So you are saying people just buy the cheapest p.o.s. car they can find. They don't look at performance and features? Serious question. I'm really curious if that's how you buy cars too.
Actually I have a simple concept for you. Do you think people buy graphics cards (or most any consumer item for that matter) based on price or based on a sequential list of each companies offerings? Serious question. I'm really curious if that's how you buy cars too.
no, he aint.... i shouldent have to explain this. When you buy something you usaly compare the product in the same price bracket.
Then a ZR1 vette should not outperform an Audi R-8 based on price. But it does. You can't go by price ALONE. It's the biggest factor, but not the only factor. Not by a mile.
Actually I have a simple concept for you. Do you think people buy graphics cards (or most any consumer item for that matter) based on price or based on a sequential list of each companies offerings? Serious question. I'm really curious if that's how you buy cars too.
Consumer: "Your GT500 really sucks compared to the 911 Turbo S I just drove. Do you really expect to compete with this thing?"
Ford Salesman: "Sir our car costs half as much."
Consumer: "Price has nothing to do with it man! I've got the sequential list right here!"
What can be harder to explain is why a GTX560 is a better buy than a 6950 and vice-versa.
Also car analogies are dumb.
Indeed. I was talking about performance, hence my list was accurate.
Pricing can get far more complicated as it involves sales, rebates and a large dose of opinion over what's a better value.
Is the 460 the best value? Maybe. I bet some would disagree.
Indeed. I was talking about performance, hence my list was accurate.
Pricing can get far more complicated as it involves sales, rebates and a large dose of opinion over what's a better value.
Is the 460 the best value? Maybe. I bet some would disagree.
That wasn't what your post transmited, regardless of what you intended to say, which is easily verifiable since there are several people that interpreted your post in a different light.
It seems that you were saying that you can only compare cards between companies according to the relative position they occupy on the respective company lineups based on performance.
That is absurd.
A better way to present performance would be:
GTX580>6970>GTX570>6950>GTX560>6870 .
And even that would be too simplistic since depending on resolutions/seetings the prformance gaps will widen or narrow or the cards will even swap positions. That is also ignoring that these cards can be bought to be used in pairs or some even in trios.
You're right, it's lame/disgraceful/whatever, but people still do that. And unfortunately there's little to do about it. For example, if one were to stupidly keep posting about how good the GTX 560 is, I would post a rebuttal saying that it's subpar compared to the competition. I would then post the performance, price/performance, features, and value of the 6950, and how it simply beats the offerings of the GTX 560 in all metrics. However, that's all I really can do. This is the internet, there's no way I'm going to beat someone into submission with logic or facts. There's no peer pressure, no accountability, and little pertains to a "reputation." If someone is undeniably wrong, he/she generally will just repeat an argument ad nauseum, ignore good points against said argument, or just stop posting in the thread and run away from the argument. Furthermore, if one is inclined to be a fanboy or better yet is paid/compensated for stating clearly false or misleading opinions around the internet, where's the incentive to stop? You have to realize that this is a mess that leads to an endless cycle of bickering, mod warnings, and transient bannings. It reminds me of a henhouse and all the clucking and bawking back and forth. If it's not for you, either don't partake or find a forum that shuts this type of crap down fast. I digress though, back on topic.The reason why a number of people (including myself) have received an infraction and a number of warnings with respect to these "personal attacks" is precisely because this isn't a matter of opinion.
It is not my opinion that if you overclock card X and compare it to an overclocked card y that this represents a fair comparison. It is not my opinion that if you overclock card X and compare it to a stock clocked card Y that this is an unfair comparison in cases where stock clocked card Y can overclock as well.
The reason why people are risking their posting histories on this forum is precisely because there's a fact at stake. This fact is with respect to 'review fairness'. I've never seen more biased reviews/bad journalism/bad reviews as the video card reviews that are done by many of the sites out there. Using 2 games to conclude that x is faster than y OVERALL? Using one USER overclocked card against another stock clocked card and concluding that the former is faster than the latter ALWAYS?
Let's put it this way: Show me one review that has a user overclocked 5850 against a stock clocked 460, that concludes that the 5850 is much faster than the stock clocked 460 ALWAYS, as was done in many of the 460 (user overclocked) reviews and in many posts on this sub-forum. JUST ONE. This is why so many 'zoners' are up in arms at these comparisons: they just don't happen to Nvidia.
There is a controversy here. Performance is an objective matter (that can fluctuate based on drivers, games and so forth, but it is quantifiable and not a matter of debate). This is why I tend to read Alienbabeltech reviews (comprehensive games list, check out this one: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=23490&all=1). Take a look at the hardware list: They use only factory overclocked cards. They use lots of games. They offer conclusions re: raw performance and price/performance (if that's your thing). That's a comprehensive review. I wish their testing was cited far more frequently. So many other shoddy, frankly garbage reviews, are brought to this forum as if they support the conclusions often made.
Guess what - they don't. And there are a number of people who notice it.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti unveiled: up to 46% faster than Radeon HD 6950
"NVIDIA is obviously particularly proud of its new GeForce GTX 560 Ti GPU it suggests it pwns the gamers sweet spot in the press release and at first glance the Fermi-based video card does have plenty going for it. Eight tessellation engines, a total of 384 CUDA cores, DirectX 11 support and a 52.5 billion/sec texture fill rate add up to a card 33-percent faster than the GeForce GTX 460 and up to 65-percent faster than AMDs Radeon HD 6870.
Then a ZR1 vette should not outperform an Audi R-8 based on price. But it does. You can't go by price ALONE. It's the biggest factor, but not the only factor. Not by a mile.
Indeed. I was talking about performance, hence my list was accurate.
Pricing can get far more complicated as it involves sales, rebates and a large dose of opinion over what's a better value.
I agree, it doesn't.That doesn't even make sense.
For ten bucks more, Gigabyte's SOC version of the GTX 560 Ti looks to be a singularly good deal, with even higher performance than the 6950 1GB in our overall index. The GTX 560 Ti SOC is a more polished product than the our early 6950 1GB sample, with measurably lower noise levels. Going with a GeForce will get you even higher geometry throughput than Cayman, too, a feature that may have contributed to the 560 Ti's performance advantage in Civilization V and could matter more in future games
It's the same thing like 4xx series vs HD 5xxx series so I don't know what your saying.http://techreport.com/articles.x/20293/14
AMD cards are way overpriced right now. The 5xx series has taken AMD by complete surprise as their current line up seems more geared towards fighting the 4xx series.
Hmm, if performance is your only criteria, why didn't you say the 4GB oced 5970 > 580. Doesn't really matter that one is almost twice as expensive as the other for a 20% performance boost right?
Obviously it's not the ONLY factor, but like you said for an overwhelming majority of consumers it is the biggest factor. People want the best bang for their buck. How much performance do I get for x amount of money? For people who like Physx, they may be willing to pay a price premium for that feature. Same with Eyefinity.
What I was trying to get at is do rational buyers really declare a winner (by winner I mean what they end up purchasing) based on a sequential lineup of each companies offerings or based on price? In general the more expensive part is going to be faster but is it worth the price premium? Is the 40% price difference between the 580 and 6970 worth the 15% performance boost? Or the 21% price difference between the 570 and 6950 worth the 10% performance disparity? Most consumers buy based on the best bang for your buck. That's why I thought Wreckage's post was a little off.
Hmm, if performance is your only criteria, why didn't you say the 4GB oced 5970 > 580. Doesn't really matter that one is almost twice as expensive as the other for a 20% performance boost right?
5970 is a card sir.My list did not include SLI or Crossfire configurations.
A Civic with NOS could probably beat a ZR1 Vette in a 0-60 race. Doesn't mean it's better even though it's cheaper.
Also car analogies are dumb.
5970 is a card sir.
Coincidentally you can take this card and crossfire it with another card!
If it looks like a card, acts like a card, fits in 1 PCIe like a card then it must be a card. Weren't you the one who was saying that a GTX 295> 5870 for being the fastest card?
So if it's a multi-GPU you leave it out of comparison with other cards?Actually, that would be called "Quadfire". 4GPUs total. Crossfire x2.
In the minds of enthusiasts here, there is a single GPU crown and a multiGPU card crown. Currently, as I am absolutely certain you already know, AMD holds the multi GPU card crown, and Nvidia holds the single GPU crown for a while now. Even closes in on the 5970 with the GTX580.
Lets not mince words here. You know pretty well about fair weather champs and the side they are on. Multi GPU cards count only when they are the best. That view may differ depending on which side of the fence you prefer to be on.
GTX560 is probably the best card you can get right now for it's price point, performance and features.
What I was trying to get at is do rational buyers really declare a winner (by winner I mean what they end up purchasing) based on a sequential lineup of each companies offerings or based on price? In general the more expensive part is going to be faster but is it worth the price premium? Is the 40% price difference between the 580 and 6970 worth the 15% performance boost? Or the 21% price difference between the 570 and 6950 worth the 10% performance disparity? Most consumers buy based on the best bang for your buck. That's why I thought Wreckage's post was a little off.