Hi
 
guys i was just wondering that how many people can actually game to any kind of joy on the range of pathetic mid range cards (dx10) out there in the market.
 
The 8500 is said to absolute crap for any kind of proper gaming at any decent resolution.
 
I mean i dont consider 30fps gaming . 30 fps mininmum is gaming.
 
I have a 8800 gts and i am quite happy with it    but i honestly feel that people had better choice in Dx9 midrange cards , then what is available today .
 
I know the ati cards are not out yet ,but from what i have read they arent going to breaking any barriers.
 
Infact at the end it is ironical that mid-range gamers are the ones who are left to make difficult choices .

Just playing devil's advocate, but how do you know there is no midrange DX10 cards, when there are no DX10 games around to try it on!

Not to be the devils devils advocate, but have you seen the benches for the 8500?

 
Have you seen any true DX10 benchmarks?
 
Besides, is the 8500 really mid-range anyway?

The Fact that DX9 Games(AKA the majority of software out now) can't run past previous generation midrange cards on these new midrange cards doesn't speak well for their marketability as low cost cards.  Nevermind the fact that they'll barely be able to keep up with real DX10 games, even if they do by some miracle, cramping another generation of games is a huge negative.

Heres two sites that have done their homework, check em out http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/22/ and http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/v [...] html#sect0 These reviews sum up what turns out to be a very dissappointing mid class for gfx. One says a 10 to 15% increase over last gens mid, and traditionally its more like equal to the top of last gen, the 7900gtx or 1950xtx. These cards come no where near these cards. I know there arent any DX10 games out ATM, but if you look around and read, youll see that the DX10 implementation for future games seems to be going very slowly, or, the DX9 features are still hanging on. The software devs are to blame for this, not nVidia or AMD. We will see how things go, but I think the current DX10 midrange is overpriced and underperforming ATM

I would say the 8500 is the entry range and the 8600GT and GTS is the Midrange.

I would as well, except that for only the oceed gts do you get a halfway decent new gen card, and as I said, overpriced at that. So that really leaves just that oceed card for midrange

 
Sure if you talking about price, but without talking price, 8500 is entry , 8600 midrange , 8800 performance. Sure there 8600GT do not perform really good in gaming but it perform enought to be a midrange but for its price ? I would say yes depending how much you pay, i pay mine 170CAN and i got it overclocked to 715mhz core and it does better then a 7900 and over in 3dmark Score 06. I know people got mad because it doesn't perform has good as a 7600gt in same game but if you are mad then why not you are going to buy a performance video card.

IMO the problem you are speaking of is down to the dx10 development being in its early stages ATM there are definatley low mid and high range cards available in dx9 form.
Normally they issue a new card then the one before it becomes midrange then another comes out and then the last one is mid range and the one before low range.
I mean they havent even got enough dx10 games available to make it an issue yet as far as im concerned,when they finally get enough games out there so that dx10 compatability really starts to matter you will most likley need new hardware again in any case.
Thats just my opinion but i have read about dx10.1 and other variations that are rumoured to need a hardware update to run,if this is the case then you can understand why the companies are in no rush to make a whole range of cards that are soon to be obsolete anyway

The 8500/8600's are maybe better defined as mainstream than mid range.  In the total pricing scale the 8800gts320 is more mid range.  
 
If Nvidia did have a card in between the 8600 and the 8800gts320 would it have a big enough niche to justify the development cost?  As it stands the g84's form the basis for the huge OEM market, mainstream and mobility products.  If Nvidia developed yet another range it would not be able to fill those markets and it would basically only appeal to the cost sensitive gamers.  
 
Nvidia and ATI have over the past few years acclimated the market to higher prices for discreet graphics.  I remember a few years ago thinking I was crazy to spend 500cdn for a 6800gt.  Then at the end of last year I spent 699cdn for an 8800gtx; I've truly lost my mind.  Now I'm at the point where I look at the GTS320 as mid range where only 5 years ago I would have seen it's price as high end.  Most of the other components in my system cost far less than five years ago.  Credit to the duopoly for successfully driving up the prices of their products.  I'm not saying it is good for consumers but from a business standpoint I respect the move.

Im not knocking nVidia, mainly because I think ATI/AMD isnt going to be much better if at all. I currently own  1900xt512mb, I dont need to ....yet. Like I posted earlier, theres disappointment because these "mid" cardss in the past 2 gens equalled the highend before it. Your GTS cannot even come close to a 7900GTX, and thats my point here

Other componants dont go thru the additions gfx do. A cpu is still basically one piece of silicon, NB and SB the same, or actually smaller but still the same. HSFs, the same, maybe better design. Compare that to a GFX card. Even your GTX is alot larger than previous gens. Can you go out and buy DDR3 right now? Yes, and pay an arm and a leg for it, but with one problem, theres currently no cpu's that use it. Cpu's are just getting to DDR3, and GFX has been doing GDDR4 for awhile now. I could go further but I think if you looked at it this way, youd see that we expect a new gen every year, totally new arch, with refreshes every 6 months or so. You cant say that in other hardware, its just not there. So yes, we will be paying more for the top in GFX

You're still quoting DX9 benchmarks but anyway...
 
You're also assuming that there is a high end, mid-range and entry level still in the offing.
 
If you want to take the Nvidia 8xxx lineup, personally I consider the 8800GTS 320 is the mid range, everything higher is mid to high end.  The 8500 / 8600are not mid-range or any range really - they're what I would class as mainstream.  HD DVD decoding, gaming capable (if not competent), quiet and low power.
 
Graphics cards are GAMING cards, and now if you want the latest game with all the eye candy, you need high end.  If you're happy to play with lower settings or lower resoutions, there are lower cards.  If however you want a decent cheap card, that can barely run the games, but needs a card for HD viewing, or Mum & Dad's 3D Garden / House / whatever designer program, they will run fine.
 
Just because there have been reasonably clear distinctions in the past does not mean there will be in the future.
 
It's a moot point, but if there was a finished and properly coded full DX10 game out now, the 8600GTS would proably run it fine as woulf the ATI equivalent.  There isn't however, and by the time there is all these cards will have long been replaced.

One can find joy and be barely in mid-range. X1600 Pro on a Athlon 2800+ with 1.5 GB RAM at 1024 resolution. Mostly BF2  (350+ hours) and 2142, but did fine on HL2 and I loved the game. Not max settings but it looked just fine to me. I've gone back to replay old favorites like Far Cry and Red Faction I & II. Now this system goes to my 9 yr old this summer and it is far stronger than anything I have at work. I'll be building a modern, yet midrange, system for Vista and DX10. I've never played on (or seen) a high rez, 24" widescreen with SLI cards on max settings so I have no idea what I'm missing. But I quite enjoy my gaming as is.