Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8600 Preliminary benchies, kinda weak...

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Drivers
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 7, 2007 1:05:55 AM

Hardwarezone got a preview on the 8600 GTS, they were a little dissappointed, although it is still running on the beta drivers and things might look brighter once they are for sale.

Linkage http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=3&id=2231

More about : 8600 preliminary benchies kinda weak

April 7, 2007 1:16:52 AM

Great find. I guess the real tell will be the price that Nvidia pitch them at.

Initially though, it looks like the X1600 looked upon first release, i.e. too large a gap between itself and the current top-end offering.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 1:53:37 AM

Quote:

But I am surprised at how it just barely outperformed the x1950xt, if that was a dx10 card, I'd be totally over it right now


What are you talking about outperforming the X1950XT, the GF8600GTS overclocked basically kept pace with or lost to the X1950PRO, which is where most of us expected it to perform in actual games. Once again proving, 3Dmark is good for exposing features, but tells you little about overall performance in games. That's why those early leaks would've meant more if they posted the smaller individual SM2.0, 3.0, etc test results, not just the final score.

So the X1950 pro sels for about $150, they're really gonna need to start showing off some DX10 app/benefits for these new mid-range cards to start earning their high price tags.

I agree with Abyss, this is just like the X1600 series. Nice new features, but for current games better off with the previous generation's crippled high end.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 7, 2007 1:53:55 AM

I honestly expected more out of this card, oh well. I feel better about ordering the 8800GTS 320mb now.
April 7, 2007 2:22:56 AM

I too was waiting for the rumored 8600 Ultra, but that when I thought it would at least have a 256-bit bus (because surely they wouldn't take a step back, I thought).

Well then, it looks like I might have to go with the 8800GTS-320 with its larger bus size. Or better yet, wait a year (or more at this rate) for R600.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 4:49:31 AM

Quote:
But I too really thought nvidia was going to release a good product with the 8600 utlra, I think ati's midrange will perform far better


Yeah I wonder about that, I don't think the X2600 can perform much better than that with it still being memory limited.

I suspect the X2600 will be +/- 5-10% performance compared to the GF8600 series, and both will dissapoint those expecting to put an X1950XTX in thei SFF case running on a 250W power supply like they had with their GF7600GT which kept pace with many of the old guards like the GF6800GT.

I just hope that they do well with the notebook versions, because despite the weak by desktop standards numbers we see here, if the X2600 can match them, and give me duallink HDMI out with audio, then I think I have my perfect solution for my laptop. Low res gaming in Crysis and UT3 (with most features turned on), and full res Oblivion, and true flesh tone pr0n with Dolby TrueHD sound. That's good enough for me. :twisted:

PS, yeah I just bought the NIN HD-DVD last week with TrueHD, and OMG, I'm hooked, just as good as DVD-Audio, so I am amped that it will be supporting it with the RealTek audio device.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 12:52:12 PM

Quote:
the GF8600GTS overclocked basically kept pace with or lost to the X1950PRO, which is where most of us expected it to perform in actual games. Once again proving, 3Dmark is good for exposing features

Yeah, based on these games it's almost worse than I expected. Basically a DX10 7900GS/X1900GT/X1950 GT/Pro competitor at best, and it's sounding like alot of money for the DX10 part of it. How will this thing compete at $199-$249 vs. an equally performing $130 X1900GT. They better hope ATI's supply dries up. Of course, there may be situations where the card will excel, and others like you said where the 128-bit bus will cripple it and let the older cards shine.

But of course, a strategic leak of 3dmarks was a smart move and worked in getting loads of people to avoid a 7900GS or X1950 pro and "wait" for the killer 8600's. There have been loaads of people saying just that here on the forumz.

You know, the X1950XT really stood toe to toe with the 320MB GTS in this review, even with a nice CPU. Despite less mem, it often took a lead at high res with fsaa. This is more in line with the very little increase in performance I have seen. But shoot, [H] sure paints a completely different picture. Now I wish I had run a complete set of benchies before & after upgrading.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 12:58:29 PM

Quote:
Tell me about it, I was really hoping the 8600 ultra would be a 7800gtx competitor or better than it, but at least it's better than the 7950gt (not surprising), so one thing we know for sure, nvidia's mid range gpus suck compared to ati's :tongue: :D 

I think you meant 7900GTX not 7800GTX? It is a 7800GTX (256MB) competitor. :p 
April 7, 2007 2:12:06 PM

Well, at least they overclock like there is no tomorrow.
April 7, 2007 3:05:20 PM

lol , the x1950 pro is better 8O 8O
April 7, 2007 3:07:04 PM

D'you think these benches are reliable? Didn't think an X1950XT was anywhere near as good as an 8800gts, but here it either keeps up or outperforms it....?
April 7, 2007 5:49:20 PM

So basically, my opinion would be: If you're not buying a 8800GTS/X, go with ATI.

Is that correct? I mean, a $110 X1950GT can perform equally to this.
April 7, 2007 6:01:30 PM

Quote:
The gt and pro are different, the pro is more powerful, but I would just get an xt and overclock that to xtx speeds, they're essentially the same card minus the gddr4 ram on the xtx, that should be powerful enough for anyone's needs as a hold over card for an r600/8900gtx/r700 8O

Indeed, but the GT overclocks to Pro+ speeds easily.
April 7, 2007 6:04:08 PM

Damn, I was going to wait until the 8600gts hit the market so I could get it instead of another 1950xt, but now...
April 7, 2007 6:04:38 PM

Quote:
not quite what i was expecting and i am sure not what the majority of buyers will be expecting.

then agian it will all be down to what price they sell at although i can't see it being much of a gaming card in DX10 unless there is a major improvement.

right now if i were a buyer i would just save there money for ATI's stuff to see if it is any better or just buy the GTS320.


Thats exactly what I'm doing. I'm going on vacation on April 30th for just over 3 weeks, there should definately be benchmarks done on ATI's stuff by then, otherwise its the 8800 GTS for me. A canadian etailer has the 8800 GTS 320 superclocked from EVGA on sale now, kinda testing how patient I am to wait, lol.

But what I plan to see first is the x2900 XT and x2900 XL benchies and price before I decide. From what I hear both will have 512 MB GDDR-3 which might let it last a bit longer than the GTS 320, hence my waiting. Or it'll be GTS 320 and a possible step-up later on.
April 7, 2007 6:39:59 PM

performance on par with a 1950 pro cant be classed as dx10 cabaple surely unless there is some boost from more mature drivers but the way nvidia drivers have been over the last 3 months it wouldnt be a surprise
April 7, 2007 6:41:42 PM

Right now im seriously considering dumping all of Snowman-PC's budget into upgrading my main pc. Cheetah drives are dirt cheap on eBay, and if I set up 4 or 5 of 'em in RAID I could have an extremely fast HDD setup. The main problem is getting an SCSI hdd controller card so I could actually use them, all of the ones i've looked that are suitable for my needs are really expensive.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 7:14:42 PM

Quote:
Man, that card sux balls, it just barely surpasses the 7900gt, so we know the other benchmarks were correct now

LOL, to some degree it seems that way. Like was discussed here, I honestly expected a X1900XT to outgame it the vast majority of the time. But based on what little we have seen, it's so far behind the X1950XT it is disappointing. I think peoples expectations were way too high and those leaked 3dmark scores didn't help. But honestly, Getting more than 7900GT/X1950 pro performance is a large task for a 128-bit card, even with these clocks. It's disappointing, but hardly surprising.

If you look at how the 6600GT beat the best 9800XT, and how the 7600GT was almost as good as the best X850XTPE, then we would hope to see this card near X1950XTX performance in order to be impressed the same way as in the past. Too bad it wasn't a 256-bit card.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 8:29:31 PM

Quote:
Of course, there may be situations where the card will excel, and others like you said where the 128-bit bus will cripple it and let the older cards shine.


Yeah I don't doubt that once true DX10 apps hit there will be compeling reasons to look for this card or the X2600, but for now with it simply being a unified DX9 card essentially it's kinda hooped, memory size and throughput limited.

Quote:
But of course, a strategic leak of 3dmarks was a smart move and worked in getting loads of people to avoid a 7900GS or X1950 pro and "wait" for the killer 8600's. There have been loaads of people saying just that here on the forumz.


Yeah and it's not like we've ever seen that before... oh, wait! :wink:
Of course the whole time we were saying Bungholios mean nothing, but everyone wanted to talk about it hading the X1950XT's their hats for no money. Well guess not, unless all they care about is 3Dmark.

Quote:
You know, the X1950XT really stood toe to toe with the 320MB GTS in this review, even with a nice CPU. Despite less mem, it often took a lead at high res with fsaa. This is more in line with the very little increase in performance I have seen. But shoot, [H] sure paints a completely different picture. Now I wish I had run a complete set of benchies before & after upgrading.


Yeah and it wasn't only [H] that showed that, TheTechReport was similar. But like I said I think the potential is there for certain situations, and yeah the min FPS does get an improvement, but overall it's not a big difference.

The main thing about this card is that it's surrounded by competition, like the X1600XT it's launching knowing what it needs to beat and failing. This is not the GF7600GT equivalent for this generation.

Quote:
If you look at how the 6600GT beat the best 9800XT, and how the 7600GT was almost as good as the best X850XTPE, then we would hope to see this card near X1950XTX performance in order to be impressed the same way as in the past. Too bad it wasn't a 256-bit card.


I hadn't seen this comment when I replied to you, but exactly. I think that we got used to that level of perofrmance and that both ATi and nV missed the opportunity to do it again by realizing the need for great than 256bit on the high end, but not understanding the same need for X>128bit on the low end. Relying on the speed boost from GDDR4 alone just isn't enough. Even if they went 192bit like was rumoured for the next gen SIS cards, and even the GF8600GT was rumoured to be 192bit when the 'Ultra' rumour was circulating. I think that would make a night and day difference for these card, and considering the ease and experience, WTF didn't they go to 256bit for at least the top of that line, I understand the bottom of the line finding it too expensive for them to make, but C'mon the top of the line could easily get $250 for X1950XT performance with it's cool core, but now they'll be lucky to get $200 for them, and the same goes for the X2600, they better do more with that 125W version or else they're in the same boat leaving money on the table.
April 7, 2007 8:49:50 PM

The reference article from the OP opens as follows;

Quote:
Now that ATI has officially delayed the release of its flagship R600 graphics core to the latter half of the year


I was of the impression that the R600 was due in May. Has it been delayed again???
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 8:56:22 PM

Quote:
What I;m wondering is will ati release an x2800 to have an 8800gtx competitor, or will they release an x3000 down to road to compete with the 8900gtx officially?


It wouldn't be X3000 (beyond the obvious intel issues), but the X2900 and X2950, and then X3800/3900/etc once the R700 comes.

Quote:
If the x2600 is like the 7600gt to the 6800gt, then I really want to know what it can do, but seeing how much of a flop th e8600 ultra is going to be,


Well unfortunately I think the X2600 is in the same boat and will be memory limited. I suspect if anything it'll be +/- 5% from the GF8600GTS. The only thing that could save it s expensive exotic highest speed GDDR4 memory, and that defeats the purpose of going with 128bit.

Quote:
my guess is ati will sit there and laugh, just barely crank it over the 8600ultra's performance and price it a tad lower (due to the 65nm) and then amd will finally start making some money 8O


Yeah they may be cheaper to make, but they still need them to be attractive, so price alone might not be good enough, they really need to be seen as equals. And with the added features like the realtek audio chip, the price difference is likely minimal. Even without that, the RV series likely won't be significantly cheaper to allow a price war, only that if they doe sell for the same price, AMD's margins should be better per card.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2007 9:14:05 PM

I don't doubt dual GPU is possible (I mean for the R600 just to clear that up, not in general obviously), but IMO why bother when you can do Xfire. Just start enabling Quad+ Xfire.

I dont know why Terry et al aren't embracing it since they hyped up the potential with Supetitling, etc. Sounds like they are having dificulties getting it ready for prime time, but IMO dual chip cards have a limited market, and end up very big, very costly (to build), compared to 2 single cards.

Just think of the size of card and layers required to support 2 R600s with their 512bit memory. It's completely insane. Doesn't mean someone won't do it, but like most of those solutions, they're more experiments in 'proof of concept' than practical solutions.
April 7, 2007 10:44:30 PM

Quote:
The reference article from the OP opens as follows;

Quote:
Now that ATI has officially delayed the release of its flagship R600 graphics core to the latter half of the year


I was of the impression that the R600 was due in May. Has it been delayed again???


I noticed that too, I think it was just a typo and they meant 2nd quarter, not 2nd half.

Atleast I hope, lol.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 12:21:43 AM

(OT Rant) - A 6600GT is still a capable card. But do you know a 6600GT 128MB is below minimum spec for Test Drive Unlimited! It will run, but like a slideshow. The stupid game has almost zero video adjustment for older hardware. For instance, Shadows are always on. I spent a good hour today trying to get it running smooth for my kids on a XP2500+ / 9800 pro 128MB/ 1GB PC3200 system, but it still drops into the teens in areas and rarely goes above 30 fps, and that is at any resolution, with video details set to low, and even an ini tweak to gain a couple fps. :x (end rant)
April 8, 2007 8:09:17 PM

should i get a 7900gs now before they replace them w/ the 8600GTS that will cost more and perform the same?

right now its 140 and i can OC it heavily w/ a vf900.

Should have better drivers than an early 8600gts right? Since its gonna be cheaper, same power, good choice?
April 8, 2007 8:15:49 PM

Quote:
should i get a 7900gs now before they replace them w/ the 8600GTS that will cost more and perform the same?

right now its 140 and i can OC it heavily w/ a vf900.

Should have better drivers than an early 8600gts right? Since its gonna be cheaper, same power, good choice?


u might as well wait for the faster and cheaper radeon 2600 XT

will smack down the 8600gts from what i can tell

hell it might smack up the 8800 GTS 320
April 8, 2007 8:20:55 PM

Quote:
should i get a 7900gs now before they replace them w/ the 8600GTS that will cost more and perform the same?

right now its 140 and i can OC it heavily w/ a vf900.

Should have better drivers than an early 8600gts right? Since its gonna be cheaper, same power, good choice?


u might as well wait for the faster and cheaper radeon 2600 XT

will smack down the 8600gts from what i can tell

hell it might smack up the 8800 GTS 320

yea, but i want to buy in like 2 weeks.

also, wont the 7900gs be better in the sense that there is much more experience with it, its been out for longer, and more issues have been ironed out
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 8:36:25 PM

Quote:
I hadn't seen this comment when I replied to you, but exactly. I think that we got used to that level of perofrmance and that both ATi and nV missed the opportunity to do it again by realizing the need for great than 256bit on the high end, but not understanding the same need for X>128bit on the low end. Relying on the speed boost from GDDR4 alone just isn't enough. Even if they went 192bit like was rumoured for the next gen SIS cards, and even the GF8600GT was rumoured to be 192bit when the 'Ultra' rumour was circulating. I think that would make a night and day difference for these card, and considering the ease and experience, WTF didn't they go to 256bit for at least the top of that line, I understand the bottom of the line finding it too expensive for them to make, but C'mon the top of the line could easily get $250 for X1950XT performance with it's cool core, but now they'll be lucky to get $200 for them, and the same goes for the X2600, they better do more with that 125W version or else they're in the same boat leaving money on the table.

Who knows what they were thinking. The performance gap between 8600GTS / X2600XT and their big 88xx and 29xx brothers will probably be huge. Maybe we will see the bottom of the line 8800's and X2900's take a big price drop, but I doubt it, leaving that big gap. If either NV or ATI figure a way to offer something inbetween, the other company will be left with a hole and have to cripple a high end card to fill it. Not the best for profit margins. I'm hoping they already have this figured out and have a 256-bit 8700 or X2650 in the works.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 9:00:32 PM

Quote:

Who knows what they were thinking. The performance gap between 8600GTS / X2600XT and their big 88xx and 29xx brothers will probably be huge. Maybe we will see the bottom of the line 8800's and X2900's take a big price drop, but I doubt it, leaving that big gap.


And even if they do do that, you'd think they'd have learned from their R9500, and GF5900XT experience that the way to make a good $200-250 card is not by dumping perfectly good $400 cards into that segment and wasting that potential, but by building purpose driven cards like the X1650XT or X1950GT to aim for that target market. Of course for ATi those came at the end of the last generation's power struggle so almost pointless. Of course the best way to do it is to hit the mark from the start, like the GF7600GT, GF6600GT, and even the R9600P (if it weren't for the success of the R9500P before it). Like you say next, it's just terrible for the margins, unless you have high enough failure rate that you're left with a ton of cripples you need to sell anyways.

Quote:
If either NV or ATI figure a way to offer something inbetween, the other company will be left with a hole and have to cripple a high end card to fill it. Not the best for profit margins. I'm hoping they already have this figured out and have a 256-bit 8700 or X2650 in the works.


I agree, I think they need to have that on the books, because right now based on the early benchies, it looks like they are totally missing the market segment and are relying on checkboxes and ignorant consumers.

I don't doubt that there will be a ton of GF8600/X2600 sales, but I also expect a ton of posters to come here afterwards asking why their new cards don't offer much diferent from the previous X1900GT/GF7900GS they had in their rig. Kinda like the people who 'upgraded from the GF4ti to the FX5600 or from the X700P to the plain X1600. There's gonna be alot of sad faces after they play current games. Hopefully they have future games to look forward to getting benefits in.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 9:43:08 PM

Quote:
it looks like they are totally missing the market segment and are relying on checkboxes and ignorant consumers.

Problem is there is an abundance of those ignorant users, and they know it. :wink: ....

Quote:
I don't doubt that there will be a ton of GF8600/X2600 sales,
exactly. :lol: 

Quote:
...but I also expect a ton of posters to come here afterwards asking why their new cards don't offer much diferent from the previous X1900GT/GF7900GS they had in their rig.
I wouldn't bet a penny against you on that one. There will also be the fanbois who praise whatever they own. You know, the "my 7800GT is completely smooth at Oblivion with MAX details" type. So prepare for a wave of each group. :roll:

Just imagine if the $139-159 version performed like what we have seen the 8600GTS do so far. Low power, a quiet or possibly passive cooler, and that performance would have been an awesome combo. Boohoo to 128-bit. :cry: 
April 8, 2007 9:46:37 PM

Quote:
it looks like they are totally missing the market segment and are relying on checkboxes and ignorant consumers.

Problem is there is an abundance of those ignorant users, and they know it. :wink: ....

Quote:
I don't doubt that there will be a ton of GF8600/X2600 sales,
exactly. :lol: 

Quote:
...but I also expect a ton of posters to come here afterwards asking why their new cards don't offer much diferent from the previous X1900GT/GF7900GS they had in their rig.
I wouldn't bet a penny against you on that one. There will also be the fanbois who praise whatever they own. You know, the "my 7800GT is completely smooth at Oblivion with MAX details" type. So prepare for a wave of each group. :roll:

Just imagine if the $139-159 version performed like what we have seen the 8600GTS do so far. Low power, quiet, and that performance would have been awesome. Boohoo to 128-bit. :cry: 

So theres nothing wrong with getting a 7900gs at this point, eh?
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 9:51:47 PM

Quote:
So theres nothing wrong with getting a 7900gs at this point, eh?

Depends on the game. I wouldn't want one for Oblivion as it can't do fsaa+HDR at once and doesn't have the power to push high res to make up for it. Also, they blow at NFS:Carbon compared to the X19xx's. So, Personally, I'd rather have a X1950 pro, a $130 X1900GT, or even a $109 X1950GT, but that's just based on my games. Could be an OC'ed 7900GS is just what would serve you best in your games/budget.

Edit: Right now, I would recommend a 7900GS to anyone who had a $150 budget and wanted an NVidia card. Especially if they intend to OC.
April 8, 2007 9:56:38 PM

Quote:
So theres nothing wrong with getting a 7900gs at this point, eh?

Depends on the game. I wouldn't want one for Oblivion as it can't do fsaa+HDR at once and doesn't have the power to push high res to make up for it. Also, they blow at NFS:Carbon compared to the X19xx's. So, Personally, I'd rather have a X1950 pro, a $130 X1900GT, or even a $109 X1950GT, but that's just based on my games. Could be an OC'ed 7900GS is just what would serve you best in your games/budget.

mmm, I also want a quiet system. Dont know how the x1950 series can do that.

Im looking forward to playing FEAR HL2, STALKER, BF2, Farcry
Should be fine at those games. I play at 1600x1200. I know that I probably wont be able to use much aa and af, but itll still run great.

Quote:

Edit: Right now, I would recommend a 7900GS to anyone who had a $150 budget and wanted an NVidia card. Especially if they intend to OC.

mm sounds like me. Im done w catalyst. Also, i like evga's warranty letting me to OC and replace the stock cooler. :) :) :) :) :) 
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 10:09:02 PM

Quote:
mmm, I also want a quiet system. Dont know how the x1950 series can do that.

It's called His IceQ. :wink: I have two of them(X1950XT & X1650XT), one in my HTPC. Sometimes after rebate, they are priced near the bottom too.

But really, a reference X1900XT is quieter than a reference 7900GT because it varies the fan speed vs constant 100%. Plus the hot air goes out of the case. It depends on you room temps and case design, but I had a Sapphire X1800XT with the reference cooler, and it almost always stayed below 50% fan speed in my gaming rig. Max OC'in it and manually boosting fan speed made it undesireably loud though.
April 8, 2007 10:16:43 PM

Quote:
mmm, I also want a quiet system. Dont know how the x1950 series can do that.

It's called His IceQ. :wink: I have two of them(X1950XT & X1650XT), one in my HTPC. Sometimes after rebate, they are priced near the bottom too.

But really, a reference X1900XT is quieter than a reference 7900GT because it varies the fan speed vs constant 100%. Plus the hot air goes out of the case. It depends on you room temps and case design, but I had a Sapphire X1800XT with the reference cooler, and it almost always stayed below 50% fan speed in my gaming rig. Max OC'in it and manually boosting fan speed made it undesireably loud though.

Too Many Words 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O :o 

i know that evga supports replacing the stock fan under the waranty, but does it void its warranty to overclock it??

Quote:
Question / Issue
Is there any information on tweaking or overclocking the VGA card settings to boost performance?

Answer / Solution
You might try on some of the dedicated gaming sites for the nVIDIA chipsets. EVGA do not support any overclocking as it violates the manufacture warranty.


from evga's faq. So do they or dont they support the big OC?

Quote:
The EVGA e-GeForce 7900 GS KO would be a good choice for those who want HDCP support, a couple of games (including Hitman: Blood Money), and an exceptional warranty policy (EVGA will replace your card for any reason aside from deliberate physical damage; even if you break it while overclocking).
: Anandtech- http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2835&p=13

http://www.evga.com/support/lifetime/
:( 

HUAURGH
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2007 11:19:02 PM

Quote:
Too Many Words

This better? :lol: 
April 9, 2007 12:02:11 AM

I just bought a 7900gs to replace a 7600gt and if I were you I would go for it. I have the asus one and it oc's fine .... 450 core 660 mem stock goes stable to 575 core and 800 mem with zalman vf-700
April 9, 2007 12:55:15 AM

Quote:
the 7600gt was on par with the 6800gt


Not really. I owned both and in games the 7600GT was noticably faster! 3dmark05 may not mean much but my stock 6800GT got 5000 points and the 7600GT got 6000 points.
April 11, 2007 12:54:52 AM

Quote:
the point was, the 7600gt actually performed better than it's top predessor, while the 8600 ultra could barely keep up with ati's higher grade cards


So, do you think that theyll replace the aggresively priced 7900gs with a lame-a$$ 8600 card? Because that would suck

are they releasing the new cards in the next 2 weeks or so, because thats when I want to order. I dont want to get stuck with a crappy 8600GTS that I have to pay 30 bucks more for :( :( :( :( :( 
April 11, 2007 1:16:11 AM

Lol, this is what happens when Nvidia doesn't have any competition, instead of manufacturing better products they make crappier/cheaper products to kill time.
April 11, 2007 1:23:39 AM

Dunno if ive already said this...
But i think some of these guys follow the lead of drug dealers.
Bear with me, it will all make sense.
Ok so Mr Drug Manufacturer makes an AWESOME ecstasy pill in limited numbers, quite expensive.
Batch 1 sells at average speed, and all the small dealers/big influencial users get one and RAVE on about it.
Batch 2 gets made in larger quantities and almost as good quality. Many more people buy them, and now Joe Pill Popper knows this particular brand pill ROCKS.
Batch 3 gets made. Massive quantities, RUBBISH quality. By now everyone KNOWS these pills rock and they sell super fast. Huge profits are made.

But people see the pill SUCKS... well.... maybe i just got a dud?

Subsequent batches continue this trend, and people KEEP buying them till EVENTUALLY everyone realises they SUCK, and the process starts again.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

People will flock to these often RUBBISH cards, just cos it has an awesome heritage.
April 11, 2007 1:33:54 AM

Quote:
Lol, this is what happens when Nvidia doesn't have any competition, instead of manufacturing better products they make crappier/cheaper products to kill time.


idk, but I think that Nvidia has a LOT of competition. ATI is coming in from all sides taking away market segments. Same exact thing for AMD and Intel.

ATI's X1950Pro and XT own their price segments. Nvidia doesnt even have anything to offer in the 170-200 dollar region anymore. And with the release of the ATI DX10 cards, hopefully Nvidia will be facing some stiff competition.

Competition breeds Innovation: good for the consumer
April 11, 2007 1:40:04 AM

Not looking so hot, seems like athe 7900 gs is a better deal for me(150 dollars) especially since i wont be able to use dx 10( im gonna use xp pro to the bitter end.
April 11, 2007 11:13:08 AM

Nvidia is apparently going to bury us in new video cards on April 17th.
There are reports out there suggesting that Nvidia will be launching about 6 new 8000 series video cards on April 17th. Apparently some of these video cards (or maybe all 6) will be hard launched on that day. NGOHQ.com tells us that the 8300 GS, 8400 GS, 8500 GT, 8600 GT, 8600 GTS and the 8800 Ultra will all be "released" on the same day. They go on to spread hope to the AGP faithful by saying that Nvidia will be launching AGP versions of the 7900 GS and and 7950 GT soon as well.

X-bit labs also has a few things to say on this subject.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/200703162112...

truth or not? The 17th? Thats before the 22nd, when my e4300 drops 65 dollars. If the 7900gs gets discontinued ... :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  grrr...




http://www.gpureview.com/
April 11, 2007 1:02:34 PM

The 8600GTS seems more rough in terms of DX9 Performance. If the hype of Direct X10 lives up to performance then the card will be well worth the money. But until there are any actual benchmarks with the DirectX10 I am going to hold back with my 7600GT. These benchmarks are kinda weak, hope to try and get a more nitty, gritty view when HardOCP and Guru 3D does their reviews of this card.

Who knows, these cards could just be a roughened version of the final product. They could possibly see some improvements or a design change somewhere. (Who am I joking, yeah right. :roll: )
!