ATI quietly launches the Radeon X800 GT - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2005, 01:11 AM   #21 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
The 9700Pro is the best example of this, being is made the transition to 256bit memory. The first nvidia card to do so was the 6800GT.
I think you a little off. The 5900 series was the first nvida card to have a 256-bit memory interface a good while before the 6800GT. You are correct in saying the 9700 had 256-bit before any other card.
__________________

mgoldb2 is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 01:20 AM   #22 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,280
Send a message via AIM to beedubaya
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
Um, the x800XT was meant to be the ATI counterpart of the 6800GT, with the pro being comparable to the vanilla 6800. ATI has always followed this naming scheme, and has always released the pro cards first, followed by the XTs at a later date.
"The more you know"
No, thats not true gaara. The X800XT was competition to the 6800 Ultra ($500 range in 2004), the X800Pro vs. the 6800GT ($400 range in 2004), and the 6800 vanilla in the $300 range as a lower cost alternative to the high end cards and it still laid waste to the 9800 Pro. Please know your facts before you post, gaara.
__________________

beedubaya is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 01:27 AM   #23 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by beedubaya
The X800XT was competition to the 6800 Ultra ($500 range in 2004), the X800Pro vs. the 6800GT ($400 range in 2004), and the 6800 vanilla in the $300 range as a lower cost alternative to the high end cards and it still laid waste to the 9800 Pro. Please know your facts before you post, gaara.
That sound correct to me because late 2004 is when I bought my video card. I had a hard time choosing between the 6800 Ultra and the x800 XT. those was both around $500. Those was the 2 cards I was considering. I finally decided on the 6800 ULTRA.
mgoldb2 is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 02:00 AM   #24 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Quote:
No, thats not true gaara. The X800XT was competition to the 6800 Ultra ($500 range in 2004), the X800Pro vs. the 6800GT ($400 range in 2004), and the 6800 vanilla in the $300 range as a lower cost alternative to the high end cards and it still laid waste to the 9800 Pro. Please know your facts before you post, gaara.
The Pro line of cards has [i]always[i] been the lower end of scale next to ATIs SE cards. The x800XT PE was the ATI counterpart to the 6800 Ultra, with the "vanilla" XT card competeting with the GT variable of the 6800 line. Look at their current marketing, the x900 Pro with 24 pipelines is the vanilla version of higher 32 pipeline XT cores, with PE having a slightly higher clock speed. Thanks for the tip but I'm already ahead of it mate
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 02:05 AM   #25 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,280
Send a message via AIM to beedubaya
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
The Pro line of cards has [i]always[i] been the lower end of scale next to ATIs SE cards. The x800XT PE was the ATI counterpart to the 6800 Ultra, with the "vanilla" XT card competeting with the GT variable of the 6800 line. Look at their current marketing, the x900 Pro with 24 pipelines is the vanilla version of higher 32 pipeline XT cores, with PE having a slightly higher clock speed. Thanks for the tip but I'm already ahead of it mate
The X800XT PE was competition to the 6800 Ultra EE (Extreme Edition), which was slightly higher clocked. X800XT was against the 6800 Ultra.
beedubaya is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 05:37 AM   #26 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 147
Default

Wether you laugh at ATI or not, if it wasn't for them do you really think Nvidia would bother to constantly bring out faster cards one after another? If there were no competition I bet we would still be stuck with a 6600 at $400.
I would like to see ATI nibling at Nvidias heels for a long time to come.
There is one certain thing in life, buy a video card and at lest 2 better ones come along within a month, I just can't afford to feed my VGA addiction anymore. There, I've admitted it, I have a problem.
__________________
If it wasn\'t for Electricians you would be using your computer by candle light

Computer:
Athlon 64 3500+
ASUS A8V-E Deluxe Motherboard
2x512MB 400MHz DDR Dual Channel
Gigabyte X800XL - 256MB Mem
Maxtor Y160M0 - 160GB SATA
Maxtor 80GB PATA
Xaser III Case
Win XP Pro SP2
ViewSonic VX924 19\"LCD 4mS(ish)
CJJohnson is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 07:32 AM   #27 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

I agree with CJJohnson. competition is good.
if there wasn't competition, the video cards and CPU's would develop about as fast as Creative's sound cards (which is not very)
in the last 5 years, hardware had started out to be competitive, then it started to really pick up especially in CPU's and video cards.

one of the first video cards to be considered a "high performance" 3D card was Nvidia's TNT/TNT2 (or TwiN Texturiser)
I think they were the first cards to have multi pipelines.
after Nvidia made their Geforce video cards, up to about the Geforce 2 series I think, there was a third video card company called 3DFX with their Voodoo cards. ATI was also in their early Radeon series cards. the Geforce 4 Ti cards really gave ATI and 3DFX a run for their money. 3DFX went out of the game, however ATI made their 9000 series cards. in that series, ATI was really shining. Nvidia had to rush out their Geforce FX cards (5000 series) and, ATI always had the lead in that series. now, Nvidia currently has the lead.

and when AMD made their Thunderbirds and Durons, the competition between AMD and Intel really started.
Intel at first were really outselling AMD, however that slowly changed after AMD released teir Athlon's (against later Pentium 3's), and especially Athlon XP's (against early to mid Pentium 4's, up to 3200+/3.2GHZ)
now, AMD has been really competitive with their Athlon 64's. a lot of people say that Intel is struggling against AMD.

*edit*
apparently there's also an X550 now. yet another card that will get low sales.
__________________

__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.