8800GT (G92) vs. HD38xx (RV670)

[requiem1]

why do i get the feelin' these 2 new cards are going to cost significantly more than they are suppose to...

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
ill be getting the one that can chew up and spit out World in Conflict at 1680x and max settings.

what are you getting, quad 8800 ultras???

lol, its not that demanding, but it is very cpu orintated, i think this is why i can play it at 1680x1050 on mediums settings with this awful 1800XL AIW.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: requiem1
why do i get the feelin' these 2 new cards are going to cost significantly more than they are suppose to...

letsee ... from looking at the 2900pro ... how they are MSRP'd at $250 but sell for at least 10%-15% more?
... or, perhaps looking at the 8800GTS640 series and watching the price hold firm since launch with few sales and usually in the form of rebates?
... or, perhaps looking at the 2900xt and also watching the price hold steady since launch?
--Or, perhaps you noticed that every launch brings new cards that sell for over-MSRP?

What do you think ? did i get at least one lucky guess right?


AMD and nvidia are masters of manipulation and they are getting much better at it. Notice that there are less complaining threads about price and note that most posters are resigned to acceptance of higher prices. Not only that, but they are so excited that they must jump to have it *now* - price be damned.

i have an early Xmas message for all: nvidia and AMD love you
:heart:

 

[AzN]

apoppin it's really the online retailers who are getting over on us not Nvidia or AMD far as suggested retail price.

 

[SniperDaws]

The prices do effect my purchase that is why i havent bought an 8800/2900 yet, why? becasue for the money they dont perform good enough for me, i cant afford to be buying gear every other month so i have to (NEED) to get at least 2 years out of it.

But saying that maybe i should of bought an 8800GTX because that card is still chewing through the latest and greatest and its over 1 year old.

 

[shabby]

If any of you plan to play cod4 you better wait till ati gets its act together, ati's cod4 performance is pathetic. And thats without AA... ati's achilles heel.

 

[rmed64]

Whichever has the best price/performance which includes overclocking ability as well. I dont think RV670 will be under $199 like the 8800GT 256MB is supposed to debut at, so right now im leaning towards nvida.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: shabby
If any of you plan to play cod4 you better wait till ati gets its act together, ati's cod4 performance is pathetic. And thats without AA... ati's achilles heel.

It's basically giving 5 fps less than 8800gts. These new cores should be different in the shader dept. as well. But you are right about drivers not being on par with these 2k series or something. We just have to wait and see what the 3k series can offer.

 

[LightningRider]

I hope ATi trumps Nvidia. That way maybe Nvidia will work on getting the 9800GTX out the door sometime.

 

[ronnn]

I voted for the 8800gt, as the leaked benchies look very good. With good planning amd can hope to tie and get a bump for features. You never know dx10.1 may prove to be a nice selling feature if all other things are equal.

 

[requiem1]

i really not in the mood to spend too much but if i can get a 8800GT 256mb for 179$ ..WHOA! the question is if I only play on 1280x1024, should i even consider the 512 mb version?

 

[Munky]

I'm getting whichever one is faster in most games with AA.

 

[alcoholbob]

Probably not, but you are really on the edge. It's usually at 1600x1200 (no AA/AF) for DX10 before the 640mb really seperates itself from the 320. I'd say for most games you could get away with 256, but if it's really a texture heavy DX10 game, then you'd definitely struggle because of VRAM limitations.

 

[bryanW1995]

I hope that 8800gt 256 is really 179. It would be nice to have a "midrange" card that was midrange in price, too.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I certainly hope AMD fixed AA and AF. And I also hope they found a way to get all of those shaders kept busy. Here's to hoping that R600 was but a stepping stone to much better things.

i am still not convinced it is broken for an upper-midrange GPU. If 2900xt was aimed at the GTX, i'd agree completelty. i didn't find AA performance of the 2900xt any less then the GTS 640 at resolutions up to and including 16x12. At higher resolutions, they generally both tank to unplayable framerates.
-Here's also hoping for much better GPUs from both companys.

perhaps you should do a little more searching on the web. the 2900xt absolutely tanks when using AA compared to the fps without it.

 

[Wag]

Will both companies (especially nVidia) finally be offering cards with HDMI/sound output? This is very important to me.

 

[alcoholbob]

You mean an all-in-wonder type card? That would have to be a lot more expensive naturally.

 

[Wag]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
You mean an all-in-wonder type card? That would have to be a lot more expensive naturally.

No, I mean a card with an HDMI output that channels hi-def audio from the motherboard properly (that way you can watch a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc). ATI's cards already do it, but nVidia doesn't really have any that do it (at least no DX10 cards).

 

[superbooga]

I'm surprised how many people are underestimating the 8800GT. Fact is, it gets a greater boost in numbers over the 8800GTS than the RV670 gets over the 2900XT. The RV670 would have to have some major improvements in efficiency to make up the gap.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I certainly hope AMD fixed AA and AF. And I also hope they found a way to get all of those shaders kept busy. Here's to hoping that R600 was but a stepping stone to much better things.

i am still not convinced it is broken for an upper-midrange GPU. If 2900xt was aimed at the GTX, i'd agree completelty. i didn't find AA performance of the 2900xt any less then the GTS 640 at resolutions up to and including 16x12. At higher resolutions, they generally both tank to unplayable framerates.
-Here's also hoping for much better GPUs from both companys.

perhaps you should do a little more searching on the web. the 2900xt absolutely tanks when using AA compared to the fps without it.

perhaps you should look much more carefully

when it "tanks" it tanks down to 8800-GTS level

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I certainly hope AMD fixed AA and AF. And I also hope they found a way to get all of those shaders kept busy. Here's to hoping that R600 was but a stepping stone to much better things.

i am still not convinced it is broken for an upper-midrange GPU. If 2900xt was aimed at the GTX, i'd agree completelty. i didn't find AA performance of the 2900xt any less then the GTS 640 at resolutions up to and including 16x12. At higher resolutions, they generally both tank to unplayable framerates.
-Here's also hoping for much better GPUs from both companys.

perhaps you should do a little more searching on the web. the 2900xt absolutely tanks when using AA compared to the fps without it.

perhaps you should look much more carefully

when it "tanks" it tanks down to 8800-GTS level

In some games

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I certainly hope AMD fixed AA and AF. And I also hope they found a way to get all of those shaders kept busy. Here's to hoping that R600 was but a stepping stone to much better things.

i am still not convinced it is broken for an upper-midrange GPU. If 2900xt was aimed at the GTX, i'd agree completelty. i didn't find AA performance of the 2900xt any less then the GTS 640 at resolutions up to and including 16x12. At higher resolutions, they generally both tank to unplayable framerates.
-Here's also hoping for much better GPUs from both companys.

perhaps you should do a little more searching on the web. the 2900xt absolutely tanks when using AA compared to the fps without it.

perhaps you should look much more carefully

when it "tanks" it tanks down to 8800-GTS level

toyota, you are picking a fight with the ultimate 2900xt apologist. don't start, you can't win.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JPB

AMD has decided to drop PRO, XT, GT, XTX from their future HD 3000 series graphics series and the last 2 digits of the series will determine the performance of the card. RV670PRO will be known as Radeon HD 3850 while RV670XT will be know as Radeon HD 3870 when they are launched on Nov 15th.

Wow...so a more powerful card will be indicated by a higher number? That sounds great...but there's only one problem...

That kind of naming convention is too simple, it makes too much sense, and it won't confuse layman video card buyers as much as the previous naming convention. How do they expect the likes of Best Buy and Walmart to try to sell slow cards with fancy names for $200 and have buyers still feel like they're getting good deals?

 

[CP5670]

The individual card companies are still free tack on their own OC CO KO Superclocked Fatal1ty Extreme etc. branding onto the names.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: munky
I'm getting whichever one is faster in most games with AA.

That sums up my position perfectly. :thumbsup: WITH AA being the operative phrase.

I'm not loyal to any one camp. Whomever delivers the goods gets my $$$.