New PC : Quad Core 3.2 Ghz Processcor : basically nuclear powered.

Also, you seem to think nvidia never had their own Chipset before being banished by Intel.

 

Which is why I own a 680i? Intel cannot banish them, for fear of a monopoly hearing. Like the one they just lost.

 

As much as I'm a total Nvidia/Intel fanboy, I thought the 400series had really damaged Nvidia, but it seems they aren't actually doing that bad at all.

 

I need a new video card myself. The ram on this card is bad and causes intermittent problems.

Palit GeForce 9600GT 512m ram

It was good but my old psu went shitty on me and was sending power spikes too all my devices. Found out when I was checking bios settings cuz computer wasn't starting up right some times. Reported voltage was constantly over. I know bios reports on voltages are wrong some times so I took a paper click and shorted the right connections to make the psu stay on and took a volt meter to it. .. ya the 12v line was actually getting 14.

Long story short thank god nothing else was screwed up that I can tell but video card fucks with me now and then. (I know its the ram cuz I use video ram test program.)

 

I'll explain it nice and simple. Each GTX470 and GTX480 costs nVidia the same to make (each GTX470 is a GTX480 that has a part disabled because the part is defective (shaders) ). Each GF100 (GTX470/480/465) is 537mm^2, which is a HUGE chip in graphics cards. This is why it sucks down 290Watts of power and runs 95c.
Now there's also the psychological aspect to this; people were disappointed in nVidia. After they launched their 'paper dragon' that was supposed to crush ATI by 60% or greater (and flopped to about 10-15% AT BEST), not to mention using 100Watts more power, people were saddened.
But back to card production costs, which is what makes the manufacturer money. Each Cypress (HD5870/5850/5830) is (I think..) 357mm^2. This means the card is a heck of a lot cheaper, and ATI makes better money per card sold.

Now nVidia's GTX465 is a shitty card. This is agreed across the board. The GTX470 and 480 have horrid yields which haven't improved. This means that nVidia isn't making much of a profit per card sold.

Now the GTX460, which is touted to be nVidia's 'Cash Cow' (merely because it's the best perf/price of nVidia right now) isn't making nVidia any money. Why? This card is, I think, 327mm^2 (these numbers are close, but from memory). This means each HD5850, HD5870, and HD5830 ATI makes is roughly the same size as a GTX460 (GF104). But since the HD5870 is $180 more, and the 5850 $80 more, ATI is making much more money. Not to mention Cypress has been out for what? 11 months already (launched September 17'th, 2009, IIRC). ATI's been making massive profits on their cheap-to-make-cards while nVidia isn't doing so well.

But anyways. What do I know.

An HD5670 will beat a 9600GT without the PCI-Express cable. It's around $85, and will do fine. Alternatively an HD5770 for $140 will probably be around 80-95% of the performance (EG: nearly double) and use 1x PCI-E.

 

Yes, what do you know? The GTX4xx series is a GPGPU. That means its target is not gamers. That it works for rending games is great, but it's not the focus. Moreover, the 470 doesn't have a "defective" part, it's a disabled part. Or parts. So does the GTX460. This is not uncommon in the PC industry - it's VERY common actually. Nothing new, and nothing negative.

On the yield, it's unknown what it is. All we know is nVidia held the GF100 cards back to work on the yield issues. Why is larger more costly? You're treating the size issue and the yield issue as separate. They're no, they're one and the same. Defects are all too common on wafers.

Is nVidia doing poorly? Not really. The GTX2XX series is still on sale, and the GXT285 loved by many. Engadget named the GTX4xx series best for Starcraft....nVidia is still alive and kicking, as much as you may hate that fact, there it is.

Moreover, you're being idiotic. You don't want nVidia to fail. If they fail, AMD would have no further reason to innovate. They'd just sell rebranded shit.

As for profits, I'll point out AMD isn't happy with their yield either, and that is known. Profit per unit sold is really unknown to everyone. You're throwing speculation out as fact, and for that you're an idiot. And an asshole, since you're misleading people.

 

AMD yields are in the 75% plus. They experimented 40nm from the HD4770, produced Evergreen, and from there, perfected it. Southern Islands should have very high yields. Also, I'm not throwing out speculation. I'm throwing out facts. It costs nVidia roughly (minor packaging differences) the same to sell a $200 card as it costs ATI to sell a $400. That is not speculation.

Also, while it's true you can RARELY reactive the GTX465's disabled shaders to a GTX470, it'll never quite come up to the true performance.

Also, the GF100 was a GPGPU that decided last-minute to be a GPU. It's still being sold on the GPGPU line as something else though..for thousands of dollars.

Also, I'm not treating size and yield as separate. They're the same because greater size tends to mean smaller yields. I put them separately to emphasize them.

Also, I don't want nVidia to fail. I want ATI to succeed so AMD can also do well. I'm also anxious to see our first 28nm GPU (which AMD will probably have..). I want nVidia to realize the days over screwing over their customers (8800GTX's for $800, 8800gt -> 9800GT, 8800GTS -> 9800GTX -> GTS250, etc) and their AIB's (you must buy so-and-so GTX2xx products to receive so-and-so GF10x products).

GF10x best for Starcraft? You mean the cards that exceeded 100c on the startup menu? Yeah, ok. Also if you've read on any bumpgate issues, heat cycling might end up killing off GF100 cards. Might.

Also, most of GT2xx is EOL. GTX260 < HD5770. HD5750 > GTS250. HD5850 > GTX285.

nVidia is doing well, right? When's their next generation of cards coming? 28nm off of TSMC? 2012? Southern Islands is coming soon.

I'm not an idiot, and I'm definitely not an asshole. Can't you just refrain from insults?

*Edit

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/graphics/gamers-want-xfx-–-fermi-cards

 

To be honest, power consumption was never an issue to me personally. And I only care about heat if it makes life difficult to overclock my GPU.

All the vast majority care about is:

How much does it cost?
How much better is it than the opposing card in that price range?

Also, 8800 series has lasted people a hell of a long time, a lot of people still use their GTXs now. Nvidia may charge a lot for some of their cards, but fuck me, they really do last a long time. I'm not going on any evidence here, as I don't entirely know ATIs side, but from what I've seen of my friends, all the ones using ATI cards have had to replace far more often than those using Nvidia. I've had an 8800GTS 320mb and I'm now on a 285GTX though, so I've probably bought at the time when Nvidia have produced something really awesome.

 

Power consumption can lead to two things: Efficiency of the chip, and Heat Produced. There's a reason the GTX480 produces 85c+ heat almost guaranteed; it sucks MORE power than an HD5970.

Also, you know why the 8800Series lasted a long time? nVidia took an 8800GTS 320mb, and renamed it to the 9800GTX 512Mb. That's all they did.

1



The 9800GTX also became, you guessed, the GTS250.


1 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9800gtx-review,1800.html

Like I said. nVidia's days of renaming are over. They can't afford to keep screwing over their customers.

 

Honestly, I'm not complaining. It's still fucking awesome hardware that was cheaper than the comparison card at the time. My 8800GTS was awesome and lasted me years. My laptop has a 9800GTS in, and that's lasted me 2 years ands till going. This 285 GTX I've had over a year, and I can basically run everything on full by a long shot.

Also, if you're going to link a reference site, use anything, ANYTHING, except Tom's Bribery.

 

Toms' is one of the lesser-biased sites out there. Most sites favor nVidia, I'm unsure if any review sites favor ATI. SemiAccurate favors ATI, but is one of the best sites for news.

A benchmark is a benchmark, and can't really be biased (the only way is through drivers/system components, which are listed).

 

Hamster that is the 768 MB as opposed to the 1 GB, there is a reason it is cheaper.

 

I don't know much about newegg, but the main UK site (scan.co.uk) offers really kickass bundles which saves you a lot of money if you buy stuff together. Did you look for something like that?

 

Newegg also has some nice things. Let me find something..

HD5850: $255 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150494&cm_re=5850-_-14-150-494-_-Product

I would get this. Like, right now. $30 more than a 1GB GTX460, you will NOT beat that price.

 

stop feeding the trolls,

toms isnt a bible or factual reference !
i have had similar spec setup cpu/gpu and my numbers vary VERY much.

the 460 is a great card !! because it doesnt cost an arm or a leg - its actually affordable and you will be playing games that look pretty.

as for all of that buy ati bullshit so you can get Xfire later, no just plain NO firstly NOBODY sane does that.

scenario:
i buy myself a kick ass pc spend about 900£ then 3 months later im actually stupid enough to buy another £230 part ? even though 460's scale REALLY well, i simply cant justify it. anyway in 6 months time another graphics card will come out that is "200% faster" but youre going to be upgrading to your old card which isnt sold anywhere anymore !

 

Are you..an idiot?

Plenty of people can't afford a $600 card, so they instead go with a $300 NOW and $300 in 5 months or so.

Also, just an FYI, not every refresh is double the performance. HD4K -> HD5K was one of them, but HD5K -> HD6K won't be. HD6K -> HD7K is very unknown. It's safe to say an HD5850 crossfire will kick the HD6870's ass.

Also, I don't believe that you have the exact same setup as Toms'.

And of course the 460 is a great card. It's the first card nVidia released that actually gives good price/performance. Unfortunately ATI's cards have ALL give good price/performance.

 

I wouldn't never pay attention to any SLI or Crossfire benchmark. I don't play any of the games in the benchmark, do you?

 

Bribery. As in bribes. Not bible.

 

Some people do. And more than just those games support crossfire.

Here's a small list of games:
Catalyst 9.5 Crossfire supportive games

• Crysis and Warhead
• F.E.A.R 2
• Left 4 Dead
• Team Fortress 2
• Half-Life 2 + Episodes
• Counter-Strike Source
• Day of Defeat Source
• FarCry 2
• Company of Heroes
• Call of Duty 4
• Grand Theft Auto IV
• Assassin's Creed
• Bioshock
• Mass Effect
• S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky
• S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl
• Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X
• Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
• America's Army
• Unreal Tournament III
• World in Conflict
• Supreme Commander
• World of Warcraft
• Lost Planet
• Devil May Cry 4
• Fallout 3
• Medal of Honor: Airborne
• Timeshift
• World at War
• Dead Space
• The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
• F.E.A.R: First Encounter Assault Recon
• Black & White 2
• Doom3
• QUAKE 4
• Splinter Cell
• Flight Simulator X: Acceleration
• Battlefield 2
• Call of Juarez
• Colin McRae's DiRT
• Defense Grid: The Awakening
• Far Cry 1
• Gears of War
• Gothic 3
• Prey

We are on Catalyst 10.6a, I think. And that list is incomplete for 9.5

 

First off, what I see is the GTS250 actually competing in there. Is it a rev'ed G92 core? Yup. But it was competing in the low end.

And again, I charge you with only ever bothering to know half of the facts, then talking out of your fucking ass as if you know it all. The 9800 GTX was a rev'ed G92...which is the 8800 GTS 512...and by extension, very similar to the 8800 GT. I believe the 9800GTX was actually a G94...and the GTX+ a G94b. The GTS 320/640 was...oh shit, a G80 core!

Look, he said power doesn't matter, so efficiency means fuck all to him. It means fuck all to me as well. And consumption DOES lead to heat. I don't know why you keep acting as if it "can" - no, it DOES.

And whats worse about your bullshit is you think power consumed is something that allows you to calculate how hot the core will get....which is NOT true. If I put a dinky little heatsink on a 5870, it'll hit 90C. If I put a peltier system on a GTX480, it'll stay close to freezing. Temperature is a funtion of how efficiently the heatsink is wiking power away. GTX480s exist that don't exceed 65C.

On a side note: The GTX480 is a great card to put in SLI...scales incredibly well. Wanna tell me SLI cannot scale again?