[nelg]

http://www.gotapex.com/reviews.php?r...0fx/index.html

Look at this in the conclusion

"For the second part of this conclusion I do have to say that I am more than a little disappointed in the package that NVIDIA has supplied to its manufacturing partners in the 5600. I mean seriously, how in good conscience could I recommend any 5600 when they are so thoroughly trounced by ATI's Radeon 9500? In every single test I ran the 9500 was the hands down winner. The 5600 is not able to even come close to ATI's midrange DX9 offering."

Ouch !!

[Richthofen]

Maybe that guy needs to realizie that the real opponent is the 9600 and not the 9500.
110 Mio transistors vs something between 75 and 80 Mio speaks for itsself.
R300 products are dead and will phase out. To expensive for ATI to make and to low prices to get profits.

[beyondhelp]

Even if the correct comparison is the 9600Pro, I think it pretty sad that the Ti4200 is beating the 5600 in most of tests.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richthofen

Maybe that guy needs to realizie that the real opponent is the 9600 and not the 9500.
110 Mio transistors vs something between 75 and 80 Mio speaks for itsself.
R300 products are dead and will phase out. To expensive for ATI to make and to low prices to get profits.

Maybe you need to realize the "real" opponent is whatever sells for the same price, and that's the 9500 and 9600P, both of which are (slightly) faster than the 5600. I could care less how many transistors each card has; what matters is what they offer me for the price, in terms of features and performance.

Pricewatch shows the 256MB 5600 selling for $160 minimum, the 128MB 9600P for $160, the 128MB 5600 for $140, and the 128MB 9500 for $135. IMO, ATi is the better value in the mid-range. nV may have the edge at the low-end, though, and the high-end is fairly even. The only thing more consumers could ask for would be better yields for nV (and ATi, if they need it), to raise supply and thus lower demand and prices.

[Evildeus]

I didn't found out in the review, is it a 9500np or a 9500p?

[Richthofen]

Originally Posted by Pete

Maybe you need to realize the "real" opponent is whatever sells for the same price, and that's the 9500 and 9600P, both of which are (slightly) faster than the 5600. I could care less how many transistors each card has; what matters is what they offer me for the price, in terms of features and performance.

Pricewatch shows the 256MB 5600 selling for $160 minimum, the 128MB 9600P for $160, the 128MB 5600 for $140, and the 128MB 9500 for $135. IMO, ATi is the better value in the mid-range. nV may have the edge at the low-end, though, and the high-end is fairly even. The only thing more consumers could ask for would be better yields for nV (and ATi, if they need it), to raise supply and thus lower demand and prices.

well not really. Nvidia won't care much about 9500pro and non pro cards. They know ATI will phase them out as fast as they can otherwise they are going to loose big money.
It's only a problem in the transistion period right now but has not that big effect because ATI is not going to supply large and many OEM deals with 9500pro and nonpro.

Concerning the price? What does it matter?
The market is willing to pay more for a Nvidia product than for an ATI product. Simple market behaviour and i would do the same. There is no way i pay the same price for AMD or ATI. The market leader is the standard so the smaller company has to do a lot more to attract me.
And well i think that is how the majority of customers behave.

Just fine with me.

[martrox]

Richthofen, none of what you say matters, period. IF you were in the least bit observant, you would realize that the major failings of the 5600 line is it's cost. To get comparable performance with ATI's 9500P/9600P, you need to move up to the 5600Ultra.... which is MUCH more expensive....in fact, you can get a 9700NP for less. The reviews are not about who buys what for how much..... it's about what the product offers - and in just about every price range, you can find a much better product in ATI's lineup.

Of course, nothing can be said that makes any difference to anyone that's blinded by IHV rapture!

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Evildeus

I didn't found out in the review, is it a 9500np or a 9500p?

NP.

Richtofen, you focus on the 9500 but ignore the fact that the 9600P is almost as cheap as a 5600. The latest weekly ads shows a 9600P for $180 and a 5600 256MB for $200. So it really depends on how edumacated the consumer is--the smart one will avoid the 256MB marketing feature and get the 9600P. But I grant you the nVidia name probably still commands a premium.

Still, if the stories of incredible yields on the RV350 are true, ATi won't be hurting too badly selling their 128MB card for a little less than nV's 256MB one.

[Doomtrooper]

The market is willing to pay more for a Nvidia product than for an ATI product

Get your head examined at the earliest conveniance.

[mczak]

Originally Posted by Evildeus

I didn't found out in the review, is it a 9500np or a 9500p?

It's a pro (well given the scores you'd think it's the pro). Mentioned right at the beginning of the benchmarks (page 6).
Of course the FX5600 would lose to the 9600pro too - a better matched opponent would be the 9600 non-pro or the 9500 non-pro, but unfortunately for nvidia it looks like price-wise it competes with the 9600pro, and performance wise barely with the 9600 non-pro. Though keep in mind this is a 256MB version, the 128MB versions afaik will all be clocked 325/275 and thus be slightly faster and slightly cheaper...

[kemosabe]

Haven't seen any reviews of the vanilla 5600 vs. the vanilla 9600. If I read this correctly, the vanilla FX 5600 is comparable (or slightly faster?) to the non-Pro 9600, but significantly more expensive. The 9600 Pro is in the same price range as the FX 5600 128Mb, but a better performer. How the products in this class will compete for the OEM market is what I'm wondering. Very few design wins have been announced for either RV350 or NV31 and the traditional spring refresh season seems almost behind us.

Assuming the older 5600 Ultra is canned, that leaves the newer 400/400 5600 Ultra in the performance segment, which is clearly faster than the current 9600 Pro in a couple of reviews that have been posted. The gap between the 400/300 9600 Pro and 9800/Pro is too large and something in the $250 price range (with 9500 Pro class performance) needs to fill it. This brings us to the so-called RV360. Assuming the 9700NP is put out to pasture, is RV360 the answer to the new 5600 Ultra? Is it expected to essentially be a clock-boosted 9600 Pro or incorporate some missing features such as HierZ? Seems to be a lack of info on this part.

Other question for the armchair product manager: if yields on RV350 are so strong (regardless of the exact %) and its manufacturing cost as low as some claim, would it be feasible to bring the vanilla 9600 down to the value/mainstream market to compete with the FX 5200 (assuming 0.13u capacity is available at TSMC)? This way ATI would do away with the perceived failure of lacking DX9 support in the mainstream market (more marketing than anything else, since the FX 5200 is crippled), and the 9200 core could then find its new home in the upcoming RS300 integrated platform.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by Doomtrooper

Get your head examined at the earliest conveniance.

No, Richthofen is totally right: the market is willing to pay more for Nvidia than ATI at an equivalent level of product quality. Just because Nvidia's name is mud among those of us who watch the industry closely doesn't change the fact that the Nvidia brand name still fetches a premium among the masses.

Of course, once NV31 moves past its teething problems and 5600's become more plentiful, the price will become less unreasonable than it is now.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by mczak

It's a pro (well given the scores you'd think it's the pro). Mentioned right at the beginning of the benchmarks (page 6).
Of course the FX5600 would lose to the 9600pro too - a better matched opponent would be the 9600 non-pro or the 9500 non-pro, but unfortunately for nvidia it looks like price-wise it competes with the 9600pro, and performance wise barely with the 9600 non-pro. Though keep in mind this is a 256MB version, the 128MB versions afaik will all be clocked 325/275 and thus be slightly faster and slightly cheaper...

What the ... I totally missed that. I assumed the 9500 was a non-Pro, as it didn't score much higher than the other cards most of the time. I'm now guilty of spreading soem bad info around. Bah.

[Nite_Hawk]

Actually, I'm not entirely convinced that it's "nvidia" that people care about. "Geforce" is certainly well known, but a lot of average people I know actually knew the visiontek brandname more so than nvidia, simply because they were sold at most of the major chains. A visiontek ATI card would probably sell well simply because it's familiar (even if it doesn't have geforce on it).

Nite_Hawk

[Evildeus]

Thx Mczak. That's what i thought.

[McElvis]

Well here's how the prices stack up in the UK -

9600 £94
9600 Pro £140

5600 £120
5600 256MB £135
560 Ultra £160

And for some manufactures the 5600 non-ultra is actually more expensive than the 9600 Pro.

[Evildeus]

In France:
9600: 150€
9600 pro: 183€

5600 128Mo: 168€
5600 256Mo: 190€
5600 Ultra: 181€

So the 5600U is not that expensive over here.

[Demonio]

Originally Posted by Dave H

No, Richthofen is totally right: the market is willing to pay more for Nvidia than ATI at an equivalent level of product quality. Just because Nvidia's name is mud among those of us who watch the industry closely doesn't change the fact that the Nvidia brand name still fetches a premium among the masses.

Of course, once NV31 moves past its teething problems and 5600's become more plentiful, the price will become less unreasonable than it is now.

I really like to know where you base that statement on? If you make a statement that back it up.

[Demonio]

Originally Posted by Dave H

No, Richthofen is totally right: the market is willing to pay more for Nvidia than ATI at an equivalent level of product quality. Just because Nvidia's name is mud among those of us who watch the industry closely doesn't change the fact that the Nvidia brand name still fetches a premium among the masses.

Of course, once NV31 moves past its teething problems and 5600's become more plentiful, the price will become less unreasonable than it is now.

Nice statement but you don't back it up so it is really pointless to make it.
Empty words ............

[AlphaWolf]

Nvidia won't care much about 9500pro and non pro cards. They know ATI will phase them out as fast as they can otherwise they are going to loose big money.
It's only a problem in the transistion period right now but has not that big effect because ATI is not going to supply large and many OEM deals with 9500pro and nonpro.

I don't think they are losing money on the 9500's they just aren't able to offer as high a margin as they are on the much cheaper 9600's.