X1800XT vs. 512MB 7800GTX......256MB 7800GTX vs. X1800XT
.............................% slower.................................% slower

AOE3...........................87.4....................................32.5(faster)
BF2.............................0.8......................................23.7
COD2..........................3.3.......................................53.5
FEAR...........................10.3(faster)...........................44.4
Quake 4......................11.11...................................16.8
Serious Sam 2.............13.6.....................................47
Splinter Cell: CT...........3.7.....................................29.3

The X1800XT is so close to the 7800GTX 512, if you ran the GTX 512 in HQ mode (instead of Q) and take a 10 -15% drop in performance overall -- the X1800 would end up ahead (except for AOE3). Who?s going to run a 7800GTX in only Q mode, with the shimmering and MIPS lines complaints I?ve seen.

That's if you believe XBit and take their word as gospel. I don't, from what I've seen they do what they can to make ATI look good.

Funny how the reviews here paint a MUCH different picture.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Rollo
It's a good question. If the five months later, twice the RAM, higher cost X1800XT is supposedly competition for the 7800GTX, does nVidia get 5 months to put out a competitor to the X1800XT? And why isn't the 512MB GTX, put out within 10 days of the XT, it's competition?

Then what is the answer?

ATi has no part that is priced in the leauge of the GTX512.

Errr, ok- so does nVidia get soem time to brew up new OCd parts to compete with these? I don't buy ATI PR speak. They can tell me all day long how a card that came out close to half a year later with RAM that wasn't available back when the 256 7800GTX was being built is it's competitor, but I don't buy it. They need to compete with similar cards released in the same month.

No it goes by price points, release date doesn't really matter so much. eg X1300 competing with 6600.

We shall see on the level of sales. I don't think the XT is going to be a big seller. If it was, it would have held it's price more than a week or two.

Maybe there are a lot of them in the channel?

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Rollo
That's if you believe XBit and take their word as gospel. I don't, from what I've seen they do what they can to make ATI look good.

You're a funny guy Rollo. :laugh:

Just out of curiosity what sites do you trust? I think i've seen you attack almost every site there is (except AT) when defending NVIDIA.

Funny how the reviews here paint a MUCH different picture.

Funny how that review makes no use of AF, isn't it? Xbit uses 16x which takes a pretty good hit on NVIDIA hardware.

Do you play without AF?

 

[Rage187]

While the RADEON X850 XT-series still has some huge power, it is behind the today?s leaders and we would recommend to purchase it only at the price significantly below that of the RADEON X1800 XL and the GeForce 7800 GT, as the year-old GPU does not support an array of modern features that may be useful in the coming year.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Rollo


That's if you believe XBit and take their word as gospel. I don't, from what I've seen they do what they can to make ATI look good.

Funny how the reviews here paint a MUCH different picture.

Come on Rollo. X-bit labs is one of the best review sites out there and I don't think I've ever heard anyone else say they were biased. Go look at some of their past video card reviews. Nvidia looks just as good as ATI does.

As far as their results differing from Anandtech's review, maybe newer drivers had something to do with it. I really don't know but Anandtech's review came out when the X1800XT had just been launched and X-bit's came out a few days ago. Just like almost every video card that's ever been launched there's going to be improvements after the drivers have had a chance to mature a little.

I agree with you that you should look at more than one review site but I trust the reputable ones. I guess we'll have to see what the other sites get if they decide to rebench the cards in question with newer drivers.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: nts

Originally posted by: Rollo
That's if you believe XBit and take their word as gospel. I don't, from what I've seen they do what they can to make ATI look good.

You're a funny guy Rollo. :laugh:

Just out of curiosity what sites do you trust? I think i've seen you attack almost every site there is (except AT) when defending NVIDIA.

Funny how the reviews here paint a MUCH different picture.

Funny how that review makes no use of AF, isn't it? Xbit uses 16x which takes a pretty good hit on NVIDIA hardware.

Do you play without AF?

nts, do you have a problem with rollo? you seem to hate him, seem like a personal thing. Look at your sig. Thats pure petty personal insult toward rollo. All you do is flame him, and thats the only thing youve done in this thread. Did you even know AT uses AF in their tests? They always use 8xAF for all their benchs. Ask Derek himself.

How can you call the 512 GTX a paper launch? What is the definition of a paper launch? In general, the phrase is used to denote product announcements that explicitly compare the "new product" with other actually available products, despite the fact that the newly announced product is not actually available to consumers. The 7800GTX 512mb was available to the customers at the day of launch, no matter what price it was being sold for. The x1800Xt wasnt avilable at the day of its launched, but was "promised" to be avilable after 1 month (with the exception of those who got working samples of it). That is a paper launch. As simple as that.

The only problem for the 7800GTX 512mb was that the cards got all sold out. This has nothing to do with it being a paper launch because me nor Nvidia nor you people thought that there would be such a huge demand for such a card, and as for example there are people buying this card for $999.99. If there wasnt such a huge demand for the card, obviously the prices wouldve been around MSRP. or even better, prices wouldve dropped to make the card look so attractive. However i guess its jsut how this card dominates its competition's current flagship card that made everyone want one of these beasts.

I want to note out that, (my opinion) the X1 series dont seem to paint a clear picture for its performance. What i mean is that its inconsistent. The 7800GTX/GT performs as it should, consisent at all games, and we consumers can know at what level the cards perform. but the X1 series dont. They suffer badly at some games e.g AOE3, dawn of war, Chronicle of riddick, and then perform really good in others e.g BF2, SC CT, far cry. Even though the 7800 GTX for example gets beaten in maybe far cry, it still performs great, e.g around 60ish fps although its competition might have a 10 fps lead. I also think this because some times it gets beaten by the 7800GTX, while being close to 512 GTX performance in some titles. I think this is one of the reasons for the huge demand for the 7800GTX 512mb. Because that cards performance is consistent. It dominates the competition by brute force in all titles. This was one reason why the 6600GT was a better buy than the X700 pro, because even though the X700 pro was faster than the 6600GT in FC and HL2, it performed real bad in other titles unlike the GT which performed consistenly throughout last years titles. This is one reason also why msot believe the 7800GT has the edge against the X1800XL.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

nts, do you have a problem with rollo? you seem to hate him, seem like a personal thing. Look at your sig. Thats pure petty personal insult toward rollo. All you do is flame him, and thats the only thing youve done in this thread. Did you even know AT uses AF in their tests? They always use 8xAF for all their benchs. Ask Derek himself.

How can you call the 512 GTX a paper launch? What is the definition of a paper launch? In general, the phrase is used to denote product announcements that explicitly compare the "new product" with other actually available products, despite the fact that the newly announced product is not actually available to consumers. The 7800GTX 512mb was available to the customers at the day of launch, no matter what price it was being sold for. The x1800Xt wasnt avilable at the day of its launched, but was "promised" to be avilable after 1 month (with the exception of those who got working samples of it). That is a paper launch. As simple as that.

The only problem for the 7800GTX 512mb was that the cards got all sold out. This has nothing to do with it being a paper launch because me nor Nvidia nor you people thought that there would be such a huge demand for such a card, and as for example there are people buying this card for $999.99. If there wasnt such a huge demand for the card, obviously the prices wouldve been around MSRP. or even better, prices wouldve dropped to make the card look so attractive. However i guess its jsut how this card dominates its competition's current flagship card that made everyone want one of these beasts.

I want to note out that, (my opinion) the X1 series dont seem to paint a clear picture for its performance. What i mean is that its inconsistent. The 7800GTX/GT performs as it should, consisent at all games, and we consumers can know at what level the cards perform. but the X1 series dont. They suffer badly at some games e.g AOE3, dawn of war, Chronicle of riddick, and then perform really good in others e.g BF2, SC CT, far cry. Even though the 7800 GTX for example gets beaten in maybe far cry, it still performs great, e.g around 60ish fps although its competition might have a 10 fps lead. I also think this because some times it gets beaten by the 7800GTX, while being close to 512 GTX performance in some titles. I think this is one of the reasons for the huge demand for the 7800GTX 512mb. Because that cards performance is consistent. It dominates the competition by brute force in all titles. This was one reason why the 6600GT was a better buy than the X700 pro, because even though the X700 pro was faster than the 6600GT in FC and HL2, it performed real bad in other titles unlike the GT which performed consistenly throughout last years titles. This is one reason also why msot believe the 7800GT has the edge against the X1800XL.

Dude, no one's saying the 512MB 7800GTX isn't the king of the hill. Even the most hardcore ATI enthusiasts can agree that price notwithstanding, the new 7800GTX is the leader. What we're saying, well at least what I'm saying, is that it's lead over the X1800XT isn't that big. Why would anyone go out and buy a card that, at the moment, costs $1000 plus, when you can buy a card for $500-600 that will perform within ~10-15% of it (I realize that's not in all games but probably a safe generalization). If you've got tons of discretionary funds and you want the absolute best than sure it makes sense, but for the rest of us working grunts the X1800XT is a much better value at the moment.

As far as the X1800 series being inconsistent you have to expect newer cards with brand new architecture to have a few kinks. Hopefully, in the few games the ATI cards seem to inexplicably fizzle, newer drivers will improve things.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
nts, do you have a problem with rollo?

Not really

you seem to hate him, seem like a personal thing.

Nope, LOL e-Hate :laugh:

Look at your sig. Thats pure petty personal insult toward rollo.

How exactly is it insults? I just found those posts funny, they are all by him btw. If Rollo has a problem with them then let him PM me and we'll work something out 🙂

All you do is flame him, and thats the only thing youve done in this thread.

ugh ok...

Did you even know AT uses AF in their tests? They always use 8xAF for all their benchs. Ask Derek himself.

If they do then it isn't listed anywhere on the benchmark Rollo linked to, only 4xAA is used.

How can you call the 512 GTX a paper launch?What is the definition of a paper launch? In general, the phrase is used to denote product announcements that explicitly compare the "new product" with other actually available products, despite the fact that the newly announced product is not actually available to consumers. The 7800GTX 512mb was available to the customers at the day of launch, no matter what price it was being sold for...

I have no problem with cards being released one month later, just aslong as they show up when they are supposed to show up.

And I dont consider NVIDIA releasing a very limited number of cards a "hard launch".

The only problem for the 7800GTX 512mb was that the cards got all sold out.

I am very curios to know how many GTX 512's have actually been made and sold.

I want to note out that, (my opinion) the X1 series dont seem to paint a clear picture for its performance. What i mean is that its inconsistent. The 7800GTX/GT performs as it should, consisent at all games, and we consumers can know at what level the cards perform. but the X1 series dont.

The X1 series is a completely new architecture and future drivers will only make the cards faster. eg 30% OpenGL gain.

Read up on the architecture of the X1 series.

AOE3 looks like a driver bug, I dont know about the other games.

btw, if you want to reply to the first thing then PM me to not derail the thread here.

 

[5150Joker]

X-bit = one of the better reviewers on the net and definitely better than AT/HardOCP...much better. Still though, the lack of high quality AA/AF still sucks, when will reviewers get on the ball?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Rollo
That's if you believe XBit and take their word as gospel. I don't, from what I've seen they do what they can to make ATI look good.

Funny how the reviews here paint a MUCH different picture.

And why should I believe AT over another site? This isnt the first time you've attacked xbit's credibility when the results dont favor nvidia, but you havent shown any evidence of xbit making Ati look good intentionally. If anything, the reviews on AT have lately been - how should I say - lacking and mediocre. Moreover, this isn't the first time I've seen AT make Nv look better than other sites - especially the ridiculous 6600gt vs. 9800p comparison they did a while ago that looked like they've handpicked some tests to make the 6600gt look a lot faster when many other sites showed less than stellar results. Lets compare the FEAR results for the 512gtx vs the XT:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607&p=7
AT has the 512gtx ahead at 16x12 4xAA and who knows what AF if any

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_12.html
Xbit has the XT ahead at 16x12 4x 16x

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/7800512dhreview/fear.htm
Driverheaven also has the XT ahead in FEAR at 16x12 4x 16x

http://www.behardware.com/articles/599-...800-gtx-512-mb-the-new-king-of-3d.html
After renaming the FEAR exe to compensate for Ati driver bug, behardware has the XT even more ahead, getting the same fps at 1920 resolution that the 512gtx gets at 1600.

But you're gonna insist that only AT's review is accurate, and that all these other sites are biased? Maybe the other sites decided to not let NV off the hook for IQ hacks and forced HQ filtering on both cards? :laugh: Or maybe NV really sux at AF and AT refuses to run benches with AF enabled? In any case, you'll need more evidence to discredit xbit just because the 512gtx doesnt pwn the XT like it was hyped up beyond belief.

 

[beserker15]

Well Driverheaven is mainly ATI-biased. But I do agree, drivers and stuff can do a hell lot for the x1800's...(quake 4 and opengl...). I don't think those sites are lying about the x1800xt's performance.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: beserker15
Well Driverheaven is mainly ATI-biased. But I do agree, drivers and stuff can do a hell lot for the x1800's...(quake 4 and opengl...). I don't think those sites are lying about the x1800xt's performance.

Well I disagree. I don't think their latest reviews are biased at all.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: munky
And why should I believe AT over another site?

So you just thread crap here, you don't actually like the site?

Why not just quote ATI.com about how awesome their products are.

All of the major sites show the GTX512 CRUSHING the XT. I know it hurts you dearly to hear this and I'm sure after a few years of therapy you will get over it.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: munky
And why should I believe AT over another site?

So you just thread crap here, you don't actually like the site?

Why not just quote ATI.com about how awesome their products are.

All of the major sites show the GTX512 CRUSHING the XT. I know it hurts you dearly to hear this and I'm sure after a few years of therapy you will get over it.

Nuh-uh! With the Humpus tweaks, and a re-named executable, the XT will triumph!

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: munky
And why should I believe AT over another site?

So you just thread crap here, you don't actually like the site?

Do you just follow me around and crap on my posts, and spew Nv propaganda at every opportunity? I have no reason to favor one site over another, including this one. And unlike you, I actually posted some links in my posts to support my reasoning, which you conveniently failed to address.

Why not just quote ATI.com about how awesome their products are.

Why dont I let the results speak for themselves...

All of the major sites show the GTX512 CRUSHING the XT. I know it hurts you dearly to hear this and I'm sure after a few years of therapy you will get over it.

LOL, crushing... That sure doesnt look like it in 6 out of the 7 games tested here. It's not me who needs therapy - but the crazy peeps who shelled out somewhere around $750 - $1000+ for a card that's about to become obsolete in a month.