512MB 7800GTX spec confirmation

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: archcommus
What intense games will be coming out before next summer? To even make this worth it.

"Intense games" are already out, if you play at high resolutions. I'm already starting to feel my 6800GT slow down at 1680x1050...I'd buy the new GTX in a heartbeat but I don't feel like spending the money right now (need a new CPU too, still on an Athlon XP).

Well we don't run at the same res. I mean something beyond FEAR graphically, before summer.

If you only run at 1280x1024 (or below), then yeah, the new GTX (or even the old one, or the R520) will be pretty much overkill for you. I don't see much new coming out until next summer either (UT2007), which is probably why I'm waiting until then to upgrade even though I'm not completely happy with the performance of my current video card anymore.

That is right, 19" LCD at 1280x1024. X800 XL is suiting me fine.

 

[jim1976]

Fred Sanford is on fire

Let's wait and see m8, let's wait and see..

 

[davidos]

Someone on the H forums says his buddy at TigerDirect said the XFX card will be available on Nov. 14th for $649....

That's a $300 premium over the $350 I paid for my 7800GT.... I don't think the upgrade is worth $300...

 

[Jagercola]

I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: crazydingo
Current XFX OC from stock GTX is 14% (430->490), so calculating back from 580 (-14%) is 500Mhz. So 500MHz stock clock on the cores?

?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

Consider that 490/1300 7800GTXs are going for $500-600 (street) right now, usually with a $599 MSRP. A 550/1800 card should be a good 10-20% faster than one of those. $699 or $749MSRP wouldn't be out of the question for a card like that, if overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards are at $599MSRP.

Economically, positioning it much lower than $699 MSRP would hurt sales of the existing 7800GTX"OC" cards (or else force prices on those cards down). Putting it at less than $599 MSRP would probably hurt sales of the ~$499 MSRP 7800GTX cards too much to be feasable right now, and would completely kill the market for overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards. Unless prices are dropped on all existing 7800GTX cards -- but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be one thing if NVIDIA was playing catchup, but they have little reason to put lowball pricing into effect right now.

 

[M0RPH]

Well this is the second "confirmation" thread and I still don't see any real confirmation of specs, but whatever. I'll wait until there's some official announcement or at least something better than an Inquirer article or some post in a forum.

 

[CP5670]

I don't think it will be that high given the current prices for the 7800 GT. If the street prices for this card go well above $600, two 7800 GTs would cost about the same and would most likely outperform it by a fair margin.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

Consider that 490/1300 7800GTXs are going for $500-600 (street) right now, usually with a $599 MSRP. A 550/1800 card should be a good 10-20% faster than one of those. $699 or $749MSRP wouldn't be out of the question for a card like that, if overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards are at $599MSRP.

Economically, positioning it much lower than $699 MSRP would hurt sales of the existing 7800GTX"OC" cards (or else force prices on those cards down). Putting it at less than $599 MSRP would probably hurt sales of the ~$499 MSRP 7800GTX cards too much to be feasable right now, and would completely kill the market for overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards. Unless prices are dropped on all existing 7800GTX cards -- but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be one thing if NVIDIA was playing catchup, but they have little reason to put lowball pricing into effect right now.

QFT from an economic point of view...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Well this is the second "confirmation" thread and I still don't see any real confirmation of specs, but whatever. I'll wait until there's some official announcement or at least something better than an Inquirer article or some post in a forum.

That's great. But but a much better place to wait than here is Rage3d.

 

[Polish3d]

Above 600 bucks is not worth it to me. I'll be pretty disappointed if it costs that much.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: archcommus
What intense games will be coming out before next summer? To even make this worth it.

Well, I don't know that I'd call this "intense" but I get lag/low FPS on Dragonshard when there are alot of troops involved.

Of course it could be a CPU issue as well as a Video issue. Either way, I hate seeing this already after I just upgraded to the System below - I wouldn't exactly call it medicore

 

[Keysplayr]

Seems Anandtech's site can't stay up for more than a few minutes at a time.. Wonder what's going on besides Jason Clark's DOS attack comment.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

Consider that 490/1300 7800GTXs are going for $500-600 (street) right now, usually with a $599 MSRP. A 550/1800 card should be a good 10-20% faster than one of those. $699 or $749MSRP wouldn't be out of the question for a card like that, if overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards are at $599MSRP.

Economically, positioning it much lower than $699 MSRP would hurt sales of the existing 7800GTX"OC" cards (or else force prices on those cards down). Putting it at less than $599 MSRP would probably hurt sales of the ~$499 MSRP 7800GTX cards too much to be feasable right now, and would completely kill the market for overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards. Unless prices are dropped on all existing 7800GTX cards -- but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be one thing if NVIDIA was playing catchup, but they have little reason to put lowball pricing into effect right now.

'

But if this card is to be positioned to take on the X1800xt @ ~550.oo, it will have to be price competitive too. I would buy an X1800xt at 550 before I would buy a GTX 512 at 700

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: davidos

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
On closer inspection, you can tell that the card in the picture from mvktech.net is not a Quadro 4500. Compare it with the picture from Xbitlabs of the Quadro 4500. There is some missing circuitry on the picture from mvktech.net. That leads me to believe it is not a Quadro 4500 picture, but a 7800GTX 512MB picture.

Edit: Better pic from mvktech.net here.

They look the same to me.......

If you dont, somehow, notice the circuitry, notice that the 3 pin fan plug on the card is rotated 90 degrees.

-Kevin

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

Consider that 490/1300 7800GTXs are going for $500-600 (street) right now, usually with a $599 MSRP. A 550/1800 card should be a good 10-20% faster than one of those. $699 or $749MSRP wouldn't be out of the question for a card like that, if overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards are at $599MSRP.

Economically, positioning it much lower than $699 MSRP would hurt sales of the existing 7800GTX"OC" cards (or else force prices on those cards down). Putting it at less than $599 MSRP would probably hurt sales of the ~$499 MSRP 7800GTX cards too much to be feasable right now, and would completely kill the market for overclocked 256MB 7800GTX cards. Unless prices are dropped on all existing 7800GTX cards -- but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be one thing if NVIDIA was playing catchup, but they have little reason to put lowball pricing into effect right now.

'

But if this card is to be positioned to take on the X1800xt @ ~550.oo, it will have to be price competitive too. I would buy an X1800xt at 550 before I would buy a GTX 512 at 700

A 550/1800 7800GTX should be (at least somewhat) faster than a (stock) X1800XT. The X1800XT is faster than a regular 7800GTX, probably about the speed of one of those 490/1300 7800GTX cards.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

The 256MB 7800GTX launched with a $600 MSRP, and the surely slower X1800XT (less fillrate, less bandwidth) has a launch MSRP of $559, so $659 MSRP at launch would sound fair to me.

I think the GF2 Ultra launched at $600, and it was only a 10% speed bump over the Pro?

 

[Rage187]

$499-$549 is all I'm willing to pay^^

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Well this is the second "confirmation" thread and I still don't see any real confirmation of specs, but whatever. I'll wait until there's some official announcement or at least something better than an Inquirer article or some post in a forum.

Err, yeah. Speeds in downloaded bios files are irrelevant right Morph?

What do you think they're going to do? Wait till launch day, put out a new file with 430/1200 clocks?

This is pretty good proof Morph, but you'll see for yourself very shortly and you won't be able to say these things at all.

 

[CP5670]

$650 wouldn't make much sense for this card, since you can buy two 7800 GTs for about that much. I think it will have to come down quickly even if it's initially released at that price.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

The 256MB 7800GTX launched with a $600 MSRP, and the surely slower X1800XT (less fillrate, less bandwidth) has a launch MSRP of $559, so $659 MSRP at launch would sound fair to me.

I think the GF2 Ultra launched at $600, and it was only a 10% speed bump over the Pro?

IMO that's a ****** price, as the GTX was overpriced when it came out (IMO).

100 dollar increase over the x1800xt is way too much

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

The 256MB 7800GTX launched with a $600 MSRP, and the surely slower X1800XT (less fillrate, less bandwidth) has a launch MSRP of $559, so $659 MSRP at launch would sound fair to me.

I think the GF2 Ultra launched at $600, and it was only a 10% speed bump over the Pro?

As in a lot of technological areas, prices get very weird/distorted at the high end. Some people are willing to pay a lot more to have the latest/fastest thing just because it is the latest/fastest. Meh.

Personally, I very much doubt we will see a 550/1800 card at less than $600MSRP, and $650-700MSRP (with a $600-650 street price) is more likely. But that's just based on relative performance and how much more 1.1ns RAM is likely to cost (and the possible scarcity of cores that will clock that well). I'm also not convinced there will be a large supply of these cards, irregardless of price, since 1.1ns GDDR3 is still not widely available. I'd love to be proven wrong on both counts, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Polish3d]

650-700 dollars is an absurd price. I'd buy an X1800XT at 550 before I'd buy a GTX OP (for overpriced) at 700.00. Give me a break.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Jagercola
I think a $475-$550 street price is reasonable, not $650...

The 256MB 7800GTX launched with a $600 MSRP, and the surely slower X1800XT (less fillrate, less bandwidth) has a launch MSRP of $559, so $659 MSRP at launch would sound fair to me.

I think the GF2 Ultra launched at $600, and it was only a 10% speed bump over the Pro?

IMO that's a ****** price, as the GTX was overpriced when it came out (IMO).

100 dollar increase over the x1800xt is way too much

But your commenting on what the price shouldn't be on a part none of us have even seen perform yet. If the 512 is 10% faster than the XT then sure, 100.00 might be a bit much.
BUT!!! If this thing flat blows the doors of the XT, then I don't see a problem with even more than a 100 dollars premium over it. As long as the price performance ratio lines up, I'm good with that.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
But your commenting on what the price shouldn't be on a part none of us have even seen perform yet. If the 512 is 10% faster than the XT then sure, 100.00 might be a bit much.
BUT!!! If this thing flat blows the doors of the XT, then I don't see a problem with even more than a 100 dollars premium over it. As long as the price performance ratio lines up, I'm good with that.

I agree keys but I don't think you can look at price to performance ratio till at least a month after launch because the card needs some time to settle, I wouldn't consider the GTX to be worth it if it was at MSRP (600) but now that its down in the 500 range its just fine, same with the XT and 512MB GTX at first they will be way out of line but once they settle they should fit right in.