http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=5431

If you plan to buy one, hold off a bit. The ATI R600 seems to be threatening and nVidia is using marketing to try and get their stuff out. Seriously, if ATI can fix their darn driver issues I will consider buying one. Especially as their under the AMD umbrella now.

PeAcE.

I really hate double-posting, but nobody else seems interested in this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130071 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130071&CMP=EMC-IGNEVGA062907&ATT=N82E16814130071)

The price cuts seem like they've started, but I'm waiting on the BFG cards to come down.

PeAcE.

who is leading the graphics card wars now? and how u think will win by years end. i thinkinb about building a new pc soon

IMO, they are about the same at current. ATI is getting better and better since AMD purchased them, and ATI's cards were better, but their drivers were horrible. These days the drivers are getting better, so I may go with an ATI system later on. I'm biased towards nVidia, but I am not ashamed to say that at current, the latest cards, ATI is better. As far as it goes for the previous ones, they are on par or nVidia is better IMO. ATI's drivers being better now should also eliminate some of the issues people had with the older cards, as long as the drivers have a UDA (Unified Driver Architecture) where one driver works for all.

PeAcE.

IMO, they are about the same at current. ATI is getting better and better since AMD purchased them, and ATI's cards were better, but their drivers were horrible. These days the drivers are getting better, so I may go with an ATI system later on. I'm biased towards nVidia, but I am not ashamed to say that at current, the latest cards, ATI is better. As far as it goes for the previous ones, they are on par or nVidia is better IMO. ATI's drivers being better now should also eliminate some of the issues people had with the older cards, as long as the drivers have a UDA (Unified Driver Architecture) where one driver works for all.

PeAcE.

Hate to contradict you kitty - but seeing that I'm sort of more a hardware junkie than you are - I'll update you :p

ATI/AMD HAVE NOT been doing well at all.

ATI is lagging by with the R600's (which is a chipset, not an actual CARD JFYI-FWIW, IMHK ;)). And in the latest Benchmarks, the 8800's PWN overly.
What the cards DO have.. is a better price/performance ratio.. many O'Cers are pointing out (which is true).
The 2900HT falls behind marginally, behind several cards of Nvidia.

Truth be told, ATI isnt flogging Nvidia, because its dad, AMD, is really taking a beating out there.

AMD, is REALLY lagging behind now, with the introduction of the almight CD2s,ALL OF WHICH, reach 3.0 (and more) speeds easily.
Amd is ONLY NOW, about to release its phenom line, which will compete at CD2s..
but of course, INTEL is In the LEAD, getting ready to release their QUAD core CPU's, with the new perynyn cores...

all in all. AMD is in trouble - and loosing market share rapidly..
its all big talk really.

Analyst even go as far as to speculate whether AMD will go bankrupt.
But most concur that it will stay afloat because its server-line chips are still prefered, and they still have better price/cost.

Though the CD2s.. for what they're offering, are pretty dam competitively priced...

when AMD rises up in the rat race again.
so will ATI.
but for now - they're second I'm afriad :=

oh = here's a review I read recently, more dealing with the price to cost ratio thats out there now.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6173135/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot

AMD actually isn't taking a beating. They're just not competing with Intel at this point. They've stopped the competition temporarily to focus on some other projects that they are dealing with right now. As you also probably know, Intel's quad cores are not true quad, they're 2xDuals that are stuck together. AMD is working on true quad. Among other things, including actual personal benchmarks of the hardware, as you know I do, the ATI cards are very nice. The nVidia cards are nice also, but there are areas in which one card leads and the other doesn't. Check out wikipedia for more info on the different cards, and run a comparison on the features, shaders, pipelines, etc. ATI shows better overall technology, but they obviously are not putting it to use. nVidia on the other hand, knows how to use what they have. The problem is, nVidia themselves don't create the high end cards, just the chipsets and outsource to places like BFG, XFX, PINE, etc....

BFG is the way to go still, but on the scale that things are going, ATI is doing better than before. Why else do you think the flagship of nVidia is falling in prices so soon? Not because they're coming out with something else, it's the looming threat of what ATI is to come with next.

I know I'm sounding more and more like an ATI enthusiast, but the truth is - I'd still stick with nVidia. They have had a better driver base and better support on the cards through their UDA from long before ATI tried to follow. At one point the ATI site had so very similarly resembled the nVidia older modelled site. ATI follows, nVidia leads. These days? Anything goes. As with the processor wars, it comes down to personal preference.

Case in point? I have NEVER had problems with nVidia cards, and I've had multiple problems with ATI cards, including cards that are in other persons machines. I know of a colleague who is the exact opposite, and as a result preaches ATI. I've never seen those problems he's talking about with nVidia, and when I hear it leads me to believe he's been going with the inferior ones (the older PINE anyone?) and that may have been his problem.

PeAcE.

Great read. Learnt alot.. No wonder i have problems with my ati cards and most people with nvidia have smooth lives when it comes to drivers and what they can do with the card.. I speak relative to linux... nvidia seems to give more support or something.

which is better 256mb gddr3 or 512mb gddr2 ?

AMD actually isn't taking a beating. They're just not competing with Intel at this point. They've stopped the competition temporarily to focus on some other projects that they are dealing with right now. .
lolz - not to burst your bubble.
But, NO MY FRIEND lol.
Khat, YOU KNOW ME. And you KNOW how BIG and AMD FANBOI I am. you can believe me when I tell you they're in trouble (trust me - I live and breathe OCing online man :p).
They havent "stopped the competition" dude... there's no such thing lol.
they're not .. pausing to work on "other projects". THEY"RE WORKING THEIR ASSES off to catch up!:eek:
When CD2 came out, it PWNED EVERYTHING in its way. And give AMD a heat fitt.
its unfortunate but, THEY ARE taking a beating.
Hector doesnt even deny this
They're loosing market share, and people are more and more starting to wonder what they'll come with next - so they're workingg hard to produce.

As you also probably know, Intel's quad cores are not true quad, they're 2xDuals that are stuck together. AMD is working on true quad.

Quad Core is 2 CD2s slapped into one chip allright. But the fact is that one of those chips is dam spicey by itself, MUCH more 2!
(for that matter, BARCELONA is going to target CD2 dude! :eek: )
So just imagine having 2 of those things in one chip..

Barcelona is targetting Cd2, NOT QUAD CORE - AMD isnt at that point yet dude.

but there are areas in which one card leads and the other doesn't.
.. yeah, and about the only areas that they DO lead in, is the games that Nvidia cards havent been optimized for :D (like HL2 .. believe it or not).


Check out wikipedia for more info on the different cards, and run a comparison on the features, shaders, pipelines, etc.
ok, how about this.
you check out THIS one...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

--edit--
darn - cant find the ones with the 2900HD.
Anyway - yeah, the 8800s beat them (the last link has some pertinent benches).

These are cards that have been tested in the OPTIPAL conditions...

you'll realize that the only cards the ATI will beat (IN ANY BECNH) are the budget 8000+s...
the 8800 is always on top.


ATI shows better overall technology, but they obviously are not putting it to use.
Namely crossfire ;)


but on the scale that things are going, ATI is doing better than before.
oh come on khat.
remember that before all these advancements... ATI was competiting NECK TO NECK with Nvidia...

Now Nvidia has a few cards beating the best of ATI.

Back then as I remember.. ATI used to be the leader, with Nvidia playing catch-up.. (though that varied).

In all of the Enthusiast Forums.. the same thing is being reiterated...

it was better when AMD didnt own ATI..


Why else do you think the flagship of nVidia is falling in prices so soon? Not because they're coming out with something else, it's the looming threat of what ATI is to come with next.
For the record - Nvida does have something on the way..

But remember. Technology is getting CHEAPER.. it always does.

Cd2s did. And INtel KNOWS, that they wont have any severe competition from AMD - not for now.

A friend of mine has a friend who works with AMD.
And he was saying that they're Really taking a beating (is the talk within the corporation).
"we poked the sleeping dragon too hard - and it woke up" :D

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6918

Inside talk is probably the best source, but after giving that a read, you'll see where AMD is going to take back the lead. With the first true quad processor to be released, Intel may have their stuff all cozy for now, but it's a known thing that the AMD processors are better.

Example? I had to help someone troubleshoot why an antispyware app wasn't running on his machine (spybot) and always hung up at a particular point. After much deliberation and searching online, guess what? His machine is an INTEL machine, and the "hyper threading" was causing the problems. Also, video editing for him was going horrible, as the audio tracks on some of the stuff he imported wouldn't load. After disabling Intel's "best feature" all problems went away. The moral? AMD is better. Just IMO, but the issues that people have with Intel processors never happen with AMD. Intel was the "first" so to speak, but AMD just knows how to make the better architecture. Intel may have the resources and have the higher speeds, but speed is one thing, performance is the next.

Check with most gamers as well. Their rigs are usually AMD. Only in recent times have some people lost the faith and gone C2D. C2D is good, but I'm still sticking to AMD.

PeAcE.

this is a comparison between ati and nvdia

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1...=178344,00.asp

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40770

And as it's stated, the ATI system kicks. No I'm not pro ATI, and everyone that knows me knows this. My only reason for wanting them to come out with better stuff these days is for it to push the nVidia card prices down, and also to give AMD the additional edge over Intel.

As you should know GRIM, the only thing that Intel had over AMD in the past was that Intel was also the producer of graphics cards, which allowed them to tie in the graphics chipsets with their own chipsets for far better performance. nVidia also has a similar thing with the nForce chipsets, where nVidia makes the entire chipset for the board enabling better performance for their cards and graphics acceleration in general. Intel had this feature tied into some of their boards, but as most of us should know, Intel graphics cards SUX SUX SUX SUX SUX!!!! AMD made a smart move to purchase an already established graphics card company, and although I would have preferred if they had bought nVidia, I guess they couldn't afford them. None the less, ATI gave them a good base to make their chipsets (Crossfire anyone?) and now in the graphics department and chipsets, AMD is whipping Intel.

Just bear in mind that every Intel board you see with an ATI chipset means that AMD gets a share of what is going on in there.

PeAcE.