Lolcb said:
Im sorry mate, let us put a point clear here.
It doesn't matter that it is the GTS in the ATI world, the fact is that ATI has 6-7 months to improvise on their product, but having such a long time, they still only managed to make their XT model's performance similar to a GTX. So what does this imply, XTX being 5-10% faster?
And considering the fact that Nvidia is supposedly going to launch a higher end model - 8800 Ultra? So at the end of the day, Nvidia still has the stronger performing card, no?
the thing is though thats not bad, the little scale thing was 1 - 10 and 5 is 8800GTX, he said 5/6, meaning its a little better
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)
and its the weaker model of the R600 series, plus there 65nm are they not so overclocking should be reasonably good i would say, finally looks like the 8800 series has a tough competitor, the 8800 ultra is absolutely irrelivent to this discussion as its already stated as being way high priced $999 (miles higher than R600) and possibly dual-board like the 7950GX2, did the GX2 kill sales of the X1950XTX, i think not, this will still be a success for these reasons:
1) its competitive with the 8800 series, possibly faster, all we know really at the moment is its at least as good
2) its cheaper than the 8800 series
3) very quiet with good image quality
4) 65nm might mean there killer overclockers, meaning they'll be a favourite with the enthusiasts
and 5) ATI drivers/support is MILES better than NVIDIAs, so your getting a 8800GTX for less money with better driver support, that ejects heat from the case more efficiently and is quieter, how the heck can that be bad?