Well, if this ends up being the case, I would have a very hard time recommending anyone buy the 256MB version. If the 512MB GT gets to $200 promptly the the 256MB version would appear to me to be a pointless SKU. Bottom line is there is no way I would recommend a 256MB card to a gamer these days regardless of the price point.Arun said:
I'd hardly call 4x AA over the top...INKster said:
Your comments seem to indicate that you want everything for free. You want high-end gaming with high-end features for mid-range price. Why do I say this? You keep talking about all the modern games, with features cranked up and now 4x AA. That doesn't sound like midrange to me.
Except they don't. Playing at a much lower resolution = free, how? I've already said that something like Arun's suggestion would be much better balanced. I believe I mentioned earlier they could reduce the SP count. 1440x900 resolution has 57% the pixels of 1900x1200 (a resolution the 8800GT still performs well at). What I am saying is that, if the goal was to reduce cost while giving the consumer the best experience possible, then sacrificing some SPs and bandwidth seems a much better trade off than going to 256MB boards. Current and upcoming games are already using more than 256MB without AA, and it is only going to get worse.FUDie said:
So you are saying that a $200 price point is not midrange (the price the 512MB 8800GT will supposedly drop to)?FUDie said:
I didn't say "they", I said "you". You want AA, you want highest quality features, you want latest games, you want it all, for $200. Sure, lots of games use more than 256 MB with all features cranked up, that's why most games allow you to dial down features.
And lose money? If they don't yield many parts with fewer SPs, then either nvidia sells working 112 SP parts with SPs disabled (lost profits) or they don't have enough parts to satisfy the market (lost sales).
You can't sacrfice SPs unless they are already broken. Every working chip you sell as non-working is lost money. Remember the 9500 Pro? I imagine that most of those chips would have worked at least as 9700 non-Pros, which is why 9500 Pros were never around in abundance.
Except that the 8600/2600 series are hovering at $100 level now ..
They is a pronoun, it was used in reference to the word comments which is plural. "Your comments seem to indicate..."FUDie said:
You are confusing the issue. I never said such a part had to come from G92 (or solely for that matter). If G98 turns out half decent I might prefer a 512MB version of it to a 256MB version of G92 given the resolution I play at. Furthermore, Arun made the suggestion of a 192bit/384MB part. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I would submit Nvidia wouldn't produce such a part if it was losing them money.FUDie said:
I wasn't suggesting otherwise (regarding G92, a different core is another matter). All I am saying is that a 8800GT core is going to be severely crippled (and thus an inefficient design in both absolute performance and performance/dollar) by only having 256MB of memory. Is that so hard to accept?FUDie said:
Ignoring the logical fallacy All - Resolution = All... It looks like I will get it with the 512MB 8800 GT. Your point?FUDie said:
Except that the 8600/2600 series are hovering at $100 level now ..
They hit the $100 mark months ago, not recently.
Err? werent you trying to justify the $100 mark because of 8800GT's introduction?
Idle speculation by someone becomes fact, gotta love it.
Have you seen benchmarks?
Scaling resolution doesn't mean all resources in a game will scale. Your point? Hence my comment about not using max quality.
I'm not responsible for how others interpret what I say, damnit!
However, I've pretty much got the existence of a 192-bit SKU confirmed, fwiw, I'm just not 300% sure it's G92-based yet.That depends on the finer details of your redundancy mechanism but yes, given the demand at those lower price segments, you'd expect that you'd also have to sell fully usable chips for such a redundant SKU.
I'm way ahead of you!AnarchX said:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1091738&postcount=3So 9300 would be a right name, if faster SKUs will come like G96, which wil probadly new 9600/700-Series(or NB9P-GS/GT).
Where did I say it was fact? All I said was that I believe him; I didn't say you had to or should for that matter. Your lame attempts at putting words in my mouth are getting old.FUDie said:
Have you? /Oh Snap.FUDie said:
I never said it did (again trying to put words in my mouth and failing miserably). In fact, I have been arguing quite the opposite; haven't you been paying attention?FUDie said:
ninelven said:
I'm not sure I believe that. What I could perfectly well imagine (and that *is* speculation) is that they are going to add a new SKU *below* the 8400 GS with those specs, maybe taking the spot of the 8300 GS for new orders at OEMs too.
