[Sabastian]

You are arguing semantics. I meant by low end margins obviously I was saying nvidia low end product margins. Makes no differance to me though how you want to nit pick.

[RussSchultz]

Sorry, it just helps avoid confusion if you're using the wrong term for what you want to talk about.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

I agree with your position here. Indeed if ATi can get mass market card of the RV350 at a low price(eg 9600 non pro version) it would be a far better card for end users. But nvidia cheaped out on the Geforce FX 5200 so they can bring the price down and still get some margins on the bugger. Never mind it won't perform DX9 applications well and end users will likely have to upgrade their card to get decent frame rates out of their PC.

IMHO;

it could be possible that the R9600 is priced as high (or low) as the FX5200.

Both cards use 128MB 200MHz DDR-SDRAM
The RV350 is the smaller chip ( according to DaveBaumann )

So only the yield at 0.13µm is an unknown.

Otherwise both cards can be produced at the same cost, and if the R9200 PCB is any indication about the PCB for the R9600 then even the cost for the PCB could be lower, cause as I remember, the RV350 and the R200/RV250 are said to be pincompatible.

[Dave Baumann]

No, RV350 is msaller than 5600 (NV31).

Its possible (probable even) that it may be smaller than 5200 (NV34), but RV350 is on .13u and NV34 is .15u - at present the .13u process will make it more expensive.

[Anonymous]

I agree the real contest is between the 9600 and the 5200, but is anyone as moved as I am by the passive cooling? The RV350 may kill the NV34 in terms of hardware capability, but seeing as I had an 8500LE whose fan died within *six months*, that stationary hunk of metal means a lot more to me now.

I would hope it's possible for RV350 to be passively cooled as well, but I'm not holding my breath.

-- L.J.

[Dave Baumann]

At the launch ATI said that 9600 can be passively cooled. I very much doubt that will be the PRO version, running at 400MHz and all, but the lower versions can. Of course, ATI will never maket the non-PRO version themselves and this will be down to the board vendors - given that many of them like putting fans on the boards I'm not sure there will be many passive ones about (this goes for both NV and ATI).

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

No, RV350 is msaller than 5600 (NV31).

Its possible (probable even) that it may be smaller than 5200 (NV34), but RV350 is on .13u and NV34 is .15u - at present the .13u process will make it more expensive.

Going from our knowledge of the transistor count, I doubt the RV350 is smaller than the NV34.

NV34 is supposed to be 40Million? RV350 is 70 million? (vague recollections, too lazy to hunt the real numbers down)

The ratio between .13^2 and .15^2 would put the "same area" at about 53 million. (33% more transistors in .13 for the same area)

Assuming my math is right and the estimates are right, it would seem the RV350 die would be at least 30% more expensive, assuming the same yield and same silicon area cost. We know that .13 yield isn't that hot, which would make the RV350 cost more per good die, and also that a .13 wafer costs more.

With all that, I wouldn't be suprised if the RV350 die was currently 50%-100% more expensive than the NV34.

[Dave Baumann]

Going from our knowledge of the transistor count, I doubt the RV350 is smaller than the NV34.

Nope. It is.

[edit]: According to my info NV34 is slightly larger than NV31 in fact.
[edit2 (Perhaps I should learn to read properly)]: Sorry, NV31 is about the same size as NV34.

[RussSchultz]

Hrm, what part of the equation do I have that is wrong?

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by mboeller2

IMHO;

it could be possible that the R9600 is priced as high (or low) as the FX5200.

Both cards use 128MB 200MHz DDR-SDRAM
The RV350 is the smaller chip ( according to DaveBaumann )

So only the yield at 0.13µm is an unknown.

Otherwise both cards can be produced at the same cost, and if the R9200 PCB is any indication about the PCB for the R9600 then even the cost for the PCB could be lower, cause as I remember, the RV350 and the R200/RV250 are said to be pincompatible.

That is great news to me. I assumed that the .13um would be more expensive yet. I really hope that OEMs don't buy the NV34 it won't drive developers to push the hardware at all IMO the RV350 would be so much better for developers to consider.

Heck maybe I will even buy a Radeon 5600 it is looking that much better from what i have seen and if it is going to be as cheap as the NV34 then the RV350 is a no brainer.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

That is great news to me.

News? this was only my speculation !

[Pete]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

So quit your eye rolling.

Little defensive there, aren't we?

Getting their mid-level products to 70mil. trans. from 107mil. should provide ATi with a nice boost in profit, not to mention their .13u yields should only get better with time. C'mon, release those benches already....

BTW, a 5200-level product would be nice integrated into the next nForce (guaranteeing people would buy it with faster CPU's, like with OEM bundles).

[Onde Pik]

Another thing in the Anandtech review

ATI has no competition to the 5200 series, simply because their Radeon 9200/9100/9000 do not offer DirectX 9 support, they are based on a DirectX 8 class of GPUs. Granted that there won't be any use of DirectX 9 specific features in games for quite a while, but the tables have definitely turned; ATI is now the one that isn't delivering all of the features possible to the entry-level, and NVIDIA is clearly learning from their own past mistakes.

Ehh the 5200U is gonna be in the pricerange of the R9500 that does offer DX9, and probably and a much better speed. Sad that he didnt include that card in the graphs :/

The non Ulta 5200 he is right, sub $100 ATI havent got a DX9 part, but how much use is it?

[Anonymous]

Was this Thread hacked? My comment above is ~2 days old.

I just read the Review from Firingquad. Link :
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ra/default.asp

the PS2.0-performance of the FX5200U is only around 5% of the PS1-performance :



Despite this the FX5200 manages to perform quite good in 3DMark03. Even in the Mother Nature test the frame-rates are quite good (@640x480)

[Anonymous]

[quote="mboeller2"]Was this Thread hacked? My comment above is ~2 days old.

I just read the Review from Firingquad. Link :
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ra/default.asp

the PS2.0-performance of the FX5200U is only around 5% of the PS1-performance :
quote]

f00l! Its two different tests! The gf5200 ultra sems to be a decent card, in gf 3 class and about the same price range.

[Mulciber]

[quote="Anon Lamer"]

Originally Posted by mboeller2

Was this Thread hacked? My comment above is ~2 days old.

I just read the Review from Firingquad. Link :
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ra/default.asp

the PS2.0-performance of the FX5200U is only around 5% of the PS1-performance :
quote]

f00l! Its two different tests! The gf5200 ultra sems to be a decent card, in gf 3 class and about the same price range.

heh, I didnt understand that part either. It's not really relevant until you compair it to some other cards with ps2.0