Quote Originally Posted by AKM View Post
If NV manage to get more than 60% perf. improvement out of their new card then a 60% gain for AMD will be a failure.
This is true. Becasuse if NV gets only 60 percent more performance, but still has a giant chip. NV will for money, still be the loser this round.

Wombat, I credit faster 1.60x more to bad grammer than anything. If it was indeed 160% percent faster, the price would certainly be higher and the teraflops wold be higher(3+ teraflops).

Conversely if what is true in the article verbatim, than if 1.6 is how much faster it is in the best case scenario, this could be at 2500*1600 with 8aa resolution when a 512 meg card would be starved for memory.

60% percent is perfectly acceptable for the price of admission. At $299, it blows everything out of the water in the high end for price for performance.

The chips size estimates everyone is doing is based on pictures estimates.

Also if the chip is as large as everyone is saying and AMD is making this a hard lauch so soon. It could be that alot of the shaders are deactivated because yields at 40nm are bad. If this was the case, AMD would have another hand to play almost immedietly when the gt300 came out.

As we have seen between g80 and gt200, a linear jump in tflop performance does not equal a linear jump in gaming performance.