Everyone agree that Nvidia won this round?

[umcpgrad]

with the dominance of the 6800 series, esp gt

and the poor frames and performance of the pro's

I assume Nvidia won this one?

any words on next gen?

or am I too early to assume this?

edit- no flame. Loving my 9800xt.

 

[nighthawk]

Yeah I tend to agree with you. My next purchase is going to be an MSI 6800 ultra if they are ever going to become available

 

[SoLiD_MasteR]

I agree..

but the best video card is ATi X800 XT PE without doubt

 

[CrimandEvil]

I won't say the X800 series performance is poor perse, but NV seems to have a better line of cards when it comes to Value/ Performance.

Watch out though I know a few ATI "supporters" that I'm sure will start flaming this thread soon.

 

[Charles]

It really depends on what you mean by "win."

If you mean who made the fastest graphics card period? Probably ATI. There's no denying that, other than Doom 3, the Radeon x800XT edges out even the 6800 UE.

If you mean who's going to make more money this quarter? NVidia by far.

Quite honestly, very few people are going to shell out the money (~$800 for an x800XT on eBay and ~$800 for a 6800 UE?) for the big guns, and NVidia/ATI can't rely on those small sales for any significant profit. (ATI with the unavailability of the x800XT definitely can't).

As a result, NVidia's tricky setup of having the 6800 GT in the $400 price range (which generally speaking edges out the x800 Pro and kills it in Doom 3) and the 6800 in the $300 range which utterly destroys anything ATI has in that realm will help them pull in massive income.

Additionally, with the "rumors" of the performance of the 6600 GT and 6600 at the $200/$150 price range, respectively, absolutely ripping apart ATI's "x600" cards, there's no question who's the winner in the mainstream department.

ATI made a really bad move using the old 9600 core on their new line up of cards... plus if they try to pull a quick switch now it will piss a lot of people off.

So ATI wins best card, NVidia wins most money. IMO that means NVidia won.

 

[CrimandEvil]

I'm not even sure you can find a X600 AGP flavor card, even now. Yeah the XTPE is probably the fastest card right now but they are pretty rare (UE you have to do a lottery, ATI should take notice of that).

 

[Mav451]

If the 6800LE/6600GT end up becoming the "next Ti4200", then yes, nVidia seems to have won this round.

If nVidia releases these at the same $150-$200 price point as the Ti4200's, then nVidia certainly has won it for me. I'm all about max performance per price ratio. My $87 ATi 8500 has held out for 2 years already, and I think its time to retire it soon

 

[sp0ngeb0b]

This round maybe, but HL2 remains to be seen. While I have confidence that nVidia graphics cards will perform the best image quality wise this round, the X800s do have an advantage in different mathematical operations as Humus has demonstrated with Doom 3. If Valve decides to use these, it could spell trouble for nVidia. That being said I think it is foolish of Valve or Id to ever play sides and prefer one over the other. The market is pretty evenly split and you certaintly dont want to alienate half of your potential customers. From a business point of view, Id could have certaintly made a better impression for ATi customers by offering an alternate configuration instead of waiting for an ATi employee to expose it for what it was. I hope Valve doesn't make the same mistake.

b0b

 

[BillLeeLee]

I believe the 6600GT will retail for $200, which is a plus.

This generation of cards I'd probably say belongs to Nvidia slightly, only because they included full support for SM 3.0 and full 32-bit floating point color while ATi cards are still sporting SM 2.0 and 24-bit precision color. True, not much uses these new technological advancements, but can't use them without at least first having hardware to support them right?

Overall though, I think with the performance so close between the two sets of cards (though X800 Pro and 6800 GT's match up shows more difference with the pipeline difference), both are pretty much even, Doom 3 notwithstanding.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

Nvidia does have a better product on paper this round and shows a good win in regards to Doom3 performance. Other than that, it is a good race. We also see features offered by Nvidia that some people, especially here, will live by but they have yet to show a real world advantage at this point.

Since both companies are having a hard time actually mass producing these products, it most likely will come down to who can get the most cards out the factory and what happens when HL2 actually releases.

Watch out though I know a few ATI "supporters" that I'm sure will start flaming this thread soon.

Nice flame bait!

 

[pxc]

for products that are available? absolutely yes. for products that are not available? no.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

So ATI wins best card, NVidia wins most money. IMO that means NVidia won.

I disagree with the "NVidia wins most money" since those NV40's cost a ton to product versus the X800 core. Remember the GT and Ultra are the same exact core which means they cost the same to manufacture. This means they don't get nearly the profit per GT as a Ultra.

 

[pxc]

I disagree with the "NVidia wins most money" since those NV40's cost a ton to product versus the X800 core.

source? thanks!

BTW, the x800 Pro and x800XT PE cores cost exactly the same to produce, too.

 

[MFZ]

Availability wise nVidia dominated ATI with a better price/performance card, no doubt. The closest thing ATi has to compete with the 6800 GT is the X800 VIVO (my preferred card) but you still have to flash it + possible pencil mod which puts people off--and it costs a little more $. ATi screwed up bad by not putting out the VIVOs at a lower price point and clocked at 500/500 to compete against the GT and their lower range cards this gen. are junk. We'll see what they have going for them for the refresh cycle but I personally don't think they will be able to squeeze too many extra mhz out of .13 low-k with the R480 so I'll stick to my VIVO/XT PE (when it arrives) until R520. If nV clocks up their NV40 refresh by at least 50-100 mhz they will beat ATi's refresh IMO.

 

[Overseer]

they're both winners with you lot duking it out over their products

 

[Charles]

This round maybe, but HL2 remains to be seen. While I have confidence that nVidia graphics cards will perform the best image quality wise this round, the X800s do have an advantage in different mathematical operations as Humus has demonstrated with Doom 3. If Valve decides to use these, it could spell trouble for nVidia. That being said I think it is foolish of Valve or Id to ever play sides and prefer one over the other. The market is pretty evenly split and you certaintly dont want to alienate half of your potential customers. From a business point of view, Id could have certaintly made a better impression for ATi customers by offering an alternate configuration instead of waiting for an ATi employee to expose it for what it was. I hope Valve doesn't make the same mistake.

b0b

From what I've seen/heard, the HL2 engine was built for last generation's high-end cards to run well (max everything 1280x1024 w/AA at decent fps) and won't be as graphically demanding as Far Cry or Doom 3. What that means is that the x800's will probably have better performance, but we're talking 110 fps as opposed to 80. Most likely, w/HL2's AI/Physics (although most other games nowadays have an equal if not superior physics engine... they just don't flaunt it as much) we'll all be CPU limited to around 70-80 fps anyway.

Hence, doesn't matter (except maybe to the 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF people... then it does but to LCD owners w/fixed lower native resolutions, probably not)

 

[Charles]

I disagree with the "NVidia wins most money" since those NV40's cost a ton to product versus the X800 core. Remember the GT and Ultra are the same exact core which means they cost the same to manufacture. This means they don't get nearly the profit per GT as a Ultra.

That is true, the 6800's do cost a bit more to produce (so I hear simply because they are larger and thus require more materials), but as stated earlier by someone, the x800 XT and the x800 Pro are in a similar situation (run off the same core and cost the same to produce).

In fact, the very fact that they use the same core REDUCES costs since multiple factories don't need to be made to produce the silicon.

Also note that the net cost of a 6800 core or an x800 core probably amounts to little more than $5-$10 for the price of the silicon. The reason why they have to sell for $400+ is to pay for the years of research/development that went into them (hiring all those engineers @ 100k per year/paying for mini-fabrication of prototypes etc.) and the cost of building the factory to make them. After it all dies away, 4 years from now these $400-500 cards will be on the shelves for $50 and ati/nvidia will still be making a profit (since they've already covered their r&d/fabrication overhead costs).

But I still think NVidia has the upper hand money-making wise because you have to combine the profits from the sales of

6800 GT > x800 Pro
6800 > 9800 XT
6600 GT >>> x600XT
6600 >>> x600 Pro? (no idea if ATI even has one)

whereas ATI will have to make ALL its money from

x800 XT > 6800 Ultra

and seeing that ATI can hardly make any x800 XT's that's not a lot of money.

the "mainstream" market is called "mainstream" for a reason. I personally think the high-end cards are just for show (kind of like Mercedes Benz/BMW produce crazy racing cars but don't sell them to the public) and the mainstream cards will decide who makes the most money.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

That is true, the 6800's do cost a bit more to produce, but as stated earlier by someone, the x800 XT and the x800 Pro are in a similar situation (run off the same core and cost the same to produce).

In fact, the very fact that they use the same core REDUCES costs since multiple factories don't need to be made to produce the silicon.

But I still think NVidia has the upper hand money-making wise because you have to combine the profits from the sales of

6800 GT > x800 Pro
6800 > 9800 XT
6600 GT >>> x600XT
6600 >>> x600 Pro? (no idea if ATI even has one)

whereas ATI will have to make ALL its money from

x800 XT > 6800 Ultra

and seeing that ATI can hardly make any x800 XT's that's not a lot of money.

the "mainstream" market is called "mainstream" for a reason. I personally think the high-end cards are just for show (kind of like Mercedes Benz/BMW produce crazy racing cars but don't sell them to the public) and the mainstream cards will decide who makes the most money.

You are correct but every GT that goes out the door with no Ultra, the profit is affected. With the state of Nvidias stock, this is not a good thing. My take, as well as many others on various forums, is the Nvidia over engineered the hell out of this core and will pay the price in profits.

Neither company has a true mainstream core right now and rely on people buying last years model as such.

 

[Charles]

You are correct but every GT that goes out the door with no Ultra, the profit is affected.

same applies to every Pro that rolls out with no XT (x800 pro is just an XT with pipelines laser-cut)

Remember that the actual cost of the silicon to make these little buzzards is EXTREMELY low.

 

[rancor]

I disagree with the "NVidia wins most money" since those NV40's cost a ton to product versus the X800 core. Remember the GT and Ultra are the same exact core which means they cost the same to manufacture. This means they don't get nearly the profit per GT as a Ultra.

Do you know what the price increase from regular fab process to a dielectric fab process is? Its almost double. With the amount of wastage on ATi's part might be even quadruple. nV's chips are cheaper to make because thier yields are better, over chip for chip if nV and ATi had the same yield ratio they would cost about the same.

 

[Wich0]

How is it that you guys can say the 6800 cards dominate the x800s? I thought they were very similar in performance in most games except for Doom3 where the 6800 kills X800.

 

[oqvist]

They won the availability round that´s for sure. That wasn´t expected at all though seeing nVidias very poor launch yet ATI:s was obviously even worse. I mean to the extent rumours coming out that the X800XT PE would be discontinued.

That round nVidia definiatly won. Apart from that I don´t see what they have won really?

 

[rancor]

You are correct but every GT that goes out the door with no Ultra, the profit is affected. With the state of Nvidias stock, this is not a good thing. My take, as well as many others on various forums, is the Nvidia over engineered the hell out of this core and will pay the price in profits.

Neither company has a true mainstream core right now and rely on people buying last years model as such.

Excuse me, you sound like an analyst, they never know what they are talking about. Its not this round that is effecting nV it was the fx line and thier loss of sales from it. If you keep your ears open about 3 months ago nV cut TMSC production of their Fx chips, due to low sales. Guess what that was the first hint that said thier profits were down. Also both companies spend about 500 million per year on research, they have money to burn when it comes to that, nV didn't go over their cap.

 

[Damar]

Really doesnt matter who "wins" this time around.

The winner will likely change every cycle or every other cycle of video card.

Thats the main reason I'm not a brand loyalty fanatic, its not in my best interest, cause if I'm that hard headed that I'll buy Brand X just because of its name, not because of its performance, than I'm screwing myself.

I buy what works for me in any given new product cycle, and my hardware changes drastically between every PC I build because of it, but I'm never stuck with a weak point in a system because I dont force myself to buy a given brand just because of its name.

*shrug*

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way, but its worked well for me so far.

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

they won the hearts of gamers by including a card for basically every budget and re-earned the respect they lost of last generation?

 

[theelviscerator]

Far cry still runs faster on ATI with high image quality settings...

Doom 3 on nvidia is faster..

sounds like a tie...

Hl2 prob goes to ati methinks.

ati wins

 

[rancor]

Far cry still runs faster on ATI with high image quality settings...

Doom 3 on nvidia is faster..

sounds like a tie...

Hl2 prob goes to ati methinks.

ati wins

ATi isn't faster in Far Cry, because patch 1.2 doesn't even work right on thier cards. Thier own ps 2.0b path is messing up. Until thats fixed we can't say ATi is faster.

 

[creedAMD]

I'd say a tie too. I love my 6800gt, but I am really wondering what HL2 is going to bring to the table.

 

[chrisf6969]

Originally Posted by R1ckCa1n
I disagree with the "NVidia wins most money" since those NV40's cost a ton to product versus the X800 core.

source? thanks!

BTW, the x800 Pro and x800XT PE cores cost exactly the same to produce, too.

Nvidia has a much larger core with all those extra millions of transistors for SM3.0, etc. So it should cost more per chip to make. However, a Nv source once stated something like, their cost is still lower even though they have a larger core. (dont know how or why) I assume they might have a better deal worked out with the Fab or better yields?

 

[rancor]

as I stated many times low k fab process is around double the cost of regular fab process.

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

i thought nvidia are a fab-less company (or at least was)

 

[chrisf6969]

as I stated many times low k fab process is around double the cost of regular fab process.

Oh ok, so ATI is using Low K which is why it probably cost them more than Nvidia to make their chips?

 

[R1ckCa1n]

ATi isn't faster in Far Cry, because patch 1.2 doesn't even work right on thier cards. Thier own ps 2.0b path is messing up. Until thats fixed we can't say ATi is faster.

As I was reading that, I was laughing...... For some reason I feel it should have been in all caps.

 

[HighwayAssassins]

I agree..

but the best video card is ATi X800 XT PE without doubt

No PS3.0 though...

 

[Charles]

I suppose it doesn't really matter too much how much money each company is making.

I'm just glad that there are two big-name companies so that neither one slacks off. I think I'm safe to say that everybody thinks ATI took the easy way out when releasing the X600XT off the same 9600XT core. At least with NVidia's 6600GT's out to blast them away, ATI will be less lazy next time.

Honestly, without ATI, NVidia might still be running on their NV30 cores and may never have fixed their leafblower fan.

And without NVidia, ATI might dare to try selling us a "next-generation" X600XT for the same price as the last-generation 9600XT and call it an "upgrade" (even though there is 0 performance increase).

Hats off to all.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

Nvidia has a much larger core with all those extra millions of transistors for SM3.0, etc. So it should cost more per chip to make. However, a Nv source once stated something like, their cost is still lower even though they have a larger core. (dont know how or why) I assume they might have a better deal worked out with the Fab or better yields?

Maybe IBM is kicking a hella deal since they can't produce enough. I hope TMSC is doing the same for ATI.

 

[Charles]

No PS3.0 though...

Eh, I don't think it matters that much. Since PS3.0 doesn't actually increase IQ (only performance), if the 6800's still can't beat the x800's in Far Cry even with that advantage... not too good of a showing.

Of course 9.0c and the new drivers/new patch are all not working quite right. Maybe NVidia will get kicked up a couple notches. Certainly their 6600 line will be getting great advantages with PS3.0 compared to their competitor.

 

[joemama]

To me it just seems like the exact opposite of last round where Ati had the better product at nearly every pricepoint....and at the top where you have the 6800 ultra and XTPE exchanging blows reminds me of the 5950Ultra/9800XT wars where the 9800XT was the overall winner but the 5950 actual surpassed it in some instances.

edit- Nvidia wins this round not only on benches but also by default of having more product available in retail..

 

[The Batman]

Far cry still runs faster on ATI with high image quality settings...

Doom 3 on nvidia is faster..

sounds like a tie...

Hl2 prob goes to ati methinks.

ati wins

1) Far Cry under 1.2 = Nvidia win
2) Vampire = SM3 = Nvidia win
3) Stalker = SM3 = Nvidia win
4) Battle for Middle-Earth = SM3 = Nvidia win

Moral of the story...Nvidia wins.

 

[oqvist]

1) Far Cry under 1.2 = Nvidia win
2) Vampire = SM3 = Nvidia win
3) Stalker = SM3 = Nvidia win
4) Battle for Middle-Earth = SM3 = Nvidia win

Moral of the story...Nvidia wins.

Yeah and then it doesn´t matter that ATI is faster in those games because they have shader model 3 support

Anyway ATI claims it´s because monstreous OEM demand and that shed another light on what is the bigger success don´t it . I bet there is more cash in the OEM market than the retail market.

But sure nVidia wins thanks to shader model 3. Specs is important right not performance.