Printable View
yea .. or nay ... HD2950XTX .. that better be fast cuz i really wanna switch to ATI for once ... so i can do CF on X38 and use ATI Tool's voltage control.. something nvidia cards cant .. u gotta flash bios ... and it doesnt change vGPU ... tried nbitor and nvflash
it worked for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LLqEWDo1V...elated&search=
Fudzilla....
I think that in DX10 games a R600 will slaughter a G80...
Too bad there aren't any DX10 benches
So how would you know without benches :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Why does it always seem that Ati's 'Next' graphics card will always be the biggest and best, yet at the time you can actually buy them theres always a better alternative?
Its not since the 9800 that ati have had the lead.
6800>x850
7900 was roughly equivilent to x1900, but was cooler, quieter, and had the gx2 if you really wanted performance, plus he 7800 was avaliable way before the x1800, so the family had a head start there as well (I still went the Ati route though)
8800>hd2900 (and the ati alternative is six months behind the nvidia offering)
Ati's main problem is that they are perpetually behind nvidia in their release timescale, they really need to speed up their time to market - hopefully the tie up with AMD will help them here.
r650 will be up against g90 so any theories as to performance lead is unknown
And when it comes to features you don't buy a product that will start to show an architectural advantage 12 months down the line, but is slower than the rival products for the present and immediate future. Just look at how P4's are now outperforming A64 chips thanks to developers optimising for a multithreaded environment. People still bough a64's because at the time they were the better chip.
I'd have to disagree on some of that...Quote:
Originally Posted by onewingedangel
6800=X800
X850>6800
X1800=7800
X1900>7900
This is of course purely performance wise...
That's how I see it :)
Best Regards :toast:
Put a big warning sign at your header news when posting article coming from FUD and INQ. You'll make a good service to forumers if you do this, this is just all crappy blabberings "news" (duh) posting...
GIMME GIMME GIMME !!
THERE'S AN ITCH IN MY TUMMMMY,
I NEED THE PRO RIGHT AWAYYYY !!!
GIMME GIMME GIMME !!
I DON'T MIND IF ITS CRUMMMMY,
3DMARK'S WHAT I'M GONNA PLAYYYY !!
:p
Perkam
Why? people can decide for themselves if they want to believe it. it's a lot more entertaining that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by death metal
NVidia has announced its "Supreme Commander Initiative" to counter AMD's strike.
you dont consider timeframes, NVIDIA has delivered a lot earlier in all of those cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
ATI and Nvidia have been fighting practically 1v1 for what the last 7 or 8 years and graphics cards cost as much if not more than they ever have.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarlboroMan
Why in the world do people keep thinking prices will go down? I mean honestly, where is this coming from?
This is true, I mean look at the 8800Ultra $800 is Fing rediculous!Quote:
Originally Posted by falqon
I see prices going up if anything not down, especially when DX10 software and games become more abundant.
Is it to much to ask to have a kickass DX10 card that draws only 150 watts? I mean, this is ridiculous!
prices go down, but they can't start selling everything at a loss now can they.Quote:
Originally Posted by falqon
Just the gddr3 on these cards has gotten to ring in a pretty penny.
not only that but supply in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
the 6800 and X800 were both hard to get at start (low supply).
then ATi spend time on a speed bump called the X850 wich resulted in the fact that both the x800XT and X850XT were very hard tog et cause supply was low.
Nvidia concetrated on increasing supply of the 6800.
So even tho the 6800 was slower then the x850, nvidia was able to supply good amounts of 6800GTs were ATI failed to meet the demand on the X850XT for months.
With the the X1800 came months (3 or 4) after the 7800, and the X1800 had huge supply issues for the first month or 2.
the 8800 vs the 2900 will be history repeating.
When the 2900 is buyable world wide the 8800 will have been on the market atleast for 5 or 6 months?
So even if the 2900 were faster then the 8800 what kills them all the time is having their card on the market on time and supply.
ATI humiliated Nvidia with the radeon 9700 and 9800. But they failed to continue this. Nvidia didnt always have the fastest card but they had their stuff on the market before ATI did and made good money doing so.
Email that headline to fud or inq. I'm pretty sure they can come up with a good story.:woot:Quote:
Originally Posted by Order
by looking at the architecture,it should beat nvidia in dx10Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
i am not saying it will,depends on drivers etc,but it should be capable
Maybe you can explain why?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
And before you might say 320 steam processors. Remember AMD actually only got 64 4+1@750Mhz, while nVidia got 128 1+1 at 1.35Ghz or so.
AMD's culture has finally spread to ATI. ATI is usually more conservative with their claims. I wanna see them back track on those words.
Ha ha, wait until you see the next gen cards after this. 300W baby :slapass:Quote:
Originally Posted by Haltech
If you had said synthetic benchmarks and some games I would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
For me 7900 was better overall.
To ATI: less talk and more work.
To Nvidia: be original and rip customers off more, thanks.
Edited :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad