I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.
Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.
Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
Originally posted by: happy medium
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.
Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.
Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: happy medium
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.
Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.
Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.
Right but when comparing products you cant go on what the market dictated months after the fact. When nvidia launches the next round of mid ranged cards, I'd expect the 8800GTS to be a 200 dollar card as well. And like I am saying right now, the mid range card then will probably be on par or slightly slower and not a worthy upgrade of todays high end.
Which is perfectly fine because it needs to beat the 8600GTS, which it will handily if it is on par with the 8800 series.
Originally posted by: happy medium
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: happy medium
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.
Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.
Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.
Right but when comparing products you cant go on what the market dictated months after the fact. When nvidia launches the next round of mid ranged cards, I'd expect the 8800GTS to be a 200 dollar card as well. And like I am saying right now, the mid range card then will probably be on par or slightly slower and not a worthy upgrade of todays high end.
Which is perfectly fine because it needs to beat the 8600GTS, which it will handily if it is on par with the 8800 series.
So you agree that the true mid range card that will be on par with the 7900gtx will be the one that should fill the gap between the 8600gts and 8800gts? It would make sense. So say the 8600gts sells for 160 bucks and the 8800gts 320mb sells for 250.00$. It would not be a bad idea to have a 8800gs/8600ultra for 200.00$ that will on par with a 7900gtx?
That would be a better upgrade in my eyes.
Originally posted by: Pugnate
Could the whole 'nerf the card but increase the clock speed' be some marketing ploy? People who don't check benchmarks will probably look at the clock speed and think WOW! My last card had a much lower clock speed! I should get this!
Originally posted by: munky
Marketing BS, the performance is nowhere near that of high end 8-series cards. Nv uses the same tricks over and over. I remember they used the same crap to advertise low end 7-series and 6-series, which sucked balls too.Features and Performance of GeForce(R) 8 Series Now Available at Lower Price Points
Thing is that the 7600GT is in a completely different price bracket. The 8600GTS provides a gain of 35-40% over it and yet costs almost twice as much. That is the reason why reviewers across the board are knocking it performance and its value proposition.Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
Originally posted by: crazydingo
Thing is that the 7600GT is in a completely different price bracket. The 8600GTS provides a gain of 35-40% over it and yet costs almost twice as much. That is the reason why reviewers across the board are knocking it performance and its value proposition.Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
If you look at the previous midrange offerings from Nvidia, 6600GT & 7600GT almost doubled the performance of the part they were replacing. You expect the same from in other price brackets too for example the 8800GTX almost doubled the performance over 7900GTX. If 8800GTX offered only a 35-40% over 7900GTX, then it wouldnt have been as popular as it has been, both in terms of reviews and sales numbers.
It would have been interesting to see a midrange card with 256b and 64 SPs (or) 192b and 48 SPs.
Originally posted by: Acanthus
To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.
I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...
Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.
They were expecting what Nvidia delivered in the past two generations, double performance leap (or as fast as previous high-end) which wasnt too much. I guess its the shortcoming of delivering two outstanding cards (6600GT:7600GT) and then following them up with a lukewarm response. Just by itself 8600GTS looks good but when compared to others, its shine wears off.Originally posted by: Genx87
aOriginally posted by: crazydingo
Thing is that the 7600GT is in a completely different price bracket. The 8600GTS provides a gain of 35-40% over it and yet costs almost twice as much. That is the reason why reviewers across the board are knocking it performance and its value proposition.Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).
If you look at the previous midrange offerings from Nvidia, 6600GT & 7600GT almost doubled the performance of the part they were replacing. You expect the same from in other price brackets too for example the 8800GTX almost doubled the performance over 7900GTX. If 8800GTX offered only a 35-40% over 7900GTX, then it wouldnt have been as popular as it has been, both in terms of reviews and sales numbers.
It would have been interesting to see a midrange card with 256b and 64 SPs (or) 192b and 48 SPs.
Well then I question what the reviewers were expecting. The 8600GTS is pretty close often to some 7900 models and beats the 7600GT handily. Were they expecing 8800 series performance for 200 bills?
Lets be realistic, but I agree there is a gap between 8800 and 8600 that can and should be filled.
Originally posted by: Acanthus
To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.
I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...
Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: Acanthus
To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.
I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...
Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.
And DirectX 10 functionality is very expensive, so the initial generation has to spend the transistor budget on increase functionality rather then increasing performance.
I would say overall the 8600 GTS if your average the benchmarks out is competitive to the 7900 GS/GT or X1950 GT/Pro. There are some cases of 7800 GT level performance, and some cases of 7950 GT level performance.
Yes it has been quite a long time since the 6800 GT, but keep in mind, that SKU has a die of 288mm2, with the majority of the die dedicated to pipelines rather then functionality, while the 8600 GTS is on the 80nm node which makes it 1/3 the size assuming it had the same transistor count which it doesn't, it is only 160mm2 and most of it needs to be dedicated to functionality rather then processing units.
Process generation technology is not moving quick enough to keep up with the gains Nvidia and ATI are making on the GPU front, if you haven't noticed each generation has had a larger die then the last. As long as your adding alot of fucntionality and not just straight shrinking.
130nm NV30 was 200mm2 give or take
130nm NV40 was 288mm2 give or take
110nm G70 was 333mm2 give or take
90nm G71 was 196mm2 give or take and was an oddball, transistors were removed! and it was a cost reducing generation with no functionality added.
90nm G80 480mm2 give or take
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we reached Dual Core Itanium 2's Montencito's level of 596mm2 within the next 2 generation if the continuing trend is upwards
So since process technology hasn't really been keeping pace and the die "MUST" remain between 120-175mm2 give or take this severely limits how much you can add in terms of transistor functionality and concessions have to be made.
130 nm to 90nm only allows 2x the amount of transistors in a given area more or less and transistors count has increased over 3x from NV40 to G80. So process technology is falling behind.
The 6600 GT was Nvidia spoiling people to regain their brand image for the most part, remember this card came out after the generation of the FX which Nvidia had tough times with, they need a hard winner to regain thier brand image which was weakened a lot that generation.
And if you haven't noticed compared to the 6600 GT, the 8600 GTS is vastly more powerful and feature rich. Not bad considering the die size between these 2 SKU are very similar. And comparing their process generations 110nm to 80nm you see that you can fit 2x the amount of transistors. So you would expect it to be about 2x as fast not factoring that you also need to factor in transistor budget for new features.
If you want a performance increase wait for a generation where very limited feature functionality is added like NV43 to G73. I would think something like Mid Range G9x on the 65nm process if Nvidia adds no more feature functionality will allow Nvidia to concentrate on increasing performance.
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Bigsnyder your a newbie when it comes to graphic card. People in here aren't dumb ... its just that stupid editor of the website has done some horrible things in past. If you want a decent Video 7600GTS review then go check firing squad review.
Originally posted by: bigsnyder
Not trying to start any argument, but several of you are bashing HardOCP's review without presenting solid reasons
as to why their reviewed is flawed. Just would like some more information that back the opinions up.
C Snyder
Wow, you have a lot of built up anger. Actually I've never been a big fan of Firing Squad so I guess you just have to take many reviews into consideration before making a decision. While I do think that Hardocp was a little over enthusiastic in their support for the 8600, I don't think the review over all was that bad.
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Bigsnyder your a newbie when it comes to graphic card. People in here aren't dumb ... its just that stupid editor of the website has done some horrible things in past. If you want a decent Video 7600GTS review then go check firing squad review.