Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Fate of 8600’s

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 21, 2007 10:38:27 AM

Why is 8600 got so bad impression by the day it will be released?
Is everyone just expecting it should be 256 bit instead of 128?
Or Nvidia set its price to high?
If 8600 is not that good, so will the X2600 also?
If so, what is the best graphic card for mainstream gamer that is capable of DX10 then?

More about : fate 8600s

a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2007 6:58:42 PM

Quote:
Why is 8600 got so bad impression by the day it will be released?
Is everyone just expecting it should be 256 bit instead of 128?
Or Nvidia set its price to high?


Either/or.
In the US the GF8600s aren't priced well enough to compete with the current cards (from both ATi and nVidia) that are cheaper and perform better, or even the GF8800GTS-320 which is a better performer per $ than the GF8600s, so why not pay the $20 more and get the GTS-320 instead of a GF8600GTS.

In some areas those old cards still have high prices so the GF8600s can be relatively good. But in the open market in the US the GF8600s aren't as good a relative deal because the others have much better prices.

Quote:
If 8600 is not that good, so will the X2600 also?


No one knows yet, there may be other aspects involved other than the 128bit, but it goesn't look good for any of the midrange hobbled by that.

Quote:
If so, what is the best graphic card for mainstream gamer that is capable of DX10 then?


We won't know until the HD2600s come out, but likely it'll be the GF8800GTS-320 until after the launch prices from nV and AMD come down.
April 21, 2007 7:22:07 PM

Quote:
Why is 8600 got so bad impression by the day it will be released?
Is everyone just expecting it should be 256 bit instead of 128?
Or Nvidia set its price to high?


Either/or.
In the US the GF8600s aren't priced well enough to compete with the current cards (from both ATi and nVidia) that are cheaper and perform better, or even the GF8800GTS-320 which is a better performer per $ than the GF8600s, so why not pay the $20 more and get the GTS-320 instead of a GF8600GTS.

In some areas those old cards still have high prices so the GF8600s can be relatively good. But in the open market in the US the GF8600s aren't as good a relative deal because the others have much better prices.

Quote:
If 8600 is not that good, so will the X2600 also?


No one knows yet, there may be other aspects involved other than the 128bit, but it goesn't look good for any of the midrange hobbled by that.

Quote:
If so, what is the best graphic card for mainstream gamer that is capable of DX10 then?


We won't know until the HD2600s come out, but likely it'll be the GF8800GTS-320 until after the launch prices from nV and AMD come down.

totally agreed. Don't worry OP, if AMD's HD 2600 fails us, there is always currently widely available 8800gts 320mb and the rumored 8800gs, plus something similar from AMD.
Right now 8800gts 320mb can be bought for $259 after 20$ MIR, when AMD's video cards come out, this card might drop just a little more.
I think it'll look funny when 8800gts 320mb and 8600gts 256mb oc edition at the same price. nvidia's marketing department is probably smoking cracks now, overjoy in their early victory.
I think now is the best chance for AMD to kick their asses and get some market shares.

Just my opinions, I beg fanboys from either side not to flame me. hehe
Related resources
April 21, 2007 7:23:20 PM

I was expecting the 8600 to be 256bit too at least. Nvidia had better upgrade their mid range series fast
April 21, 2007 8:20:10 PM

Quote:
I was expecting the 8600 to be 256bit too at least. Nvidia had better upgrade their mid range series fast

...or downgrade their high end.
April 21, 2007 9:19:14 PM

i think people were just expecting the performance of the 8600's to be much better than what it turned out to be, and that a lotta people expected it to have at least a 256 bit memory bus.
April 21, 2007 9:29:50 PM

Quote:
Yeah looks like the rumour of a downgrade may have been premature;

http://www.guru3d.com/news.html#5223


They could end up charging less for the 8800GTS and GTX when the Ultra comes out.

Doubtful, though, as the Ultra appears to be intended as an "ultra" high end product with something close to a $1k price tag.

All the better for AMD/ATI to (try and) exploit the 40% performance hole in nVidia's DX10 midrange/performance offerings.
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2007 10:07:26 AM

Thats the most favorable review Ive read on the 8600gts. But if you read it all, the conclusion, even with a very positive light shown on the gts card, they still were unimpressed, using the reasoning that they test so many cards etc. Thats their job!!! Not to sell cards they are unimpressed with
April 24, 2007 10:26:12 AM

Quote:
Why is 8600 got so bad impression by the day it will be released?
Is everyone just expecting it should be 256 bit instead of 128?
Or Nvidia set its price to high?


Either/or.
In the US the GF8600s aren't priced well enough to compete with the current cards (from both ATi and nVidia) that are cheaper and perform better, or even the GF8800GTS-320 which is a better performer per $ than the GF8600s, so why not pay the $20 more and get the GTS-320 instead of a GF8600GTS.


I saw someone returning a BFG 8600 GTS (broken). No idea why you'd buy that over an unbranded 320 8800.
April 24, 2007 10:29:20 AM

i think the 8600 will not be fast enough to fully enjoy dx10 at descent settings. at dx9c it`s slower compared to 7900gs/gt and x1950pro/xt so why buy a 8600?

if you can hold on for now, wait until the ati`s come out. nvidia will probably have some new cards also (8800gs, 8600ultra maybe?) so then make a judgement when you want a dx10 card. if you want a new card for current games, get a x1950/7900 or go save some more and get the 8800gts 640 so you have a good card for dx9 and dx10 (i think the 320 version will soon not be fast enough, and then you still can`t use dx10 at an acceptable level. depends on your AA/AF needs though).

the smartest: WAIT FOR DX10 BENCHMARKS!
April 24, 2007 11:36:16 AM

Quote:
Guys, check this site below...

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1079/xfx_geforce_8600g...

What do you think...


"The second is because more people will be able to buy these GeForce 8500 and 8500 cards with it’s much more attractive price tag, game makers will have even more reason to put resources into making DirectX 10 supported games."

^^^^^ This is the best thing about these cards. The more people that have DX10 cards the more DX10 games we will get! :D 
May 29, 2007 4:27:50 PM

Interesting irony, though, with these 8500/8600 cards -- in one critical category, they are superior to all the 8800s, even the best of them.

H.264 video decoding is an increasingly critical task -- all next-generation and even current generation HD video decoding uses that codec. The 8500/8600 series chipsets offload all H.264 video decoding from the CPU onto the video card. Also, the 8500/8600 series more consistently offer HDCP, without which you would not be able to view any protected HD content including Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 12:20:47 AM

Quote:
Interesting irony, though, with these 8500/8600 cards -- in one critical category, they are superior to all the 8800s, even the best of them.

H.264 video decoding is an increasingly critical task -- all next-generation and even current generation HD video decoding uses that codec. The 8500/8600 series chipsets offload all H.264 video decoding from the CPU onto the video card. Also, the 8500/8600 series more consistently offer HDCP, without which you would not be able to view any protected HD content including Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.


Your entire post is BUNK to put it mildly, it would be better if you deleted it.

First, only the GF8600GTS is guaranteed to have HDCP, ALL GF8800s have HDCP (but lack dual link HDCP), so it's an outright lie (or misunderstanding on your part) to say that the GF8500/8600 series offer ANY consistent assurance of HDCP support, it's the other way around. Also HDCP requirement has been disabled by the effort of many who are a little sick of people telling them what hardware they need to upgrade (see Slysoft et al)

Second, the GF8600 and 8500 are no better at H.264 video decoding than the previous generation, their only benefit is in adding hardware to decrypt the DRM copy protection/encryption from the BR and HD-DVD titles. H.264 itself is handled just as easily by the GF7 and X1K series;
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...

So to be precise, the benefit from the GF8600 is for playing portected content media not just h.264 (which there are a ton of podcasts and other formats that would be just as fast on all of them), and for that if you don't know how to defeat HDCP, then you will need to do more homework to ensure that plain old GF8500/8600 is capable of full HDCP compliance.

For anyone so concerned about these options, it's likely best to wait for the usual suspects to do their next generation AVIVO and PureVideo reviews, I've already chated with 3 reviewers who are planning such reviews, so no point in buying yet, especially if you don't know the truth behind all specs and acronyms, unless you absolutely have to, in which case, edjumakate yourself first nefore you buy cause a crap GF8500 without HDCP support might be worse than your GF7600GS you already have that does.
May 30, 2007 1:21:24 AM

Second what Great Ape Said.
May 30, 2007 2:26:17 AM

Does anybody know what's up with the Geforce /Go/ 8600s? Are they being released at the same time, and are they any good?
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 2:45:52 AM

I read from some where that Nvidia is planning to released a another 8600, but this time it will have a 256bit memory interface, 512mb of ram, and they're planning to reveal it around June.

Can anyone find out if this is true?
And could this be the "8600Ultra"?!
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 3:31:43 AM

Quote:
Does anybody know what's up with the Geforce /Go/ 8600s? Are they being released at the same time, and are they any good?


The GF8600Ms (no more GFGO name) are already shipping, they were expected in June, but are shipping a little ealy for some makers.

Here's a review of a recently purchased Acer that's got alot of nice features (although I couldn't find the eSATA port he mentions in the specs in any of the pics);

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3728&r...

I'm looking at something like the HP Dragon 8) , so I have to wait a bit. :cry: 
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 3:40:14 AM

Quote:
I read from some where that Nvidia is planning to released a another 8600, but this time it will have a 256bit memory interface, 512mb of ram, and they're planning to reveal it around June.


Unlikey to be revealed in June other than just the info. It was what everyone hoped would be the GF8600Ultra, and it's more likely to come in July/August, just like AMD's RV670.

The rumour you're thinking of seems to be the misconstrued 512MB model that came out of Chile.hw and appears to have spread;

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Sofar most people discount it, but it may be so, just the previous templates that said the Ultra would ship as part of the original GF8600 launch. I just wouldn't bet on it.

I'd put my money on it becoming a GF8800 something, like the RV670 is to become the HD2900Pro.
May 31, 2007 6:36:13 PM

Quote:
Interesting irony, though, with these 8500/8600 cards -- in one critical category, they are superior to all the 8800s, even the best of them.

H.264 video decoding is an increasingly critical task -- all next-generation and even current generation HD video decoding uses that codec. The 8500/8600 series chipsets offload all H.264 video decoding from the CPU onto the video card. Also, the 8500/8600 series more consistently offer HDCP, without which you would not be able to view any protected HD content including Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.


Your entire post is BUNK to put it mildly, it would be better if you deleted it.

First, only the GF8600GTS is guaranteed to have HDCP, ALL GF8800s have HDCP (but lack dual link HDCP), so it's an outright lie (or misunderstanding on your part) to say that the GF8500/8600 series offer ANY consistent assurance of HDCP support, it's the other way around. Also HDCP requirement has been disabled by the effort of many who are a little sick of people telling them what hardware they need to upgrade (see Slysoft et al)

Second, the GF8600 and 8500 are no better at H.264 video decoding than the previous generation, their only benefit is in adding hardware to decrypt the DRM copy protection/encryption from the BR and HD-DVD titles. H.264 itself is handled just as easily by the GF7 and X1K series;
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...

So to be precise, the benefit from the GF8600 is for playing portected content media not just h.264 (which there are a ton of podcasts and other formats that would be just as fast on all of them), and for that if you don't know how to defeat HDCP, then you will need to do more homework to ensure that plain old GF8500/8600 is capable of full HDCP compliance.

For anyone so concerned about these options, it's likely best to wait for the usual suspects to do their next generation AVIVO and PureVideo reviews, I've already chated [sic] with 3 reviewers who are planning such reviews, so no point in buying yet, especially if you don't know the truth behind all specs and acronyms, unless you absolutely have to, in which case, edjumakate yourself first nefore [sic] you buy cause a crap GF8500 without HDCP support might be worse than your GF7600GS you already have that does.
Wow, you're cranky -- and about as smart as...well, an ape, come to think of it. But thanks, I'm always amused when stubborn techhead shut-ins try to take ownership on an issue. Too bad you're wrong.

To see the background for why hardware decoding of H.264 and VC-1 HD video content is critical, click here.

To see how the 8500/8600 chipsets do more than just "decrypting" HD video content as you erroneously claim, click here.

That's all you need for now. Calm down, take a walk in the sunlight.
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
June 1, 2007 12:01:13 AM

Quote:
Wow, you're cranky -- and about as smart as...well, an ape, come to think of it. But thanks, I'm always amused when stubborn techhead shut-ins try to take ownership on an issue. Too bad you're wrong.

To see the background for why hardware decoding of H.264 and VC-1 HD video content is critical, click here.


To see why the GF8600 offer no difference take a look at the charts again.





If it were only hardware alone it would be different than the other competitors.

And realize you were wrong about HDCP of course, and H.264 and your posting an article so outdated as to have been replaced by PureVideo and AVIVO updates. Those results above are the latest and involve more of the hardware not software assist (which the GF8800 also gets), not last summers software like that Anand review. :roll:

And if anyone really cares about VC-1 decoding (which is not that taxing on CPUs) then they should wait for the HD2400 and HD2600 both of which offer true hardware decoding in the UVD (which is done software assist in the HD2900).

Quote:
To see how the 8500/8600 chipsets do more than just "decrypting" HD video content as you erroneously claim, click here.


You misunderstand what I said, I didn't say they only do that, I said the only difference is that, as the GF8800 does everything else with regards to H.264 playback, as does the GF7 and X1K as you can clearly see above.

Quote:
That's all you need for now.


Yeah all I need is that the 3 things you provided were all wrong. That you don't understand that the only major difference (not only major feature) between the old and new H.264 processing is the cotent protection removal on BR/HD-DVD disks means you don't know what you're talking about. Everything else is software assist that will be equally present on the GF8800.

So seriously boy get out of the sun, you're frying your brain. :roll:
June 11, 2007 5:52:28 PM

Quote:

To see how the 8500/8600 chipsets do more than just "decrypting" HD video content as you erroneously claim, click here.


You misunderstand what I said, I didn't say they only do that, I said the only difference is that, as the GF8800 does everything else with regards to H.264 playback, as does the GF7 and X1K as you can clearly see above.

Quote:
That's all you need for now.


Yeah all I need is that the 3 things you provided were all wrong. That you don't understand that the only major difference (not only major feature) between the old and new H.264 processing is the cotent [sic] protection removal on BR/HD-DVD disks means you don't know what you're talking about. Everything else is software assist that will be equally present on the GF8800.

So seriously boy get out of the sun, you're frying your brain. :roll:
Your pride is so flatulent and obese that the fat cells are seeping through your brain like pus and there's no chance for the synapses to make a reasonable assessment.

Your stubbornness doesn't deserve point-by-point treatment, but look at the following chart and get a little humble, OK? And stop misleading people at this forum with self-proclaimed definitive advice. In other words, to everyone else reading this exchange, take with a grain of salt the omnipotent advice of "TheGreatGrapeApe," whatever the hell that name means.

a b Î Nvidia
a c 193 U Graphics card
June 11, 2007 6:38:56 PM

That chart you posted contains insufficient information to be relevant. Was it a special case? Confounded by Vista [driver] issues? Bottlenecked by a mutt of a CPU? It looks like a lot of smoke, so I will rely on the Ape to clear it away.
June 11, 2007 8:07:00 PM

To make that chart more meaninful, the corresponding Windows XP chart and conclusions need to also be included from the Tomshardware article.




Quote:
The Nvidia representatives said the 8500/8600 drivers are not yet decoding H.264 video in Windows XP, and here is the proof. In fact, these video cards actually seem to require additional CPU resources to play HD video. Quite puzzling. Let's see what happens when we move to Windows Vista:

Impressive! The new 8500 GT and 8600 GTS really show their stuff, lowering CPU utilization from the 80% territory down to 20% territory. This is a really compelling result and goes to show that, yes, these new Geforce cards really should make HD video a reality on old systems. The only problem: at this point, you need that old machine to be running Windows Vista to see the benefits. I don't know if people with old single-core CPUs are going to upgrade to Vista. Hopefully, Nvidia will soon release new Windows XP drivers for the 8500/8600 cards that will expose this cool video decoding prowess.



Source
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
June 11, 2007 8:26:21 PM

Quote:

Your pride is so flatulent and obese that the fat cells are seeping through your brain like pus and there's no chance for the synapses to make a reasonable assessment.


Wibble quibble, look at ou dribble.
You're still missing the point, and even if you were half-right on this (which you aren't) you'd still be hitting 0.5 / 3 which is pretty poor results in this thread.

Quote:
Your stubbornness doesn't deserve point-by-point treatment, but look at the following chart and get a little humble, OK?


Get a little humble, why? I've seen the chart, and I know what it says, but I've also e-mailed the author to confirm, it's a protected HD-DVD disk, and therefore benefits from the DRM decryption portion of the workload that the GF8600 handles. So it doesn't show JUST the H.264 portion.

Quote:
And stop misleading people at this forum with self-proclaimed definitive advice.


LOL, considering your above BS about HDCP on the GF8800 series versus GF8600/8500 series, you're the only one misleading people in this thread.
BTW, got WHQL certification for the HDCP enabled GF8600 yet? Seems the GF8800 is better for yet another reason. :twisted:

Quote:
In other words, to everyone else reading this exchange, take with a grain of salt the omnipotent advice of "TheGreatGrapeApe," whatever the hell that name means.


The name's pretty easy to figure out, in fact you have a nice picture to explain it to you. However google is also your friend.

BTW, I noticed you left out the link to Cleeve's review that shows where the GF8500 actually does worse than the others in VC-1 and both it and the GF8600 do worse than software only in H.264 in XP;



Seriously WORSE than software only? Is that a hardware decelerator? 8O
June 11, 2007 9:06:46 PM

It's that rare example of how upgrading to Vista is a good thing. I actually don't regret it and haven't looked back since.

Bottom line, HD video decoding on an 8500/8600 kicks even the most powerful 8800's ass under Windows Vista (which is, incidentally, what we're all upgrading to eventually).

The Grape will somehow find a way to disagree, though. That's what it does.
June 11, 2007 9:21:37 PM

Quote:
I've seen the chart, and I know what it says, but I've also e-mailed the author to confirm, it's a protected HD-DVD disk, and therefore benefits from the DRM decryption portion of the workload that the GF8600 handles. So it doesn't show JUST the H.264 portion.

Um, do you know of any unprotected HD-DVD disks? Name one. Also, get it through your primate skull, the hardware offloading feature of the 8500/8600 series doesn't add solely DRM decryption:


Do you see that big extra block in the diagram that says "Bitstream Processing"? By way of explanation: "The real innovation is the new H.264 Bitstream Processing Engine. This dedicated unit provides full H.264 decoding, including context-adaptive variable-length coding and context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CAVLC/CABLC) reverse entropy. Reverse entropy is the most computationally intensive step of the process and accounts for more than half of the decode time."
Quote:
BTW, got WHQL certification for the HDCP enabled GF8600 yet? Seems the GF8800 is better for yet another reason.

Yes. Mine has it. Why did you bother asking?

Quote:
BTW, I noticed you left out the link to Cleeve's review that shows where the GF8500 actually does worse than the others in VC-1 and both it and the GF8600 do worse than software only in H.264 in XP. Seriously WORSE than software only? Is that a hardware decelerator?

I love the irony when next-generation technology is made compatible with next-generation systems, and old-timers who insist on sticking with what's familiar get shafted.

nVidia decided to make the dramatically superior HD video hardware decoding capabilities of the 8500/8600 series only available in Vista for the time being. Old codgers can either put or shut up.

Funny how you keep getting owned in this thread, but keep crying back to Mommy.
a b Î Nvidia
a c 193 U Graphics card
June 11, 2007 10:24:06 PM

Quote:

Funny how you keep getting owned in this thread, but keep crying back to Mommy.


No, Stranger, the Ape is not getting "owned in this thread" by refusing to accept only the narrow circumstances during which your point is valid, as applying in all cases. What you might have chosen to say was "GGApe is generally correct, but under these circumstances, yada chart yada graph yada etc..." and people would have accepted your remarks as a valid "gotcha" for certain configurations. As it is, you've come across as an idiot, at least to me. Have a nice day anyway.
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
June 11, 2007 10:46:31 PM

Quote:

Um, do you know of any unprotected HD-DVD disks? Name one.


Ritek;
http://www.cdrdvdrmedia.com/ritek-ridata-1x-hd-drd-r-je...

Remember your statement was H.264, and you use a decryption advantage to show something else. Downloaded content and unencrypted content doesn't need it, so the benefit of that portion is useless. Is it really that hard for you to understand?

Quote:
Also, get it through your primate skull, the hardware offloading feature of the 8500/8600 series doesn't add solely DRM decryption:


I never said that's the only thing it does, actually I keep pointing out to you that I didn't but you can figure out that concept. However for the argument, you haven't shown that it does H.264 any better than the other options except for the dedicated decryption hardware, so you keep ignoring the issue yet, only use those benchies to try and prove something you've already been proven wrong in (part 3 of 3). Get that through your thin fragile skull. And like so many other things you've said sofar you assume there's a difference, yet you've been proven wrong on all 3 situations. GF8800 IS the card to take if you're worried about HDCP, the GF8600/8500 series does NOT guarantee full HDCP support on all cards, and the GF8600 series hasn't shown that it's any better than the other cards at actually decoding the H.264 portion itself rather than just being able to play encrypted disks with less overhead (unless under XP where it's more overhead, especially the GF8500)

Quote:
BTW, got WHQL certification for the HDCP enabled GF8600 yet? Seems the GF8800 is better for yet another reason.

Yes. Mine has it. Why did you bother asking?

Only because it seems that once again another reason to avoid the GF8500/8600 is because not all of them are made equally so HDCP with WHQL doesn't seem to work for many of the early batches;

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

All the more reason to ignore what you said, because even on those with HDCP on the box, it doesn't mean you'll get eveything you expected compared ot the GF8800.

Quote:
I love the irony when next-generation technology is made compatible with next-generation systems, and old-timers who insist on sticking with what's familiar get shafted.


What's even more ironic is those upgrading to something they thought was a better products (GF8600) only to find out they were better of with their previous one (GF7900GS) and to save the money.

Quote:
nVidia decided to make the dramatically superior HD video hardware decoding capabilities of the 8500/8600 series only available in Vista for the time being. Old codgers can either put or shut up.


So that's why you like the DRM numbers, you expect everyone to move to Vista as well and so not only buy a new card, but a new OS for negligeable difference.

Quote:
Funny how you keep getting owned in this thread, but keep crying back to Mommy.


Owned? You've borked 2 out of 3 items in this thread, the worst I could do would be to beat you severly, but right now you're getting owned with my 3-0 weep of all your Bogus statements.

C'mon boy, just post a benchmark showing H.264 unencrypted content since you're so sure there's so much more to offer from the GF8600. You post a Benchie that's even close to equivalent to the tests done by EliteBastards that show unencrypted content and then made you'd have a case. Until then you have nothing to back-up your claims that they do the H.264 portion of the work any better than the previous generation. They have a feature list that's different but it's not showing a performance difference outside of the DRM infection. So if it's so beneficial, then why no difference from a 'hardware' solution versus a software assisted hardware solution like the GF8800?

The fact that you MUST also use Vista right now to get any additional benefit (and no negatives) shows that the benefit is limited right now, and goes against the idea that it's software independant.

Until you can post something that actually does a job of showing just the H.264 workload, like I mentioned, then you're just blowing more smoke to try and cover up your first post full of errors.
a b Î Nvidia
a b U Graphics card
June 11, 2007 11:10:32 PM

To keep it short and sweet here's a run down of your errors makes it easier for people to Follow;

A) "Also, the 8500/8600 series more consistently offer HDCP",

Wrong, they only offer them on some models , whereas the GF8800 is on all models.

B) without which you would not be able to view any protected HD content including Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Wrong again, there are ways around the protection. And even now you can still watch protected HD-DVDs without HDCP since the current implementation doesn't require it on all players, only some as governed by software. And even when the tags are implemented there is no guarantee that won't be hacked either.

C) The 8500/8600 series chipsets offload all H.264 video decoding from the CPU onto the video card.

Obviously incorrect, since it's software dependant and it doesn't work ALL the time. And you don't even have any indication what percentage of the effort is being handled in hardware, let alone separate your numbers from what else it's doing to just the H.264 portion.

That's 0 for 3 for you.
June 11, 2007 11:52:51 PM

Quote:
Funny how you keep getting owned in this thread, but keep crying back to Mommy.


Hmmm. Who am I going to believe, someone who has almost 15000 posts and has proven his worth countless times? or someone with 14 who has proven to be nothing but argumentative at best? The choice is really tough. :roll:
Make a few posts that clearly prove your point and don't insult anyone, and maybe you will be taken seriously.
June 14, 2007 11:52:44 AM

I think we know wats up.

But wayback yonder in this thread, we were discouraged that the 8600 series and the likewise HD2600 provided us with a 128 bit channel. So we apparently have this gap from 128 to 320/512 bit. It would appear that 'sometime' the folks over at ATi will produce an HD2800 series with 256 bit channel. The one thing not heard of yet is the NVidia equivilent (8700 series?). Can someone get me upto speed here for both competitors? Thanks

f61
!