happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
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.