nVidia to bury another compeditor?

[adlep]

Originally posted by: Stumps
Why is it, when ever AMD has a bad product cycle, idiots cry "oh noes it's the end of AMD"....I remember reading the same thing way back when the K5 was extremely late and under performing, but AMD came though that and the K5 ended up being reasonably respectable (PR 166 and 200 were gems).

Then the same thing with the K6 and K6-2... "Oh noes AMD can't compete with intels high end P2 and new P3's" and that pretty much lasted all the way to when the K7 first made it appearance, despite the fact the the K6-3 actually had better performance (it was slighty behind in gaming however....unless you had a voodoo 2 or a pair of them ) than the first P3's.

I have to disagree slightly.
The K5, K6, K6-2s, and the K6-3s were marketed as an alternative to Intel CPUs. Having said that, the PII -400/450MHz would annihilate the entire "K" line in all the benchmarks.
On the other hand, back then the Intel chips were expensive as hell and that is why many people would turn to AMD. The Green based systems were much cheaper than similar configurations based on Intel designs. Also, the very first Celeron - 266 MHz sucked big time.
On the other hand the 366MHz Celeron was great...

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no, the 3850 slaughters the 8600GTS in the LOW end... and doesn't compete with it price wise (its a medium-low card vs very low card)...

The 8800GT 256MB beats the 3870 in EVERY benchmark below 1680x1050... and beats it in some benchmarks at resolutions as high as 1920x1200...

And the GT 256MB is cheaper to boot.

its amusing to me how a new card released this gen selling for $150+ is considered a LOW END card. Man do ati and nvidia have some people brainwashed. low end to me is a 8400gs or 2400.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no, the 3850 slaughters the 8600GTS in the LOW end... and doesn't compete with it price wise (its a medium-low card vs very low card)...

The 8800GT 256MB beats the 3870 in EVERY benchmark below 1680x1050... and beats it in some benchmarks at resolutions as high as 1920x1200...

And the GT 256MB is cheaper to boot.

WTF? The 8600GTS is a midrange card by almost anyones definition. That's where Anand puts it and every hardware site I've been to. At Newegg it's $145 to $215, while the 3850 is $180. They are in the same price range.

Every benchmark? I don't know what site you've been looking at, but the benchmarks I saw showed the 256mb 8800GT quickly running out of video memory and running like a snail.
Slow running Crysis at High graphics settings
Just as bad in World in Conflict at high settings.

 

[taltamir]

the 8600GTS is an overpriced low end... it cost like mid range and performs like low end... and so what. I can still find 450-500$ 8800GTSv1 640MB all over the place... just because people are selling it for ridiculously high prices doesn't mean you should consider it...

Another example is the E6600 (240$) vs the E6750 (180$). A new part is better in absolutely every way shape and form, and is cheaper because stupid retailers and stupid customers who are buying them at that price. The 8600GTS might have been considered mid range when it was released... last year.

And as for which benchmarks I have seen, obviously different ones then you... the ones you posted here clearly contradict what I have seen... I guess we need MORE benchmarks to figure out which testers are messing up.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: taltamir
the 8600GTS is an overpriced low end... it cost like mid range and performs like low end...

The 8600 series outperforms the 8400/8500 series and underperforms the 8800 series. The cost and performance is in the "middle" of the range of current generation Nvidia cards, therefore it is a midrange card. Indeed, it performs almost mid-pack compared to the high-end of the previous generation 79xx series.

 

[fire400]

naw, ATI got the 3000 line out, so they're at least fine for another year or so.

AMD got the quadore out too. so they'll good for another year also.

nVidia is not going destroy ATI anytime soon, as it's 2000 series is still selling.

highend market, nVidia is kickin' but, you gotta realize that enthusiasts make up only a fraction of total global sales, although their influence may be at the core of getting the word out about how good a video card is, it's a marketting strategy obvsiously.

p.s. you misspelled 'competitor'

 

[TehMac]

[Originally posted by: keysplayr2003[/i]So, I ask you. Is "ATI" in better shape now than it was when the 2900XT was released? I believe they are. They offer great performance for a great price. And don't get started on the gouging of prices. That has been done to death. Even at gouged prices, these cards offer much better price/performance than previous releases.

Yeah, my x1900xt card is throwing in the bucket after a year and a half of intensive gaming (Oblivion max'd out with AA and HDR, BF2 max'd out, etc.)

With these nVidia cards being so good, but me wanting to wait til Next Gen, I think an ATi 3870 will fill the gap in til a year and a half later. Eh?

 

[trajan2050]

Here's abit of reality before the hot air gets out of control.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...g_Plans_Next_Week.html

No Light at the End of the Tunnel?
At present, various observers do not expect AMD to release a breakthrough product in the foreseeable future and claim that issues with quad-core design as well as 65nm process technology will continue to negatively affect AMD?s performance in the short-term.

?It now appears to us AMD may not have a competitive alternative to Intel?s barrage of 45-nm CPUs through 2008. [?] AMD?s 65 nm process and/or architecture continues to generate poor yields limiting the introduction of higher performer server, desktop and notebook CPUs. AMD?s lack of execution in the process node transition could potentially lead to significant market share loss in 2008,? said Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Kevin Cassidy in a note to clients, reports Barron?s Online web-site.

Revenues from AMD processors sales dropped substantially this year as AMD could not introduce chips competitive against Intel Corp.?s Core 2-series central processing units (CPUs). In addition, AMD lost substantial part of former ATI?s revenue in graphics and consumer electronics markets.
Fab-light can?t be executed overnight, and as a result it could take much longer than anticipated to convince investors that fab-lite is the right path for AMD to take and not just a move out of financial desperation,? wrote Doug Freedman, an analyst with American Technology Research, in a research note to investors, reports eWeek web-site.

 

[taltamir]

"Fab-light can?t be executed overnight, and as a result it could take much longer than anticipated to convince investors that fab-lite is the right path for AMD to take and not just a move out of financial desperation"
Corrected to:
"Fab-light can?t be executed overnight, and as a result it could take much longer than anticipated until anything but mission statements come out of this path that AMD is to take out of financial desperation"

Ok fab light... its not like they are gonna just close all their fabs, that makes no sense whatsoever, it means they will get the most out of their current fab investment and simply not build new ones, instead outsourcing their next gen fabs... This means a few years down the road when they hit 45nm and 32nm they will do so using fab-light approach rather then upgrading their existing fabs. But if by that point they actually have a killer then it would make sense for them to make it in house again... and if they don't then its just a downscaling move where they go down to the level of via and sell super budget chips that cant compete and are not even a blip on the radar.

Basically fab-light is something to do with the next process transition... and it is actually a wise decision on AMD's part as they are not betting on some magical success coming out of nowhere for them, rather they expect intel will maintian its advantage, but hope to significantly cut costs and compete as a budget version.