PDA

View Full Version : 7800GTX already sub-$500


Pages : [1] 2 3

BrianG
07-27-05, 05:42 PM
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=323635

Leadtek 7800GTX with a copy of Splinter Cell for $495 with free Fed-Ex two day shipping. Hard launch is teh b0mb.

keith33
07-27-05, 05:56 PM
So much for us that spent like $619 launch week :(

David_L6
07-27-05, 05:58 PM
So much for us that spent like $619 launch week :(

I bought a BFG 7800GTX OC from ZipZoomFly the day the cards were released for $599 including shipping. It's now $549. Oh well..... I'd do it again. I didn't have a video card at all at that time for the computer I was putting together then.

Something that is interesting to me is how little the price has dropped on the 6800 series cards. The BFG 6800GT OC is $419.99 from ZipZoomFly. There's no way that I'd pay that much for a 6800GT when I could get the much better 7800GTX for $129.01 more.

Riptide
07-27-05, 05:58 PM
Yeah but you had to expect that. They obviously had good stock since it was available at launch, therefore you can assume prices were likely to fall quickly. Unlike last year w/X800XTPE where stock levels never really did come up for a long time and therefore the price stayed up there.

BrianG
07-27-05, 06:33 PM
So much for us that spent like $619 launch week :(
Have you gotten $120 worth of gaming out of it? In that amount of time, probably. I have been willing to sacrifice my gaming enjoyment for the money, you weren't. Be happy with your decision!!!

keith33
07-27-05, 06:54 PM
Very good point, me and this little puppy conquered many outposts and ran over many people with tanks during the nearly 4 weeks I've had it. Too bad BF2 couldn't be optimized for 1GB systems (that extra on the video card put me in the red for computer budget and I couldn't afford to get more ram), I get 30 seconds of pure stuttering at the beginning of each map.

ricercar
07-27-05, 08:24 PM
So much for us that spent like $619 launch week :(
Opportunity costs, my man. Currently you paid $100/month, but that will amortize lower over time.

I paid $400 for a FX 5800 Ultra the day they were released. Then they dropped to 200, and now Pricewatch says you can buy them now for $149 (http://www.logicalplus.com/bfgasgefx58u.html). So the opportunity cost has dropped to under $150/year.

GeForce X
07-27-05, 08:28 PM
Nice deal! Now if I only had the money.....I still think holding off for the G80 is the smarter thing to do. But I'm such a sucker for new cards...

jAkUp
07-27-05, 08:31 PM
Nice deal! Now if I only had the money.....I still think holding off for the G80 is the smarter thing to do. But I'm such a sucker for new cards...

Me too :D *Points to sig*

7800GTX $499
7800GT $449
6800GT $299
6800NU $199

bigjohns97
07-27-05, 10:07 PM
If they release something else in the next month with more pipes i am going to scream.

Aphot
07-28-05, 12:18 AM
Its $699 up here in canada.

Banko
07-28-05, 12:20 AM
Its $699 up here in canada.
Yes but that is in Canadian Dollars so that really is $599 US. (Which is what I payed for mine)

GeForce X
07-28-05, 12:22 AM
Me too :D *Points to sig*

7800GTX $499
7800GT $449
6800GT $299
6800NU $199

But sli is nice! One of these is :rolleyes:

I just hate seeing a new card faltering behind.

F.e.a.r eats a single 7800gtx, sli is a different story...just makes me "fear" that one "high-end" card isnt gonna cut it anymore. No way I can afford two every cycle to get 1600x1200 4xaa/16xaf. :thumbdwn:

5150 Joker
07-28-05, 01:14 AM
But sli is nice! One of these is :rolleyes:

I just hate seeing a new card faltering behind.

F.e.a.r eats a single 7800gtx, sli is a different story...just makes me "fear" that one "high-end" card isnt gonna cut it anymore. No way I can afford two every cycle to get 1600x1200 4xaa/16xaf. :thumbdwn:

Fear is just highly unoptimized.

ChrisRay
07-28-05, 01:35 AM
Fear is just highly unoptimized.


That or developers simply dont design games with people playing @ 1600x1200 with 4xAA/16xAF in mind. I havent played fear but I figure the more powerful hardware becomes. The quicker devs will bring them to their knees.

5150 Joker
07-28-05, 02:14 AM
That or developers simply dont design games with people playing @ 1600x1200 with 4xAA/16xAF in mind. I havent played fear but I figure the more powerful hardware becomes. The quicker devs will bring them to their knees.

Well in the case of FEAR it's abysmal with a 7800 GTX even at 1280x1024. If it had UE3 style graphics I'd understand but it isnt anywhere close to that.

Aphot
07-28-05, 02:50 AM
Yes but that is in Canadian Dollars so that really is $599 US. (Which is what I payed for mine)

573 actually :P. But then you have your tax which is 7% here and 15% in other provinces.

ChrisRay
07-28-05, 05:39 AM
Well in the case of FEAR it's abysmal with a 7800 GTX even at 1280x1024. If it had UE3 style graphics I'd understand but it isnt anywhere close to that.


I simply dont buy into the theory that everytime a game doesnt perform optimally to our expectations to mean its bad programming.

ozziegn
07-28-05, 11:37 AM
I simply dont buy into the theory that everytime a game doesnt perform optimally to our expectations to mean its bad programming.

I dont know about that.

just take a look at BF2 with all of these texture optimization problems that they're having on systems with 1GB of RAM.

I mean come on, 1GB of RAM should be more than enough memory to run any freakin' game.

OWA
07-28-05, 12:00 PM
Well in the case of FEAR it's abysmal with a 7800 GTX even at 1280x1024. If it had UE3 style graphics I'd understand but it isnt anywhere close to that.
Runs well with SLI even at 16x12. After running the performance test with everything maxed, it still recommends to increase the game settings to a higher level. Not sure how representative the performance test is of actual gameplay though.

Banko
07-28-05, 01:00 PM
Well in the case of FEAR it's abysmal with a 7800 GTX even at 1280x1024. If it had UE3 style graphics I'd understand but it isnt anywhere close to that.
What are you talking about? With my 6800GT I played at 1280x960 (The MP Beta) all I had to do was just disable soft shadows, and it was smooth as silk.

subbo
07-28-05, 05:55 PM
I dont know about that.

just take a look at BF2 with all of these texture optimization problems that they're having on systems with 1GB of RAM.

I mean come on, 1GB of RAM should be more than enough memory to run any freakin' game.

Funny how BF42 needed more than 512MB (768-1GB) to run without swapping and the same lamenting was plentiful around the net. Now three years later (about the time when PC hardware doubles its performance) BF2 doubles the requirement and its the same song again.

The X360 is coming this fall with 512MB of RAM. That's a console. A few months ago the greatest console (xbox) had 64MB of ram and your PC had 1GB of ram. The consoles just went up times EIGHT with the ram, and in a few years we can expect the PC to have 8GB of ram.

In fact, I can see 4GB (the limit for 32bit) not more than two or three years ahead for enthusiasts. In six or seven years (when the PS3 and the X360 will be replaced with the new generation) 8GB of RAM on a PC will not be special at all.

Soon 512MB for your GPU will be as mundane as 256MB is today and 128MB was three years ago.

You can bitch all you want but I had 1GB three years ago and thats a long time in PC gaming, should we just stop at 1GB because its some magic number?

5150 Joker
07-28-05, 09:22 PM
What are you talking about? With my 6800GT I played at 1280x960 (The MP Beta) all I had to do was just disable soft shadows, and it was smooth as silk.

Go look at some benchmarks of the game to see what I'm talking about.

Runs well with SLI even at 16x12. After running the performance test with everything maxed, it still recommends to increase the game settings to a higher level. Not sure how representative the performance test is of actual gameplay though.

Just look at what you're saying. SLI to run a game at 1600x1200? Come on now, if it struggles at 1280x1024 with a single GTX and needs SLI to run with high details AND doesn't have very good graphics (relative to more advanced engines) then it needs better coding.

I simply dont buy into the theory that everytime a game doesnt perform optimally to our expectations to mean its bad programming.

Well like Ozziegn mentioned, BF2 is a good example of poor coding. Chronicles of Riddick was also a laggy mess and this game seems to be following that trend - heavy resource use without much optimization. PC game developers are getting lazy and there are only a handful out there that put out engines that scale well on most hardware. Just look at Doom 3, Far Cry and HL2, all of them run on engines that look great and scale really well.



You can bitch all you want but I had 1GB three years ago and thats a long time in PC gaming, should we just stop at 1GB because its some magic number?

Given that the game doesn't have high resolution textures and the maps don't scale much higher than say Far Cry, it reallly should not be using more than 1 GB of ram for high quality settings. However, ram arguments aside, its the rendering engine itself that sucks. The way the engine calculates LOD is a joke since some of the time you can literally see the terrain "popping" as you move, the min fps dips as low as 30 on a 7800 GTX clocked at 500/1350 during situations where there isn't even much going on. The physics is a huge joke as is evident by the way a tank cannot even climb a 30 degree incline without stalling. I can go on and on about why developers like DICE suck but I'll stop here since it should be obvious that PC devs are getting lazier as time passes.

Eltigre88
07-28-05, 09:30 PM
So much for us that spent like $619 launch week :(
Ya but you got the better product!!

Pandora's Box
07-29-05, 02:04 AM
lol @ limit per customer. 20 per customer. guess there isnt a supply problem lol.