Explore GameReplays...

Hardware

NVIDIA GeForce™ GTX 400 Series Launched

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 21Kibatsu Mar 29 2010, 17:05 PM
Hmm, until they lower their prices, I might try to overclock my Intel E6750 to 3,0GHz, which shouldn't be a big deal.

I've heard Battlefield: Bad Company 2 needs a slightly faster CPU to smoothly run everything maxed out.

Posts: 5,480

Clan: Deathwatch

Game: Dawn of War 3


+
# 22GiDeoN Mar 29 2010, 21:12 PM
It's certainly more friendly to cpus with more cores afaik.

Posts: 13,323

Clan: Order Of The Elites

Game: Hardware


+
# 23STCAB Mar 29 2010, 21:44 PM
Not surprising that they weren't able to beat ATI this time... I bet they're pushing the 400 REALLY hard based on that fact, which is why it's getting super hot and stuff. And price? WTF almost the same as a 5970 which is just way ahead of the 400's main competitor the 5870.

Is that bankruptcy I smell?

This post has been edited by STCAB: Mar 29 2010, 21:45 PM

Posts: 4,776

Game: Dawn of War 2


+
# 24Guardian Mar 30 2010, 00:53 AM
QUOTE(STCAB @ Mar 29 2010, 17:44 PM) *
Is that bankruptcy I smell?

Lol no, that's the popcorn I'm making with my 480.

ATI had their problems when they transitioned to the 40nm process and now NVIDIA is going through its growing pains. They lose this round sure, but all this talk off doom and gloom is just unfounded imo.

Posts: 12,669

Game: Hardware


+
# 25Kibatsu Mar 30 2010, 05:58 AM
QUOTE(Guardian @ Mar 30 2010, 02:53 AM) *

Lol no, that's the popcorn I'm making with my 480.

happy.gif

QUOTE(Guardian @ Mar 30 2010, 02:53 AM) *

ATI had their problems when they transitioned to the 40nm process and now NVIDIA is going through its growing pains. They lose this round sure, but all this talk off doom and gloom is just unfounded imo.

Agreed; NVIDIA will probably win the next "round" of the next generation GFX, so no need to worry ...

Posts: 5,480

Clan: Deathwatch

Game: Dawn of War 3


+
# 26lelderlAp0C Mar 30 2010, 14:31 PM
IPB Image

Posts: 8,452

Game: Supreme Commander 2


+
# 27AwfuL Mar 30 2010, 15:53 PM
Love that picture tongue.gif

BTW current rumours indicate ATi will refresh it's 40nm range with a 67xx part in the end of this year. It will supposedly feature 1600 or less stream processors, but with increased efficiency leading to ~20% better performance than GTX480. Should also have better Tesselation performance and much improved GPGPU performance due to a revamped cache hierarchy. Will be followed up in 2010 by the 68xx series which is 67xx times two.

That or it's another one of ATI's infamous smokescreen rumours smile.gif

Posts: 14,682

Clan: Brothers of War

Game: CNC Zero Hour


+
# 28GiDeoN Mar 30 2010, 17:58 PM
QUOTE(Guardian @ Mar 30 2010, 00:53 AM) *

ATI had their problems when they transitioned to the 40nm process and now NVIDIA is going through its growing pains. They lose this round sure, but all this talk off doom and gloom is just unfounded imo.


I think you really need to look at the overall picture with NVIDIA. Fermi isn't an architecture designed with the gamer in mind, it's much more about gpgpu and their growth in this sector reflects this.

They're aiming for a different set of markets if you look closely at their products.

Posts: 13,323

Clan: Order Of The Elites

Game: Hardware


+
# 29Guardian Mar 30 2010, 20:56 PM
And maybe this new architecture will be beneficial for gamers. You saw from the benchmarks that AA and tessellation took less of a performance hit on the fermi stuff than ATIs stuff. You really think they are going to abandon that segment of the market?

I'm not a fan boy, but lets be realistic here....

Posts: 12,669

Game: Hardware


+
# 30Vissario Mar 30 2010, 23:21 PM
Nvidia has way too much knowledge to get into bankruptcy and like AMD if they have trouble with money, there are way too many possibilities to start through, only bad thing would be if it was sold to intel.
Anyway on the workstation market, they do not have any competition and there's probably more to gain than in the consumer market.

Posts: 10,161

Game: Generals 2


+
# 31^Dr_PhiL Mar 31 2010, 13:48 PM
what is it about them? the gtx 295 costs upwards of 500 dollars where as the radeon 5970 which owns it almost every single way costs around 600-700. and the radeon card below that, the radeon 5870, can still match up but for a hundred dollars less...

they always think that they can charge whatever they want and ask ridiculous prices for their gpu's

Posts: 1,337

Game: None


+
# 32GiDeoN Mar 31 2010, 17:48 PM
They have to factor in production costs, they got forced into a bad situation last round when ATI released the 4xxx series and seriously chopped pricing to compete. There is only so far they can lower prices before it becomes a question of profit vs market share retention.

This is where ATI win with their silicon design, they fit more on to each wafer due to a smaller gpu design, which in turn gives them a much better yield %. Compare this to NVIDIA which have a much larger silicon design, which gives a lower yield % and also means they get less chips per wafer.

The wafer of silicon costs the same for both of them, ATI just get more off each wafer, which equates to more cards to be sold and a stonger position to lower pricing if they need to compete.

I doubt either of them will lower pricing too much currently, the yields from the 40nm TSMC production have been problematic for both ATI and NVIDIA, which has cost both of them. At least ATI are six months ahead here and have had time for refinement to iron out problems, plus they'll likely switch to Global Foundries at some stage soon enough.

Downside is there has been no competition in the market for six months, which has left ATI room to inflate pricing, let alone what NVIDIA want to charge us due to gpu design choices / poor production yields.

This post has been edited by GiDeoN: Mar 31 2010, 18:01 PM

Posts: 13,323

Clan: Order Of The Elites

Game: Hardware


+
# 33^Dr_PhiL Mar 31 2010, 21:27 PM
true, the new ATI cards will probably be over-inflated pricing like nvidia is doing right now with the 400 series

Posts: 1,337

Game: None


+
# 34Guardian Apr 1 2010, 00:10 AM
QUOTE(GiDeoN @ Mar 31 2010, 13:48 PM) *
They have to factor in production costs, they got forced into a bad situation last round when ATI released the 4xxx series and seriously chopped pricing to compete. There is only so far they can lower prices before it becomes a question of profit vs market share retention.

This is where ATI win with their silicon design, they fit more on to each wafer due to a smaller gpu design, which in turn gives them a much better yield %. Compare this to NVIDIA which have a much larger silicon design, which gives a lower yield % and also means they get less chips per wafer.

The wafer of silicon costs the same for both of them, ATI just get more off each wafer, which equates to more cards to be sold and a stonger position to lower pricing if they need to compete.

I doubt either of them will lower pricing too much currently, the yields from the 40nm TSMC production have been problematic for both ATI and NVIDIA, which has cost both of them. At least ATI are six months ahead here and have had time for refinement to iron out problems, plus they'll likely switch to Global Foundries at some stage soon enough.

Downside is there has been no competition in the market for six months, which has left ATI room to inflate pricing, let alone what NVIDIA want to charge us due to gpu design choices / poor production yields.


Wait so you do agree with me ;d

Posts: 12,669

Game: Hardware


+
# 35GiDeoN Apr 1 2010, 18:05 PM
QUOTE(Guardian @ Apr 1 2010, 00:10 AM) *

Wait so you do agree with me ;d


Didn't say that tongue.gif

Posts: 13,323

Clan: Order Of The Elites

Game: Hardware


+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)