Wow NV is basically beaten at all price points

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
ATi drivers are equivalent to Nvidia's.

i have both

- the only people who care that Nv is "beaten" is ATi fans

People just buy what is advertised .. Nvidia doesn't discount their cards as quickly as AMD does and they keep right on selling them - market share hasn't shifted

Agreed!...Nothing wrong in general with ATI drivers, as an owner of both and beta games tester I have no driver issues.
Amazes me how ATI /Nvidia debate in video forum always goes downhill so fast ,there will always be some FUD but finding the truth is never easy here.

They wouldn't understand how a 9800 relates to a 260, 275, 280, 285 or 295.
250 they can understand, it's lower than 260.

Look at the old days you only had one model from both sides,nowadays we are spoilt for choice, not surprising "average Joe" is confused.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: SiliconDoc
PS !
Even Derek, a super bigtime red rooster ati fan says the ati drivers ARE NOT UP TO NVIDIA SNUFF !
He had a whole WHINE about the monthly releases - it's STILL on his review ! He put down ATI considerably for BREAKING other games with their too fast monthly driver releases, and for NOT HAVING GAME SPECIFIC profiles or forced dual card clicks in their CP like NVIDIA HAS !
So don't even GO THERE claiming the ati drivers are equivalent to nvidias - they are INFERIOR and the biggest red fanboys KNOW IT.
--
Let's not forget the 4770 unavailable for purchase driver issues either ! Gee, cat 9.4 DOESN'T WORK ! IT WON'T WORK ! That was a "problem" pointed out as those few that got the card already pointed in review after review -
Yes, if you get the right one in there, you'll be okay, even GREAT in xfire like GTX9800 SLI ( which competes head to head but often isn't shown in the reviews - ) -
BUT, if you're some user who purchased the 4770 - or got it as a present from mommie or daddie, where does that problem leave you, unless you're an EXPERT ? NOT SITTING PRETTY !
On the other hand, nvidia drivers go in like butter - I can even think of hearing ANYWHERE on the THOUSANDS of reviews I've read, of a similar nvidia driver problem !
You can't EITHER !
It hasn't happened !
---
the drivers are not equivalent !
NVIDIA IS BETTER, PERIOD!

I prefer ATI's drivers to Nvidia's actually.

Well you can prefer all you want. but you won't have specific nor valid reasons. It's just not happening.
You can tell me what your red rooster fan bias is, but you will NOT have any logical reason to back it up. So what !
Instead of just telling me you have a bias, tell me WHY - to see if anyone with a sound mind can agree, ok ?
Here, I'll start. CCC bloat, TSR's in process(taskmanager) - C++, locked overclock limits, no gamer profiles, no forced game specific aa and af, no dual card forcing- no PhysX selection, no ntune panel integration, no HTML lightweight interface.
Now would you have something you could tell me about that would CONVINCE me you have some real good reasons for liking ati better ?
Usually the answer is : I HAD an nvidia card and it almost gave me a heart attack, it sucked, it crashed, and I haven't had a single problem with my ati card. (likely the first or second card said responder has ever had)
So huh ?
You really want to convince me you have a valid opinion ?
Want to tell me about cat 9.4 problems with 4770 ?
Come on, I gave you plenty like about Nvidia over ati, you got ANYTHING ? Or is it what I thought, your heart attack....

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: apoppin

I can't tell you how many times I've seen and/or heard of the CCC not installing/running properly, sometimes without fixes until the next monthly update.

Yet with NV these types of problems have never happened to me.

i've *HEARD*

... "never happened to me"

Its happened to me plenty of times, hence the *SEEN*

That is also why when my 4850s went on the fritz they were all replaced with GTX260s

just as many people go the other way; i have occasion to use both and i have compared each set of drivers released from each vendor since August; they are very reliable - 185.85 got got bad press and the 2 FarCry Hotfixes were embarrassing to AMD - so it is pretty equal; and they both have drivers every month

CCC *used* to be bloated and buggy. Now it is very much improved and is a very decent control panel

Users personal preferences have alway been formed by their experiences with any given company. You could call me Captain Obvious here, but it seems it may not be so obvious why people actually do have a preference of one over another.

It goes without saying that I personally have had a vastly better experience using Nvidia hardware than I have using ATI hardware. Someone else may be the polar opposite.
So, in other words guys/gals, this "I have never had any problems with my Nvidia drivers/hardware" or "I have never had any problems with my ATI drivers/hardware" is absolutely pointless.

It all depends on two things.
1. You
2. How your rig is configured. (All the software you have running, how many previous drivers have you had before your current one, and how many times have you changed from ATI to Nvidia or the other way around. How long has it been since you wiped your drive and did a fresh install of your OS and updated your drivers yada yada yada).

I don't have to tell you which companies products I have had less trouble with. Others will be directly opposite.

But I have no idea what category Obsoleet falls under. LOL. That's a new one.

The problem is the ATI issues are well known, but the nvidia issues are REFERRED TO in the abstract.
I really can't understand how people keep bleating the way they do.
ati users are always saying CCC is now not so bloated, and it's mostly fixed, but they don't have a real nvidia criticism - and they usually have a much faster cpu and ram that covers up CCC bloat more than it used to.
Top ATI users often DO NOT install CCC - they use rivatuner and tray tools, and there is a reason, and they use the BARE ati driver.
Watch, just go read how many times you see a vague REFERENCE to nvidia issues - nothing concrete, they just know it happens, but can't say what, usually.
ATI however, has KNOWN issues, and people mention them in specifics, in detail.
There really isn't any excuse except inexperience for denying the realities, or just plain denial syndrome, often I find the ati person has a very large chip on their shoulder against nvidia.
Just earlier, two spilled their guts to me on it. One was "nvidia got greedy, they forgot their days of the 6600GT coupled with - the 4850 is a CLASSIC" ( that person dissed every nvidia card since the 6600GT for "too much greed" - but since ati was AWOL, is that nvidia's fault ? )
Next was the other red raver ripping away, ignoring my points, finally he gave up his chip ghost - nvidia screwed "the cheeelren" on their laptops - promised to replace the faulty mobile substrate cores, and didn't follow thru 100%, and the nvidia reps are all bad, and nvidia SHOULD BURN to nothing. "
Well those two of course never had an "ati" problem, the latter REPORTEDLY going from 8800GT to a $130 4870/512 (same price someone else quoted with a double rebate just an hour or two prior).
So what I find at the base of it is an utter INABILITY for honest appraisal due to some deep seated raging hatred of nvidia, that eventually in many cases surfaces, they just go on their rant - after calling me a fanboy, of course, with no basis, since between my ragging at the lies, I make factual points, which they of course love to ignore.
Now, how many specific nvidia issues can one name off the top of their head ?
The only I have to cite is a NV4DSP.DLL (probably got the filename off) CRASH that I've seen cited for a certain game I don't recall the game - the fix was cleaning out the ati drivers or some game patch.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play kussie kussie when the facts are obvious and available.
ATI has more problems - they are more citable, people know more about them in detail. That's just the way it is.

 

[SiliconDoc]

" I really don't see much difference between your post and his.

Try being more like Wreckage or better yet Keys if your trying to make a point. "
---
You mean you see some difference, but you'll ignore my facts and corrections, and play - uhh.. telling me how to post instead ?
You basically don't like my style, but you won't refute the points I brought up ? Yes, you won't even claim a single one is incorrect. You don't know, IMO, by what you posted already.
The agp 1900 series cards were stable - catalyst 7.2 - but you've done what since ? No agp hotfix issue at umm.. 8.2 as I recall ? You may not have had one, I've seen the 1900 agp series do well. Try the 3850 though in agp. TROUBLE.
Sorry, I've seen too much. I've installed hundreds of cards.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: sandorski
Depends on Sales, nothing else. If ATI/AMD are seeing increases in Sales and Nvidia is losing Sales, then ATI/AMD is benefitting greatly. Other scenarios range from Benefitting to $Losing at greater rate.

We won't really know until Sales Data are released. Personally, I bought a Gigabyte 4850 3 weeks back due to the great Price.

Well last quarter they lost market share and dipped to under 1/3 of the market.

LOL - Thank you Huck, a kiss from Becky for you.
.
Now, is it being a fanboy to cite the facts ?
.
Or is it being a fanboy to be biased and ignorant but hoping a certain comp is benefitting greatly ?

LOL - man i'm telling you....

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: SiliconDoc

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: SiliconDoc
PS !
Even Derek, a super bigtime red rooster ati fan says the ati drivers ARE NOT UP TO NVIDIA SNUFF !
He had a whole WHINE about the monthly releases - it's STILL on his review ! He put down ATI considerably for BREAKING other games with their too fast monthly driver releases, and for NOT HAVING GAME SPECIFIC profiles or forced dual card clicks in their CP like NVIDIA HAS !
So don't even GO THERE claiming the ati drivers are equivalent to nvidias - they are INFERIOR and the biggest red fanboys KNOW IT.
--
Let's not forget the 4770 unavailable for purchase driver issues either ! Gee, cat 9.4 DOESN'T WORK ! IT WON'T WORK ! That was a "problem" pointed out as those few that got the card already pointed in review after review -
Yes, if you get the right one in there, you'll be okay, even GREAT in xfire like GTX9800 SLI ( which competes head to head but often isn't shown in the reviews - ) -
BUT, if you're some user who purchased the 4770 - or got it as a present from mommie or daddie, where does that problem leave you, unless you're an EXPERT ? NOT SITTING PRETTY !
On the other hand, nvidia drivers go in like butter - I can even think of hearing ANYWHERE on the THOUSANDS of reviews I've read, of a similar nvidia driver problem !
You can't EITHER !
It hasn't happened !
---
the drivers are not equivalent !
NVIDIA IS BETTER, PERIOD!

I prefer ATI's drivers to Nvidia's actually.

Well you can prefer all you want. but you won't have specific nor valid reasons. It's just not happening.
You can tell me what your red rooster fan bias is, but you will NOT have any logical reason to back it up. So what !
Instead of just telling me you have a bias, tell me WHY - to see if anyone with a sound mind can agree, ok ?
Here, I'll start. CCC bloat, TSR's in process(taskmanager) - C++, locked overclock limits, no gamer profiles, no forced game specific aa and af, no dual card forcing- no PhysX selection, no ntune panel integration, no HTML lightweight interface.
Now would you have something you could tell me about that would CONVINCE me you have some real good reasons for liking ati better ?
Usually the answer is : I HAD an nvidia card and it almost gave me a heart attack, it sucked, it crashed, and I haven't had a single problem with my ati card. (likely the first or second card said responder has ever had)
So huh ?
You really want to convince me you have a valid opinion ?
Want to tell me about cat 9.4 problems with 4770 ?
Come on, I gave you plenty like about Nvidia over ati, you got ANYTHING ? Or is it what I thought, your heart attack....

There's no reason to like CCC over nVidia's control panel? There is no way anyone could ever tell you why they like CCC over the control panel and have any basis for it? Are you serious? No PhysX is a problem with ATI drivers? No nTune is a problem with ATI drivers? That is like saying nVidia's control panel sucks because it doesn't have ATI's Overdrive feature or DirectX 10.1 support. Ridiculous.

You keep going back and forth between giving software and hardware reasons for why a driver is better or worse. Are you sure you know what the difference between software and hardware is? Are you talking about the quality of the cards or the quality of the drivers? I'm having a hard time following.

You want reasons to like CCC over the nVidia control panel or at all? How about layout? How about the fact that it does exactly what it is supposed to do perfectly fine? Are you going to tell me that these aren't valid reasons to like the CCC? Nobody said it was perfect, but if it was as bad as you suggest then there is no way anyone would use an ATI card.

You think ATI drivers are buggy and full of problems while nVidia's are perfect? Google searching nvidia blue screens comes up with more results than searching for ati blue screens. nVidia's drivers work fine and so do ATI's. Neither is flawless, but saying ATI ones are full of problems while nVidia's have next to none just reeks of ignorance. Using your anecdotal(and undoubtedly fabricated) evidence doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things either. The fact is that most people have no problems at all with their drivers(ATI or nVidia) and the majority of the people that do have problems are actually caused by something they did and not the driver. People who run into actual conflicts that are caused by nothing but the driver are exceedingly few and far between.

You have to be a 13 year old with an nVidia card that learned how to sign up for a forum. There is no way even the most one sided insane fanboy could make statements like the ones you are making while being over 13 years old. It just isn't feasible.

In short: learn to spell, learn to type in complete sentences, and learn to think.

If you reply, all you're going to say is the same thing you've said already and it won't have any content that this post doesn't already cover so re-read this post as many times as you like until you are content.

 

[ExcaliburMM]

I was an NV guy from my first 6800 to its replacement 8600GT. I bought ATI this round, and I have to say it was a tough thing to do. Both NV cards had served me well and I thought were worth what I paid for them. But I could no longer say that when it was time for me to buy my current 4870. I got it months ago for prices 4870s are only reaching now, which made it a steal and solidified my choice against the 260 216. However, a lot of my friends, especially the less informed, wouldn't buy an ATI card at gunpoint. They're fanboys and are sticking with NV despite the price : performance being much greener on the other side. I think that's why NV is holding a lot of market share, it's all name and reputation. But with sites like Anandtech getting the word out, and saying that right now ATI is on top of things, I don't know how long that's going to last.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: apoppin

I don't understand why if AMD is loosing so much market share, why there are more stock of AMD SKU's for example, Newegg. Newegg is not known for overstocking of useless stuff that won't sell.

They stocked up so they are now are blowing it out at bargain prices .. that is NOT good for AMD's *margin*
- screw marketshare .. Nvidia has it .. AMD needs Profitabilty- something you do not get by discounting your product

Yeah, captain obvious doesn't function for some people. Core 2/duo blew amd away - the Intel cpu's SOLD OUT on the egg - I mean they literally dried up from large numbers of sales. AMD on the other hand, not so much.

As far as nvidia vs ati cards there for gaming - there's dozens of the hated g80/g92 core flavors SOLD OUT at the egg - other channels are dried up ALL OVER at every vendor except the most outrageously overpriced obscure sites or government/education e-shops on many and varied nvidia flavors of the 8800 9800 derivatives, and those were large number runs, not something in limited production. 9600's are sold out less, but some just gone too.
Gosh, that's just a really nasty reality for red fans, but oh well. Ebay is actually the best bet sometimes, and on occassion there's a resurfacing, like the 8800GT at tiger for $84 bucks I just saw.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
It is mediocre, they are on par with ATI. They are nothing exceptional anymore. You could say ATI is mediocre too (they are), but they aren't sitting with DX10.0 cards and trying to sell it as something special.

What big title requires 10.1? Nobody cares about .1 updates. We have had a few of them in the past that resulted in nothing worth talking about and were quickly superseded by a major release anyways. Much like 10.1 will be superseded by DX11.

Marketshare wise NV is doing just fine and isnt bleeding money like AMD. Economy is tough.

Obviously, to the fan bio type, DX10.1 over DX10.0 is a HUGE deal, but PhysX, Cuda, ambient occlusion, game specific driver profiles built in, forced sli, forced AA AF, installed game new forced and default profiles, all that and more is "crap" and "meh" because ati DOES NOT HAVE IT. But boy, dx10.1 that's like the whole world.
That one just HATES nvidia with a passsion and can't help himself.
No, I'm not the fanboy.
I'm not the one who pulled that stunt.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Scoop
If I was buying now, I would definitely go with the 4890.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could argue against the price/performance of the 4890 right now.

Hello, here I am ! Shall I recite again what I'm giving up for a few possible frames in certain games at high rezzes? I shouldn't need to. I can afford to buy a pizza when I feel like it. Nope, not me. Count me out. Can't do it, it's giving up too much.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: brblx
this is probably going to turn into that other thread which i apparently ruined by saying amd was 'winning' the current pricing battle. which they are- but then the nvidia supporters get offended not realizing that nvidia is winning everything else- brand recognition, oem sales, ect. they're not going anywhere. joe blow has no idea which cards are a good deal, so nvidia often still wins with him.

but i think anyone with a brain should still thank amd for current pricing. if they hadn't brought out the 4xxx series we'd probably still be playing on $300 9800's. they stopped the epic overpricing that really went through the ceiling with the 8-series.

I think that's overblown. That assumes nvidia was planning on standing still forever. Believe me someone earlier posted that nvidia has to do something to improve on their 9800 g92 rebranded series. It was like GT200 never happened, and the GT300 reportedly planned on before GT200 even came out as the test for it, isn't a thought at nvidia and hasn't been for years.
--
What DID happen is the g80/g92 core had LONG LEGS - and the g84/g94 cores are absolutely forgotten - and that g80 g92 core was made with 128bit, 192bit, 256bit,384bit,512bit, /128,320,640,256,512,768 memory sizes - then core speed flavor differences - heck just the bit and mem differences make for 5x6=30xat least 2 cores = 60 different "rebrands" - and their RANGE was pretty wide...
So, this whole "standing still" whine just doesn't cut it.
That's all that could be done at the time, it was TOP, and ati couldn't equal even that G80 - COULD NOT.
But somehow it's NVidia's fault they were ahead and just couldn't crank out even the next higher tier before ati could catch up ?! ?
NO WAY, SORRY !
With that idea, you might as well name nvidia the master of all even now. I mean it's CONSPIRATORIAL. " Nvidia was holding back with their super high top core, just because they could!" ....
Geeze - really ?
Have they been "holding back" now for so long as well as the ati fans rant and rave the 4890 is king ?
Nope, it was just the way it is, the market was - well without Crysis - heck - maybe people should thank Crytek.

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I have never understood Derek's lust for the 4670. It gets blown out of the water by the 9600GT and costs almost the same amount of money($7 difference between the cheapest 512MB 4670 and an OC BFG 9600GT- they aren't that close performance wise). He has done everything in his power to try and shield the 4670 from going head to head with the 9600GT- every other site compared them as they are obviously direct competitors. For some reason he states the 9600GTs are priced against the 4830s while a quick check of NewEgg shows that the 9800GTs are the ones at that price point- cheapest 9800GT is $5 more then the cheapest 4830. I'm not arguing that the 4830 doesn't give more bang for the buck at that price point, but it isn't going head to head with the 9600GT(the nV parts also tend to have decent bundles, but I can understand ignoring those).

The rest of the price points seem to be handled relatively well, but the only reason I know that is I checked them. Sadly, that seems to be a requirement when getting any buying reccomendation from AT lately

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
I love how the price cutoff dollar levels are manipulated too, or stated then ignored, for you know whoms favor.
How about that $480.00 4870x2 lol - no gtx260 x 2, no gtx275 x 2 - yep but boy that four hundred and eighty dollar red - yeah baby !
haha jiminy crickets

 

[BenSkywalker]

It seems to me that the 4670 and 9600 GSO are both sitting at $70, whereas the GT starts at $5 more (most being $10). I don't think the comparison is entirely invalid.

My issue is they claim that the 4670 is the performance equal of the 9600GT, even at stock clocks that isn't the case(the board that is currently $75 is OCd to a level that would place it a hair under a 9800GT in most benches). BTW- AT wasn't using MIRs in their factoring, likely because nV tends to do better in this aspect but I was just using their guidelines for finding the best deal at a given pricepoint. Here are some 9600GT vs 4670 numbers. In most tests, the 9600GT is closer to the 4830 then the 4670- and that is the 650MHZ version, not the 700MHZ version that NewEgg has for $75. Using AT's guidelines there is simply no way the 4670 is a better value then the 9600GT right now, nor can I ever really recall it being so.

Doesn't the HD4670 outperform its predecessor ala HD3870? Wouldn't that mean its pretty close against the 9600GT in terms of performance? (Since the HD3870 was similiar in performance to a 9600GT)

The 4670 gets crushed by the 9600GT as badly as the 9600GT gets crushed by the 4830. That is the performance rift you are dealing with- numbers are linked above. AT and Derek in particular have gone out of their way to protect the 4670- never putting it up against its main competitor in any analysis outside of a side bar abstract one. I have never understood this, perhaps the new regulation the FTC is considering will bring us an explenation there.

Got bored and did the numbers, at 12x10x0 the 9600GT is 11.6% faster then the 4670, at 12x10x4 it is 14.6% faster, 16x10x4 it is 17.1% faster, 19x12x4 it is 25.5% faster. By way of comparison, the 4830 is 20.6% faster then the 9600GT at 19x12x4. The 9600GT is closer competition to the 4830 then it is to the 4670 in terms of performance.

Intel has made it clear they need AMD as if it was Intel itself. This is just not the case for Nvidia.

So what you are saying is AMD is only surviving because Intel has allowed it while they are incapable of stopping the threat that is nV?

Judging from their bashing of Larrabee at every conference (which Intel is soaking up as free publicity).. I see that as fear.

Maybe they bash it because they think it is a dumb design. They may have that impression because it is a dumb design

That's true with the V3 but they were in trouble and fragile before the V3 launch which is why they couldn't maintain their company. The V3 itself was a great chip, I don't know if I'd call their advanced AA at the time as focusing on the 'core' of what people needed though.

The VSA-100 chip(V3?) used old fashioned(advanced? heh, was a hacked version of old school OGL accumulation buffer multi sampling) AA that utilized almost no dedicated transistors.

I find very doubtful that nVidia has two times the GPU orders

nVidia is selling slightly more then double the amount of boards that ATi is atm based on the latest marketshare numbers.

I don't understand why if AMD is loosing so much market share, why there are more stock of AMD SKU's for example, Newegg.

Hellman's/Best Foods mayonaise(East/West cost name, same product) outsells the rest of the top ten SKUs combined in its category. Amount of SKUs means nothing more then exactly that.

With some common sense, there's no need to do a very deep research, a GPU which is two times bigger, with almost two times more transistors.

That uses cheaper RAM and is bought at 2x the quantity likely impacting volume pricing. Do I know which is cheaper? Nope, but I don't honestly see compelling evidence either way. Let's see some pricing information on GDDR5 vs GDDR3 currently and factor that in to offset the probably additional cost of the larger die, then how much volume discount does TSMC give nV? How much are failed 4890 yields hurting ATi as they are a different die then 4870 and aren't being sold off as something else(as nV is doing with 285-275-260).

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
CUDA is pretty irrelevant in this conversation, and a pretty fragile market to boast about.

I guess you don't know about the $11,000.00 Tesla card cuda superwhomper college systems flying off the shelves to universities all over the USA, that to be fair, has a SUBSTANTIAL tax payer funded base / grant dollars cranking away on delivery.
But, you, mr I say it, everyone should buy it red fanbase guy, you just declare, and yeah, I'll be a zombie and believe you know one whit about what you're saying...
No, I won't.
Next you'll tell us yer the new ati CEO or COO consideration.



Anymore baiting and name calling (repeatedly calling members fanboys) will earn you a vacation again.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[SiliconDoc]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: apoppin
They stocked up so they are now are blowing it out at bargain prices .. that is NOT good for AMD's *margin*
- screw marketshare .. Nvidia has it .. AMD needs Profitabilty- something you do not get by discounting your product

Jum that's true, but considering that the HD 4800 series is considerably cheaper to manufacture, probably they can slash their prices without suffering that much, but it still lowering their magins, specially in the condition that they are which every margin counts.

You keep saying that as if it were true

You do not know that

Nvidia has 2 times the GPU orders that AMD has; do you think they pay the same price for their parts or their fabbing?

Nvidia has partners that are less independent than AMD's; perhaps they also pay a bit more than AMD's partners since they discount less and Nvidia's margin is higher at that spot also.

Nvidia doesn't appear to see any NEED to discount .. as you pointed out, their cards sell very well

I also love how these ati is the bang types keep telling all of us, with NO NUMBERS, that ati is "considerably cheaper to manufacture the core is smaller !" -
What they FAILED is business school, because the card manufacturers KNOW THE CORE IS CHEAPER, so they pay ATI LESS FOR IT.
It never occurs to the ati fans or the raving red rooster reviewers - gosh they all flunked out of business class in 9th grade, and just PRETEND that ati gets as much per tiny core as nvidia does per larger core.... gee - how'd they figure that out ?
---
REALITY BITES ! : Does any ati fanboy of the highest red level imagine for one moment that ati may NOT get same premium per core when they farm out to vendors ? Not same same deal per card ? HUH ?
I mean if just ONE of you people somewhere ACTUALLY GOT ME THE NUMBERS JUST ONCE - THAT WOULD BE GREAT!
Instead I'm told to believe card makers are COMPLETE FOOLS, and pay big mula for tiny cores.
Can we just FINALLY STOP THIS TOTAL FREAKING FUD !~!! ?



Enjoy the vacation.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SiliconDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
It is mediocre, they are on par with ATI. They are nothing exceptional anymore. You could say ATI is mediocre too (they are), but they aren't sitting with DX10.0 cards and trying to sell it as something special.

What big title requires 10.1? Nobody cares about .1 updates. We have had a few of them in the past that resulted in nothing worth talking about and were quickly superseded by a major release anyways. Much like 10.1 will be superseded by DX11.

Marketshare wise NV is doing just fine and isnt bleeding money like AMD. Economy is tough.

Obviously, to the fan bio type, DX10.1 over DX10.0 is a HUGE deal, but PhysX, Cuda, ambient occlusion, game specific driver profiles built in, forced sli, forced AA AF, installed game new forced and default profiles, all that and more is "crap" and "meh" because ati DOES NOT HAVE IT. But boy, dx10.1 that's like the whole world.
That one just HATES nvidia with a passsion and can't help himself.
No, I'm not the fanboy.
I'm not the one who pulled that stunt.

That's probably quite enough Silicon Doc. You're spreading more bile than the fanboys you ridicule and it's turning this thread ugly..
Try and change your approach to posting if you wish to be taken seriously and get your points across. Of course, it's probably too late for that. You should be able to tell who is FOS and who isn't. Peppering your posts with "fanboy, fanbio, red roosters, is not a good thing in case you were wondering.

EDIT: Whoops!! Too late. Amber nailed 'em. :thumbsup:

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Hellman's/Best Foods mayonaise(East/West cost name, same product)

Hellmans used have good Mayo. Now its crap. Kraft and Blue Plate FTW!

 

[Paratus]

Damn nice work Amberclad.

I figured Silicon would burn out but not quite that quick.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Damn nice work Amberclad.

I figured Silicon would burn out but not quite that quick.

You should see his comments for the article on the front page.

 

[PJABBER]

FWIW, I just posted a Hot Deal for a MSI 4890 OC for $125.49 shipped from ZipZoomFly with three games (if you go through all of the rebates and cash backs available.)

At that price level I couldn't find anything even close in performance from Nvidia.

I am upgrading from an 8800GT 512 (probably the best bang from the buck card I ever bought) that pretty much still does what I need done. I figure with this single upgrade I can enjoy my Q6600 system with more eye candy and frame rates for gaming for another year, maybe longer depending on future games released.

My guess is that with the release of Win 7, plus the need to keep backward OS compatibility, it will take about three to six months for the new generation of cards coming out in the fall to get stable drivers. By then I will want to do a whole system replacement and pass this one on to my kids to knock around.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: evolucion8
I honestly don't understand why the GTS 250 would suddenly be much more appealing with a new name, but whatever.

I guess this again was done for the average Joe.
They wouldn't understand how a 9800 relates to a 260, 275, 280, 285 or 295.
250 they can understand, it's lower than 260.

Hey I didn't said that, watch out for the quotes hehe. Even though it's true, but the average Joe will only care for the price, geeks are much fewer in number.

Originally posted by: SiliconDoc The agp 1900 series cards were stable - catalyst 7.2 - but you've done what since ? No agp hotfix issue at umm.. 8.2 as I recall ? You may not have had one, I've seen the 1900 agp series do well. Try the 3850 though in agp. TROUBLE.
Sorry, I've seen too much. I've installed hundreds of cards.

I had the X1950XT AGP and I never had a single issue and the GPU was overclocked to 675MHz. I had it until february 2008 when then I upgraded to a HD 3850 ICEQ 3 which never gave me a single issue. Most issues are related to people using crappy motherboards with lame chipsets as the nForce 2/VIA chipsets, and user errors like driver uninstallation etc.

$125.00 for a HD 4890 is a steal.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Pantalaimon

Originally posted by: Paratus
Damn nice work Amberclad.

I figured Silicon would burn out but not quite that quick.

You should see his comments for the article on the front page.

:Q That boy has some issues........



On Topic - I think these drop in prices by ATI at all prices are like using a lever to move a boulder. Marketshare is going to change slowly at first and faster later, IF ATI continues to press aggressively with price.

As to what the cost of each board is, while Ben is right that the exact figures aren't known, common sense suggest the the 4800 series is less than the 200 series. A much smaller chip on a less complicated board will be cheaper to manufacture regardless of the differeng ram costs. To even get close TSMC would have to give Nv a greater than 50% volume discount. No way they arr doing that.

IMHO
posted via Palm Pre

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Damn nice work Amberclad.

I figured Silicon would burn out but not quite that quick.

Yea he was on a roll there. Serious troll since early 2008 too. I wonder who's alter ego got out of the closet...

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I have never understood Derek's lust for the 4670. It gets blown out of the water by the 9600GT and costs almost the same amount of money($7 difference between the cheapest 512MB 4670 and an OC BFG 9600GT- they aren't that close performance wise). He has done everything in his power to try and shield the 4670 from going head to head with the 9600GT- every other site compared them as they are obviously direct competitors. For some reason he states the 9600GTs are priced against the 4830s while a quick check of NewEgg shows that the 9800GTs are the ones at that price point- cheapest 9800GT is $5 more then the cheapest 4830. I'm not arguing that the 4830 doesn't give more bang for the buck at that price point, but it isn't going head to head with the 9600GT(the nV parts also tend to have decent bundles, but I can understand ignoring those).

The rest of the price points seem to be handled relatively well, but the only reason I know that is I checked them. Sadly, that seems to be a requirement when getting any buying reccomendation from AT lately

It's a bit cheaper than 9600gt and performs much better than 9500gt that also carry the 128bit bus. With 9600gt prices sit more in line with faster cards might be the reason why Derek doesn't compare it to 4670.

Cheapest 9600gt is $75 + ship. Which comes to about $82.

Cheapest 4670 is $70 + free ship with $10 rebate totals $60.

For $82 you can can do much better than 9600gt. Perhaps a 4830 or 4850 which would be leaps and bounds better. Even a 9800gt would be better for $5 more that comes with COD5.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Doesn't the HD4670 outperform its predecessor ala HD3870? Wouldn't that mean its pretty close against the 9600GT in terms of performance? (Since the HD3870 was similiar in performance to a 9600GT)

More like 3850. However there are games where 4670 chokes hard because of bandwidth. 3870 performs more in like with 9600gt few yeas back but could be faster due to more shader intensive games as of late.

4670 is still a good card. I wouldn't use it as my main gaming machine but for HTPC for moderate gaming on relatively low resolution on TV it does the trick nicely.