Does it surprise you how close the performance is?

[creedAMD]

Between the 6800 line and the x800 line.

It really baffles me that the 2 companies spend all of this time and calculations, development, and end up with two products that are so evenly matched. I know that a lot has to do with the technology available to both companies being the same. But still, so many other varibles!

I was really expecting one to be a good margin better than the other. It didn't matter which, but I just thought their wasn't a chance in hell of them being even.

 

[Brent_Justice]

see the thing is they are both really tapping the most that is available at a price point that is viable to sell video cards for gamers

that's why they are so similar

note that they are the only two doing it as well, no one else can keep up with them, they are both on the bleeding edge, so it makes sense performance is similar

one of the defining factors moving forward IMO with these heavily programmable video cards is going to be compiler efficiency, which one can write the best compiler

drivers can make or break a card

 

[tranCendenZ]

I think it has to do with the strategies employed.

Nvidia opted for new features + new architecture, knowing that it not only has to be as fast or faster than ATI but also offer a superior featureset in order to win people back from ATI after the FX crap.

ATI opted for old architecture pumped up, knowing that based on their fanbase created with their 9700/9800 as long as they offered comparable performance to Nvidia they'd have the support of users.

Nvidia turned out to have a more efficient architecture, but had to clock it lower due to the features.

ATI had a less efficient architecture, but could clock it higher with less stuff on board.

Hence we get similar performance in the end.

 

[Brent_Justice]

I think it has to do with the strategies employed.

Nvidia opted for new features + new architecture, knowing that it not only has to be faster than ATI but also offer a superior featureset in order to win people back from ATI after the FX crap.

ATI opted for old architecture pumped up, knowing that based on their fanbase created with their 9700/9800 as long as they offered comparable performance to Nvidia they'd have the support of users.

Nvidia turned out to have a more efficient architecture, but had to clock it lower due to the features.

ATI had a less efficient architecture, but could clock it higher with less stuff on board.

Hence we get similar performance in the end.

i wouldn't say the x800 series is less effecient, i would say the architecture is prolly more effecient, they have taken the R3xx technology and have highly highly optimized it, so i'd say it is more effecient

whereas the 6800 series is brand new technology, so hasn't gone through a complete product cycle yet and hasn't been as optimized as the R3xx architecture has had time to be

what i would say in place of effecient is transistors

the x800 series simply has less transistors, and the die is smaller, combined with Low-K to create higher clock speeds

whereas the nv40 is bigger, more transistors, no Low-K and is clocked slower

disregarding features mind you

 

[tranCendenZ]

I say efficiency because the 6800 is clocked about 100mhz slower than the x800 and offers similar performance. If that is the case, the NV40 architecture appears to be doing more per mhz, and hence is more efficient. The architecture might not be as fully optimized as the r420's, but it still appears to be more efficient (i.e. does more with less clock) than r420's comparatively.

btw, I was referring to the transistor count increase caused by the new features in my above post with "stuff."

also, bringing up low-k is a good point. If its possible to get NV40's core onto low-k without yield issues, it will be interesting to see how the refreshes compare assuming Nvidia goes low-k. I am thinking the higher clocks you can get due to the reduced heat of low-k may put Nvidia clearly in the lead with the refreshes.

 

[Blad3]

I don't like it when people say they're evenly matched -one has better image quailty than the other, I believe it might be ATI, again...not sure obviously... as for FPS, well there isn't much difference however as we can see from e.g. doom3 there is a slight difference - will ati have the better image quality difference though?...