Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Double standards for 4870x2?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Do you think 4870x2 deserve more criticism?

Total: 36 votes (5 blank votes)

  • Yes
  • 26 %
  • No
  • 75 %
August 16, 2008 5:52:37 PM

Why is 4870x2 so well received? The previous "monster" cards, like 9800gx2, gtx280, were so heavily criticized at launch for being costly, oversized, running hot, comsuming too much power... etc. Yet while 4870x2 is the most expensive card on market, consumes more power than any other card, is the longest card yet, runs hot, and somehow still got a good reputation? The first thought coming to mind is fanboyism. But that can't be. ATI's last dual gpu card, the 3870x2, was bashed harder than anything else. So why? :p 
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 6:05:43 PM

I think its innovation, competitiveness and design. Its DX10.1, it has the side port. It has GDDR5. All these things are forward looking, and intrguing. Ive seen reviews which show its not being hot as well. Thats confusing. Its by far the best card out, and consuming power and being the best is ok in most peoples minds. The card isnt pretentious. Its for top of the line setups, ones that should be able to fit and handle cooling, size etc. Even tho its the most exspensive card, it still comes in under the overpriced G280 by a 100$. And the only reason the G280 isnt still as costly is because of the 4870, which also set the attitude towards this card
August 16, 2008 6:08:19 PM

It's well received, because ATI was second best for a long time. Nvidia had been dominating the market, especially in the High-end.

ATI finally offer a range of cards that can compete with Nvidia. The 4850 and 4870 didn't quite take the top spot, but the 4870 X2 has and it's good news because of ATI's struggle.

As for Power consumption etc Anyone who wants a 'Green Computer' or a smaller card size shouldn't even be considering a Performance GFX card period.

I get the feeling your a Bitter Nvidia Fan
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 16, 2008 6:14:52 PM

It was well received because it gets great performance to price ratio. The other "double" cards did not scale nearly as well as the new X2. People were not too excited about the other double cards because they were seen as fake ways to get on top, but ATI/AMD has stressed the modularization of its new line, and this card proves that concept. The 280 was not hugely praised because it simply did not improve a lot over the previous generation, and it costs a ton for a small performance boost, especially considering the 4870 and now X2 below and above it, and even to an extent the 260.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 6:19:52 PM

I wouldnt say dagger is a fan BOY heheh, maybe dagger leans to nVidia, but whats wrong with that?
August 16, 2008 6:21:58 PM

speedbird said:
It's well received, because ATI was second best for a long time. Nvidia had been dominating the market, especially in the High-end.

ATI finally offer a range of cards that can compete with Nvidia. The 4850 and 4870 didn't quite take the top spot, but the 4870 X2 has and it's good news because of ATI's struggle.

As for Power consumption etc Anyone who wants a 'Green Computer' or a smaller card size shouldn't even be considering a Performance GFX card period.

I get the feeling your a Bitter Nvidia Fan



Lol, please leave fanboyism out of it. My 3 out of the last 4 graphics cards are ATI. Had x1950 before 8800gts. Just whatever is the best bang for the buck at the time. Think about it now, ATI was on top of Nvidia for a long time. Maybe you were too young to remember? :na: 

The 3870x2 was meant to unseat 8800ultra and be the "best," not "second best," which it did. And for ATI's troubles, they got bashed for it. So what changed? :sarcastic: 
August 16, 2008 6:26:28 PM

The G2xx cards were nothing revolutionary compared to thier previous generation. Compound that with the fact that they had all the time in the world (since 8800GTX came out) to work on it.

Meanwhile the 4870x2 is a major difference from its predecessor (the 3870x2). Not only is it at least double it's performance, but it also hold up amazing well with AA (which plagued the 2900xt, 3870 architecture).

It generally is so well praised because it proved to have alot of quality innovation and improvements on ATi's part.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 6:29:25 PM

The 9800g x 2 card was poorly recieved cuz it barely edged out the 9800gtx. The 9800gtx2 made alot of sacrafices inorder to get both chips on a single board. The 4870x2 actually doubles performance of a 4870. I guess really it's so well recieved cuz it works as advertised.
August 16, 2008 6:30:52 PM

babybudha said:
The G2xx cards were nothing revolutionary compared to thier previous generation. Compound that with the fact that they had all the time in the world (since 8800GTX came out) to work on it.

Meanwhile the 4870x2 is a major difference from its predecessor (the 3870x2). Not only is it at least double it's performance, but it also hold up amazing well with AA (which plagued the 2900xt, 3870 architecture).

It generally is so well praised because it proved to have alot of quality innovation and improvements on ATi's part.

That's a valid justification for 4870, but not 4870x2. It's basically just 2 4870s stuck together. The side port addressing would be one minor innovation over 4870, but it wasn't necessary for pcie2.0 right now, not even working at the moment, and had to be activated by future drivers. Considering the rumor that 4870x2 was supposed to scale as a single gpu. When this over inflated expectation fell flat, there seems to be no fallout from it. Strange. :sarcastic: 
August 16, 2008 6:40:44 PM

Simple, its the best card on the market and its $100 cheper then Nvidia when they had the best card on the market. Its win/win.

I respect ATI alot for not gouging like Nvidia does.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 6:41:05 PM

When the 38x2 came out, it was still caught up in the 4xAA thing, which has improved dramatically. Also, everyone knows whats down the road. People had to get used to dual core cpus, and Im thinking people are starting to see that the future of gpus is a multi chip solution, so people are getting used to it
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 6:46:11 PM

Also, pointing out that 1 nVidia had just done a redo/rename/rehash on every card they made, people became tired of it. So what does nVidia do? They take a 9800GTX and x2 it. Ho huim. Not only that, they make this card with 2 pcbs. Totally unstylish, non innovative and boring to boot. Yes it performed, but it didnt have any wow factor, was expensive, and people were looking towards the single chip solution in the G200, which once again, came in hot, was waaaay overpriced, and didnt wow in performance like people wanted. This helped to set up the 4xx series, and certainly helped the x2, as it WOULD deliver those wow numbers, and still come in cheaper at introduction. People dont like sandwiches
August 16, 2008 7:11:39 PM

why? because it performs really well, for a price thats cheaper for a similar 4870cf solution, with performance improvements. its way better than nvidia's powerhouse, which was way ovepriced... if you compare the 4870x2 to the cf solution, its priced pretty well, and im sure this is only an early adapters pricing, and weren't shareholders mad for the cheap prices ati was putting up? its a great card considering its also a dual gpu solution,

as for size, its the same length as a gtx 280

and why haven't they released the 4870 massive oC edition with watercooling? i bet that'll turn alotta heads as well..
Anonymous
August 16, 2008 11:20:38 PM

viva la ATI baby ! Yeah !!!!!!!!
August 16, 2008 11:27:17 PM

Quote:
because i am getting one and threatened reviewers with death if they persuaded me not to.

rofl
August 16, 2008 11:29:02 PM

Because while Nvidia was sitting on there a$$,AMD got off of theres
August 16, 2008 11:31:32 PM

ro3dog said:
Because while Nvidia was sitting on there a$$,AMD got off of theres

That would be ATI, not AMD. While technically the same company, the core development teams are largely intact and the same. The real AMD, or the cpu manufacturer, are still a long way from getting off their a$$. :sarcastic: 
August 16, 2008 11:55:12 PM

While you are right in as much that the 4870x2 is deserving of a degree more criticism i'll put this quite plainly as to WHY people are criticizing the **** out of the gt200

There was a LARGE batch of defective cards which made it to the public which hurt this cards' reputation.

The ones which are functioning in the manner they are intended to are great performers and overclockers, but they still launched at WAY too high of a price (ie: gouging)
August 17, 2008 1:53:15 AM

For me there are a few key things that make all the difference. Micro stuttering, gone. Half-sized ram issue, gone. Scaling, better than anything else. Add in dx10.1 and some more basic issues, like how ati actually has to make their cards much better than nvidia's in order to compensate for all the nvidia optimized games. Plus they embraced the dual solution these last two rounds where as nvidia bitched about having to do the dual solution to keep with their "fastest card at any cost, even at the expense of image quality" mantra. Those cinema 2.0 demos also play a part, I mean these ati cards can do this ray tracing stuff now much better than intel and nvidia are promising for hardware that's still in labs. To top it all off, there's a chance that PhysX on Ati cards might pan out very well. All that leaves me with no reason to choose nvidia over ati until we have some major architecture changes.

For the record I have a rare 8800 GTS 1024 that I've been very happy with, but in a month or so I'm trading it in for a 4870x2 with no regrets.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 2:39:50 AM

Giving more criticism, the correct way, gives readers a better picture about what they'll get when they buy that piece of hardware.

So being "mean" to the Radeon 4000 series will make them improve or, in the worst case scenario, show us that they don't deserve to be bought.

I see it that way, so, being general, giving good criticism is always a good thing to do.

Esop!
August 17, 2008 5:35:34 AM

I agree that a lot of it is expectations. A lot was expected from Nvidia with the new GTX 200 series, and the first impression of these cards was that they under-performed and were over-priced. On the other hand ATI has been behind Nvidia for some time now, and even just a few months ago it was widely reported that ATI was not going to try and compete with Nvidia at the high end and would just compete at the mid-range level. When the 4870 X2 was announced there was some skepticism that it could deliver. When it came out though it ended up exceeding expectations. Although $550 is high, it's lower than what most high end cards have launched at.

However with recent price cuts on the GTX 280 I'm not sure things are as clear cut as most reviewers are making them out to be. I saw a Palit GTX 280 at Zip Zoom Fly for $399 PLUS a $30 rebate. Let's just take the $399 price since we all know rebates can be shaky at best. Is the 4870 X2 a better card than the GTX 280? Yes, of course. However is it $150 better? Probably, IF, and this is a big IF, you run at a resolution of 1900X1200 or higher.

But what about gamers like me? I have a very nice 22' LCD, and I run my games at a native resolution of 1680 x 1050. Now at that resolution is the 4870 X2 $150 better than a GTX 280? I don't think so. The 4870 X2 really shines at 1900 x 1200 and above so if you're running at that the choice is a lot easier. Something else I noticed in reviews where they showed the minimum frame rates and not just the maximum was that the 280GTX often beat the 4870 X2 in minimum frame rates which means that the 4870 X2 is dipping down farther in the more demanding and intensive areas of a game. For most gamers this minimum number means more than the maximum.

I'm not a fanboy of any kind. I buy the best for the money, and I don't care what brand it is. For a long time I bought AMD processors, but once the Core Duo line came out I switched to Intel. I was with ATI through the 9800 Pro, and then switched to a 8800 GTX. I was all set to go ATI this round, but now I'm not so sure. I'm getting ready to get a new rig that will feature the E8500 with 4 gigs of RAM on a P45 based Motherboard, and right at this moment I'm leaning toward a GTX 280.
August 17, 2008 6:01:45 AM

LAN_deRf_HA said:
For me there are a few key things that make all the difference. Micro stuttering, gone. Half-sized ram issue, gone. Scaling, better than anything else. Add in dx10.1 and some more basic issues, like how ati actually has to make their cards much better than nvidia's in order to compensate for all the nvidia optimized games. Plus they embraced the dual solution these last two rounds where as nvidia bitched about having to do the dual solution to keep with their "fastest card at any cost, even at the expense of image quality" mantra. Those cinema 2.0 demos also play a part, I mean these ati cards can do this ray tracing stuff now much better than intel and nvidia are promising for hardware that's still in labs. To top it all off, there's a chance that PhysX on Ati cards might pan out very well. All that leaves me with no reason to choose nvidia over ati until we have some major architecture changes.

For the record I have a rare 8800 GTS 1024 that I've been very happy with, but in a month or so I'm trading it in for a 4870x2 with no regrets.


+ 4870x2 scales far better than than 4870CF.
+ 4870x2 doesnt only beat gtx280, but beats it by 30% to 50% while being merely 15% more expensive
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 6:07:14 AM

Part of the reason people love it so much is that although it costs an arm and a leg, it performs well enough to be worth that price. In many games, it actually beats not just the GTX280, but even the GTX280 in SLI, and the lead tends to be larger at higher resolution and with AA (which is where you really need the powerful card in the first place).
August 17, 2008 6:51:30 AM

I think part of the issue with the 4870X2 is it's still soon enough after the release of the 4870 to be riding on the 4870's coat tails. I mean how could you fault ATI's development, release and pricing strategy on their 4000 series cards? For ATI this was a major leap forward, and a very welcome one at that. I think we were all getting a little tired of Nvidias strangle hold on our wallets, with no hope of seeing better than average performance without taking a second mortgage on the house. If you think about it, the 3800 series started the trend of affordable performance and the 4800 series carved it in stone.
I don't know about you, but I breathed a big sigh of relief when the first hints of what the 4800 series capability was going to be. Not because I am a fan boy by any stretch, but just because we desperately needed the competition in the market place, and it really wasn't happening up until now.

I also think there were a few too many unnecessary releases from Nvidia. I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish but we saw more than a few new cards come down the chute with flashy new numbers from Nvidia, only to find ourselves wondering what the big deal was when the NDA's were lifted and we finally got to see the reviews. I suspect this was because Nvidia finally began to realize there is a limited market for 700.00-900.00 video cards and that if they could re-introduce a pre-existing design, with a little more performance in the middle of the price range, they'd still be able to use the economies of scale and realize even better margins on their mid price point product.

The 4800 series from ATI was revolutionary in comparison to what had been going on at Nvidia (other than the 9800X2,), With the release of the 280 and 260 and the subsequent ongoing reductions in pricing from Nvidia, It's going to be pretty exciting to be a computer nerd in the next while, cause I think the gloves are off now.

I'm getting the popcorn ready and the rootbeer's cooling. This could be a long one :D 
August 17, 2008 7:14:36 AM

The reason this card isnt being tossed out the door is because, like many others have already said, it actually delivers with what it offers. This isnt just some gimmick like the 7950GX2 and the 9800GX2, two boards "put together" to make some alleged monster, when the only thing monster about it was the price, the size, the heat, and the power consumption. The price-performance ratio is god awful. However the 9800GX2 isnt near as bad as the 7950GX2 was.

Basically its all about getting the best bang for the buck here, and the 4800 series does this very well. While expensive, the 4870X2 is actually worth the money, due to the numbers, performance, and that wow factor somebody mentioned above.

And whats with all the rolleye emotes at the end of every post, really? Come on.
August 17, 2008 7:36:58 AM

If the treatment has been unfair then Nvidia has brought this on themselves. They had no business debuting the GTX 280 at $649 for the performance it delivered. People had had enough with the mediocure offerings and high price-points. The industry as a whole was waiting for something that would breathe a little sanity into the GPU market, and ATI delivered.

As I said in my other post though, the GTX 280 at $399 is a different discussion. For those not operating at higher resolutions there is a reason to consider going with the 280 over the 4870 X2.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 1:14:55 PM

And heres the clincher. People have been waiting for a card that was twice as fast as the Ultra. The 9800x2 didnt do it, it was percieved as being slapped together, and more a response to the 3870x2 than the single chip monster nVidia had claimed was what was important, and truly king. No doubt, a single chip solution is superior for many reasons than a x2, but when released, the G280 wasnt double the Ultra, people owning the 8800GTX werent prompted to get it, as it didnt deliver the raw power to compel them to upgrade, and then there was the fleecing/price of that cared at intro. Also, the G280 struggled to win over the lessor, non desired 9800GTXx2 , and was much more expensive. Enter the new beloved champs, ATI with their 4xxx series, priced incredibly low, I remember when the prices were leaked, everyone thought "here we go again" from ATI, thinking at such a low price, these cards simply couldnt perform. Enter the heroes, the 4xxx series. They delivered, were fresh, no spin offs, rearranged the entire pricing in graphics, and as I said delivered. So, it was with enthusiasm, not ho hum attitudes, people awaited the coming of the 4870x2. It has delivered the revered doubling in power, came in at a reasonable price, and yet holds still more abilities with its sideport
August 17, 2008 3:31:11 PM

While I acknowledge that the 4870x2 is the superior card to anything at the moment, I am a little baffled by DirectX 10.1 and how people list it off like it's so good. In my opinion, who cares? Does it actually add that much in the interim before DirectX 11?

Also, just curious jaydeejohn, if Nvidia won the next round like ATI did this round, would you support them as much as you support ATI now?
August 17, 2008 3:59:15 PM

The pitfall Nvidia stepped in is not that their cards are overpriced overall, but that it's far overpriced at launch.

The first part of the problem is, when people want something, but couldn't afford it, they get jealous. The grapes you can't reach are always sour. :D 

The $600 9800gx2 is an example of this.

Now, the 9800gx2 is $280, far less expensive than gtx280 but perform better, same price as 4870 but perform far better. It should get a good reputation now, right? Unforunately, the initial reputation stuck, and people are paying attention to newer hardware and ignoring the bargain. This led to the second part of the problem. The only people paying attention to it now are those who brought it for $600 a mere 3 month ago. And they're mad. So now, both those who brought it and those who haven't brought hates it. :na: 
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 4:27:54 PM

jcorqian said:
While I acknowledge that the 4870x2 is the superior card to anything at the moment, I am a little baffled by DirectX 10.1 and how people list it off like it's so good. In my opinion, who cares? Does it actually add that much in the interim before DirectX 11?

Also, just curious jaydeejohn, if Nvidia won the next round like ATI did this round, would you support them as much as you support ATI now?

Monetarily, Id be spending green for green, but looking at my heart, yea its red.
August 17, 2008 4:27:56 PM

Assin Creed showed the possibilities of dx 10.1.plain and simple ,the 4870x2 did what the 280gt was to do .The respins Nvidia has been giving consumers left a bitter taste .Few months apart between the 9800gx2 and the 280gt spells rapage.4870x2 is a solid product,the fact that it wins,yep,speaks volume.Nvidia needs to pay attention for pretty soon there will be another discreet video card out here.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 4:39:55 PM

Think of DX10.1 this way. Using physx, its said you lose up to 40% with gpu. Having DX10.1 showed that the fps increase was around 20%. I know thatd vary, and wouldnt always be true, but theres other implementations making for a better gaming experience going DX10.1, and having a lessor impact overall using physx as well would be nice. Should we elimanate physx because its so costly fps wise? Or should we embrace a new tech, even tho one gives better fps and better eyecandy, while the other gives eyecandy, but has a huge impact on fps? I was fairly vocal about nVidias cards, especially the x2, but like others, I was disappointed by all the rehashes, thus my preference for the 9800x2, at least it was something new and different, tho over priced. Ive always said I prefer ATI, but one thing, when Intel enters this market, I dont care if its ATI or nVidia, theyll be the preferred cards over Larrabee, even if Larrabee shows good. @ dagger, nVidia set the tone for their sandwich. Huang came out and said he doesnt care for them, it WAS a response to the 3870x2, which no one liked previously, which only kept the idea of a x2 card in a disfavorable mindset. Also, the 7950x2 didnt do alot for nVidia enthusiasts, or x2 cards when it arrived, while the ATI crowd has accepted the x2 concept, as ATI has been promoting it.
August 17, 2008 6:04:11 PM

Quote:
jaydeejohn wrote:

Monetarily, Id be spending green for green, but looking at my heart, yea its red.


Well, fair enough I guess. Just been noticing that you are very vigorous in your support of ATI, which is certainly justified, at least for the near future.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 6:11:23 PM

I love my 8800GTS, but am waiting/looking forward to my new ATI 4xxx series as well. Ive owned both, and am maybe too vocal about ATI, and not enough for nVidia, but I do prefer ATI, especially after seeing all theyve gone thru, including the AMD woes and merger. I really like the G260, and even the 2xGTX card, especially at the prices its currently at. I wont defend the G280, or what nVidias done with their naming scheme, nor their former pricing.
August 17, 2008 6:27:19 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I love my 8800GTS, but am waiting/looking forward to my new ATI 4xxx series as well. Ive owned both, and am maybe too vocal about ATI, and not enough for nVidia, but I do prefer ATI, especially after seeing all theyve gone thru, including the AMD woes and merger. I really like the G260, and even the 2xGTX card, especially at the prices its currently at. I wont defend the G280, or what nVidias done with their naming scheme, nor their former pricing.

I see you're an idealist. :D 

Last 3 out of 4 cards I brought are from ATI. Lastest being 8800gts and x1950 before that. Just whatever is the best bang for the buck. Couldn't care less about coporate ethics and who is more "honorable." The fact is, they're all greedy bastards, no exceptions.

Back when 9800gx2 came out, I bashed it harder than anyone else because it was $600. Now, it's $280 and my new favorite card (which I'm actually thinking of upgrading to as an interm replacement for the aging 8800gts). The hardware is still the same, only price changed. But hey, it's same price as 4870 while performing far higher, cheaper than gtx280 while performing slightly higher. What's not to like? The much-hyped $280 4870 perform only 20% better on average than an aging g92 8800gts that cost $150 or below. What's to like?

Only the current price/performance ratio matters. It's best to keep your mind rational and willing to switch sides on a dime. Those guys are all bastards, only after your wallet. This "loyalty" some people feel towards them makes no sense.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 6:56:49 PM

I agree. One thing to watch tho, is the 4xxx series are new, and will over time see driver improvements. Yea, at the pricing before ATIs new cards, nVidia was just crazy, and still is for the G280, and why I wont defend it. If priced at a solid 350$, Id recommend it, but not until the 55nm refresh will we see that, and maybe not then even, being its "new", thos it will be interesting to see how nVidia responds due to current pricing
August 17, 2008 6:58:59 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I agree. One thing to watch tho, is the 4xxx series are new, and will over time see driver improvements. Yea, at the pricing before ATIs new cards, nVidia was just crazy, and still is for the G280, and why I wont defend it. If priced at a solid 350$, Id recommend it, but not until the 55nm refresh will we see that, and maybe not then even, being its "new", thos it will be interesting to see how nVidia responds due to current pricing



No point spectulating. Just weight things again once those promised driver improvments roll out. :p 
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 7:02:21 PM

True. Over at B3D, sometimes certain players post, and Ive seen enough to know, the 4xxx series will get better
August 17, 2008 10:49:44 PM

Sure, the companies can be greedy bastards, and I don't think the consumers should fault them for that (obviously as a consumer, as I am, it sucks). It's just standard business. If you can charge a higher price and still have people buy, there is almost no incentive not to do it. This is excluding intangible factors, such as customer loyalty, etc., but the fact is that the companies will charge the most they can get for their product. They'd be stupid not to, and these companies are anything but stupid (for the most part).

When people say that ATI doesn't price gouge like Nvidia when their 4800 series came out, it wasn't really because they chose not to charge more, they made a mistake. They should have charged at least $325 and more like $350 for the 4870 at launch. People would still buy, and they'd help their own not so good financial situation by that much more.
August 17, 2008 10:59:42 PM

jcorqian said:
Sure, the companies can be greedy bastards, and I don't think the consumers should fault them for that (obviously as a consumer, as I am, it sucks). It's just standard business. If you can charge a higher price and still have people buy, there is almost no incentive not to do it. This is excluding intangible factors, such as customer loyalty, etc., but the fact is that the companies will charge the most they can get for their product. They'd be stupid not to, and these companies are anything but stupid (for the most part).

When people say that ATI doesn't price gouge like Nvidia when their 4800 series came out, it wasn't really because they chose not to charge more, they made a mistake. They should have charged at least $325 and more like $350 for the 4870 at launch. People would still buy, and they'd help their own not so good financial situation by that much more.

That wasn't a mistake. They wanted to gain back a big enough piece of the pie to be considered back in the game. Market share boosts stockholder confidence.
August 18, 2008 2:20:08 AM

What I was saying was that they'd get just as much market share even if they had priced the card at $325 (keep in mind the GTX 260 was still priced higher at this point). Just my personal opinion and those of a few review sites I read awhile back when the card first came out.
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2008 7:44:28 AM

And at 325$ would everyone have the enthusiasm for these cards as they do now? 325 is good , but under 300 is GREAT. That played a huge role in the acceptance of the x2 as well as market share gain. I read more pre release, too cheap no good stuff than anything. What theyve done was perfect. They let slip rumor, was it 800 or not? They said itd compete with the GT, no it compete with the GTX. They said itd compete with the GTX, no, it compete with the G260. Everything was wow, and the price? Still the same. No, they undersold the performance, but kept the incredible wow factor of pricing, what better way to increase market share. Even the 4850 presale goof up. And this is a major player as to why the x2 is looked upon with favor. By the time the x2 was to arrive, everyone looked towards it with anticipation, by now knowing how good it would be.
August 18, 2008 11:07:29 AM

jcorqian said:
Sure, the companies can be greedy bastards, and I don't think the consumers should fault them for that (obviously as a consumer, as I am, it sucks). It's just standard business. If you can charge a higher price and still have people buy, there is almost no incentive not to do it. This is excluding intangible factors, such as customer loyalty, etc., but the fact is that the companies will charge the most they can get for their product. They'd be stupid not to, and these companies are anything but stupid (for the most part).

When people say that ATI doesn't price gouge like Nvidia when their 4800 series came out, it wasn't really because they chose not to charge more, they made a mistake. They should have charged at least $325 and more like $350 for the 4870 at launch. People would still buy, and they'd help their own not so good financial situation by that much more.


Or they just want to ppl buying cheaper cards also be able afford 4870 and 4850 to get bigger part of pie.
For some people it can take week savings to get 50$.
And if ATI can take bigger piece of graphics market pie, it will allow them to have more infuence then they had so far (ie more support from developers to optimalise their games for new technology used by ati).
August 18, 2008 10:11:31 PM

These are all good points to be sure, and of course it's nothing more than my opinion. But I have a hard time believing that someone willing to pay $300 for a card at launch won't shell out another $25, especially as the competition's cards were all priced a lot higher at the time.

As for those people whose week's savings is $50, they probably have more fundamental places to spend their money then high end graphics cards. If my income were lower, I know I would not even be thinking about high end computers. Maybe it's just me though.
August 18, 2008 10:36:26 PM

Now ATI must get their asses over to AMD design team and show them how its done!
August 18, 2008 10:39:33 PM

jcorqian said:
These are all good points to be sure, and of course it's nothing more than my opinion. But I have a hard time believing that someone willing to pay $300 for a card at launch won't shell out another $25, especially as the competition's cards were all priced a lot higher at the time.

As for those people whose week's savings is $50, they probably have more fundamental places to spend their money then high end graphics cards. If my income were lower, I know I would not even be thinking about high end computers. Maybe it's just me though.

The psychology is different. People don't see it as $300 vs $325, but rather $299.99 vs $325. The former is in the $200s. even though there's shipping/taxes to add to it. :p 
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2008 12:32:36 AM

Well I think of the majority of reviews I've seen most have commented on the power concern, and most have mentioned the temps, as well as the lack of overclocking out of the box and the occasional driver bug as well, but when compared to the performance and price, then they even out. Compared to the GX2, GTX and the HD4K launch the X2 launches into a better situation where it's a better value. It still struggles against two GTX260 and HD4870, but holds it's own against the GTX280.

The problem with the GX2 and HD3870X2 before it, both were underwhelming at first, largely in part to their performance vis-a-vis a GF8800Ultra, however un-corking the 1/2GB X2 whose only compeition is the slightly less performing but closely priced GTX280 (only so price due to a massive drop); and then the equally memory limited HD4870 (even in CF) and GX2 solutions. The reviews were positive for the X2 in the sense that it was the fastest single card, but that that performance leveled off at the uber-settings this 'uber-powered card' was supposed to perform at made it a little less appealing, especially for what was then a very large price premium;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9800...

No doubt there's the underdog mentality at work as well, but even being pragmatic about it, for the area it's targeting the HD4K does well enough, whereas for the area it's targeting the GX2 has a few limitations, like memory space, where it has difficulty competing sometimes against single GF8800U, GTX260/280 and a single HD4870 and that in apps that show an SLi boost. HD4K has the promise (as empty as it might be that things will improve), with the GX2 apps that showed an SLi boost, when that fell short of the Ultra it looked to be a problem that drivers alone wouldn't fix.

As right or wrong as that may be, that to me is why the reception is a little different.
August 19, 2008 12:50:46 PM

Plain Old Me got mostly what my sentiments were; unlike previous dual-GPU cards (as far back as the dual-6600GT Gigabyte 3D1 to the more recent 3870X2 and 9800GX2) the 4870X2 retains a price-performance ratio that is not all that far off from what the best cards available can do. Right now, the gold standard for the ratio is the Radeon HD 4850, at $180US. At $550US, the 4870X2 is about 3 times the price, yet does scale well in most games, to a point unprecedented for a dual-GPU board, to the point where it DOES seem to regularly get over double the performance of the 4850, hence giving it over 66% of its price/performance ratio.

Compare this, for instance, to the GTX 280, which at $650US, was a bad deal for something that got only a little over double the then-$150US GeForce 8800GT; we're talking less than 50% of the value.

Furthermore, I also think that in this case, it gets some more leeway in what advances it offers, such as the vastly improved AA performance; ATi had been seriously lagging behind nVidia's GeForce 8 and 9 series, but now the Radeon 4 series hardly breaks a sweat when you enable AA, on any game. Then there's the stability and how surprisingly well it works for a dual-GPU card, and the DX 10.1 support, all things that the previous crown-holder, nVidia, couldn't offer.

Then, lastly, there's the simple fact of the MARGIN of victory. Normally, the most powerful card will be just a tad more potent than the #2, yet vastly more expensive, shooting your price-performance margin to the bottom of the sea. Yet with the 4870X2, yes it's expensive, but for the price you get a card that is indisputably way above and beyond the performance capability of any other single card out there; again, that's something the 3870X2, 9800GX2, and GTX 280 couldn't claim. However, it's not entirely without precedent; similar allowances were given to the GeForce 7800GTX upon its release; again, it set a new high bar for price with its $600US tag, but it was forgiven because it was so drastically above the previous champ, the X850XT Platinum Edition, and it was clear it'd be months before it'd lose the crown.

The 4870X2 sits in that same position today; loads of rumors float around about GTX 350 or other fictitious cards, but the fact remains that the 4870X2 will remain the world's most powerful graphics card for a while, quite possibly through the end of this year. So yes, the top card is usually bought by those looking for their 15 minutes of bragging rights to having the very best, but this time around, rather than it ceasing to be the champ weeks or even days after its release, the $550US spent here will retain those bragging rights for months.
!