Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Whoa, the midrange truly is MIA !!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2007 11:56:03 PM

Well anyone who had any doubt about there being a gap as big as the Grand Canyon (or Marianas Trench more like it) between the bottom of the high end and the top of the mid-range, only need to read this review to see that there really is nothing resembling mid-range performance cards right now.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8...

It only looks at nV cards (which is a good thing IMO, not distraction about X vs Y vendor, etc), but OMFG, sometimes the top of the mid-range (8600GTS) can't even sustain an avg that reachs halfway to the MINIMUM framerate of the bottom of the high end cards (8800GTS-320).

Seriously, this sucks for one of the largest segments of the industry and makes me wish we had a third option (like Matrox or S3) to come in and exploit this huge gap. We already know the X1950 and GF7950 are the cards that fill this gap, but anyone doing a long term build (to last 2-3 years) is totally hooped if they wanted good DX9 performance now and some DX10 later.

Still making the GTS-320 look like an awesome choice, because even compared to the GTS-640 it does a good job throughout the setting/games. Unfortunately it's out of some people's reach so that sucks for them.

We already know most of this, but it's really amazing just seeing it all side-by-side like this with the latest drivers etc, instead of comparing across different uneven reviews.

More about : whoa midrange mia

July 12, 2007 1:02:06 AM

It is almost as though Nvidia and ATI are trying to push the market upward. Most people I know won't spend more than a couple hundred on a GPU regardless of what they can afford; they simply don't see the value.

The divide between a PC and a gaming PC is growing which can't bode well for PC gaming. The average person will eventually give up and go console. Maybe game developers and MS don't see this as such a bad trend.
July 12, 2007 1:21:34 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Seriously, this sucks for one of the largest segments of the industry and makes me wish we had a third option (like Matrox or S3) to come in and exploit this huge gap. We already know the X1950 and GF7950 are the cards that fill this gap, but anyone doing a long term build (to last 2-3 years) is totally hooped if they wanted good DX9 performance now and some DX10 later.

Still making the GTS-320 look like an awesome choice, because even compared to the GTS-640 it does a good job throughout the setting/games. Unfortunately it's out of some people's reach so that sucks for them.


This post basically sums up the boat that I'm in right now, and yes, it sucks a lot. I don't want to pay more that $200 for a graphics card, and I have vista, so it makes me want DX10. I really have no idea what I'm going to do :fou:  .
Related resources
July 12, 2007 1:32:44 AM

I just had this problem, but newegg solved it for me by running an x1950xt for 149.99 after mir. I only ended up paying $90 after I sold my 7600gt, and I will upgrade again in 12-18 months when 2nd gen dx10 cards come out.
July 12, 2007 1:33:18 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Well anyone who had any doubt about there being a gap as big as the Grand Canyon (or Marianas Trench more like it) between the bottom of the high end and the top of the mid-range, only need to read this review to see that there really is nothing resembling mid-range performance cards right now.


This seems to verify an earlier opinion that I had, that the lower end cards (8500 and 8600) were worthless. Ok, technically they may be DX10 cards, but will there be any DX10 game that they can successfully play? All these lower end cards do is give reason for people not to migrate up from their 7900-7950 cards, because the migration would be down, not up.

I was suprised at how little an advantage difference the 8800 GTS 640 has over the GTS 320. I had been under the impression that for screen sizes of 1680 x 1050 or larger, the 640 had a definite edge, but these charts show little real difference. I agree with you that this type of performance, or rather lack thereof, makes for a good opportunity for Matrox or S3, if only they would be willing to step up to the plate. For now, it looks like gaming with DX10 will be left to only those who have a lot of bucks to spend. For the rest, well, XP and DX9 will remain their mainstay.
July 12, 2007 1:35:10 AM

I read something earlier today about amd coming out with a new card to fill the gap between 2600xt and 2900xt. Of course, I can't find it now...
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 1:39:09 AM

I use highend cards, ty pocketbook, and after reading about how game devs are going down or are hurting, and being in the middle of a DX revision driven by M$, yeah I can see it (pc gaming) going high market, at least until fusion comes. And if its as sucsessful as it could be, then thatd leave out nVidia as well, with Intel coming in with Larrabee. The Wii, making consoles more popular than ever, having a third contender in that market makes me want for one or two in the pc arena as well. Could be hard times for pc graphics
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 2:15:15 AM

Yeah Sailer and JDJ I agree it's going to fracture the market segment for devs.
I can only imagine the number of people that are going to be slumming with the midrange, and the devs are going to be looking at the numbers and go "Ok well, we could add this feature, but only the high end will be able to play it, so instead let's just make the sky / water prettier for all to enjoy.

That's very simplistic, but it will be a questioned posed by devs who pick and choose where to dedicate resources. And unless there's clear indication that there won't be this split ongoing, then they're going to dumb down games, until the cpu+vpu combos come along.

And considering that Consoles are essentially just DX9 machines, what does this weak DX10 mid-range do for that development, especially when more people will just add more DX9 cards instead? It makes little sense to even bother with DX10 at that point, until long after something like the GF8800GS or HD2900Pro were to come along.

Just ridiculous, and I wish that there were some indication of competition, but Matrox is just plain MIA, and S3's XD series isn't about to improve the situation. Only S3's XE series could hope to make this interesting and it's not due until halfway through next year!
July 12, 2007 2:27:31 AM

No1sFanboy said:
It is almost as though Nvidia and ATI are trying to push the market upward. Most people I know won't spend more than a couple hundred on a GPU regardless of what they can afford; they simply don't see the value.

The divide between a PC and a gaming PC is growing which can't bode well for PC gaming. The average person will eventually give up and go console. Maybe game developers and MS don't see this as such a bad trend.


I don't game real often these days because I work too much, but my kids game about 1/2 of their free time. They worked a bunch over the last year and spent quite a bit on gameing, upgrading their gaming pcs and also upgrading one console each. So we now have a Wii, an XB360 and a PS3. When company is over, the consoles rule - when no friends are over, they are more likely to be on the PCs. That's OK by me because they are going to have computers for school work anyway and when you build your own, a decent gameing PC does not have to be all that expensive. I don't really see the GPU price point as being $200 for a game box, more like $350 or so. That gets you pretty good performance these days.
July 12, 2007 2:37:54 AM

well, i see the problem too. i think the companies; ATI and Nvidia are waiting for something. Obviously when the makers of the 2900xt were testing it they saw that it wasnt up to the task of taking on the 8800GTX. IMO there will be a card thats going to come out to compete with the 8800s, and the 2900xt's price will be droped to compete with the 8600GT/GTS and the upcoming 8600 refresh.
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 2:52:30 AM

Too expensive to sell an HD2900XT for the GF8600 price, same with the GF8800GTS.

Before either ATi or nV enter that range with those 650-700+million transistor parts, they'd make the effort to build a replacement that could do the job for less money to make. That's what the HD2900Pro and GF8800GS are going to have to do at about 75% of the transistor count and on smaller processes.

Unfortunately we have to wait a while for those dang things.
a c 130 U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 7:05:40 AM

I have raised no1sfanboys point on the forums before while discussing the next step nvidea should take and as i said then we will see what the intentions are as far as pushing prices up goes when they release the next card they will either lower the 8800 prices and put the new card in a bit dearer or just stick the new card in above the 8800`s
Mactronix
July 12, 2007 9:55:13 AM

Frankly, as I've alluded to and stated before, BOTH ATi and nV are being very greedy at the expense of looking stupid. There is no mid-range, because the 1950/7900 stuff still fits that niche, and there are few DX10 games.

I just visited a link to legion hardware's testing of the 8600GT, in comparison with the 8600GTS, 7900GS, and a 7600GT. The 8600GT was o/c to 590/910 as an additional point of reference.

What a sad review... the 7900GS beat the o/c 8600GT. The 7900 GS kept up with the 8600GTS at these higher rez's. (Had to edit this, I got some of this wrong originally). To top it off the 7900GS can be o/c'd upto about 580-590. Looks like the real winner in these tests was the 7900GS for about $30-60 less than the 8600GTS, and priced the same as the 8600GT.


So it looks like the 'mid-range' is STILL defined as the 1950/7900 series until the consumer has been squeezed on the 8800/2900 series. Sales look good for the latter, as no one wants the current 8600/2600 stuff.

Lotsa hype from the box-builders to get DX10 into a box. After that there's very little cheering.

JMHObservations

f61
July 12, 2007 10:21:45 AM

Isn't this exactly what happened with the fx serries from nvidia when a geforce 4ti would just destroy most of the fx's except the top of the line ones.
Just now both of the companies are doing it.
July 12, 2007 10:57:17 AM

yeah, it always tends to happen that way.

put it this way - old top end cards have the advantage of wider memory buses and cheaper manufacturing tech, making them offer good performance at a low price.

new mid range will always have crippled memory bandwidth and not be as fast as the new top end, because they dont want to cannabalize sales.

in fact, look at it this way. you can buy a 8800 GTS 320 for $280, or a 8800 ultra for $800. what is interesting is that these cards both use the same core. different ram and pcb maybe, but same manufacturing process, same R&D. so nvidia makes a hell of a lot more money on an ultra than a gts 320. but they deliberately cripple the 320 by disabling a quarter of its core, with lazers. theoretically they could sell a gtx for like $300. only problem is, we need to work out where the money is going. to R&D, like it should, or to shareholders and ceos? so basically, if they didnt make as much money by charging lower prices, what would that hurt? future generations of graphics cards? or just their expensive cars?
July 12, 2007 11:21:10 AM

clue69less said:
That's OK by me because they are going to have computers for school work anyway and when you build your own, a decent gameing PC does not have to be all that expensive. I don't really see the GPU price point as being $200 for a game box, more like $350 or so. That gets you pretty good performance these days.


At 350 budget you're into an 8800gts which fits with what Nvidia maybe sees as the new entry point for a true gaming gpu. People like us who have turned their computer into a bit of a hobby and are on this forum are the minority. When I suggest a $200.00 barrier I'm basing that on people that I talk games with at work etc. I can name several examples but here is one; a guy I work with, household income about 200k, owns two homes etc.. This guy loves gaming and is always interested on how new equipment I'm running is for gaming. He bought an ATI 1650?? this year. He is not afraid to spend money on vacations, cars etc. but he will never buy a $500 gpu.

Maybe over explained but what I'm getting at is this is the kind of person who may find pc gaming a "no go" in the future. For pc gaming to move forward the market needs a strong mid-range.
July 12, 2007 12:00:01 PM

@NO1s Fanboy:

Thats rather interesting that he chose an x1650 (XT i presume?). I would think an x1950 family would be in a good price range.

But you're on target.

f61
July 12, 2007 12:10:34 PM

the problem as I see it is that you shouldnt have to spend $350 to get decent graphics performance. the integrated graphics should be enough for gaming up to 1024 x 768, and for reses beyond that and extra detail, a $100 to $200 card should be sufficient.

but no, it seems the only cards worth buying start at $300. thats half the price of a budget pc.
July 12, 2007 12:23:35 PM

What I find strange is nV and ati seem to have deliberatly crippled their cards to the point of making them useless. Why as a company looking to make money would you sabotage your own product?
Thats the point your average joe still thinks that card a)with 256mb vram is > than b) with 128mb vram. The average consumer has absolutely no idea what they are being sold. I saw a system with a 8500gt advertised as a gaming machine for £600. Most dont even ever enter the graphics settings anyway. The just play the game at the default settings because they dont realise it makes any difference changing them.
July 12, 2007 12:31:58 PM

as ape said, all of depends entirely on DX10 compatibility.

Its a big issue for people looking to get a midrange dx10 card. But not such a big problem for those who would rather stick with dx9 for another year. For them the choices are well....quite a few. By then time they want to go to dx10, there MAY be a better line up of mid range cards.

just my thoughts...ignore me :whistle: 

But yeah, i do agree that for those looking for dx10 now at a good price/performance ratio dont really have much to go with. You either spend some money and get the 8800/2900 cards, or you spend less and get cards that quite frankly seem useless for dx10 gaming.
a c 175 U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 12:45:34 PM

I'm one of those who for years thought it unnecessary to spend lots of money on a GPU. I've finally realized that if I want anything decent, I'll need to spend more; that's just how it is. The average consumer, however, will go elsewhere (e.g. a console) or will do without.

I'm still straining to ratchet up to $300...
July 12, 2007 12:52:50 PM

gpippas, I dont think they deliberately crippled the 8600 series.

weighing in at 390 million transistors means it is more complex than any 7x00 series card. however, it lacks texture units and memory bandwidth, which is why it is beaten by older cards. I think the new DX10 unified shaders probably eat lots of transistors, which is why they didnt put more texture units on - too expensive for them.

memory bandwidth is another story, no idea why they didnt give it say 256 bit 1400 Mhz memory.

its sad that you can spend £150 on a graphics card these days and not be assured of having a good gaming pc.
July 12, 2007 5:02:03 PM

But let's look at the problem differently.
I mean a geforce 4ti can murder my ex fx5200 in games that don't require pixel shader 2.0, until 2006 there wasn't a game i couldn't play on the fx5200(well at low but i was playing it), but a friend of mine ho had a gefforce 4ti couldn't play half of the games i played maybe that's how this will turn out.
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 9:04:09 PM

cristip60 said:
But let's look at the problem differently.
I mean a geforce 4ti can murder my ex fx5200 in games that don't require pixel shader 2.0, until 2006 there wasn't a game i couldn't play on the fx5200(well at low but i was playing it), but a friend of mine ho had a gefforce 4ti couldn't play half of the games i played maybe that's how this will turn out.


The GF4Ti was never in competition with the FX5200, it was the FX5600, and the GF4Ti never really rivaled the FX5600U even under revision 1 and definitely not under revision 2.

And while it's likely that eventually the GF8600 and HD2600 will be able to play games the GF7900 and X1900 can't they'll be games that even the GF8600 will be pretty much unplayable at except with everything turned off, like the FX5200 in BF2 or Oblivion.
July 12, 2007 9:43:15 PM

NV and ATI know people will buy these simply because 8600/2600 is higher that 7600/1600 so it must be better....right? OEMs can also whore out "DX10 ready" all over the box and people will just automatically think it's better.

NV and ATI also get to enjoy the fact that people who do know will continue to buy the X1950/7900s and make money while getting rid of old stock.

NV and ATI also know that people who buy their crappy "Mid-Range" cards now, will turn around and buy the next gen mid-range cards because of the current "Mid-Range" cards' inadequacies. Ditto for those who bought the X1950/7900s.

Glad my X1800XT still holds it's own. Maybe we'll get lucky with a 256-bit X2900XL (or 2800XL???) or the internet phenomenon known as the 256-bit 8600Ultra. Maybe.
a c 271 U Graphics card
July 12, 2007 10:23:29 PM

Anoobis said:
NV and ATI also know that people who buy their crappy "Mid-Range" cards now, will turn around and buy the next gen mid-range cards because of the current "Mid-Range" cards' inadequacies. Ditto for those who bought the X1950/7900s.


I'm right with you mate, so far my 7900GT's are holding their own and I'm hoping that they can survive most if not all the upcoming releases and see what the next gen/series of GPU/cards look like.
July 13, 2007 1:33:00 PM

Ies but playing a game with everithing off it's better then not playing a game at all.
a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2007 1:37:52 PM

Then buy the better, cheaper, proven DX9 cards
July 13, 2007 4:28:30 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Well anyone who had any doubt about there being a gap as big as the Grand Canyon (or Marianas Trench more like it) between the bottom of the high end and the top of the mid-range, only need to read this review to see that there really is nothing resembling mid-range performance cards right now.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8...

It only looks at nV cards (which is a good thing IMO, not distraction about X vs Y vendor, etc), but OMFG, sometimes the top of the mid-range (8600GTS) can't even sustain an avg that reachs halfway to the MINIMUM framerate of the bottom of the high end cards (8800GTS-320).

Seriously, this sucks for one of the largest segments of the industry and makes me wish we had a third option (like Matrox or S3) to come in and exploit this huge gap. We already know the X1950 and GF7950 are the cards that fill this gap, but anyone doing a long term build (to last 2-3 years) is totally hooped if they wanted good DX9 performance now and some DX10 later.

Still making the GTS-320 look like an awesome choice, because even compared to the GTS-640 it does a good job throughout the setting/games. Unfortunately it's out of some people's reach so that sucks for them.

We already know most of this, but it's really amazing just seeing it all side-by-side like this with the latest drivers etc, instead of comparing across different uneven reviews.


Yeah, kind of sucks. But with every other component price falling so damn fast its kind of hard to bitch too loud.

2Gig of 667 for $80 CAN. 320GB 7200.10 for $80 CAN. Saving so much on stuff like that I don't mind so much paying the extra dough for a 320MB GTS.

EDIT: Not too mention the price of HP and Dell desktops are falling like crazy, making the overall purchase price of a machine with a higher-end video card more affordable :) 
July 13, 2007 4:34:37 PM

There is an amazing gap between $100 and $275.

Thats why I decided to buy a used 8800GTS 640 card. I got it for $225. And to me, that is a bargain for a 3 month old card.

You can find a 320 GTS for $250ish new with rebates...but the gap is still entirely too wide between the performance on the 8600/2600 and the 8800/2900.
July 13, 2007 4:39:03 PM

I think that price is one thing that we tend to forget, at least when if we were to compare what we get for our money today with what we got for our money a few years ago. Everything of equivelant value from old stuff has dropped dramatically in price, as in the computer that cost $3000 five years ago would cost about less than $1000 now, maybe even closer to $500. Sure, the HD 2900 Xt or the 8800 GTS seem expensive at $350-$400, but how good a card would that same money have bought 3 years ago? So that 8500 doesn't seem very powerful, but stack it up against an old FX5200 and then compare them. Such a comparison might bring things into better perspective.
July 13, 2007 5:16:44 PM

In 2004 in romania a fx5200 128/64 was 125$.
July 13, 2007 5:27:46 PM

cristip60 said:
In 2004 in romania a fx5200 128/64 was 125$.


As I look at the prices on Newegg, a 8600 GT 256mb with GDDR3 is about $125. So I think the question can be reasonably asked, is a modern 8600 GT 256mb better than the FX5200? My guess is that it is better. The difference is that games are far more demanding now than they were in 2004, so the 8600 GT looks worse than it may be.

The Ape's original post remains, though. There isn't really anything in the middle performance wise of the 8600 GT and the 8800 GTS. So for the modern gamer, the pickings are not good.
July 13, 2007 5:32:39 PM

sailer said:
I think that price is one thing that we tend to forget, at least when if we were to compare what we get for our money today with what we got for our money a few years ago. Everything of equivelant value from old stuff has dropped dramatically in price, as in the computer that cost $3000 five years ago would cost about less than $1000 now, maybe even closer to $500. Sure, the HD 2900 Xt or the 8800 GTS seem expensive at $350-$400, but how good a card would that same money have bought 3 years ago? So that 8500 doesn't seem very powerful, but stack it up against an old FX5200 and then compare them. Such a comparison might bring things into better perspective.


Yeah. I paid $100 for a 512K S3 VESA Local card, then another $100 to bump it to a meg - just so I could get hi-color at 640 res. so the ONE jpeg picture I had would not be dithered at 256 colors....

I have a refurb E6400/2GB/400GB/DVD-RW/DVD-ROM/TUNER/REMOTE/7500LE HP Vista Premium box right in front of me right now that cost me $531 + tax.

And people complain about prices today ROFL


a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2007 5:59:21 PM

sailer said:
As I look at the prices on Newegg, a 8600 GT 256mb with GDDR3 is about $125. So I think the question can be reasonably asked, is a modern 8600 GT 256mb better than the FX5200? My guess is that it is better. The difference is that games are far more demanding now than they were in 2004, so the 8600 GT looks worse than it may be.

The Ape's original post remains, though. There isn't really anything in the middle performance wise of the 8600 GT and the 8800 GTS. So for the modern gamer, the pickings are not good.
This is true, but remember the process is 90 and 65nm now, plus ram IS cheaper too, plus inflation, etc. They may be trying to upgrade the midrange to the upper midrange, meaning the likes of a R670 to play at a reasonable res and eyecandy. It sucks, but what do we do? Boycot?
July 13, 2007 6:17:01 PM

That's it, we boycot and go back to using 6800 cards, or their equivalent. Forget it, they have us over a barrel if we want to play any modern games.
July 13, 2007 6:20:42 PM

Well another interesting question is: do we really need a mid-range in DX10 right now? Does something with X1950Pro performance can provide adequate framerate in DX10? We don't know, and honestly from what we've seen in early tests, even the highest of the high-end have a hard time in DX10 so I'm not sure what's the point to have slower cards with DX10 support.
July 13, 2007 6:38:16 PM

Well i say no we don't need one right now.
After at least 3 games with full dx10 support then we could say we do.
It will be at least 2 years until the developers will start showing what dx10 is capable of, until then there will only be dx10 games derived from dx9 ones.
July 13, 2007 7:49:48 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Well anyone who had any doubt about there being a gap as big as the Grand Canyon (or Marianas Trench more like it) between the bottom of the high end and the top of the mid-range, only need to read this review to see that there really is nothing resembling mid-range performance cards right now.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8...

It only looks at nV cards (which is a good thing IMO, not distraction about X vs Y vendor, etc), but OMFG, sometimes the top of the mid-range (8600GTS) can't even sustain an avg that reachs halfway to the MINIMUM framerate of the bottom of the high end cards (8800GTS-320).

Seriously, this sucks for one of the largest segments of the industry and makes me wish we had a third option (like Matrox or S3) to come in and exploit this huge gap. We already know the X1950 and GF7950 are the cards that fill this gap, but anyone doing a long term build (to last 2-3 years) is totally hooped if they wanted good DX9 performance now and some DX10 later.

Still making the GTS-320 look like an awesome choice, because even compared to the GTS-640 it does a good job throughout the setting/games. Unfortunately it's out of some people's reach so that sucks for them.

We already know most of this, but it's really amazing just seeing it all side-by-side like this with the latest drivers etc, instead of comparing across different uneven reviews.

I totally agree that there is a large gap in AMD and Nvidia's product lines... but I see a bigger problem! This new Forum application is HORRIBLE!!! I'm sure there is a technical reason why AMD and Nvidia do not have current-gen mid-range cards worth a cuss... but this new format? Well, there's just no excuse for that.
a b U Graphics card
July 14, 2007 12:14:05 AM

LOL! Nice one Rodney. 8)

Well I don't mind it too much now that I've learned how to use it (prefer it over our last generation), but I do still miss the old THG which was beautiful in it's simplicity.

I'll give it time to grow on me, out of the box I'm a little 'meh' about it, but we'll see. I like the customiz-able-ness of it a bit since I have different wants/needs than most. Just wish I could return to the old wide-as-your-page format that was in the original, and most of the last version of the forum.

a b U Graphics card
July 14, 2007 12:25:28 AM

vic20 said:
Yeah, kind of sucks. But with every other component price falling so damn fast its kind of hard to bitch too loud.


I agree somewhat, but that's nothing new for me from my original PC at about $6000, I expect that trend. But most companies try and beat their older parts for price/performance, and keep a pretty linear lineage of performance. Whereas here we have the opposite of the early celerons, where the mid-range / low end performance is so bad, even vis-a-vis price that they are best ignored out of protest.

The main thing isn't can I build a better PC for the same price as last time, but if I have a limited budget can I get the same value throughout the segment. And even for us overcharged Canadians (especially for sticky prices that ignore the better exchange rates) I find that there's far more value in the last generation, and a heck of enough of a gulf in the current generation that any benefit of a mid-range DX10 card (other than as an HTPC card) gets clobbered by the fact that they are so weak. I'd recommend a GF8600 for a long term build for 2 years, but oh man, wouldn't you just prefer the better performance and price of a GF7900GS or X1950Pro for 1 year, and then bite the bullet and get a GF8800GS or equivalent or HD2900Pro or equivalent, that have a realistic chance of playing DX10 titles in the future.

I think that's my point. Not so much that for the same price as my R9600Pro I can buy a GF8600GTS that would kick it to the curb, but that the gulf between the GF8600 and GTS-320 is so large and so dissapointing that it actually makes it worse than the X1600Pro, which for all it's suckitude (especially later once the GF7600GT came out) it will still play all SM3.0 games well enough to last into next year and maybe a bit beyond. Whereas I doubt these new mid-range from either IHV will play Crysis or UT3 in DX10 mode well enough to be the choice for gameplay for anyone who doesn't want to get P'zoned by someone gaming in DX9 mode on an X1600/GF7600.

Just a dissapointment after all the early 3Dmark hype crap about it blowing away the old guard, and then the closer we got to launch and started seeing actual game benchie leaks then the GF8600 was a right off and there was still hope that AMD would do what nV did with their GF7600 come out with the better part second, but NOPE. Instead now from both we are left hoping they can pull off another GF7900GS/X1900GT-1950PRO success and not $crew that one up too.

So here's to hoping that the GF8800GS and HD2900Pro are up to the task. :o 
July 14, 2007 12:50:26 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
LOL! Nice one Rodney. 8)

Well I don't mind it too much now that I've learned how to use it (prefer it over our last generation), but I do still miss the old THG which was beautiful in it's simplicity.

I'll give it time to grow on me, out of the box I'm a little 'meh' about it, but we'll see. I like the customiz-able-ness of it a bit since I have different wants/needs than most. Just wish I could return to the old wide-as-your-page format that was in the original, and most of the last version of the forum.


Yeah, about this new format. Though in time I probably will get used to it, it doesn't seem stable. It changes almost daily. I have a sig line in my profile, which at first was gone, then was appearing and then it stopped. The reply numbers are gone, the description lines under my avatar disappeared, and the ability to reply to an individual seems to be gone. On top of that, the various buttons for reply, reply with quote, etc seem to move around a lot. I hope this gets straitghened out soon.
a b U Graphics card
July 14, 2007 4:06:13 PM

Were you talking to me?
July 14, 2007 4:29:08 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Were you talking to me?


I forget. I think I've been following too many threads and am not sure. Wish this new format allowed direct replies instead of just general ones.
!