Innovation vs. Rebranding

[Amiga500]

Quite a slide!


Ouch for Nvidia if these are representative:

 

[r_manic]

Quite excited about the 4770 actually... hopefully the benchmarks will prove ATI right?

 

[mactronix]

First slide fair enough but what are they measuring exactly on the second one ?

Mactronix

 

[jeffredo]

lol - I don't care what they call it, if a company produces a competitive product with the features I want at a decent price I'll buy it (all marketing hyperbole aside). Generally ads like this mean a company is trying to convince a buyer to "feel good" about the "newest" tech, even if it doesn't net any greater performance.

 

[RazberyBandit]

2nd one uses the 8800/9800GT as a median, meaning 1 is equal to 100% of their performance. So, judging by the graph, the 4770 delivers performance increases of 10-50% in the titles tested.

What's missing is - testbed hardware and testbed software, including OS, driver versions, etc. Interesting to speculate what the testbed was... Considering it's an AMD/ATI test, it was probably an AMD/ATI machine, which very, very few sites use for benchmarking. Hence the reason behind the poll I created almost 2 weeks ago, Benchmarks Intel System Only? But I Have an AMD... which got little attention, despite having shown that TH has never performed a true "Dragon Platform" series of benchmarks.

 

[mactronix]

Yes i remember that one, all it really shows is a bigger more impressive red line if your not computer savy. or if you do know whats what it demonstretes that the ATI card is better at AA, which we already knew and given its hardware layout it should be.

Mactronix

 

[wh3resmycar]

if they really wanna innovate they should quit the $250 rule. i wouldn't mind seeing (not paying)a $500 512bit-gddr5 with 1000stream processors than an x2 solution.

 

[wh3resmycar]

i dunno, maybe because after 2 new architectures, the competing product, which sits on a 3 year old arch, is still relevant?

and imo, we have enough bottom-to-middle class cards in the market already from both camps. and a top-end single gpu monster will be a spectacle come this summer's annual gpu superbowl.

anyway, the slides, they got it wrong though. the 9800gt featured a process shrink as well.

 

[turboflame]

and imo, we have enough bottom-to-middle class cards in the market already from both camps. and a top-end single gpu monster will be a spectacle come this summer's annual gpu superbowl.

That's what Nvidia thought, that's why they ended up selling a $700 single GPU monster card for half of the price (and why vendors like XFX started producing ATI cards).

anyway, the slides, they got it wrong though. the 9800gt featured a process shrink as well.

Not necessarily, there were quite a few 65nm 9800GTs produced. It's luck of the draw if you get a 55nm one.

 

[wh3resmycar]

That's what Nvidia thought, that's why they ended up selling a $700 single GPU monster card for half of the price (and why vendors like XFX started producing ATI cards).

i know. nvidia's flagships were completely unreasonable @ the start, gddr3 on a 512bit bus, 65nm, and yeah uber expensive @ its release. and its in nvidia's tradition to compete with their own product (ie, 8800gt/8800gts g92 vs an 8800gtx, and recently the 275 vs a 285), which doesnt make sense at all.

what im saying is ati can put the nail on the coffin if they stop being shy to go all out. a 4800 with twice the bus width, for twice the price, twice the "theoretical" performance. thats 2 times more reasonable than an x2/gx2 solution.

 

[RazberyBandit]

anyway, the slides, they got it wrong though. the 9800gt featured a process shrink as well.

And here I thought only the 9800GTX+ cards were the result of the G92 65nm to 55nm shrink... Are there actually 55nm 9800GT's and GTX's? If so, I have yet to see one. Every 9800GT and GTX I've seen has only 112 stream processors, while the GTX+ has 128, a clear sign it's using the 55nm version.

 

[lasoski311]

i second graph is very misleading

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Look at the use of the AA. Its not misleading at all. The G9x series suffered with the use of high AA. 4x, it only did so so, at 8x, its was bad.

 

[turboflame]

Every 9800GT and GTX I've seen has only 112 stream processors, while the GTX+ has 128, a clear sign it's using the 55nm version.

The regular 9800GTX had 128 stream processors, it was a relabeled 8800GTS 512MB. The number of stream processors has nothing to do with the process shrink.

 

[r_manic]

if they really wanna innovate they should quit the $250 rule. i wouldn't mind seeing (not paying)a $500 512bit-gddr5 with 1000stream processors than an x2 solution.

The $250 rule?

 

[wh3resmycar]

Are there actually 55nm 9800GT's and

those that support the ill-fated hybrid power feature are the 55nm ones.

The $250 rule?

the $250 rule being the top "RV" chip (the 4870, now the 4890), and putting them together results in a "R" version.

 

[L1qu1d]

this looks like a thread that will end in a friendly matter....LMAo

Title screams flame war and fanboy vs fanboy war.

goes to grab popcorn

Proceed

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Well if for 99$ we get 4850 performance, cant wait to see what 250$ will get us

 

[Dekasav]

.....but can it play Crysis?

Seriously, think it'll play Crysis with the Ultra high mod for XP enabled, at 1024x768?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Itll be close. I know a 4850 at 12x10 comes close, so at that res, and being a tad lower, it should

 

[mactronix]

How much actual differance, both hardware wise and picture quality wise does the ultra high mod make anyway ?

Mactronix