btarunrIf it takes a $199 card to beat a 9800GTX which is just three months old and had a $350 launch-price it proves otherwise. "This is new-gen, that wasn't" is a flawed argument. The G92 was built to compete with ATI in this very generation, just that it was rushed in because of RV670. Else G92 was supposed to be the GPU that shat all over GeForce 9 series.

G92 was not ment to compete with the 4800 series, it was mean to compete with the 3800 series. It isn't a totally new generation of GPUs, it was a G80 die shrunk, just like ATi did with the 3800 series. G92 was supposed to be the 8900 series, but ATi released their new cards under a completely new series number, so nVidia did the same for marketting purposes. That is the one and only reason G92 GPUs got packaged as 9800 series cards.

You are also missing the fact that G80 cards are equalling the 4850, cards that have been out for 2 years.

DarkMatterNot at all. Nvidia has been postponing GT200 for more than a year. GT200 was supposed to be the 9 series.

Why isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.

newtekie1You are also missing the fact that G80 cards are equaling the 4850, cards that have been out for 2 years.

Yeah, you're also forgetting that the G80 cards that cost ~$500+ then are being equaled by ATI cards that cost ~$199 now. None of NVidia's own $199 cards now equal the performance of those $500+ G80 cards.

btarunrWhy isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.

G92 is in the 8 and 9 series. Dont ask why, no one really knows. 8800GT has it, 9800GX2 has them. they're all G92.

The reason Nvidia did it, was because ATI threw the 3xx0 series at us.. and they were the same designs as the 2xx0 series. In the average joes mind if a 2600XT was good, a 3850 must be toooons better. (and it is, actually) - so Nvidia released the same cards in the 9 series, rather than releasing yet more models in the 8 series.

Not that i condone what either company did, but its not like video card naming schemes have ever made sense.


btarunr: my $190 8800GT matches my $700 8800GTX. Yes, nvidias modern cards DO match their old behemoths. you've missed something there.

btarunrWhy isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.

The first codename for the card that would succed G80 was G90 not G92. In one point in time it was said that G90 didn't exist no more and that it had been replaced by G92. That was not true and only proved the poor speculative skills of some sites when G92 was announced.

G90 then took the name G100, the one that now is GT200, even then probably G90, G100, and GT200 are not the same project, but are the same on the soul. It is the real next gen card.

Musselsbtarunr: my $190 8800GT matches my $700 8800GTX. Yes, nvidias modern cards DO match their old behemoths. you've missed something there.

At 100% stock-speeds? Because OC is not part of my argument. It's about what NVidia has to offer.

btarunrAt 100% stock-speeds? Because OC is not part of my argument. It's about what NVidia has to offer.

Eh... it's exactly that what Nvidia offers. Ati didn't like and didn't allow partners overclock, Nvidia did as a valuable alternative and Ati had to allow it too. Because G80/G92 had no competition reference clocks were kept lower, when you can't compete you clock them higher. The fact that G80/92 cards overclock so much better is enough testimony of this.

Nvidia has always patner overclocked cards at launch. Ati hasn't still. <- This validates any mention to Nvidia OCed cards competing with Ati stock cards, as you usually have to wait quite a bit until Ati OC cards are released, but you can take a Nvidia one right now.

DarkMatterEh... it's exactly that what Nvidia offers. Ati didn't like and didn't allow partners overclock, Nvidia did as a valuable alternative and Ati had to allow it too. Because G80/G92 had no competition reference clocks were kept lower, when you can't compete you clock them higher. The fact that G80/92 cards overclock so much better is enough testimony of this.

Nvidia has always patner overclocked cards at launch. Ati hasn't still.

That doesn't answer my question, of whether Muzz's GT performed "on-par" with his GTX at stock speeds.

btarunrThat doesn't answer my question, of whether Muzz's GT performed "on-par" with his GTX at stock speeds.

Inno3D. Probably factory overclocked to the bone. My point above was that you can get Nvidia OC cards at launch and many times for very little price premium if at all. I bought mine for less than every other GTs in the arket back then. 700 Mhz factory OC, superb temps and noise. Then you have Palits too.

btarunrAt 100% stock-speeds? Because OC is not part of my argument. It's about what NVidia has to offer.

I'm sure there is a pre-overclocked model that it is possible with. However, overclocking is a factor that can't be ignored, and the newer cards overclock alot better then the older cards did.

btarunrWhy isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.

Yeah, you're also forgetting that the G80 cards that cost ~$500+ then are being equaled by ATI cards that cost ~$199 now. None of NVidia's own $199 cards now equal the performance of those $500+ G80 cards.

Again, comparing prices of cards now and prices of cards then is irrelevant. Prices go down over time. As time goes on you get better performance for the same price, that is how the industry works. If you can't understand that, you need to get out of it now. And yes, their current cards do equal the G80's performance, and they do it at lower prices.

My E6600 cost $300 when I bought it, and it is now outperformed by a $175 E8200, big deal. Does that mean the E6600 is a piece of shit now because I paid $300 for it? No, I wouldn't pay $300 for it today, and you don't pay $500+ for a G80 card today. The price you pay for performance always goes down over time.

DarkMatterInno3D. Probably factory overclocked to the bone. My point above was that you can get Nvidia OC cards at launch and many times for very little price premium if at all. I bought mine for less than every other GTs in the arket back then. 700 Mhz factory OC, superb temps and noise. Then you have Palits too.

Why do you go into circles? All I'm trying to tell is that there's no $199(range) NVidia card that outperforms those G80 titans. If you want to put a $199 NVidia factory-OC'ed card, please pit it only against a factory-OC'ed G80, else you're not making the right comparison. Mine is of a $199 ATI card at stock speeds rivaling a G80 cards at stock speeds.

newtekie1I'm sure there is a pre-overclocked model that it is possible with. However, overclocking is a factor that can't be ignored, and the newer cards overclock alot better then the older cards did.



Again, comparing prices of cards now and prices of cards then is irrelevant. Prices go down over time. As time goes on you get better performance for the same price, that is how the industry works. If you can't understand that, you need to get out of it now. And yes, their current cards do equal the G80's performance, and they do it at lower prices.

My E6600 cost $300 when I bought it, and it is now outperformed by a $175 E8200, big deal. Does that mean the E6600 is a piece of shit now because I paid $300 for it? No, I wouldn't pay $300 for it today, and you don't pay $500+ for a G80 card today. The price you pay for performance always goes down over time.

It is relevant since you originally said "it took ATI 2 years to match an NVidia G80", when I said "yes, and at just $199".

btarunrIt is relevant since you originally said "it took ATI 2 years to match an NVidia G80", when I said "yes, and at just $199".

Yes, and again, I point out, the price ATi did it at is irrelevant and comparing it to prices 2 years ago is idiotic.

btarunrWhy do you go into circles? All I'm trying to tell is that there's no $199(range) NVidia card that outperforms those G80 titans. If you want to put a $199 NVidia factory-OC'ed card, please pit it only against a factory-OC'ed G80, else you're not making the right comparison. Mine is of a $199 ATI card at stock speeds rivaling a G80 cards at stock speeds.

Who's going into circles? You have OCed 8800 GTs for a lot less than $200 with performance close to GTX, you have OCed GTSs a bit under $200 and stock 9800GTX for a bit more $ that compete in performance and you have OCed 9800 GTX that are faster.

newtekie1Yes, and again, I point out, the price ATi did it at is irrelevant.

Alright, round II, I'll have it your way:

Newegg already sells an ASUS HD4850 for effectively $169 +shipping. So with "Prices always keep changing" mantra, give me a $169 NVidia card (with whatever parameters) that rivals G80 (GTX/Ultra).

my GT was in fact OC'd, and it came very close to the GTX in performance even at stock.

Its stock speeds were 650/1900, and its now at 755/2000 (i'm still messing around with shader clocks)

The thing is, the 8800GT is not the fastest G92.. the 8800GTS 512MB SSC edition would take that crown, with the more shader units.

regardless of whether it BEATS a G80 card... its less than 1/3 the price. if i had an SLI board, i'd have two of them and cash to spare, for a lot faster than the G80 was. The point you're trying to make is so... niche? its mostly irrelevant. omg, ATI have a $200 card that matches the old behemoth.. yeah that tends to happen. Nvidia will release one sooner or later, as well.

8800GTX is a very old card and it was an awesome buy for its longevity: that was rare in the video card world, for sure. But no matter the card, you wait two years and a midrange will beat a high end.. Onboard video these days is faster than the best Geforce 3, but no one argues 'ahaha AMD released an onboard video faster than Nvidias king of the GF3 era'

times change... different cards hold the value king and different times, but it changes so often theres no use making a fuss over it. Find the best, buy it, and look out for the next one.

btarunrAlright, round II, I'll have it your way:

Newegg already sells an ASUS HD4850 for effectively $169 +shipping. So with "Prices always keep changing" mantra, give me a $169 NVidia card (with whatever parameters) that rivals G80 (GTX/Ultra).

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130317

Here you go, enjoy. (I know, it isn't far because it actually IS a G80. Next you will say we shouldn't consider the nVidia cards that are actually G80s, regardless of price. Right?)

newtekie1www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130317

Here you go, enjoy.

Puhleez, does that rival a GTX? At 112SP's?

btarunrPuhleez, does that rival a GTX? At 112SP's?

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814134037

Even better, even cheaper. $159.

btarunrPuhleez, does that rival a GTX? At 112SP's?

its the SSC edition, which wasnt that far behind in most tests. its also a stock OC'd model.


As i said before guys: the best bang for hte buck card is always changing. right now, ATI are certainly making a grand showing... but keep an eye out for price drops. if a 9600GT suddenly becomes a $100 card because of this, we're in for some good times...

newtekie1www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814134037

Even better, even cheaper. $159.

Hey nice deal. Thanks.

btarunrAlright, round II, I'll have it your way:

Newegg already sells an ASUS HD4850 for effectively $169 +shipping. So with "Prices always keep changing" mantra, give me a $169 NVidia card (with whatever parameters) that rivals G80 (GTX/Ultra).

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500006

Or if you admit a bit lower performance (AKA oc it yourself), $139: <- Humph it's actually $129 After mail in rebate.

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121224

Enjoy.

newtekie1www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814134037

Even better, even cheaper. $159.

Winner.

DarkMatter

Originally Posted by newtekie1
www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814134037

Even better, even cheaper. $159.

Winner.

Nope -- we're all winners. :p

Seriously, though, that's a damn big rebate -- almost tempted me to upgrade (always did like the G92 8800GTS cards for some reason), though a 4850 is still about 15% faster, for only about $10 more.

You know, just musing -- people who bought a brand new 8800 GTX two years ago, even at the price it debuted at, really got their money's worth. With this new emphasis on really functional multi-processor graphic cards, that kind of long-lived status at the top probably won't happen again -- there'll always be a faster card with one more processor slapped onto it just a few months down the road. Kinda sad, really -- the G200 probably is the last of its kind. :cry:

mdm-adphNope -- we're all winners. :p

Seriously, though, that's a damn big rebate -- almost tempted me to upgrade (always did like the G92 8800GTS cards for some reason), though a 4850 is still about 15% faster, for only about $10 more.

You know, just musing -- people who bought a brand new 8800 GTX two years ago, even at the price it debuted at, really got their money's worth, you know. With this new emphasis on functional multi-processor graphic cards, that kind of long-lived status at the top probably won't happen again.

But the 8800GTS overclocks a lot better than the 4850. Everything I have seen show the 4850 overclocking like crap. So if you overclock the gap gets narrower.

*sigh*

Why do NV have to go and slap a + on the end of the name? Why don't they just call this new card a 9850 GTX, or a 9800 GT, or something more logical?

I'm glad there's finally some competition in the graphics card market, but I want to see what the 4870 and its big brother, the 4870 X2 can do before I lay down my hard-earned cash.

Wow I can't believe they're dropping the price already. This is why me and nvidia have a love-hate relationship.