Full R600 Benchmarks and results...

[Nagasama]

dang i was hoping to see at least a 25% increase in performance over the 8800. so i could also see the 8800 prices fall like stones from a hot air balloon. cos then it would be good enough/cheap enough for me to actually consider buying.

 

[Dante_Caligari]

I am tired of videocard and CPU wars. Each of the cards, ladies and gentlemen, as I see it, will play any game you throw at it on MAX settings, perhaps give or take a couple FPS here and there. Big deal. I have worked with both nVidia and ATI cards, and I can tell you that they both do their jobs well, and you will be satisfied with either an 8800GTX or an R600 when it eventually arrives. Personally, I do not see the point of getting hyped for a possible 2-5fps leap when you are already gaming with crystal clear video.

 

[M733mhz]

People were getting hyped up about it because it should be better than the R600 by a marginal amount.

 

[Nagasama]

im hyped up cos i want them to be cheaper.
i was reading an old archived article that was talking about 7600 cards costing like 500.00
holy crap.
i mean, like 200-250 is about all a top of the line card should cost. but then again, gas shouldn't cost 2.50 a gallon in texas, either. hmmmm....
i smell a conspiracy, lol.

 

[Graham]

I have no video card preference, personally. I just think ATI should have a faster card out since it is coming out some months after Nvidia's.

I had an X850 XT for about three years and now I am using the 8800 GTS cause it has great performance / price over the X1950XTX and all that jazz.

But seriously, if these benchmarks are similar to what actual results will be, AMD / ATI gonna have a hard time charging much more than the 8800 GTX price tag, and AMD's loss of revenue to purchase ATI doesn't need that.

I hope it is a bit better so competition stays healthy. That's what is good about the card wars and why they are so controversial.

 

[Waphlez]

The beta cards of the R600 are using GDDR3, not GDDR4.

http://theinq.com/default.aspx?article=37247 (see last paragraph)

So therefor they are not going to be the same specs as the final thing. Pre-release benchmarks are always iffy, and of course drivers aren't tweaked as it will on launch.

Also, the FPS for a game might be pushed to it's limit because the rest of the system can only run a game so fast and the GPU might not be fully utilized.

 

[will h4x 4 food]

ITS FAAAKE. VERY old news.

 

[Gabb]

I am tired of videocard and CPU wars. Each of the cards, ladies and gentlemen, as I see it, will play any game you throw at it on MAX settings, perhaps give or take a couple FPS here and there. Big deal. I have worked with both nVidia and ATI cards, and I can tell you that they both do their jobs well, and you will be satisfied with either an 8800GTX or an R600 when it eventually arrives. Personally, I do not see the point of getting hyped for a possible 2-5fps leap when you are already gaming with crystal clear video.

Well like I said in another post, your failing to miss the point, its not about running games at max settings now, its about running more powerful games a year from now and the lifespans and abilities of the cards. Not to mention theres much more of a fps differance then just 2-5 in all these various cards, and people want to make the best decision to get the best performance/price card. So yes, it is a very big deal indeed.