tidbits on 9800XT from the Inq

First of all, all I've heard is contradict Inq's BS. On the other hand, 9800XT sounds really stupid, sloppy name - I'm sure ATI never will use this shitty 'letter'style' naming...

On the performance side: I'd like to see AT LEAST 20% difference from my 9700 Pro in HL2 - then I'll upgrade.
For less than 20% - no way.

PS: Funny to see how perfect is the one-year old 9700 Pro.. still... nowadays... dx9...

EDIT: I'd have no problem with '9900'... lot better than that cheese 'XT' by the way, wasn't Inq. who spread the same rumors about 8500-8500XT in early 2002...?

 

What about "LE" and "SE" then?

I'd prefer 9850 if the difference from R350 is as negligable as they say.

 

SO cheese...
But 'XT' would be The Cheesiest Cheese ever...

Actually who? Inq? C'mon... Xbit is almost the same rumour maker but they said R360 makes ~7000+ Marks...

BTW, I don't give a flying frog about Marks (I've uninstalled on the smae evening when they retreated their own earlier statement about NV) but still, I'm looking forward... R360... I hope it has +25% against my 9700 Pro, in HL2...

 

ATi, use letter naming? Never! Just brush the Radeon VE, 8500 LE and 9800 SE under the rug. The XT was actually a real (planned) product, for a while Gigabyte had a 300/300 8500XT listed on their site (the card in question), and there were another one or two announced by other companies.

 

It is the 9800XT - see Anand's last price guides. (can't be bothered posting a link, I'm sure you know where to find it though!)