• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GT200 GTX280/260 "official specs"

HangTime said:
In principle you have swayed me somewhat, although the GTS320 was definitely under £200 soon after launch (I got my factory overclocked BFG version for under £200 in the first week of March 2007, that's less than 5 months after the first Geforce 8 cards were launched, never mind 9 months!).
Click to expand...

Fair enough - my memory must be failing me in old age :p
 
HangTime said:
True, but the GTS320 (also a mainstream enthusiast part) was available at under £200 shortly after launch.

Still, it may be wishful thinking on my part - I'm kinda hoping that NV will be using conservative clocks (to keep it away from GTX280 levels) and place it not too far above the 9800GTX in terms of price point.
Click to expand...

The big difference this time around is ATI should be competing with a very keen price point, even if they dont equal the performance of nvidias top cards they should be way better bang for the buck which should bring down nvidias prices.
 
HangTime said:
Assuming this is true, the GTS260 looks nice for what will presumably be the 'mainstream enthusiast' part costing around £200 or less. Still got plenty of VRAM and at 448bit the bus isn't too crippled either.

I've been tempted by the 9800GTX which is now down to £174 but I think I can hold on to my GTS320 a bit longer and wait for the new cards if they are actually going to be a genuine step forward.
Click to expand...

The 9800GTX is a pointless card.

Might aswell get a 8800GTS 512 and clock it.

However the new cards do look good on paper but there will be big pricetags to match.
 
when was the gtx launched? around the 10th of november '06? im sure the price dropped quicker and lower than that. i though it was £329. ill check my order.

edit: oh that was without vat. it was £387 more or less.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
when was the gtx launched? around the 10th of november '06? im sure the price dropped quicker and lower than that. i though it was £329. ill check my order.

edit: oh that was without vat. it was £387 more or less.
Click to expand...

Indeed the new Flagship cards by NV will be similar prices.
 
straxusii said:
The big difference this time around is ATI should be competing with a very keen price point, even if they dont equal the performance of nvidias top cards they should be way better bang for the buck which should bring down nvidias prices.
Click to expand...

They will bring down nvidia's mid-range cards, sure. But the high end cards will if anything be negatively affected by ATIs lack of competition.

I see a big price-gulf opening up for the £300+ cards (in which Nvidia will have no real competition), and the sub-£200 card market, where competition will be fearce.

Edit - Remember, AMD have the size and finances to 'bully' nvidia in the mid-low end market, in a way that ATI alone never did. It would be nice if they used this generation to establish themselves firmly in this market, then looked to the high end again in the future. To my eyes, nvidia have had too much market share for the past 2 or 3 generations (although I admit to having contributed to that share each time!).
 
Last edited:
JediFragger said:
Hopefully the new ATi card will have great bang-for-buck so will force the nV prices down ;)
Click to expand...

Probably more likely 4780 will struggle to compete with the GTX260 and the GTX280 will sell for extortionate prices, only hope for lowing prices is the 4780X2 which will probably be a little faster than the GTX280 but more expensive.

Or at least that’s what my crystal ball is telling me. :p
 
No dual core... Single GPU!

4870 and 4850 (RV770) will be competing with G92b and unless nVIDIA alters g92 a lot, or increase its clocks a lot they will offer better performance at that segment.

R700 is the wild card, as it is rumoured that it will be priced in the high end market sector. Maybe ATi found a way to make dual gpus work effectively.
 
Thing is if nvidia don't price competively with there high end people may just buy 2 4870s or maybe 4850s which may work out faster than there top end for much cheaper. I know its using 2 cards instead of 1 but if you can get 2 for say 260 instead of 1 at 390 then i know where my money would be going.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Thing is if nvidia don't price competively with there high end people may just buy 2 4870s or maybe 4850s which may work out faster than there top end for much cheaper. I know its using 2 cards instead of 1 but if you can get 2 for say 260 instead of 1 at 390 then i know where my money would be going.
Click to expand...

Nah - I've had my fill of multi-card solutions. Even if they can 'win' in average-FPS benchmarks at high res, in a majority of games, there are too many caveats.

For example, with nvidia's SLI in AFR mode (by far the most common implementation as it is the most efficient in terms of raw FPS), frames are not output uniformly. This means that 60fps in AFR mode does not appear as smooth as 60fps with a single card, since it is the maximum time between frames which the eye picks up, rather than the total FPS output.

I would go for the single card solution every time, even if it were more expensive.
 
^On a related note, maybe it's time we moved away from FPS and looked at frametime instead. As you have alluded to in your post, just because you have 60 frames being rendered in a second, it doesn't mean to say that they are evenly distributed (every 16.666...ms). The reality may be that we have 45 frames in the first 500ms (equivalent to 90fps) and 15 frames in the next 500ms (equivalent to 30fps). 1 second can be a long time in a fastpaced action game, and by averaging our measurement out over a second we are disguising the biggest peaks and troughs. I think some games/benchmarks translate derive FPS from frametime on a per frame basis which is OK, but not all.

The holy grail of gaming is acheiving a maximum frametime (for any frame, not just an average) which is lower than the monitor refresh period (around 13ms for a 75hz monitor).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom