Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > Other Desktop Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-17-02, 09:59 PM   #133
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

FF7 is a classic game. it was probably one of the best Final Fantasy games on the Playstation.

jbirney,

all cards can be found less than MSRP online, what is your point?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 09:11 AM   #134
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
jbirney,

all cards can be found less than MSRP online, what is your point?
There were two of them.

1st - Comaparing the cost of the GF4 Ti4600 to the GF3 Ti500 and there their performance against one another yeilds a different ratio when you compare the cost and performance of the 8500 vrs the 9700.

The GF4 Ti4600 and the GF3 Ti500 both had an itital MSRP around $349.99 - $399.99. I thought the GF3 ti500 was 350 and the GF4 ti4600 was 400. Now when you compare the perfromace of the two the GF4 Ti4600 was faster, but it did not double the framerate of the GF3 ti500.

In Q3 max detail GF3 ti500 got 130ish the GF4 4600 got 170ish
SS:SE only 20 fps seperates the two
RtCW only 30 fps separates the two
Now turn up the AA/AF and this distance grows

But the point is the GF3 Ti500 to a GF4 ti4600 was not a HUGE leap forward. The GF4 added DX8.1 (ps 1.3) and other forms of AA (x4s) but technolgy wise it was not a huge leap forward. Not saying it was a bad card at all. Just trying to establish for the price it did not buy you much.


Now lets look at the 8500 vrs 9700. Here you have $100 diff in MSRP at launch. But the peformance?

Q3 there is a 130 fps difference in the two at max everything.
SS:SE there is a 40 fps differnce in the two
(could not find any RtCW becnchies between the two). Now turn on AA and you have perforce that is x4 times or more greater than the 8500. Then look at the features set and you can clearly see that the R9700 has a lot more to offer than the 8500.


So my point was the upgrade from GF3 to GF4 was minor in features and relative perfromance increase. Where as the 8500/9700 is a bigger feature increase as well as a MAJOR perfromance increase. Thus the MSRP at 400 is a bit easier to take knowing it buys you more if you have a 8500.


2nd point was that a lot of people that have bought a R9700 have bought it on-line at a lower cost. I know this appies for all products.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 01:47 PM   #135
borntosoul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 470
Default

"So my point was the upgrade from GF3 to GF4 was minor in features and relative perfromance increase. Where as the 8500/9700 is a bigger feature increase as well as a MAJOR perfromance increase. Thus the MSRP at 400 is a bit easier to take knowing it buys you more if you have a 8500."

i couldnt agree more ,if having to pay about 20% more to get 30%-300% increase that makes sence ,i dont think any other card has done this before so i give credit to ati ,and all those people complaining that features that come with their (top of the range) brand new video card dont get used is because they upgrade faster than the actual software can make use of thier card ,i plan on buying an nv30 and keeping it for quiet a while ,yes i'd pay the extra cash to get an nv30 over a price ti4600 if its going to get me that sort of increase in performance(20%-300%), with extra features thrown in, that 'll be fine but i think they might be a few product cycles away from providing the cinematic gaming experience they are raving on about,but at least ati and nvidia made the egg now we waiting for it to hatch
borntosoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 07:24 PM   #136
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
[b]Well the issue here is performance. The 9700 more than doubles, tripples, x4 the perfromance of ATIs last card, the 8500 in some settings. The GF4 did not provide for as great of a leap over the GF3 Ti 500. Yes in some cases it as much faster than the older GF3 cards but not by the same margins we are seeing here. Then factor in MSRP != the price you can get it for on-line. The place I bought mine has dropped them to $322 including shipping....
To provide a more meaningful performance delta, consider this.

In some settings and some benchmarks, the GeForce4 Ti 4600 more than doubled the performance of the Radeon 8500 at launch.

One example:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=13

Look at the 4x scores (both on this page and the next...even with AF, the 4600 more than doubles the 8500's AA performance).

In other words, for those that moved from a Radeon 8500 to a GeForce4 Ti 4600, the Radeon 9700 should provide a similar boost in performance.

After all, the Radeon 9700 is a new architecture. To attempt to compare its performance jump over the 8500 to that of the GeForce3 to the GeForce4 is ludicrous.

The closest thing we have to this change in nVidia's history was the release of the original GeForce DDR (which provided more than double the performance without aniso/FSAA, and introduced those two visual quality features with later driver releases).
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 09:31 PM   #137
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
To provide a more meaningful performance delta, consider this.

In some settings and some benchmarks, the GeForce4 Ti 4600 more than doubled the performance of the Radeon 8500 at launch.
Good point but not what I was after. Here the issue is how one-side compliants about the other side being too costly but the irony is that both sides charge the same for their top end cards. Thus I wanted to keep it with one company for now. Just to make things easier.


Quote:
Look at the 4x scores (both on this page and the next...even with AF, the 4600 more than doubles the 8500's AA performance).
Come on you know that its not the same to compare SSAA + hacked AF to MSAA + Full Ansio. Yet another reason why I keep the cards in the same family. This way you have a closer apples to apples comparison. Yes I know that the 8500 does not have the same IQ that the 9700. But the have more in comon then say a 8500 vrs any gf card.....


Quote:
In other words, for those that moved from a Radeon 8500 to a GeForce4 Ti 4600, the Radeon 9700 should provide a similar boost in performance.
Uhmmmm yea but I was talking going from on flag ship card to the next gen of that flag ship card in the same company. I was trying to say the move from a 8500 to 9700 was a better price/perf vrs a gf3/4 move.

Quote:
After all, the Radeon 9700 is a new architecture. To attempt to compare its performance jump over the 8500 to that of the GeForce3 to the GeForce4 is ludicrous.
Well thats all we have. ATI did not release an 8500 T,i +, Pro, ultra or what ever we want to call it. The 8500 was ATIs flag ship card since its launch until the 9700 came out. The LE was a cheaper and slower part with more mem. I was comparing the the highest end card from ATI vrs NV. Not my fault nV decided to go with GF4 as their high end card...

Besides you can take my argument and probably say the same thing about going from a gf4 ti4600 to the NV30. You will probably have a better price/perf ratio that the GF3 to GF4 serries.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 10:01 PM   #138
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Come on you know that its not the same to compare SSAA + hacked AF to MSAA + Full Ansio. Yet another reason why I keep the cards in the same family. This way you have a closer apples to apples comparison. Yes I know that the 8500 does not have the same IQ that the 9700. But the have more in comon then say a 8500 vrs any gf card.....
Now that's far from the truth. Comparing the Radeon 8500 and the Radeon 9700 is no closer than comparing the GeForce4 Ti 4600 and the Radeon 9700. In fact, the 4600 and the 9700 are much closer in image quality than the 9700 and 8500 are (4600 has better aniso quality, 9700 supports higher aniso degree and has better FSAA quality, but same general method).

In other words, your attempts to call my comparison between the Radeon 8500 and the GeForce4 Ti 4600 are no more invalid than your comparison between the Radeon 9700 and Radeon 8500.

Regardless, in the end, you're still looking at a similar thing: as a high-end card, and the performance leader, you're looking at a similar price as previous high-end cards.

ATI is only now able to charge these high prices because they command the obvious lead. Note that this was not possible with the Radeon 8500. In fact, ATI wasn't able to compete at all with the GeForce3 line with that product (just looking at prices).

If ATI was the market leader and had produced this video card, you can be pretty certain that the price would be higher. As a comparison, if nVidia's NV30 was out right now (at similar performance levels to the R300), and the R300 was not, nVidia would be charging higher prices.

So, yes, in a way, by going with the less-respected company, you're going to get more performance for your money. An analog of this can be seen in the Intel vs. AMD situation. AMD, a company with less respect but superior products for the good part of the last few years hasn't been able to sell its parts for nearly as much.

The primary drawback is that by going with ATI, you are getting a less reliable platform (similar to AMD...particularly AMD + VIA).
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 11:27 PM   #139
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Now that's far from the truth. Comparing the Radeon 8500 and the Radeon 9700 is no closer than comparing the GeForce4 Ti 4600 and the Radeon 9700. In fact, the 4600 and the 9700 are much closer in image quality than the 9700 and 8500 are (4600 has better aniso quality, 9700 supports higher aniso degree and has better FSAA quality, but same general method

In other words, your attempts to call my comparison between the Radeon 8500 and the GeForce4 Ti 4600 are no more invalid than your comparison between the Radeon 9700 and Radeon

ahhhh. Your missing the point. We are comparing each other against the same company. And the statement was based of price from the older flag ship model based against the newer model and the given perfromance increase.


Quote:
Regardless, in the end, you're still looking at a similar thing: as a high-end card, and the performance leader, you're looking at a similar price as previous high-end cards.
The point was that the R9700 gives a better price/perf ratio.


Quote:
Note that this was not possible with the Radeon 8500. In fact, ATI wasn't able to compete at all with the GeForce3 line with that product (just looking at prices).
What are you talking about? The 8500 was priced less than the GF3 Ti500 and the perfromance was on par in most cases (GF3 had the AA with 8500 was faster at AF). In fact in some of todays benchmark the 8500 is close to the GF4 ti4200. Sorry to say the 8500 competed very well with the GF3 line.


Quote:
The primary drawback is that by going with ATI, you are getting a less reliable platform
Hogwash. I suggest you try owning one first. I have had both and have yet to have a serrious issue. I do know that a majority of developers use NV so in that regaurds yea I can see were ATI may have some work to do. But thats the job of thier developer's relations....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-02, 11:29 PM   #140
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
What are you talking about? The 8500 was priced less than the GF3 Ti500 and the perfromance was on par in most cases (GF3 had the AA with 8500 was faster at AF). In fact in some of todays benchmark the 8500 is close to the GF4 ti4200. Sorry to say the 8500 competed very well with the GF3 line.
No, the performance was not on par with the GeForce3 Ti 500. At launch, it was much closer to the Ti 200 (and priced to match). Yes, later the performance came up, but that is not the point here.

The point is, the Radeon 9700 is now being sold at a high-end price primarily because it is unequivocally faster. The Radeon 8500 did not have this.

Update:
Btw, the primary benefit of the GeForce3 Ti 500 at the time was the fact that you could run with both anisotropic and FSAA at higher performance than the Radeon 8500. In fact, if you look at the anandtech link I posted earlier, even at the time of the release of the GeForce4, the Ti 500 was still ahead.

Specifically, if you look at the UPT with no aniso/FSAA vs. aniso + FSAA, you should find that the Radeon 8500 does better in the situation where no anisotropic or FSAA is enabled.

Last edited by Chalnoth; 09-18-02 at 11:40 PM.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-02, 12:20 AM   #141
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
No, the performance was not on par with the GeForce3 Ti 500. At launch, it was much closer to the Ti 200 (and priced to match). Yes, later the performance came up, but that is not the point here.
Yea and it only took 3 whole weeks for the first set of drivers that pushed its perfromace close to the GF3 Ti500. A few rev later later and it was past it. So what we now gauge how cards compete based on the first day?

Quote:
In fact, if you look at the anandtech link I posted earlier, even at the time of the release of the GeForce4, the Ti 500 was still ahead.
Sorry to say andtech system is buggered on the 8500. Dont know what his issue is but his scores are lower for the 8500 than any others:

shows in most cases performance on par at GF4 launch
http://www.sharkeyextreme.com/hardwa...3211_989321__6



At GF4 in some games the two were close, others not so close;http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...0/index.x?pg=6

More of the same
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/nvgf4ti-gf4mx(6).shtml
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/nvgf4ti-gf4mx(7).shtml


And again:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Mjc3LDI=

And its a well known fact that in RtCW and Jk2 the 8500 is on par with a GF4 4200 in those games...


Now yes I hand picked those just to prove a point. You can not trust one sight as the absolute turth to what a card does. You need to look at many reviews thats why I could care less what one sight says. Look at them all.



Quote:
The point is, the Radeon 9700 is now being sold at a high-end price primarily because it is unequivocally faster. The Radeon 8500 did not have this.



Ahhh the point I was trying to make was stated before. The GF3/4 upgrade has a lower price/pef than a 8500/9700 upgrade. Thats all I ment to say.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 12:58 AM   #142
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Ahhh the point I was trying to make was stated before. The GF3/4 upgrade has a lower price/pef than a 8500/9700 upgrade. Thats all I ment to say.
Hrm, okay, so the Radeon 9700, a $350 card, is a better upgrade over a $150 card (approximate street prices at launch here...), than a $350 card is over another $350 card? Of course it is.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 01:24 AM   #143
sam stone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=13

Look at the 4x scores (both on this page and the next...even with AF, the 4600 more than doubles the 8500's AA performance).
That's not really a fair comparison because the 8500 is using supersampling. Comparing the 9700 to the GeForce 4 is fair, however, because they are both using multi-sampling.
Quote:
After all, the Radeon 9700 is a new architecture. To attempt to compare its performance jump over the 8500 to that of the GeForce3 to the GeForce4 is ludicrous.
This sounds like a fallacy to me. What does being a new architecture have to do with anything? The Parhelia is a new architecture too, right?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 01:53 AM   #144
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by sam stone
This sounds like a fallacy to me. What does being a new architecture have to do with anything? The Parhelia is a new architecture too, right?
Quite simply, the biggest performance jumps generally occur with a new architecture (though not all new architectures provide huge performance jumps without changing the programming of the software).

And with the Parhelia's performance, how much above the G450's performance was it? I'm sure the difference was huge.

Also, in this case, if you can't compare the Radeon 8500's FSAA to that of the GeForce4 Ti 4600, then you also cannot compare the performance of the Ti 4600 to that of the 9700 due to the fact that the 9700 has twice the pixel pipelines and memory bandwidth.
Chalnoth 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
R9700 Oficially Announced druga runda Other Desktop Graphics Cards 20 04-25-08 11:28 PM
Get a Radeon 9700 now or wait for the NV30? sancheuz Other Desktop Graphics Cards 88 02-19-03 05:40 PM
FalconNW and Voodoo under ATI 9700 spell!!! mizzer Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 09-20-02 08:53 PM
Radeon 9700 pics -=DVS=- Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 08-01-02 10:35 AM
Are there any comparisons of the GeForce4 Ti 4600 to the Radeon 9700 yet? john19055 NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 8 07-28-02 03:07 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.


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