I think I'm an ATIer for life now.

[microterf]

After seeing the $379.99 for the 5870, I think I'll stick with ATI from here on out. I was pretty impressed with the eyefinity reviews on the 10th (been looking for a way to game on my extra monitors), and the performance of the 5870 now that we see it is right where most of us expected it to be.

The last Nvidia card I bought was a Geforce 4 Ti4600 for $400. It burnt out 2 months later, so I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro for the same price. One thing we know for sure is that no matter what we buy now, 8 years from now it will be little over a paperweight. That being said, I cannot believe how cheap this card is compared to how much Nvidia charges for their single GPU cards when they are on top.

My next build was going to have whatever card was the fastest, but now I don't care what NV brings out, I'm getting 2 5870x2 when they hit the egg.

Thank you AMD/ATI!

 

[jennyh]

What current GT300 cards BSD?

Also, the gtx285 doesnt perform the same as the 5850, in fact the 5850 is a lot faster than the gtx285 over the whole, 20% or so.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

What current GT300 cards BSD?

I meant GT200 cards.

Also, the gtx285 doesnt perform the same as the 5850, in fact the 5850 is a lot faster than the gtx285 over the whole, 20% or so.

Not quite. It's about 15-20% faster in synthetics, but in gaming benchmarks they are about the same at the moment (especially with AA turned up). The 5850 will get better after better drivers of course...


The GTX285 and the 5850 perform about the same in FarCry2 when you turn up AAx8, while the 5850 gets a lead in Far Cry 2 for larger 2560x resolutions with lowered AAx4.

GTX285 performs better in COD5 and Mass Effect
5850 performs slightly better in Crysis Warhead and Fallout 3



http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5850-review-crossfire/1

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=1

 

[rangers]

you all so get DX11 with the 5850 so ati could have charged a lot more for it, but they never

 

[jennyh]

BSD, check out Risen. This is how the benchmarks are going to go from now on.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696074/Risen-in-graphics-card-benchmark-test-Radeon-HD-5870-on-top-Update-Radeon-HD-5850/Practice/

The 5850 is actually a helluva lot faster than the 285gtx, its just the games need to catch up. The 285 can almost keep up on old games, but it will just get taken apart in anything recent.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

you all so get DX11 with the 5850 so ati could have charged a lot more for it, but they never

If they charged more, nobody would buy at the moment considering most games haven't even reached DX10 levels yet. I think one of ATI's main strategies is to win over Nvidia buyers since Nvidia is more popular. They won't win them over if they charge high prices just because they have the newest tech months before Nvidia does.

BSD, check out Risen. This is how the benchmarks are going to go from now on.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696074/Risen-in-graphics-card-benchmark-test-Radeon-HD-5870-on-top-Update-Radeon-HD-5850/Practice/

The 5850 is actually a helluva lot faster than the 285gtx, its just the games need to catch up. The 285 can almost keep up on old games, but it will just get taken apart in anything recent.

Yes, the 5850 will have an advantage on newer games...but those games haven't come out yet. The GTX285 and 5850 overall is still neck and neck in regards to games within the last 3 years (especially the most popular games such as Crysis, FarCry2, Fallout3, MassEffect, etc)

That is one of the main reasons why ATI can't charge much more than what they're already charging at the moment. They're not charging more because they know it won't sell as well, not because they're keeping the prices down out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

lol fanboy...

1. ATI did the same years back

Care to post that?
I'd love to see you equating the two, if you know anything about the 4:1 ratio of 3Dmark issues, you'd know they aren't the 'same' not by a long shot.

Only people who either weren't there or didn't understand what was going on think they were in any way 'the same'.

7. What? Are you saying the card is a fake? 😵

As fake as the AMD FX12000, plug them in and they both go BOOM !!

Well, sources have confirmed they do have the card/die out so it's not that big of a deal anymore.

Are they any better than the source(s) that claimed that one on stage was real? And it's still a big deal, because it's not like making a production card, and making volume shipments is as simple as pressing 'copy' on a Xerox machine. Sofar it's a full week later and still no engineering card that was promised after it being exposed as a fraud. If they are so late in producing a card that was supposedly right on hand, then how can anyone expect them to deliver retail products on time?

 

[microterf]

I really just started this thread stating that I couldn't believe how much Nvidia charges for their hardware compared to ATI. Reading some of the rumors of late though, I wonder if it's really that they're trying to rape customers as I first put it, or if they are in just such bad shape that they MUST charge that much to get any kind of return on their investments.

My whole point was that either way, we all know you cannot fall in love with your hardware, because most of us here have systems we put $3000+ into 5 years ago that are nothing but paper weights now. That will be the same 10 years from now with whatever we buy now.

I was making the observation that Nvidia is overpriced across the board. If it were just about performance, then ATI would charge $600 for the 5870 right now, as it is the fastest single GPU on the planet. They DON'T.

As for the whole "fanboy" thing. Everyone on here has been around long enough to see the performance crown go back and forth, and most of us have owned both of the cards. If saying that I appreciate ATI, and the fact they didn't totally RAPE everyone with the prices on their new cards makes me a fanboy, then so be it.

The reason I choose ATI for graphics is the same reason I will probably switch to Intel for my next processor. You cannot beat the i7-920 right now for price/performance, esp when you factor in overclockability. The difference between intel and Nvidia is that although they charge a lot for their highest end proc, they are comparable in price to their AMD counterparts, but beat them by a bigger margin.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I was making the observation that Nvidia is overpriced across the board. If it were just about performance, then ATI would charge $600 for the 5870 right now, as it is the fastest single GPU on the planet. They DON'T.

If it was $600, then nobody would buy it...because most people won't spend that much on a GPU, and considering the GTX295 is 150 less for better performance in Sli/Xfire games.

And you can make far more money by selling a lot of GPUs at a high price than selling a few GPUs at an extremely high price.
For example, say each card costs $200 to produce.

If they priced it at $600, then say only 10,000 units would be sold = $6 million in revenue. Subtract 2 million in costs and you get 4 million in profits.

If they priced it at $400, then they can sell 50,000 units = $20 million in revenue. Subtract 10 million in costs and you get 10 million in profits.

ATI can simply make far more money by pricing it lower and selling a lot of them than pricing it absurdly high and selling far less.

ATI is doing this out of simple economics, not because they don't want to "overcharge" their customers. If they could charge $600 for the 5870 and still sell it in the numbers that they are doing now when it's priced at $400, they would've done it.

The reason I choose ATI for graphics is the same reason I will probably switch to Intel for my next processor. You cannot beat the i7-920 right now for price/performance, esp when you factor in overclockability. The difference between intel and Nvidia is that although they charge a lot for their highest end proc, they are comparable in price to their AMD counterparts, but beat them by a bigger margin.

GTX260 performs about the same as the 4870 and costs about the same
9800GTX/GTS250 performs about the same as the 4850 and costs about the same
9800GT performs about the same as a 4830 and costs about the same

You can't compare the i7 920 to the Phenom2, since the P2 was AMD's answer to Intel's Core2Quads. Just like you can't compare the 5x00 to Nvidia's GT200 series since its a newer generation.

As my paragraph above mentioned, the simple fact is that ATI and Nvidia will charge as much as they can get away with in getting the maximum amount of profit.

 

[Homeboy2]

If it was $600, then nobody would buy it...because most people won't spend that much on a GPU, and considering the GTX295 is 150 less for better performance in Sli/Xfire games.

they couldn't charge 600 but they could easily charge 400 to 450 for the 5870, which is what Nvidiot would do

 

[microterf]

If it was $600, then nobody would buy it...because most people won't spend that much on a GPU, and considering the GTX295 is 150 less for better performance in Sli/Xfire games.

And you can make far more money by selling a lot of GPUs at a high price than selling a few GPUs at an extremely high price.
For example, say each card costs $200 to produce.

If they priced it at $600, then say only 10,000 units would be sold = $6 million in revenue. Subtract 2 million in costs and you get 4 million in profits.

If they priced it at $400, then they can sell 50,000 units = $20 million in revenue. Subtract 10 million in costs and you get 10 million in profits.

ATI can simply make far more money by pricing it lower and selling a lot of them than pricing it absurdly high and selling far less.

ATI is doing this out of simple economics, not because they don't want to "overcharge" their customers. If they could charge $600 for the 5870 and still sell it in the numbers that they are doing now when it's priced at $400, they would've done it.


GTX260 performs about the same as the 4870 and costs about the same
9800GTX/GTS250 performs about the same as the 4850 and costs about the same
9800GT performs about the same as a 4830 and costs about the same

You can't compare the i7 920 to the Phenom2, since the P2 was AMD's answer to Intel's Core2Quads. Just like you can't compare the 5x00 to Nvidia's GT200 series since its a newer generation.

As my paragraph above mentioned, the simple fact is that ATI and Nvidia will charge as much as they can get away with in getting the maximum amount of profit.

First off, I agree with you about pricing it to sell more GPUs. My observation is that obviously Nvidia thinks they're another Apple or Bose. Selling GPUs priced a LOT higher than what their performance warrants. The 7800GTX was $599 when listed, the GT280 was $650 at launch. Don't you think that NV could have charged $400 for the same GPU at launch and sold twice as many??

As I stated, they are doing this for 1 of 2 reasons.
A. They think people will pay a premium for the "The way it's meant to be played"
or
B. They're manufacturing sucks, and they have to charge higher prices because of poor yeilds to make any kind of money off thier investments in the GPUs.

That being said, I believe it is fair to compare the i7 to the Phenom2. The phenom 2 came out AFTER the i7. I am currently running a PII 940, and I can't really complain about AMD price/performance, but Intel right now has them beat across the board in performance at the same price levels.

 

[rhys216]

fanboy...

If they charged any higher, than the current Nvidia GT200 cards would be a better deal. If they charged $500 for the 5870, people
would still buy the GTX295 since it's slightly better and would cost less. If they charged $350 for the 5850, people would buy the GTX285 since the 285
performs about the same and would cost less.

Consider that ATI charged ~$400 for 3870x2 and ~$550 for the 4870x2 when those were first released, which in hindsight are grossly overpriced.

ATI's strategy is to price it below GT200 cards of equal or the same performance or people would still be buying Nvidia. It has nothing to do with ATI wanting to benefit consumers by lowering the price.

Didn't get the joke then Lol!

It's really pretty simple fanboy!

Take the 5850! It's faster, more power efficient, supports DX11 AND is priced LOWER than the current gtx285. THIS means ATI COULD sell the 5850 for allot more than they currently are because you seem to ignore the fact that demand is still outstripping supply and AMD have already sold a shed of RV800 based chips.

Why on Earth you still claim to have a valid point I will never know.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

First off, I agree with you about pricing it to sell more GPUs. My observation is that obviously Nvidia thinks they're another Apple or Bose. Selling GPUs priced a LOT higher than what their performance warrants. The 7800GTX was $599 when listed, the GT280 was $650 at launch. Don't you think that NV could have charged $400 for the same GPU at launch and sold twice as many??

As I stated, they are doing this for 1 of 2 reasons.
A. They think people will pay a premium for the "The way it's meant to be played"
or
B. They're manufacturing sucks, and they have to charge higher prices because of poor yeilds to make any kind of money off thier investments in the GPUs.

That being said, I believe it is fair to compare the i7 to the Phenom2. The phenom 2 came out AFTER the i7. I am currently running a PII 940, and I can't really complain about AMD price/performance, but Intel right now has them beat across the board in performance at the same price levels.

A. Nvidia owns 70% of the GPU market. ATI can't charge as much as Nvidia for their new technology because they're the under dogs...and people would just stick with Nvidia. If ATI owned 70% of the market, yes, I'd expect the 5850 and the 5870 to cost almost 2x as much.

B. Their manufacturing is just different. The GT200 cards had a large memory bandwidth, which I believe was expensive. ATI going with a smaller bandwidth but faster memory saved them money in the long run. Back in the ATI 3x00 vs Nvidia 8x00 battle, Nvidia beat ATI hands down with performance and manufacturing cost.
ATI caught up quickly with the 4x00 series and now it's beginning to beat Nvidia.

It's just a cycle.


*yeh you're right about the P2-i7 thing. AMD was beating Intel hands down during the Athlonx2 vs Pentium D era, and Intel caught up with the Core2/Pentium Duals and now is beating AMD with its i5/i7. King of the hill...

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Didn't get the joke then Lol!

It's really pretty simple fanboy!
Take the 5850! It's faster, more power efficient, supports DX11 AND is priced LOWER than the current gtx285. THIS means ATI COULD sell the 5850 for allot more than they currently are because you seem to ignore the fact that demand is still outstripping supply and AMD have already sold a shed of RV800 based chips.
Why on Earth you still claim to have a valid point I will never know.

I've owned both Nvidia and ATI cards and I've always considered them equal. Learn to read before opening your mouth.

Demand is outstripping supply because ATI didn't produce enough...didn't you read the article regarding Dell buying up ATI's supply of 5x00 cards??

And do you seriously think ATI 5850s would be selling so well if it was priced at, say $350? Nvidia has the market and name brand advantage, so people would just buy GTX285s instead of 5850s.

ATI is selling their stuff cheaper in order to win over consumers. I suggest you stop kissing ATI ass and learn that both companies have the sole purpose of winning over consumers and making a profit.

 

[rhys216]

I've owned both Nvidia and ATI cards and I've always considered them equal. Learn to read before opening your mouth.

Demand is outstripping supply because ATI didn't produce enough...didn't you read the article regarding Dell buying up ATI's supply of 5x00 cards??

And do you seriously think ATI 5850s would be selling so well if it was priced at, say $350? Nvidia has the market and name brand advantage, so people would just buy GTX285s instead of 5850s.

ATI is selling their stuff cheaper in order to win over consumers. I suggest you stop kissing ATI ass and learn that both companies have the sole purpose of winning over consumers and making a profit.

Lol! I think it's obvious every company wants to make a profit, please don't quote the most basic of facts as if you know something every one else in the world doesn't know already.

Again Lol, demand always outstrips supply if there are more buyers than chips! It's relative!
Fudzilla (Not the best source but still probably true as they look to be sponsored by Nvidea recently) claim Ati have sold hundreds of thousands of chips! That's not bad launch numbers! It's just demand has been so great because the gpu market has been stagnant for so long and ati have come along and delivered a killer card at a good price that 'may' push Nvidea out the high-end and mid-range GPU market for 'maybe' 4-6 months, that's some result for ati.
And DAM there seems to be almost more 5870 availability than gtx285 recently.

Guess Charlie boy is probably right and we can put away our salt pots.

 

[Homeboy2]

A. Nvidia owns 70% of the GPU market. ATI can't charge as much as Nvidia for their new technology because they're the under dogs...and people would just stick with Nvidia. If ATI owned 70% of the market, yes, I'd expect the 5850 and the 5870 to cost almost 2x as much.
And do you seriously think ATI 5850s would be selling so well if it was priced at, say $350? Nvidia has the market and name brand advantage, so people would just buy GTX285s instead of 5850s.


bull, ATi is the underdog when their new card blows Nvidia away? Only the Nvidiot fanboys will stick with nvidia when ati has the better card. You keep naming high prices, no people wont pay 350 for a 5850 but they WOULD pay as much as 300. If Nvidia keeps this up they will go the way of 3dfx.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

bull, ATi is the underdog when their new card blows Nvidia away? Only the Nvidiot fanboys will stick with nvidia when ati has the better card.

An underdog is a side/person with a disadvantage in a conflict. Considering that Nvidia owns far more of the market than ATI, then by basic definition, ATI is the underdog when going into the conflict.

Yes, their new card is way better so in terms of DX11 GPUs, Nvidia is the underdog. ATI is still the underdog overall since they're not as popular and don't have as much resources.

And obviously Nvidiot fanboys will stick with nvidia when ati has the better card, just like ATitards will stick with ATI when nvidia has the better card.

You keep naming high prices, no people wont pay 350 for a 5850 but they WOULD pay as much as 300. If Nvidia keeps this up they will go the way of 3dfx.

Sure, some people would pay as much as 300. But like my previous post said, ATI picked that price for a REASON...and that reason is not out of the goodness of their hearts. Their market analyzers probably predicted that they can make the most PROFIT from selling more cards by keeping the price under $300.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Lol! I think it's obvious every company wants to make a profit, please don't quote the most basic of facts as if you know something every one else in the world doesn't know already.Again Lol, demand always outstrips supply if there are more buyers than chips! It's relative!
Fudzilla (Not the best source but still probably true as they look to be sponsored by Nvidea recently) claim Ati have sold hundreds of thousands of chips! That's not bad launch numbers! It's just demand has been so great because the gpu market has been stagnant for so long and ati have come along and delivered a killer card at a good price that 'may' push Nvidea out the high-end and mid-range GPU market for 'maybe' 4-6 months, that's some result for ati.
And DAM there seems to be almost more 5870 availability than gtx285 recently.
Guess Charlie boy is probably right and we can put away our salt pots.

I don't know why you bothered posting that because it just proves my point.

Keep the price lower = selling more = overall more profit
Increase the price = sell less = overall less profit

By keeping the price low, the demand is high, so they can make more $$$.


And no, charlieboy is not a credible source for anything.

 

[Homeboy2]

Sure, some people would pay as much as 300. But like my previous post said, ATI picked that price for a REASON...and that reason is not out of the goodness of their hearts. Their market analyzers probably predicted that they can make the most PROFIT from selling more cards by keeping the price under $300.

OR they know they have Nvidia by the balls, so they're gonna twist em
and why did Nvidia keep their prices high? to be like Apple? Unlike Apple, unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat , they're going down.

 

[jennyh]

AMD priced the 5870 and 5850 at the optimal price point. That is, to invalidate all Nvidia's cards at the same price point, while still making a nice profit. Better still, the prices are so low compared to what Nvidia's business plan allows that Nvidia cannot even squeeze them by lowering prices further.

AMD also have a cpu business where they have been underselling their cpu's for years. If ATI make money, AMD can continue to lower prices on cpu's. You don't like the idea of having an AMD cpu? Too bad. As a loyal AMD and ATI buyer, I see the benefit.

If you are intel/nvidia biased, you already overpaid many times over so any talk of ATI's pricing is just pure whine.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

AMD priced the 5870 and 5850 at the optimal price point. That is, to invalidate all Nvidia's cards at the same price point, while still making a nice profit. Better still, the prices are so low compared to what Nvidia's business plan allows that Nvidia cannot even squeeze them by lowering prices further.
.

yep, my point exactly.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

A. Nvidia owns 70% of the GPU market...

No it doesn't intel alone owns just over 50% of the market.
Get your statements correct before trying to build a theory on it.
nV own a large segment of the discrete market, but that still doesn't give them unlimited power to set pricing, nor does it keep ATI from setting their products pricing above where it launched, in fact the shortages with excess demand shows they should've priced it higher. They probably wouldn't sell all their chips @ $600+, but then again, neither did nVidia when they did that with the GTX280. Ever since ATi's pricing of the HD3K series prices have changed, and ATi was the price maker ever since with nVidia being the price taker.

Back in the ATI 3x00 vs Nvidia 8x00 battle, Nvidia beat ATI hands down with performance and manufacturing cost.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about, if anything it was the HD2K series (which was big and had a problematic fab [sounf familiar??]) that had any possible manufacturing cost dis-advantage, for the HD3K it was a better situation, where against the G92 it had much better yields since the G92 ran into early problems, and was cheaper again against the G80. It was the performance that was still a bit lacking, but not manufacturing cost.

ATI caught up quickly with the 4x00 series and now it's beginning to beat Nvidia.

No, they beat nV long ago, and decimated them with the HD4K where they had a small chip chip with way higher yield, cheaper board, and less mfr problems. It's not just beginning, it's been that way for over a year, and they may continue that if the F100/G300 turns out to be nVidia's R600.

Seriously dude, you need to inform yourself better before putting forth some of these theories that aren't supported by facts.



-edited to fix quote not content-

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Demand is outstripping supply because ATI didn't produce enough...didn't you read the article regarding Dell buying up ATI's supply of 5x00 cards??

What part of " demand>supply at price X " are you having trouble figuring out? It doesn't matter if they didn't produce enough it still means that they could've priced them higher since there is demand left on the table. Basic micro-economics 101.

I suggest you stop kissing ATI ass and learn that both companies have the sole purpose of winning over consumers and making a profit.

I suggest you get your head out of nVidia's A$$ and then maybe you'd be aware of the actual situation, and not getting so many things wrong. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

 

[Bluescreendeath]

What part of " demand>supply at price X " are you having trouble figuring out? It doesn't matter if they didn't produce enough it still means that they could've priced them higher since there is demand left on the table. Basic micro-economics 101.[:thegreatgrapeape:5]

Get your head out of your ass and learn to read. Demand > supply at price X is what I've been saying in my last 3 posts.

I suggest you get your head out of nVidia's A$$ and then maybe you'd be aware of the actual situation, and not getting so many things wrong. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

I'm no Nvidia fanboy considering all of my current GPUs are ATI. I'm sure you're just another ATI fanboy though judging from the way you're rabidly attacking Nvidia...

 

[Bluescreendeath]

No it doesn't intel alone owns just over 50% of the market.
Get your statements correct before trying to build a theory on it.

I'm only talking about actual dedicated graphics. Why the hell would I be talking about Intel integrated crap? I suggest you use some common sense before replying.

nV own a large segment of the discrete market, but that still doesn't give them unlimited power to set pricing, nor does it keep ATI from setting their products pricing above where it launched, in fact the shortages with excess demand shows they should've priced it higher. They probably wouldn't sell all their chips @ $600+, but then again, neither did nVidia when they did that with the GTX280. Ever since ATi's pricing of the HD3K series prices have changed, and ATi was the price maker ever since with nVidia being the price taker.

The very fact that Nvidia owns a much larger segment of the market gives them MORE power to set prices. ATI does not have this same luxury.

Nvidia is able to overcharge for the GTX280 since they are more well known and have a larger market base. ATI cannot do the same for the 5850 and achieve the same level of sales that the GTX280 did.

And ever since the pricing of 3x00 series, the general trend was Nvidia releases, ATI releases, Nvidia drops prices, ATI drops prices, etc

[qoute]Back in the ATI 3x00 vs Nvidia 8x00 battle, Nvidia beat ATI hands down with performance and manufacturing cost.[/quote]
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about, if anything it was the HD2K series (which was big and had a problematic fab [sounf familiar??]) that had any possible manufacturing cost dis-advantage, for the HD3K it was a better situation, where against the G92 it had much better yields since the G92 ran into early problems, and was cheaper again against the G80. It was the performance that was still a bit lacking, but not manufacturing cost. [/quote]
I'm taking into consideration how much they were able to sell, and at what price vs manufacturing cost.

Yes the 3x00 series was in a better manufacturing situation than the G92s, but the G92s were overall superior and they were able to sell more and at a higher price.
So the G92 may have had higher manufacturing cost, but they made up for it with higher prices.

No, they beat nV long ago, and decimated them with the HD4K where they had a small chip chip with way higher yield, cheaper board, and less mfr problems. It's not just beginning, it's been that way for over a year, and they may continue that if the F100/G300 turns out to be nVidia's R600. Seriously dude, you need to inform yourself better before putting forth some of these theories that aren't supported by facts.

If they beat nV a long time ago, why does nV still have the majority of the market? You really should do your research. The G92s beat the 3x00 hands down.
The 4x00 did beat the GT200 (especially after price drops), but overall, ATI is still catching up to Nvidia in terms of market shares.


You clearly don't understand I'm differentiating ATI vs Nvidia in terms of overall market as opposed to ATI vs Nvidia for each generation.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I havnt read most of this thread, and to start correcting all the mistakes Ive seen here just isnt worth it.
ATIs strategy after the R600, going to the R670, they shrunk the die, the cut the bus in half, had same perf, lower costs, better yields, cooler part, lower power etc.
They continued this same thing save for their highend on the 4xxx series, which also saw huge perfIncreases, while slightly making the chip larger, so it was competitive in both price and perf, and nVidia diverted from their G92, to go huge, with not quite the sane perf increases, which put ATI definately in the lead here at price and perf, leaving the G200 as a costly solution for nVidia, and finally pushing the G92 down, as it was surpassed in perf by the 4xxx series.
Now, nVidia has continued the huge chip approach, while ATI has continued their mid size approach, where again, we see a slightly larger chip, again with huge perf returns, while nVidia is again having trouble with the G300 coming in late as it is.
The pricing has been controlled by nBidia up to the 4xxx series, at that point, the G92 was conquered, and prices fell, and the G200 was simply too high in comparison to ATIs perf.
ATI released asap to continue its momentum seen in both marketshare and price/perf, heading off nVidias ability to control it this round at all, and is why we wont see a G300 priced absorbatantly high, and is also why there isnt a huge stockpile of G5xxx series at launch, which has seen steady shipments in the channel, keeping supplies low, but adequate.