nvidia: old tech is old

larkin

Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
907
Seems nvidia is cashing in on these extra (re)cycles of the 8800 tech. New processes but nothing else is new.

The observation is being made "hey, I can get near GTX speeds for half the price!". Well duhh, of course you can. It's a year after the GTX is out and if nvidia stuck to the refresh schedule of the past, they'd have their next gen card out now and guess what.. a 8800 GTX wouldn't be worth even half of what it retails for now. So it is really truely unexciting that there is some card out now that delivers almost the same performance as a year old card at half the price of what the year old card cost a year ago.. blah.

new gen asap plz, don't pretend your catoring to enthusiasts nvidia with SLi of midrange recycled tech.
 

rodsfree

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
1,417
**snip** . So it is really truely unexciting that there is some card out now that delivers almost the same performance as a year old card at half the price of what the year old card cost a year ago.. blah.
**snip**

This is the cheapest 8800 GTX on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127281

This is the cheapest 8800 Ultra
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130090

This is the cheapest & one of the unavailable 8800 GT cards on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150264

$492.99 / $209.99 = 2.348 X the cost of the year old card vs. the new card that is almost as fast. And $659.99 / $209.99 = 3.143 X for the bleeding edge.

"You have to pay to play..." if you want to stay on the bleeding edge.

It's actually cheaper to buy 2 - 8800 GT's and SLi them, than it is to get a single GTX or Ultra. If your motherboard supports SLi. You can actually buy a new Mobo, cpu, and 2 GT's and spend less than the cost of the Ultra.

So, be thankful you can get close to the bleeding edge so cheaply.
My BFG 7900 GTX OC cost about $600.00 at BB a few years ago - and it STILL sales for $199.99 (new, on sale - save $100.00 - no crap - check it out) at the BFG online store.... right now.:(

And no - I'm not an Nvidia fanboy - I've owned both and purchased about an equal number of each.
 

Blahman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
1,323
ATI is as much or more to blame than NVIDIA. They are not, and have not even been competing with NVIDIA's high end offerings for over a year now. That leads to refreshes rather than completely revamped architectures. However the NVIDIA 9800 series will be upon us relatively soon so depending on how much of an improvement it is, its release could very well change your opinion.

I do think the 8800GT is one of the best releases in terms of price/performance in a very long time though -- you would have to go all the way back to the ATI 9700/ NVIDIA 6800 era to find a similar jump in value for the mid-range consumer.
 

skadebo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
1,126
Let me put it this way.

Cost to Develop 8800GTX: $100

Sell price of 8800GTX: $10

Manufacturing cost of 8800GTX: $9

To break even, they need to sell 100 GTXs. Anything beyond that and they are turning a profit. So, the more 8800GTXs they sell, the more profit they make. Since the GTX/Ultra is still the highest performing card available, there is still a market for it.

Well, the market is diminishing because Nvidia itself has released a cheaper card that can hang with the GTX/Ultra.

Why?

Perhaps, it is because they are trying to get their yield up and refine the manufacturing process and revise silicon for their high end part.

One thing to note is the widespread availability of the 8800GTS 512MB. You could argue, I suppose, that it is available in such quantities because the 8800GT is better bang for the buck so people have already bought it and won't buy the new 8800GTS 512MB card.
 

Arvig

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
882
Seems nvidia is cashing in on these extra (re)cycles of the 8800 tech. New processes but nothing else is new.

The observation is being made "hey, I can get near GTX speeds for half the price!". Well duhh, of course you can. It's a year after the GTX is out and if nvidia stuck to the refresh schedule of the past, they'd have their next gen card out now and guess what.. a 8800 GTX wouldn't be worth even half of what it retails for now. So it is really truely unexciting that there is some card out now that delivers almost the same performance as a year old card at half the price of what the year old card cost a year ago.. blah.

new gen asap plz, don't pretend your catoring to enthusiasts nvidia with SLi of midrange recycled tech.

So...you're basically complaining because 1) Those people with a 8800 GTX managed to get a year or more out of their card before it was made obsolete and 2) One can buy USING the next generation process, i.e. the g92 processor, the upper end of midrange cards that almost match or do match the card that is almost top of the line, the Ultra being the only one better.

Well duhh... :p ....maybe if you'd do some research, you'd see that the 9xxx series is due out early 2008. Oh well, some people complain just to complain I suppose.
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
ATI is as much or more to blame than NVIDIA. They are not, and have not even been competing with NVIDIA's high end offerings for over a year now. That leads to refreshes rather than completely revamped architectures. However the NVIDIA 9800 series will be upon us relatively soon so depending on how much of an improvement it is, its release could very well change your opinion.

I do think the 8800GT is one of the best releases in terms of price/performance in a very long time though -- you would have to go all the way back to the ATI 9700/ NVIDIA 6800 era to find a similar jump in value for the mid-range consumer.

Correct!
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
Seems nvidia is cashing in on these extra (re)cycles of the 8800 tech. New processes but nothing else is new.

The observation is being made "hey, I can get near GTX speeds for half the price!". Well duhh, of course you can. It's a year after the GTX is out and if nvidia stuck to the refresh schedule of the past, they'd have their next gen card out now and guess what.. a 8800 GTX wouldn't be worth even half of what it retails for now. So it is really truely unexciting that there is some card out now that delivers almost the same performance as a year old card at half the price of what the year old card cost a year ago.. blah.

new gen asap plz, don't pretend your catoring to enthusiasts nvidia with SLi of midrange recycled tech.

Do you realize the shear amount of R&D that goes into developing a new card? I think we have all been spoiled by Nvidia with all these advancements in graphic power.

The 8800 series can still run many of todays games well except that bloated and poorly optimized Crysis.
 

JSpecGC8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
416
Op this is for you hopefully Dan_D or any of the other Moderator Gawds dont smash me.

G92?? Super old tech there!! I mean they had it back when the Apple II was release amirite??

If your so smart and ingenius build a better card, otherwise please stop wasting precious interweb space. We get some really nice hardware and yet your still not satisfied, I mean Lambo thought like you do but guess what he did something about it!!
 

sl3000gt94

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
279
This is the cheapest 8800 GTX on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127281

This is the cheapest 8800 Ultra
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130090

This is the cheapest & one of the unavailable 8800 GT cards on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150264

$492.99 / $209.99 = 2.348 X the cost of the year old card vs. the new card that is almost as fast. And $659.99 / $209.99 = 3.143 X for the bleeding edge.

"You have to pay to play..." if you want to stay on the bleeding edge.

It's actually cheaper to buy 2 - 8800 GT's and SLi them, than it is to get a single GTX or Ultra. If your motherboard supports SLi. You can actually buy a new Mobo, cpu, and 2 GT's and spend less than the cost of the Ultra.

So, be thankful you can get close to the bleeding edge so cheaply.
My BFG 7900 GTX OC cost about $600.00 at BB a few years ago - and it STILL sales for $199.99 (new, on sale - save $100.00 - no crap - check it out) at the BFG online store.... right now.:(

And no - I'm not an Nvidia fanboy - I've owned both and purchased about an equal number of each.
Might want to find a new GT to compare it to..You picked the 256mb version and the GTX will def beat out that card a good bit since its alot less ram and the ram is only at 1400mhz speed.
$250 is the cheapest 512mb version is what you should compare to they are pretty equal the GTX at higher res might edge it out a little but def not worth it when comes to the price difference . Even so the GT is still the best bang for your buck now and I love mine.
 

aFive

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
3,637
ATi is to blame. I just bet you that Nvidia has had something up their sleeves for awhile now. I think that after the release of HD2900 and HD3870 they saw that nothing currently out by ATI could beat it. So, they probably went back to the drawing board making a faster card that could probably perform as good or better than what ATI might release in February.

There is just no way that Nvidia did not have a new flagship design for the past year and a half. Why in the world would they try to release something amazing right now?

So, i think there will be something out sometime in the middle of next year, maybe sooner. I really hope ATi delivers next round, I still love their cards...

Plus, competetive ATI in the high-end market means that both companies will stay competetive and release better products.
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
ATi is to blame. I just bet you that Nvidia has had something up their sleeves for awhile now. I think that after the release of HD2900 and HD3870 they saw that nothing currently out by ATI could beat it. So, they probably went back to the drawing board making a faster card that could probably perform as good or better than what ATI might release in February.

There is just no way that Nvidia did not have a new flagship design for the past year and a half. Why in the world would they try to release something amazing right now?

So, i think there will be something out sometime in the middle of next year, maybe sooner. I really hope ATi delivers next round, I still love their cards...

Plus, competetive ATI in the high-end market means that both companies will stay competetive and release better products.

How is one companies reluctance to release a better product ATI's fault? I don't like ATI products but I would never go so far as to blame them for Nvidia's lack of motivation.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,147
Actually if a new high end card did come out I would expect the GTX to fall to around $250-$300, while the new cards were $400 and $600. If anything, the GT now gives you near GTX performance level with lower power consumption, with a physically smaller card, and there are tons of cheap coolers that will fit on it due to the 7series mounting holes. So the only ones who really lost out are the ones who already had a 8800 series card who wanted an upgrade. This actually worked out for me because I'm not exactly sure a 8800GTX would fit into my case.
 

Paulo Narciso

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
88
The only reason right now to nvidia release a new high end card is crysis, because there's no game that a GTX can't run on max detail.
Nvidia don't need to release a new card because there's no competition, they are only competing with theirselfs.
 

RussianHAXOR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
5,590
How is one companies reluctance to release a better product ATI's fault? I don't like ATI products but I would never go so far as to blame them for Nvidia's lack of motivation.

I disagree. ATI has failed to produce anything that can beat an Nvidia card undoubtedly in almost every category. While they seem to be doing pretty well in the midrange market, this is mainly because of the fact that they were trying to make a highend card and failed to do so. For me, what it seems like is happening is that ATi has to lower their prices every time they come out with a new card because they have to compete with Nvidia. Rather than forcing Nvidia to drop prices because the ATis are so much more powerful and cheaper. The main thing is, if you get the most powerful chip in the industry, then you can sell cheaper variants of that chip with more performance than the competition.
 

Vashypooh

2[H]4U
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
2,482
How is one companies reluctance to release a better product ATI's fault? I don't like ATI products but I would never go so far as to blame them for Nvidia's lack of motivation.

Why would I waste my time pushing a new product when everyone is buying mine because its already better?

No competition = Consumers loose.
 

tickle_me_emo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
1,052
Yeah we know if AMD/ATI released a good card we wouldn't be in this situation.

But what if Crytek released their game months later? The game would be more optimized and hopefully the new line of cards would come out and run it at very high settings. If Crysis wasn't out, not many people would complain about the current state of video cards since no current game stresses them.

So in other words, lets blame EA.:p
 

Simpson5774

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,937
Man, you kids too spoiled. You are asking for a brand new chip design or a major revision every single year, hell its only technically been 55 weeks since 8 series came out, they only really completed the line up with the 8800GT, and yet you still complain. The 8 series was a bigger change to nvidia's gpu design then even FX to 6 was. And intill crysis, it completely obliterated every game it touched at any resolution (GTX), this is nvidia's biggest success and their marketshare is now 60/40, but because they aren't holding your hand, and giving you a new card every 89 days on the dot, you say fuck them.

Look at intel, Obviously a bigger company than nvidia, they have their own fabs, Conroe came out in june of 06, It took them 16-17 months to come out with a shrink of core 2, it was obviously a work in progress the whole time conroe was out. Then you have nvidia which brought you a die shrink in just under a year, and a new generation, possibly in 15 months. What the hell right do you have to complain? From FX to GF6, was roughly a 3x performance boost. From the 6 series to 7900 was 2x (remember 7800 was basically just a new reversion of 6), Then another 2x (in raw processing power) from 79 to 8800.

In what, 3 years nvidia has accomplished all of this (with the help of ati pushing them and vice versa), and its still not enough.

I am sure if nvidia really wanted to, they could of had G92 out in aug, in the form of a GX2 if R600 blew the G80 out of the water by 15-20%, but that didn't really happen. 7900/7950GX2 wasn't really a success for nvidia in terms of cash flow, it was a PR victory as best, and it showed everyone how to properly do a dual gpu solution. I think if nvidia released graphics cards any faster, we would start getting cards with massive design errors, and bugs, and would be pushing drivers that are even more beta then they are now.

One game, and the best card can't push it balls to the wall, and you people go ape shit about it, like this is nvidias fault because they want to get their cards right, or ATi not making nvidia sweat enough to put ES chips in a box and selling them, hell they did it with 7800GTX 512, and the same people bitched at them for it costing so much.
 

aFive

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
3,637
How is one companies reluctance to release a better product ATI's fault? I don't like ATI products but I would never go so far as to blame them for Nvidia's lack of motivation.

Why would they? When ATI has nothing to put up a YEAR after 8800 came out, why should they bother? Their cards are still selling well, 99% of the games run awesome on the 8800, nothing besides UNOPTIMIZED Crysis brings the card down to it's knees.
GIven that Nvidia probably had something up their sleeves for November 07 but didn't release it due to the lack of competition is ATI's fault. i think they are waiting untiil q1-q2 of 08 to release a new card, regardless of ATi's schedule.

New Tech is always great, but given that Nvidia likes to stick to their "once a year" schedule, releasing a new card when there is no competition could hurt them, since ATi might release something better in the upcoming months.

This is just like Intel/AMD situation. AMD still can't beat q6600, do you honestly think that Intel will push products this fast in the next year when there is no competition?
 

aFive

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
3,637
Man, you kids too spoiled. You are asking for a brand new chip design or a major revision every single year, hell its only technically been 55 weeks since 8 series came out, they only really completed the line up with the 8800GT, and yet you still complain. The 8 series was a bigger change to nvidia's gpu design then even FX to 6 was. And intill crysis, it completely obliterated every game it touched at any resolution (GTX), this is nvidia's biggest success and their marketshare is now 60/40, but because they aren't holding your hand, and giving you a new card every 89 days on the dot, you say fuck them.

Look at intel, Obviously a bigger company than nvidia, they have their own fabs, Conroe came out in june of 06, It took them 16-17 months to come out with a shrink of core 2, it was obviously a work in progress the whole time conroe was out. Then you have nvidia which brought you a die shrink in just under a year, and a new generation, possibly in 15 months. What the hell right do you have to complain? From FX to GF6, was roughly a 3x performance boost. From the 6 series to 7900 was 2x (remember 7800 was basically just a new reversion of 6), Then another 2x (in raw processing power) from 79 to 8800.

In what, 3 years nvidia has accomplished all of this (with the help of ati pushing them and vice versa), and its still not enough.

I am sure if nvidia really wanted to, they could of had G92 out in aug, in the form of a GX2 if R600 blew the G80 out of the water by 15-20%, but that didn't really happen. 7900/7950GX2 wasn't really a success for nvidia in terms of cash flow, it was a PR victory as best, and it showed everyone how to properly do a dual gpu solution. I think if nvidia released graphics cards any faster, we would start getting cards with massive design errors, and bugs, and would be pushing drivers that are even more beta then they are now.

One game, and the best card can't push it balls to the wall, and you people go ape shit about it, like this is nvidias fault because they want to get their cards right, or ATi not making nvidia sweat enough to put ES chips in a box and selling them, hell they did it with 7800GTX 512, and the same people bitched at them for it costing so much.

Exactly, I do not care how much money you make, I can't justify upgrading every 6 months. Once a year/when new games won't run max on my card is more than enough of an upgrade cycle for me.
 

MrMike

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
6,511
For all we know, nVidia could already have a full line of next gen cards. They're probably sitting there playing Crysis on them in their labs at 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF. Until ATi releases something that can at least equal the 8800GTX/Ultra, nVidia has no reason to ever release these cards.

ATi brought competition to the midrange, so nVidia pushed out the 8800GT which is better than the HD3870. They were probably sitting on this card waiting for ATi's release.
 

Rock&Roll

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
1,887
Yep. It's true. G92 stuff is pretty boring. I hoping that the February D9E rumors are true, because I really want to dump this 8800GTS and get something much faster. The GTS512.....I'll only upgrade to that if I get desperate. We're all overdue for the video card cycle to get back to normal. I guess you'd call this a drought.
 

Proxy

Pumpkin Ghost
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
4,306
The only reason right now to nvidia release a new high end card is crysis, because there's no game that a GTX can't run on max detail.
Nvidia don't need to release a new card because there's no competition, they are only competing with theirselfs.

We have a winner, combine that with ATi still playing the catch-up game and there ya' have it. Also, what is the point of this thread ... Just to complain? Why do we need new hardware when the GTX/Ultra (and new GTS) can run every game at full settings smoothly except for one (Crysis)?
 

rodsfree

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
1,417
Exactly, I do not care how much money you make, I can't justify upgrading every 6 months. Once a year/when new games won't run max on my card is more than enough of an upgrade cycle for me.


Make that every 3 years for me! :(
 

Rock&Roll

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
1,887
... ATi still playing the catch-up game and there ya' have it...

That begs the question. Just what is ATI doing right now? I haven't even heard the slightest whisper of a rumor that they might finally stop sucking. I loved my x1900 when it was new. I'd love to see them being a viable option again.
 

aFive

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
3,637
Make that every 3 years for me! :(

Well, I can see your situation.
I was sitting on x850xtpe for quite some time, 3+ years :(. I was going to upgrade in September but ppl kept on saying: "wait for november dude, or get a cheaper card now and get the new monster then". Well, I decided to buy a card anyway, and will never regret! Nothing good came out in November, nothing to hold my interest. I have been more than happy with what I have bought then. I think Nvidia has failed in temrs of promising an "once a year" timely release.

I bet there were quite few folk like me, who missed out on 6800/7800/7900 series and 8800 were due an upgrade, according to "teh cycle". So, we sat there waiting for november to bring the new high-end that could hold us for a year or two, but nothing came. Now, people that waited, are still waiting, buying refreshed GTS/GT is not really worth it, because I really do think there will be something in the next few months.

This should just be the lesson to all of us. From now on, when something that is substantuallyt faster than my card, in the time when the games that I play will not run well, I will look at what companies are going to release and get ATI/Nvidia card a month after it is released, no waiting it out for me!
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,742
I wonder :p maybe the next high end part will be a 1GB 512bit GTX with either a high clock, or a few more shaders

might be old tech, but old tech doesn't mean its obsolete, it still has headroom to go up as it contains all of the dx 10.0 features already

all you can really ask for atm is better performance
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
631
That's all that matters, performance. I don't care if it took a hamster, 2 chickens and a battery to max out a game like Crysis or whatever. New tech, old tech, alien tech it doesn't matter. And yes to those that asked, the point of this thread/OP was to complain on an issue that's old and crystal clear on an obvious level of simplicity...borderline pointless, but hey that's what a forum is for right? :rolleyes:

It's like asking for the 1,234,567th time why ATi is failing to compete with nvidia at a higher level etc. Seriously, the key points have already been pointed out, Crysis is the only real exception aside from a few poorly coded engines/games (NWN2, DIRT, R6:LV, and FSX) which don't really count. Everything else, the games people actually play, the current hardware is adequite. They could just keep the 9800x series on the backburner, refining it as much as needed and just unlock the G80 arch. to the full 160 shaders (IIRC). With a 65nm G92 chip at similar speeds of the GT, 512-bit bus and that 160 shader count, I'm sure that could actually run Crysis on Very High @ 1900x res.around 30-40fps? Inlcuding 2xAA/16AF, but maybe I'm wrong-who knows. I'm still waiting for the Crysis patch, maybe they'll surprise me with the performance update (expecting 5fps across the board).
 

aFive

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
3,637
That's all that matters, performance. I don't care if it took a hamster, 2 chickens and a battery to max out a game like Crysis or whatever. New tech, old tech, alien tech it doesn't matter. And yes to those that asked, the point of this thread/OP was to complain on an issue that's old and crystal clear on an obvious level of simplicity...borderline pointless, but hey that's what a forum is for right? :rolleyes:

It's like asking for the 1,234,567th time why ATi is failing to compete with nvidia at a higher level etc. Seriously, the key points have already been pointed out, Crysis is the only real exception aside from a few poorly coded engines/games (NWN2, DIRT, R6:LV, and FSX) which don't really count. Everything else, the games people actually play, the current hardware is adequite. They could just keep the 9800x series on the backburner, refining it as much as needed and just unlock the G80 arch. to the full 160 shaders (IIRC). With a 65nm G92 chip at similar speeds of the GT, 512-bit bus and that 160 shader count, I'm sure that could actually run Crysis on Very High @ 1900x res.around 30-40fps? Inlcuding 2xAA/16AF, but maybe I'm wrong-who knows. I'm still waiting for the Crysis patch, maybe they'll surprise me with the performance update (expecting 5fps across the board).

I kind of agree...
I could care less if the card is 5 yrs old, as long as it's shiny and runs my games well :)
I really think that Crysis is coded bad, given time I think the patch will improve performance.
 
Top