Dublin don't you dare tell me I have been under a rock OR tell me
that a link for this has already been posted somewhere else!!
I just found out about this today, so it's news to me!

Look at the Res for the bench 2560x1600, and most of the benches are
4x AA. And then look at the FPS. Unbelievable.

Here's a link for the Preview & Benchmarks.
It kicks ass of 280GTX in SLi! Beautiful. Some GOOD competition.
Am gonna sit back,and wait for the crazy GPU period then BAM!

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3354&p=1

280GTX x2 card soon. . .

Tam...

holy hell, that's an amazing piece of hardware.

damn, i just made a mess in my pants

Tam the Bam said:

you mean GTX 280?

Half (Crysis, Oblivion) of the benchmarks went to the GTX 280 SLI and half (GRID, Age of Conan) went to the 4870 X2. It's good to see AMD is being competitive again but no one is shaming anyone like they are in the processor world.

FordGT90Concept said:

GTX 280 is for $500 (average) and $ 1000+ (sizzling hot..lol) for SLI
http://tinyurl.com/6g9vkx

4870X2 is for $ 500

The choice is all yours



Edit to shorten the link width

The price will come down eventually. I don't buy, nor recommend buying, any card that costs much over $300. If they cost more than that, you're throwing money in the exclusive flame pit...kind of like buying a Ford GT instead of the much cheaper Ford Mustang is fully capable of exceeding the speed limit. The GT is expensive because it is limited production more than anything else.

In other words does price justify 280 GTX? Especially where even power consumption of 4870 X2 is lower than 280 GTX

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3354&p=8



The same can be said for 4870 X2

If you don't buy or recommend card above $ 300 than that's completely your suggestion, while people with 30" monitor may find it useful. I don't agree with your example in regard to cars, while both things are in completely different field hence different usage obviously.

2/3 people don't even look at AMD products. Those people won't even consider the 4870 X2. For that very reason, NVIDIA can afford to keep the price high. It will come down when NVIDIA releases it's own competitive product, not likely to be before unless their market share starts drying up which is not likely.

Every car is built for one purpose: Move from point A to point B. The only difference between the Mustang GT and GT is the GT can get there twice as fast at five times the cost, illegally, of course.

What difference does a few FPS make if it is already over 30 on a card that costs half as much? Those expensive cards cost so much because they are exclusive. A GT should perform 5 times faster than a Mustang GT but, it doesn't. Having a Mustang GT is neat but it won't draw crowds. Having a GT, on the other hand, will land a picture in the local news papers and potentially larger venues if, for instance, you crash it. People take note of exclusive vehicles more so than mass produced products. This is why the FX51 still sells for a dime even though by comparison to modern chips, it is rubbish. It is a limited production chip and that makes it valuable.

FordGT90Concept said:

Source?




30FPS is still low, 60+ FPS what makes game-play more appealing (smooth). I could still tell difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Additionally, expensive cards are built for higher-resolution game play, wherein a sub $ 300 graphic card would barely render a scene at 2560x1600 with 4x AA / 8x AF.

In the end you don't want to appreciate 4870 X2 performance, that is completely understood.

Supreet Virdi said:
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/news/376
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070730-nvidia-continues...intel.html

It takes a long time for David to topple Goliath in terms of marketshare. That was seen back when X2 was on top back in 2005/2006. AMD took a massive chunk out of Intel's server marketshare, especially. It changed back to Intel virtually overnight though.


Supreet Virdi said:
Oh really?

Age of Conan (2560x1600): 40.6, 44.8 X2, +4.2 difference, +9%
Crysis (1920x1200): 31.3, 31.1 X2, -0.2 difference, < -1%
TSE4: Oblivion (2560x1600): 49.7, 50.3 X2, +0.6 difference, +1%
Race Driver GRID (2560x1600): 43.9, 84.2 X2, +40.3 difference, +48%

Unless you play only Race Driver GRID, I'd say you're wasting $200.

Ford you're starting to sound like a fanboy!

Agreed on your maket share statement that NVIDIA have massive market share, but the pendulum swings and it swings very fast, it was also true that NVIDIA was in same position with NVIDIA FX series while back

But yet, if you make competitive products, I don't see why no one would purchase it. AMD with 4800 series is definitely back in business and everyone sure knows about it, except for very few people.

Try playing a game at 2560x1600 with 4x AA and 8x AF you'll see it will choke to death, you'd wonder if you're playing a game or having a good time watching a power-point presentation.

My other thought is that 4870 X2 is a new card, sure with future drivers it is expected to do even well.

My point, the whole crux -- Latest games goes with latest graphic cards with eye candy at maximum resolution, people who are enthusiast would want a faster card on their machine. If perhaps, there's no enthusiast market, they'd rather not release such a fast card.

Its a pretty decent performer - for the price.

However I'd like to see them pull that sort of performance with a single GPU. At the end of the day, this is merely cheap crossfire.

Im sure that AMD/ATI knows how to build a GPU that is faster than the GTX 280 however to do so would require a massive chip like the GT200.

Supreet Virdi said:
Some do--those with their finger on the pulse of the technolgy which makes up well under 10% of the market. They quickly sway towards the better product and they tell others about their experience. Slowly, more and more users are swayed from word of mouth sales. Eventually, the OEMs figure this out and start providing and/or pushing the product. Until the OEMs get involved, marketshare changes very little but, once OEMs hit the ground running, the marketshare changes quickly. For example, even though AMD had a superior product from 2003 to 2005, their market share really didn't change much until Dell started selling them. When Dell made that decision, every one looking to buy computers were like "hmm, AMD isn't second-rate after all." However, they were not swayed for long. In the months following Core 2 release, everyone was quick to change back to the reliable Intel processors. Because AMD is David, it takes a long time for them to get marketshare but very little time to lose it. AMD is a perfect example of how marketshare works in technology.


Supreet Virdi said:
I have zero-tolerance for any kind of jurkiness. Most games don't even play completely smooth at 1024x768 and modest settings (8800 GT). I'm not going to move up in resolution until the bugs are ironed out of the resolutions that have been around for over a decade. In the mean time, I see no reason to waste money on the best hardware that is just a few percent better than a card that costs almost half as much.

FordGT90Concept said:

I saw an interview with one of the company execs from nVidia or ATi.. I can't remember which, but, they were asked why they even bother with the millions of dollars that go into developing these highly expensive uber graphics cards when they end up selling almost none of them and often loose money on the top tier offering after factoring in the development costs. Their answer was that looking at the discrete numbers was deceiving, because that while enthusiasts make up a small part of the industry they have a disproportionate amount of influence over the casual consumer and that it was not uncommon to have a network of 10 or 12 casual people looking to the enthusiast for advice. They added that the enthusiast will typically advise the casual consumer to buy a lesser version of the enthusiast part. So winning one enthusiast can sell 10 or more mainstream parts.

DublinGunner said:

Dublin then again they're selling a 'single' GPU, they don't expect you to believe there are two GPUs, while they're still selling it for cheap.

My whole point once again, $500 < $1000, any questions?

I'm inclined to agree. I'd say that, with a few rare market exceptions, the Red team is easily the way to go... disputing that would seem like evidence that you're wearing some green-tinted glasses...

Which is fine, I suppose. I mean, I don't really care if you get a power-hungry card with crap for drivers and be forcibly locked into an Nvidia chipset if you want to do SLI. That's cool, right?

Wow great link Tam, Ati is sure dominating now. To think that there's the possibility that the card was immature along with the drivers we may have even a better product and maybe for less than $500. The GTX280 are not worth it IMO comparing it to this card.

Wow great link Tam, Ati is sure dominating now. To think that there's the possibility that the card was immature along with the drivers we may have even a better product and maybe for less than $500. The GTX280 SLI are not worth it IMO comparing it to this card.