I also remember ATI stating that the R600 would be the fastest DX9 card to date when released... they were aiming for performance on both platforms I believe. I just think Nvidia did them one better that they weren't expecting. I am sure ATI could have done better than this from the get go but they wanted to play cash grab. Release a slightly faster card to get more money out of buyers then release something better than that to get even more money (ala R650-700). I just think Nvidia went all out and gave their 100% from the start and ended up trumping ATI's half assed offerings not giving them a chance at all.Originally Posted by Scimitar
I read somewhere a while ago that the G80 was desinged to maximize DX9 performance and R600 for DX10 performance, so I see this as no big surprise. I'm looking forward to seeing how each card does on some DX10 games like Crysis, the COH port, Shadowrun, Alan Wake, Unreal Tournament 3, MS Flight Simulator X, Hellgate London, and of cource 3dmark 07.
Even if the XT is on par or even slightly faster than a GTS, the fact that the GTS has more ram onboard still makes it seem a little more attractive. When loading lots of textures with high levels of AA/AF I would rather have 640mb of ram than 512mb of ram.
ATI is stating up to 24x AA. That is going to be hopelessly impossible to achieve considering how slow the cards are appearing to be running when compared to Nvidia's offerings even though they are offering 'only' 16x AA.
Bookmarks