G80 on Sept. 6 ?

[lightman]

Take a look here (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060828/nvidia_ahead_of_the_bell.html?.v=1) (emphasis added) :

Friedman, Billings Upgrades Nvidia Based on Improving Demand for Products

NEW YORK (AP) -- A Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. analyst upgraded the stock of Nvidia Corp. on Monday, saying a stabilizing personal computer market could boost demand for the the chip maker's products.

Analyst Chris Caso upgraded the company to "Outperform" from "Underperform," saying he expects the declining personal computer market to stabilize, which should help boost demand for Nvidia's products. In addition, the company could benefit from the launch of Microsoft Corp.'s new operating system, Vista, in early 2007.

Also, the Nvidia is launching a new high-end product on Sept. 6, wrote Caso.

The company has still not filed its complete second-quarter results due to an ongoing stock options investigation, noted Caso. The analyst predicts forecasts for Nvidia will improve after the company files its results.

Shares of Nvidia rose 33 cents to $26.81 in premarket trading on the INET exchange Monday.

[Bearclaw]

Wow. If it is coming September 6th, I'm getting one as soon as possible.

[lightman]

Ok, nm. I forgot about G73-B1 ... Though I wouldn't call it a "high-end product" ...

Blah.

[slaWter]

Ok, nm. I forgot about G73-B1 ... Though I wouldn't call it a "high-end product" ...

Blah.

Most likely:

SLI technology is supported on the GeForce 7900GS and 7950GT. Availability of GeForce 7100GS, 7900GS and 7950GT cards are expected in the first half of September for for less than $100, $199 and $299 respectively.

But I still have hopes for the G80^^

[nekrosoft13]

step-up program ;)

[PeterJensen]

I want it to be true :D

[Richteralan]

I would think it's 7950 series

[K007]

Gotta be the 7950GT..it will be a high end budget yet perfermance card..these in sli will probably end up to a 7950GX2 perfermance...would be good cards to compare sli 2x cards vs multi gpu 1x card just to see if there is a perfermanc eloss/gain or what advantages/disadvantages there will be on the two options..one clear advantage on the GT is the obvious heatsink can be replaced path while gx2 is so far..looks like leading only to water..which leaves people like me with a hot card..that might die out in summer.

[Xion X2]

Gotta be the 7950GT..it will be a high end budget yet perfermance card..these in sli will probably end up to a 7950GX2 perfermance

In terms of practicality, the 7950GT is a useless card. Two 7900GT's in SLi perform roughly the same as a single GX2.

Maybe it's a way of replacing the ailing 7900GTX series. Though the performance is lacking compared to the GTX, they can always hype the hell out of the 7950GT (look at how many are already buying into it) and claim it's another step forward. That would make perfect sense seeing as how they have a major clusterf*ck on their hands where the 7900GTX is concerned.

[Redeemed]

In terms of practicality, the 7950GT is a useless card. Two 7900GT's in SLi perform roughly the same as a single GX2.

Maybe it's a way of replacing the ailing 7900GTX series. Though the performance is lacking compared to the GTX, they can always hype the hell out of the 7950GT (look at how many are already buying into it) and claim it's another step forward. That would make perfect sense seeing as how they have a major clusterf*ck on their hands where the 7900GTX is concerned.

Actually, there are only 3 real differences from the 7950GT and the 7900GTX:

1.)Slower GPU clock (by 100MHz)

2.)Slower RAM (I believe by only 200Mhz, though I might be off there)

3.)Single slot cooling.

By getting a good aftermarket cooler, I'm quite confident one could easily reach the GPU and Memory speeds of the GTX without having any problems- mainly due to nVidia not using that plagued ram that has doomed the 7900GTX.

So, essentially, for about $350 you can have a 7900GTX. For about $700 to at worst $800 you can have the performance of 2x7900GTXs. How is that not reason to get hyped? BTW, those costs are including a $50 aftermarket cooler and estimating for shipping/tax aswell.

Yup, I'm all for the 7950GT myself. Hard to find a better performing card for that price. And no, the x1950XTX don't even come close.

[Xion X2]

By getting a good aftermarket cooler, I'm quite confident one could easily reach the GPU and Memory speeds of the GTX without having any problems- mainly due to nVidia not using that plagued ram that has doomed the 7900GTX.

You're ignoring the fact that you can overclock the GTX just as much. Take mine, for example. Stock core speed is 625/1500, but that's not where I have it set (720/1740). Even with an aftermarket cooler you won't be able to touch those speeds on a 7950GT, which means you're still underperforming compared to a GTX.

So, essentially, for about $350 you can have a 7900GTX.

Not analagous if you allow an overclock on the GTX, as well. Not a fair comparison.

For about $700 to at worst $800 you can have the performance of 2x7900GTXs.

Not analagous. Again, if you allow an overclock for the 7950GT's, then you may as well theorize why not just go with a 7950GX2 which is about 100$ cheaper than two 7950GT's in SLi? Why not? You'll get about the same performance since the GX2 overclocks like crazy. I've seen plenty of guys clock them up to 625/1600 with ease.

Yup, I'm all for the 7950GT myself. Hard to find a better performing card for that price. And no, the x1950XTX don't even come close.

I hope you mean price/performance ratio in regards to the 1950 because the 1950 would literally slaughter the 7950GT in performance. And the 1900XT, which can be had for around 300$ now, will also outperform the 7950GT.

Again I ask: What use is this card? The only thing it seems to accomplish is making the GTX less of a price-shocker in comparison to the 1900XT after ATi dropped the price on them due to the impending release of the 1950. Nvidia wants to keep lining their pockets from guys who still want a second GTX for SLi, so they're not going to drop the price on those to compete with the 1900XT.

In other words, this move is nothing but PR and benefits the enthusiast very little.

[anticitizenzero]

It is a pretty pointless card if you think about it. Now that there are 512 gts, whats the point.

[K007]

Faster default clocks..and probably more o/c than the standard 7900GT...the 7950 is a very good card from the paper look...but you still gotta keep g80/r600 in the back of your head..the price is still pretty sweet though...

The best you can do is..grab one of these..aftermarket cooler then o/c..then like get the 8900 series of the g80 or what eva later versions of the r600 series..or get the next gen gf9..r700..cause you dont wanna get the first g80 that comes out..hell even the first 7900 series was pretty crapped up

[Skinner]

I'm afraid it's just the 7950gt, a G80 would make my day, but given the absence of early rumors, this likely won't happen yet.

[CaptNKILL]

If it was really the G80... Mr. 7950: meet Mr. Ebay :lol:

[SH64]

That must be the 7950GT.

[nrdstrm]

<---- Runs off crying...("I WANT MY G80!!!) :(

[Redeemed]

You're ignoring the fact that you can overclock the GTX just as much. Take mine, for example. Stock core speed is 625/1500, but that's not where I have it set (720/1740). Even with an aftermarket cooler you won't be able to touch those speeds on a 7950GT, which means you're still underperforming compared to a GTX.


I don't consider the 7900GTX that great a card simply due to all the problems that have been had with that card. Granted, you seem to have a 7900GTX that works extremely well, as did Jakup and a few others on these forums. But more and more the consensus seems to be that the GTX was flawed- infact I recall reading some article about how the ram on the GTX did have problems. Hence all the GTXs that were overclocked, and even some of the stock GTXs, dying.

If I put down of $200 for my video card, it had better last me well over a year without showing any problems. I don't trust the GTX to be capable of doing this.


Not analagous if you allow an overclock on the GTX, as well. Not a fair comparison.


And who are you to say whether the 7950GT will not be able to oc as well as the GTX with proper cooling? Also, you are assuming that the GTX in question would survive more than 3 days without kicking the bucket. I have my doubts about such a successful oc.

You refer to your GTX. In all the other GTXs out there- how many do you think would survive and the speeds yours is at without frying? I bet a good portion, though not the majority, but a good portion none the less would pop after at most a week at those speeds.

Then again, maybe it is my bias against the GTX speaking here. ;)


I hope you mean price/performance ratio in regards to the 1950 because the 1950 would literally slaughter the 7950GT in performance. And the 1900XT, which can be had for around 300$ now, will also outperform the 7950GT.


If you were to run the 7950 at the exact same clock speeds as the GTX, then no the x1950 would not slaughter it.

The x1950 was a waste or resources and can barely out perform the GTX.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1950xtx_crossfire_performance/page3.asp

^^^ The 1950 was barely ahead of the GTX in most tests. Sorry, that isn't quite "slaughtering". And the 7950 should be close to the GTX in terms of performance, only a lot cheaper.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6538&page=5

^^^ Again, the 7900GTX and X1950 are so close in performance the difference would be neglegible. But, you seem to consider that a slaughter.

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

^^^Again, the average is the X1950 will offer less than a 10FPS lead over the GTX. Are you going to tell me a lead of less than 10FPS is slaughtering? I sure hope not.

And I'm referencing the GTX's performance cause I'm expecting the 7950GT to perform quite similar to the GTX- just without any "defects" this time. And I'm also quite confident that the 7950GT can easily match the stock speeds of the GTX, again without "defects". Afterall, there is no technical difference between the 7900GTX and the 7950GT other than clock and ram speed as well as manufacturer of the RAM used. Everything else under the hood remains identical to the GTX.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how the X1950 would "slaughter" the 7950GT- assuming that the 7950GT will perform comparably to the 7900GTX. I could continue to list reviews showing that the x1950 really isn't much faster than the GTX, and hence not much faster than the 7950GT (more than likely) if you'd like.

[Xion X2]

I don't consider the 7900GTX that great a card simply due to all the problems that have been had with that card. Granted, you seem to have a 7900GTX that works extremely well, as did Jakup and a few others on these forums. But more and more the consensus seems to be that the GTX was flawed- infact I recall reading some article about how the ram on the GTX did have problems. Hence all the GTXs that were overclocked, and even some of the stock GTXs, dying.

You're changing your argument. The argument was never about reliability but about raw performance, and the fact is that the 7950GT won't match the GTX in terms of raw performance.

I won't deny there have been problems with the GTX series; everyone knows this. Supposedly they've fixed this problem with a new batch of memory chips, but I won't comment on that further because neither one of us were ever arguing reliability aspects of the cards. You seem to want to bring this up out of the blue to put the GTX in a bad light compared to the 7950GT. For what reason, I have no idea. Maybe you're trying to convince yourself the 7950 is the better card because that's the one you want to buy. I won't guess on that further.

If I put down of $200 for my video card, it had better last me well over a year without showing any problems. I don't trust the GTX to be capable of doing this.

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a better performer than the 7950GT.

And who are you to say whether the 7950GT will not be able to oc as well as the GTX with proper cooling?

I never said that it couldn't overclock as well. I said that you won't get it to the kind of speeds that I'm running on my GTX with the overclock I have on it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were able to get an overclock of 100 on the core and 200 on the memory of the 7950GT, but if we're making a fair argument here, the GTX would still be out of its range if you allowed the GTX an overclock itself.

Again, you seem to want to pick and choose facts to suit your point of view. In this case, being that the 7950GT is the only overclock-able card. Baffling, to say the least.

Also, you are assuming that the GTX in question would survive more than 3 days without kicking the bucket. I have my doubts about such a successful oc.

Bleh. The argument was never about reliability. Mr. Straw-Man strikes again. :p

You refer to your GTX. In all the other GTXs out there- how many do you think would survive and the speeds yours is at without frying?

Right now? Probably quite a lot considering the memory chips have been swapped out on a lot of them.

Then again, maybe it is my bias against the GTX speaking here. ;)

Why would you be biased against the card?

If you were to run the 7950 at the exact same clock speeds as the GTX, then no the x1950 would not slaughter it.

Yes it would. When you take into account that the 1950 can be overclocked AS WELL, then yes it would. Why on earth you want to keep ignoring this obvious fact is beyond my understanding. The 7950GT is not the only graphics card on the market that you can actually overclock, you know.

On top of that, you should see better gains from overclocking the core on the 1950 than your average card because of the increased memory bandwidth. That's something else that you're not considering.

The x1950 was a waste or resources and can barely out perform the GTX.

You could just as easily rephrase that and say something along the lines of "The 7950GT was a waste of resources. It doesn't even perform up to GTX or 1900XT level."

Neither the 1950 nor the 7950GT were really needed at this point in time, although I see at least a performance increase out of the 1950 over its counterparts. It's mostly nothing but PR moves on both companies' parts.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

And allow me to refresh yours. The 1950 at stock clocks will beat a GTX or 7950GT hands down any day of the week. You cannot deny that. I haven't seen a single benchmark since the card came out that shows it being taken down by a GTX in any benchmark, and we already should've settled by now the fact that the GTX will be faster than the 7950GT if you allow it an overclock. There may not be a HUGE difference in performance in some of the tests between the 1950 and the rest of the competition, but there is a significant performance gap there in some cases, and I'll reiterate this basic fact to you again later on in this post.

If you want to argue price/performance, well, that's something different entirely. The difference in price between the 1950 and 7950GT scales about right considering the performance gap between the two cards.

^^^ The 1950 was barely ahead of the GTX in most tests. Sorry, that isn't quite "slaughtering".

Will you please, for the love of god, stop with the straw man arguments! I never argued that the 1950 would slaughter the GTX! Never! Not once! I argued that it would slaughter the 7950GT. If you want to argue against that, then you're going to have to show me that the 7950GT is close in performance to the 1950XT. For gods sake, it can't even keep up with a GTX, and there is a difference of anywhere from 4-12 FPS in every benchmark between the GTX and 1950!

Since there is an observable performance gap between the GTX and 1950XT, then how in the wide world of video graphics do you come up with the 1950 not being a significant performance jump from a 7950GT???

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6538&page=5

^^^ Again, the 7900GTX and X1950 are so close in performance the difference would be neglegible. But, you seem to consider that a slaughter.

Let's take a look at your definition of "negligible," and let's look at a resolution that people actually play games at. Less than 1% of the population plays games at 2560 resolution.

This info is from the hexus benchmarks that you just linked to.

(1900x1200):

Half Life 2 Episode One:

7900GTX: 51.23
1950XT: 60.18

Performance gap: 15 %


Oblivion:

7900GTX: 20.38
1950XT: 32.27

Performance gap: 37 %


I didn't list Quake, because that runs good on everything. It ran perfect on my 850XT, so of course it should run great on these new cards.

But--common, dude! How in the world can you say 37% is "neglible?" Hell, 15 % isn't even neglible! That's a significant performance gap.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how the X1950 would "slaughter" the 7950GT- assuming that the 7950GT will perform comparably to the 7900GTX.

Then you need an eye doctor, pronto.

[superklye]

Are there specs for the 7950GT anywhere?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found some stuff around on Google... 550MHz/1400MHz (core/memory).

I saw the 50 part of the name and assumed it was going to be a slower version of the 7950GX2 in that it was going to be two cards in one.

That's somewhat confusing in the naming scheme. :-\ :o

[Despotes]

I must add--Where's the G80? Who cares about the 7950GT:thumbdwn: :p

[Redeemed]

You're changing your argument. The argument was never about reliability but about raw performance, and the fact is that the 7950GT won't match the GTX in terms of raw performance.

I won't deny there have been problems with the GTX series; everyone knows this. Supposedly they've fixed this problem with a new batch of memory chips, but I won't comment on that further because neither one of us were ever arguing reliability aspects of the cards. You seem to want to bring this up out of the blue to put the GTX in a bad light compared to the 7950GT. For what reason, I have no idea. Maybe you're trying to convince yourself the 7950 is the better card because that's the one you want to buy. I won't guess on that further.



That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a better performer than the 7950GT.



I never said that it couldn't overclock as well. I said that you won't get it to the kind of speeds that I'm running on my GTX with the overclock I have on it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were able to get an overclock of 100 on the core and 200 on the memory of the 7950GT, but if we're making a fair argument here, the GTX would still be out of its range if you allowed the GTX an overclock itself.

Again, you seem to want to pick and choose facts to suit your point of view. In this case, being that the 7950GT is the only overclock-able card. Baffling, to say the least.



Bleh. The argument was never about reliability. Mr. Straw-Man strikes again. :p



Right now? Probably quite a lot considering the memory chips have been swapped out on a lot of them.



Why would you be biased against the card?



Yes it would. When you take into account that the 1950 can be overclocked AS WELL, then yes it would. Why on earth you want to keep ignoring this obvious fact is beyond my understanding. The 7950GT is not the only graphics card on the market that you can actually overclock, you know.

On top of that, you should see better gains from overclocking the core on the 1950 than your average card because of the increased memory bandwidth. That's something else that you're not considering.



You could just as easily rephrase that and say something along the lines of "The 7950GT was a waste of resources. It doesn't even perform up to GTX or 1900XT level."

Neither the 1950 nor the 7950GT were really needed at this point in time, although I see at least a performance increase out of the 1950 over its counterparts. It's mostly nothing but PR moves on both companies' parts.



And allow me to refresh yours. The 1950 at stock clocks will beat a GTX or 7950GT hands down any day of the week. You cannot deny that. I haven't seen a single benchmark since the card came out that shows it being taken down by a GTX in any benchmark, and we already should've settled by now the fact that the GTX will be faster than the 7950GT if you allow it an overclock. There may not be a HUGE difference in performance in some of the tests between the 1950 and the rest of the competition, but there is a significant performance gap there in some cases, and I'll reiterate this basic fact to you again later on in this post.

If you want to argue price/performance, well, that's something different entirely. The difference in price between the 1950 and 7950GT scales about right considering the performance gap between the two cards.



Will you please, for the love of god, stop with the straw man arguments! I never argued that the 1950 would slaughter the GTX! Never! Not once! I argued that it would slaughter the 7950GT. If you want to argue against that, then you're going to have to show me that the 7950GT is close in performance to the 1950XT. For gods sake, it can't even keep up with a GTX, and there is a difference of anywhere from 4-12 FPS in every benchmark between the GTX and 1950!

Since there is an observable performance gap between the GTX and 1950XT, then how in the wide world of video graphics do you come up with the 1950 not being a significant performance jump from a 7950GT???



Let's take a look at your definition of "negligible," and let's look at a resolution that people actually play games at. Less than 1% of the population plays games at 2560 resolution.

This info is from the hexus benchmarks that you just linked to.

(1900x1200):

Half Life 2 Episode One:

7900GTX: 51.23
1950XT: 60.18

Performance gap: 15 %


Oblivion:

7900GTX: 20.38
1950XT: 32.27

Performance gap: 37 %


I didn't list Quake, because that runs good on everything. It ran perfect on my 850XT, so of course it should run great on these new cards.

But--common, dude! How in the world can you say 37% is "neglible?" Hell, 15 % isn't even neglible! That's a significant performance gap.



Then you need an eye doctor, pronto.

Dude, I think you are misunderstanding where I'm coming from.

First of all- tell me, from the given facts about the 7950, how the 7900GTX will be so much faster than the 7950GT?

This is how I see it:

At stock speeds the 7900GTX will definitely be faster than the 7950GT. No doubts. But, I do believe the performance gap will be small. Relate it to the difference between the 6800GT and the 6800Ultra if you will. The 6800GT is, essentially, a 6800Ultra only with slower clocks. If you were to up the GPU/Mem speeds on the 6800GT to Ultra speeds- you would technicaly have a 6800Ultra. Now, why would this be important?

First off, look at how much cheaper the 6800GT was than the 6800Ultra. If I recall it came out at about $150 to $200 less expensive than the 6800Ultra. Again, why is this a big deal? Value. You pay approximately $150 less but in the end still get the best performing card (for this example, that would be the 6800 Ultra).

Okay, now, taking that exact same example- let's bring it up to current times.

We now have the 7900GTX, and the 7900GT. The 7900GTX is actually quite a bit faster than the 7900GT. As such, you cannot make the statement (price/performance wise) "The 7900GT is to the 7900GTX as the 6800GT was to the 6800Ultra"- that wouldn't be accurate.

The gap between the 7900GTX and the 7900GT leaves room for a "filler". Hence, the 7950GT.

***Before I continue I should also note that I'm of the opinion that both the X1950 and the 7950GT were a waste of resources. Why nVidia and ATi felt compelled to release these cards is beyond me.***

Now, when the 7950GT comes out you should be able to pick it up for about $300- tax and shipping not included obviously. The awesome feature about this card is that it will be able to match the stock performance of the GTX. The value here??? The ability to purchase a 7900GTX for only $300.

If I offered you a perfectly fine 7900GTX for $300 would you complain about that price any? Well, I would hope not.

The X1950, last I checked, is going for about $400. That will put the 7950GT about $100 less than the X1950. While at the same time, with a bit of an oc, yeilding nearly identical frames as the x1950 and the 7900GTX.

Hence, the 7950GT is the far better "value" (referring to price/performance) than either the 7900GTX or the X1950.

Now you also mention how both the 7900GTX and the X1950 can oc aswell. Sure, but is that little bit of performance gained worth the $100 more? That depends on the individual- and to me no, I can think of a better use of my $100.

As for the 7900GTX, that extra performance would cost you about a couple hundred dollars more. Now, is all that money worth the little performance gained by oc'ing the 7900GTX to its limit? To you it might be, that is cool. To me, it is not. Again, my couple hundred dollars saved could be better spent on something else.

Also, I will confess that I'm looking into purchasing a couple of 7950GTs- providing they do perform as I'm expecting them to and they don't cost much more than $300 pre-shipping and tax.

Yes, even if the 7950GT can successfully hit 7900GTX speeds, your extremely oc'd 7900GTX would still outperform the 7950GT. But look how much more $$$ you were out to get what, at best 1k more 3Dmark points and at best maybe 15 fps more in some game? To me, 15-20fps gain is not worth about $300 more than what I'd be already spending per-card.

I really do hope that I cleared things up. I re-read through this post just to make sure I was getting my point of view across accurately. I do apologize for any misunderstanding in regards to my previous posts. ;)

Also, excuse my "noob-ness", but what the heck are you referring to in regards to "straw-man" comments? Not sure I get that, or do I want to get it? ;)

[Redeemed]

I must add--Where's the G80? Who cares about the 7950GT:thumbdwn: :p

Considering that you have the GX2 already, I can understand how this new card would appear insignificant.

But, to me, I only running dual 7600GTs. Going to two 7950GTs, then oc'ing each to the speeds of a stock 7900GTX, would be quite a performance jump. ;)

All costing just a bit more than a 7950GX2, while performing slightly better. :D

[Despotes]

I don't want a G80 to replace my 7950GX2. I want 2 G80's to replace my 7950GX2 :D
Quad 7950GX2's aren't that impressive.:thumbdwn:

[Xion X2]

Now, when the 7950GT comes out you should be able to pick it up for about $300- tax and shipping not included obviously. The awesome feature about this card is that it will be able to match the stock performance of the GTX. The value here??? The ability to purchase a 7900GTX for only $300.

If I offered you a perfectly fine 7900GTX for $300 would you complain about that price any? Well, I would hope not.

First off, yes I would complain. Because the 7900GTX you're postulating would've already hit the roof on its overclock (which, in this case is no overclock at all). You're not buying a 7900GTX. If you were, then you wouldn't have to overclock both the core and memory by 15-20% of its total speed to get it there. You're taking a gamble already by saying you can overclock the 7950GT to GTX speeds. There is no guarantee that you'll be able to do that. The GX2 is already a perfect example of a supposed 'clocked-down' G71 core that can't come close to the kind of total speeds you can have on an overclocked GTX like mine.

Secondly, it also makes no sense to say you're getting a GTX for 300$ in your example. How so? If you were buying a card that could overclock to the speeds a stock GTX can overclock to, well, now you're making sense. But it makes no sense to compare it to a GTX because you're ignoring the fact that you can overclock a GTX, and thus, push it well above the overclock you have on the 7950GT!

Are you following me here? Can you tell me how you make sense out of this comparison of yours where you allow an overclock on one card and not the other? Do you have some kind of technical knowledge on the issue that none of us have that proves that the 7900GTX CANNOT BE overclocked!?

The X1950, last I checked, is going for about $400. That will put the 7950GT about $100 less than the X1950. While at the same time, with a bit of an oc, yeilding nearly identical frames as the x1950 and the 7900GTX.

Again: WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE FACT THAT YOU CAN OVERCLOCK A 1950 or 7900GTX JUST AS EASILY AND, THEREFORE, INCREASE THE PERFORMANCE GAP BETWEEN THE CARDS ONCE AGAIN?

WHY??

You are not getting a card close to the performance of a 1950 or GTX, unless you DO NOT ALLOW AN OVERCLOCK ON THE 1950 OR GTX!

And--why would you make such a dumb comparison? It doesn't make a bit of sense to allow for an overclock on one card and not another.

Hence, the 7950GT is the far better "value" (referring to price/performance) than either the 7900GTX or the X1950.

Only if you buy a GTX or 1950 that won't overclock whatsoever. If you do buy one that overclocks--like 99% of them do--then no, your comparison isn't analagous in the slightest. Very, very poor analogy.

Now you also mention how both the 7900GTX and the X1950 can oc aswell. Sure, but is that little bit of performance gained worth the $100 more? That depends on the individual- and to me no, I can think of a better use of my $100.

Then go buy the 7950GT! But don't argue and claim that it's in the same ballpark in performance as a 1950XT or GTX, because it's not. It's a tier below both cards.

In my opinion, the extra performance of the 1950 compared to what the 7950GT will probably be is well worth the extra cash. You're talking probably a 25% overall performance increase in games. That's very significant.

As for the 7900GTX, that extra performance would cost you about a couple hundred dollars more. Now, is all that money worth the little performance gained by oc'ing the 7900GTX to its limit? To you it might be, that is cool. To me, it is not. Again, my couple hundred dollars saved could be better spent on something else.

Then go buy the 7950GT, but don't make the claim that it's comparable to the GTX or 1950XT in performance, because it isn't.

Also, I will confess that I'm looking into purchasing a couple of 7950GTs- providing they do perform as I'm expecting them to and they don't cost much more than $300 pre-shipping and tax.

Now you're really not making any sense. Why ON EARTH would you go that route instead of just buying the GX2, which is 100$ cheaper? You're getting roughly the same performance out of the setup you're talking about at about 100$ more. Isn't that what you were railing on the GTX about in comparison to the 7950GT???

Yes, even if the 7950GT can successfully hit 7900GTX speeds, your extremely oc'd 7900GTX would still outperform the 7950GT. But look how much more $$$ you were out to get what, at best 1k more 3Dmark points and at best maybe 15 fps more in some game? To me, 15-20fps gain is not worth about $300 more than what I'd be already spending per-card.

300$ more than the 7950GT? What are you smoking? You can pick up a GTX for around 420$ now.

And, I'm still baffled at your examples and analogies. Do you not think 15-20 frames/second is significant enough to warrant a little more cash? Say 100-120$? Your expectations in performance/price are about as different as it gets. I've never seen another individual with your mindset.

what the heck are you referring to in regards to "straw-man" comments? Not sure I get that, or do I want to get it? ;)

A straw-man is creating an argument for the person you are debating with that they never made, and then arguing against that position. It's a convenient way to change direction in a discussion without having to back up any of your original assertions.