Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Rumor Mill

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-07-02, 01:35 PM   #13
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Talking

DUFF BEER

Duff Man owns you all
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 01:44 PM   #14
DadGT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 73
Default

Duff sucks. Drink Fudd!
DadGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 01:56 PM   #15
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Well, since this is the Rumor Mill...

I think a new beer is coming soon! It'll, like, own every other beer. Biggest revolution ever!


Uttar
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 02:08 PM   #16
gravioli
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cosmopolis, WA
Posts: 276
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sgt. Slaughter
If you're in the Northwest, nothing beats Black Butte Porter. My all time fav beer
It's not bad if you have it with food, but I still prefer Pyrimid Apricot Ale. Heck, have a six pack, and you have all the servings of fruit you need for the day .

Anyway, I agree with Matthyahew; length of development cycles is useless IMO.
__________________
Windows 7 Ultimate|Intel i7 2700K|Gigabyte Z68XP-3DP|16GB GeIL Enhance CORSA|EVGA Geforce GTX 560Ti|OCZ Vertex2 120GB
gravioli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 06:22 PM   #17
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
it could be very disappointing for you ,if you buy every time Nvidia release a minor refresh ,or any single modification .
that's not the point. for example the gf3ti500 was a complete joke as far as anything is concerned. the RAM had the same spec as that used with the original gf3, only it was clocked higher. theoretically, all gf3 should be able to clock the memory as high as the gf3ti500 with no problems at all. i would have a little more respect if nvidia had introduced the ti500 at say $350, but asking $400 for an overclocked gf3?

you're telling me that nvidia couldn't find slightly better ram and then in turn clock the core higher too? i think i can safely say that almost every gf3 could clock as high as or close to a gf3ti500 without any extra cooling. i really don't think the same can be said for any other nvidia product. ie, no TNT could be clocked to TNT2Ultra levels normally, no gf2 could be clocked to gf2ultra etc.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 10:10 PM   #18
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

Actually the geforce3 ti500 and ti200 are the best card nvidia has ever released. From a financial point of view.

nVidia had the geforce4 waiting in the wings in case the radeon8500 was a geforce3 killer. We know how that story came out.

nvidia made a good choice, why would they release a new chip when they can just speed up the old one? Nvidia had the chance to sell its geforce3 ti500 chips at a higher price and they knew yields were good enough. Why risk shifting to a new core with lower yields and higher cost?

I think its funny that people complain about new cards coming out every 6 months or so and people complaining that developemente cycle is too long.

You can't please everyone
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 10:23 PM   #19
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i understand fully that the Ti series was a good move for nvidia. i am also not disputing the merits of the Ti series. however, i still feel that the ti500 was a rip off for consumers, especially when the R8500 was priced much, much lower.

are you actually disputing whether or not nvidia could have produced a faster clocked gf3 than the ti500? something more along the lines of the gains seen from gf2gts->gf2ultra or even gf2pro would have been a decent "refresh." the gf2ultra was functionally exactly the same as the gf2gts after all if i'm not mistaken. in 6 months all they could come up with is something i could overclock to with no additional cooling?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 11:34 PM   #20
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

with the ti500 the nv20 was already maxxed out, overclocking the core requires a very good cooling. As for the memory it was the fastest available at the time and if you remember the first cards could hardly overclock memory a but only a few mhz.

But then again why would nvidia invest in developing a new nv20 core stepping with the nv25 already finished.

Also you forget that the radeon8500 and the ti500 cost very much the same when they fist came out. When ATI couldn't deliver full performance they were forced to lower the radeons price, nvidia had no need to do so, they had the fastest card.

One more thing. When the geforce3 ti200/ti500 came out, the original geforce3 was phased out.

Quote:
in 6 months all they could come up with is something i could overclock to with no additional cooling?
They had the geforce 4 done already. You should thank ATI for not having the geforce4 released earlier.
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-02, 12:04 AM   #21
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cotita
Also you forget that the radeon8500 and the ti500 cost very much the same when they fist came out.
Really? I seem to remember the two performing very close with about a $100 price difference from the very beginning (the day the 8500 was available).
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 12:54 AM   #22
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

Retail prices were 299 and 349 for the radeon and ti500 respectively. a $50.00 diff. well worth the extra performance and driver stability IMO.
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 05:04 AM   #23
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cotita
with the ti500 the nv20 was already maxxed out, overclocking the core requires a very good cooling. As for the memory it was the fastest available at the time and if you remember the first cards could hardly overclock memory a but only a few mhz.
wrong. i believe that the memory on both cards was speced the same. in essence, the gf3 had "underclocked" memory since the memory used on both the gf3 and gf3ti500 had the same rating of 3.8ns. i don't know if the core was really "maxxed" out as you say, it was 20% higher than the original gf3's. however, the memory was not clocked 20% higher, so it would make little sense to clock the core higher when little to no performance difference would be realized. the only other purpose would be marketing, like the gf2gts which had a woefully inadequate memory clock compared to core clock(but that was done to inflate the texel fillrate and make the gf2 seem like a big deal compared to the competition)

Quote:
One more thing. When the geforce3 ti200/ti500 came out, the original geforce3 was phased out.
hence why i said the ti series was not bad as a whole. besides the fact that the gf3ti200 had great performance with a great price.

Quote:
They had the geforce 4 done already. You should thank ATI for not having the geforce4 released earlier.
i've heard this before, but do you actually have any hard proof of it? or speculation done by a reputable website. before i go on repeating such things with certainty, i'd like to know where the information came from

Quote:
Retail prices were 299 and 349 for the radeon and ti500 respectively. a $50.00 diff. well worth the extra performance and driver stability IMO.
hmm, it seems you are right about the ti500 having an MSRP of $350. that's weird. i always thought it was $400. in that case it looks a little better in my eyes
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 12:14 PM   #24
sbp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MD
Posts: 366
Default

Its puzzling this view that coming out with a product that costs less and run faster than its predecessor is a bad thing.

"theoretically, all gf3 should be able to clock the memory as high as the gf3ti500 with no problems at all." Theoretically was one thing, the reality was another.

Don't forget about better yields playing a part folks.

{goes drinks a Guinness}
sbp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ad Retargeter Criteo: People Who Click On Ads Totally Aren't Losers News Archived News Items 0 07-08-12 06:50 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.