Attention to detail helps...
Also, where can I get a new 9600Pro for $125 and a 9800Pro for $199?
Re-read, I said R9600 and R9800. No pros until LATER.
<font color=purple>..I guess since you can get an R9600 for under $125 then..</font color=purple>
<font color=purple>..And for $200 and under the R9800 is the clear winner. ...but when the R9800s go for $199.. </font color=purple>
Mention of the PROs come later with different price tags, <i><font color=purple>..the under $150 would go to the R9600Pro, and under $200 would be the FX5900SE/5900 under most situations, and under $250 would be the R9800PRO..</font color=purple></i> and even later with even more different price grouping, omitting the FX5900 as the R9600 was omitted.
And I find it hard not to think there was intent with the following statement made at the end, directed at whom I wouldn't hazard a guess
;
<font color=purple>I know it would pain some of you to see the precious 9600Pro/XT trounced out of that guide for midrange like yesterdays garbage...</font color=purple>
Statements like this make the selection of 'convenient' categories questionable.
I won't mention it further because last time a dsicussion ensued over misquoting something it didn't end well for either of us. I'll leave it at that. I stand by the sections, they can be devided as anyone wishes, but statements like that last one were simply inflammatory at best. I will not be drawn in to waste more time on it, I've said my piece on that.
I didnt purposely omit it.. damn dude.
I didn't say you did, but fine. Simply put, any mention of workstation cards with a glossed over A-OK for all Quadros cannot go by without a caveat that the Quadro FX500 sux rocks and in at least the price performance category there is a better offering from ATI in the T2.
The problem with simply leaving it to FireGL vs Quadro, omits 3Dlabs, whom I've mentioned many times as a great specialty TOP-TOP end solution that even outpaces the Quadros (not sure how the Wildcat IV would do against an FX300 though, the last one tested was the 2000, but at best it would be close I woudl think). The VP series isn't bad, it has it's functions too. Look at <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/profcards/3dlabs-wildcat-vp990pro.html" target="_new">THIS</A> Digit-Life review, whcih shows the VP990 in a great light versus both ATI and nV.
Like I said, it's VERY system/application/card specific. People buying workstation cards don't usually look for performance across a very wide range of plaforms and applications, most of them build application specific rigs that may run 2-3 different applications at best. Sure the casual desginer/animator might use many different apps, and even gaming with his card, but they also aren't the consumers of a Wildcat IV, or FX3000 or GL X2-256. They are the purchasers of the T2, FX500 or second hand 1000 or VP6XX or 8XX, etc. Or even more likely the Soft-moded cards.
Generalized statements about workstation cards simply ignores the basic fact that they are good at specific things, and there is no 'TOP' card, except to benchmarkers and reviewers. Most people say, Well I spent $500-1000 dollars on this APP, and I'm not upgrading it, which card would be best suited for it. They don't care if in some other app it sux or rox.
My point is it would be better to point out the truely sucky ones, and say which ones aren't worth the money, or direct people to good reviews, and have them decide for themselves, or simply mention in the buyers guides, that these cards aren't for gaming, the difference is build quality, drivers, and usually dual DVI, since that's the most common questions we get abou them. "Uh would a Quadro FX2000 get me more Bungholio marks or would a FireGL X2-256 make Halo play better? IF anything those are the people we want to educate in such a generic buyer's guide. Including that neither the FireGL 8800 nor the FX500 are worth the money might also be a good extra.
Using THG to prove a point is ridiculous. You of all people remember when they recommended the 5600. Their credibility has been sucking the floor for quite some time.
I think you are showing some ATI bias my old friend.
I'm not saying use the review (which is the biggest problem), I specifically pointed out that if one ones to monkey with the current divisions in the Buyer's
guide, the THG version would make things even worse for your recommendations. Why pick $125, why not $150? Why even change it. The current list in the Buyer's guide works, and adding the 5900SE/XT and cheap FX5900 plus the R9700 and R9800 would fit within the current guidelines.
Those categories in yours (the 2nd one for the bystanders), are terrible.
I didn't say they were good, if you reread the post you'd see I was making the same point as above. BTW, remember I didn't make up these categories, but oviously you misunderstood why I linked to the THG VGA Buyer's guide, it was to show exactly how screwed up that kind of thinking is.
Funny how you get all worked up about it, and want to show me how screwed up it is, when that's exactly my point. Rememebr I did NOT make up those categories, I simply placed the current leaders inside the premade categories simply to poke fun at your list.
AHEM, A $50 PRICE RANGE???? WTF? And that is not the same as >50 because 100-150 is right dab smack in the middle of everything with a $50 variance.
Well I don't see the $75 range you had as being better, but like I said, I didn't pick the categories, I was just showing you how impractical they can be, but thanks for getting all worked up while proving my point.
You are twisted if you believe so.
Seriously relax, re-read, breathe, re-read, and then calmly think. And try not to resort to the 'you're twisted I'm not thing' that got nowhere fast last time.
You can stick with your divisions, I just disagree with them, completely and utterly, that's why the example.
My preference... (but hey my original thought is the way it is in the buyer's guide now, so I kinda like that one too, even if the card in it aren't as current [but that's the way it is])
<$50 (BTW >$50 mean over $50) which would be the pieces of crap that most people should spend more and get a GF4ti or just get an integrated chip. An MX nor an R9200SE is a good choice, waste of freakin' fundz under any condition.
$50<$100 = GF4ti
$100<$150 = R9600Pro
$150<$200 = FX5900SE/XT (the rare FX5900), R9700 and R9800. All depending on what is in your local stores.
But I would personally recommend the ATI over the FX for reasons of pixel shader strangth.
$200<$250 R9700/9800Pro
$250< R9800XT.
You can devide them up 4 ways from sunday and everyone will find a hole in the others. The problem is that the R9600Pro is a great buy at under $150, and the FX5900SE is a great buy at under $180, and the R9800 is a great buy at under $200, but the thing is every time you push the evelope a couple of bucks better things appear. That's why there needs to be more than 1 per class.
LARS list was drawn up without thought and you only like it because it shines a good light on ATI.
No I liked it because it proved my point, Re-read. And my point was that your list was composed to.... how you say; <i>Thats what I'm here for, make sure NV gets their <b>fair</b> cut </i>?
because you actually had the nerve to assume I somehow created my categories "conveniently".
When its YOUR PARANOID mentality that created that atmosphere in this thread.
I guess the R9600 comment was simply meant to be unbiaased, sure.Whatever. You can start ascribing it to me, but lines like the following;
<font color=purple>Cant have one guy dictating all the policy around here right?
You're not ALWAYS correct Ape! </font color=purple>
Dosn't contribute much, and it definitely changes the tone of the thread.
Mine is fair and makes actual sense.
Or so <b>you</b> think. But it is your list so I would think you would back it.
I have no problem with the current breakdown of prices in the Buyer's guide. Neither makes more/less sense IMO.
I suppose I should have never presented my true, fair and balanced opinion because your the one with all the buddies around here that can play the political game of 'friends' and agree with you even though my price list is even to the dumbest person much more intuitive than Lars.
Now who's paranoid?
Look I didn't punctuate my post with an invective you did.
Personally I let the original slide, I new you were being nV centric obviously. But your workstation comments, from someone who now says they don't know enough about it were always the issue, and the only reason I commented, the price divisions I don't care about because I think few people care how it's devided as long as it's clearly divided and with good reason. Look back at the comments and see the progression yet again.
But I firmly believe my price brackets make 100% more sense than the one you support from THG.
Well that would be misquoting me, but I woudl agree yours is better than LARS', but I wouldn't support it anymore than his. I don't agree with yours because for the price of those 128mb GF4tis you list you get a far better card for a few bucks more, but your price list omits the R9600Pro, whcih is still one of the better price/perfromance cards out there along with the FX5900SE and R9800. Even a $50 per category division would be better representative. And I doubt you'd notice that your categories are missing some cards even as they are now.
I don't care how they are divided up. I suggested they be divide more last time, and they were. Whether or not they should be again depends more on someone being able to sell that argument to CoolS and Spitfire, personally I don't think your division will do it. But hey, I could be wrong, because as you so kindly point out... "<i>Cant have one guy dictating all the policy around here right? You're not ALWAYS correct Ape! </i>"
At least I'm not alone in that respect, I have my friend and foes to keep me company.
- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram