Rahul Sood quizzes ATI

[Skrying]

X1600 wasn't positioned against the 6600, but rather 6800gt or now 7800 GS.

What? You put cards up against each other by the price on the market. How does a X1600 at sub $200 prices go up against a $350 7800GS? I dont see your logic here at all. And the 6800GT, where in the heck can you buy those brand new?

Cards compete for position based on current market value for new cards. The X1600 is lined up with a 6800GS and the 256MB version of the 6600GT. Where the X1600 loses to the 6800GS and wins against the 6600GT. You're idea of sets the limits of what cards are compared against each other amazes me....

 

[thatdude90210]

Do you have this fan or this one? I was referring to (and only saw) the first, which I think matches the XT review units.

Er, scratch that. The Sapphire cooler looks different than the reference one. All of them also seem to have just two leads from the fan, so maybe the card doesn't dictate fan speed, but a thermistor on the fan itself?

I have this card, which looks just like the one in the first picture. I'm not sure if it spins up when hot, I briefly tried it in a open case desktop computer just to check out the sound, but it didn't stay there long enough for me check too many things.

 

[Tim]

X1600 wasn't positioned against the 6600, but rather 6800gt or now 7800 GS.

How do you get that idea - Ati said from day one (actually before day one) that it was positioned against the 6600GT.

 

[Tim]

The 6800 gs is not a crippled high end part, it is the 6800GS, the core is a 12 pipe core, there is nothing that is remotely high end about it at this point in time Geo.

It is not about what high-end is to day - it is about the asic being designed for the highend. (big chip 256bit memory etc.).

 

[Shadowmage]

It's a 12 native pipelined 110nm derivative of the NV40.

 

[Moloch]

It's a 12 native pipelined 110nm derivative of the NV40.

...Which compares well to the native 16 pipe NV40 despite cost cutting measures.

 

[Sxotty]

It's an ex-high-end part that has migrated to the mid-range with a name change as it has neared EOL. It was not designed to be a mid-range part even tho it is being sold as one now. It was a $300 sku at introduction.

It's a great competitive move on NV's part, and a solid value for consumers --but it was not designed to be a mid-range part.

I do not agree with this statement. When you have $600.00 boards out that seems pretty midrange to me. It is not and was not ever a high end part geo. It was perhaps a top of the line midrange part, but the 12 pipe version was never a high end, that was the 6800gt, and ultra.

 

[Jima13]

linky plz.

http://motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1577_1.html

The link to Ben's review, if that's what you're asking for...

 

[Geo]

At 6800 release, it was $299 non-ultra 12-pipes, $399 GT, $499 Ultra. There were no $600 parts, and no 6600 mid-range parts.

Are you expecting 7600 to be 256-bit? Are you expecting it to have as many transistors as 6800gs? If you answer no to either of those questions, what are we arguing about other than semantics? If it turns out to be yes for both, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you --even tho 6800gs gpu has more than 20% more transistors than X1600 and even tho X1600 is on a smaller process (alas, B3D's table does not include die size for NV42 to make the comparison to RV530's 156mm2 --tho interestingly enuf, NV43, for the most recent "true" NV midrange part 6600GT is 150mm2, very comparable to RV530).

I've been saying for quite some time that it seems to me we are moving to a 4 part range from the old 3 part range because of the larger price range to cover, and the obvious add would be some kind of "super mid-range". But is there any evidence that NV will have 2 90nm gpus covering from $200-$400 at introduction, with another above that for the real high-end? I'm really curious about that for both players, if they officially go to 4 gpus, or try to cover in other fashions with last gens parts as NV is doing with 6800gs, and ATI seems set to do for awhile with X1800.

Again, I think 6800gs is a great value. And certainly it is not in the least "unfair" or anything else for NV to be doing --I'm just not convinced it is indicative of long-term trends yet. There are two very different conversations tho --one is the consumer angle, and wearing that hat all I care about is what the price tag and performance are. The other is more engineering/business, how many different asics and what are their costs of production. I suspect that the business guys would say in the long run both angles need to line up relatively closely, but in the shorter run there is room to make the needs of the 1st the master of the 2nd.

 

[Moloch]

http://motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1577_1.html

The link to Ben's review, if that's what you're asking for...

I meant the ati dude complaining about the 6800gs.

 

[Sxotty]

At 6800 release, it was $299 non-ultra 12-pipes, $399 GT, $499 Ultra. There were no $600 parts, and no 6600 mid-range parts.

Are you expecting 7600 to be 256-bit? Are you expecting it to have as many transistors as 6800gs? If you answer no to either of those questions, what are we arguing about other than semantics? If it turns out to be yes for both, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you --even tho 6800gs gpu has more than 20% more transistors than X1600 and even tho X1600 is on a smaller process (alas, B3D's table does not include die size for NV42 to make the comparison to RV530's 156mm2 --tho interestingly enuf, NV43, for the most recent "true" NV midrange part 6600GT is 150mm2, very comparable to RV530).

I've been saying for quite some time that it seems to me we are moving to a 4 part range from the old 3 part range because of the larger price range to cover, and the obvious add would be some kind of "super mid-range". But is there any evidence that NV will have 2 90nm gpus covering from $200-$400 at introduction, with another above that for the real high-end? I'm really curious about that for both players, if they officially go to 4 gpus, or try to cover in other fashions with last gens parts as NV is doing with 6800gs, and ATI seems set to do for awhile with X1800.

Again, I think 6800gs is a great value. And certainly it is not in the least "unfair" or anything else for NV to be doing --I'm just not convinced it is indicative of long-term trends yet. There are two very different conversations tho --one is the consumer angle, and wearing that hat all I care about is what the price tag and performance are. The other is more engineering/business, how many different asics and what are their costs of production. I suspect that the business guys would say in the long run both angles need to line up relatively closely, but in the shorter run there is room to make the needs of the 1st the master of the 2nd.

Ok, geo, I understand what you are saying, but I would say that at introduction yes that was high midrange card. Do I believe that the 7600 will be 256bit and have more transistors? Not necessarily, but it is to replace the low midrange the 6600 series. A card like the 7800gs but on PCIe and sold for less would replace the 6800gs and would fall into the midrange in my opinion. That card was $350.00 at launch but they are definitely chargning a premium to the AGP users. And I expect a similar card from nvidia for PCIe would be at $300.00 with a 256bit bus and more transistors than the 6800gs.

Yes perhaps we are arguing semantics then, as to where the high end and midrange seperate, but I have always felt that the 6800 12 pipe edition was a high midrange part including when it was released. After all it did not convinvingly beat the previous high end and that is part of how I see the break occur.