Nvidia GeForce GTX 200 Prices Crashing

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theos, Theos , Theos...Im think you may need to take a look at Tom's own vga charts before writing about which cards are better. You totally missed the ball there in regards to at least the x1900/x1950 cards.

If you take your job seriously, Ide expect and update to that article explaining the mistake.
 
Here Numbers Game seems point & makes relative flatness of move evident.
6200 from Jan '6 to scramble for 200/250/300 numbers to incorporate Ultimate, now seen as 92/93 coming up in 9 months or still 2 or 3 buried in thier, GTX 280 is bit of 2 with 8 or top. with next top 92/92 for Top yet still pesky 2 or 3 as second number series. Vista Ultimate will have its Uber Daze, yet 380 as another built in single 16X or 4/6 80 ofr some early break out numbers in 2010 with 880 or 690 or 890 just about Seven Time. & living is E-Z.

Signed😛HYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
 
"Taking a quick look back down the memory lane, ATI hasn?t had an easy ride over the past four years. In 2004, the GeForce 6800 outperformed the Radeon X800 and brought support for DirectX 9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX .0c. In 2005, the GeForce 7800 slaughtered the Radeon X850 while the GeForce 7900 trumped the Radeon X1800/1900. ..."

How did that part get published ??? Take a look at the Desktop VGA Charts and make another try...It´s worrying to see these kind of "facts" here at Toms. I am not just referring to this article but also
reviews where the graphs say one thing and the author something else.
 
Those are some pretty sensationalist graphs in the article. They make a 5 dollar price fluctuation seem like the market is turning on its head and back.
 
Resize the graphs so every graph is shown from the 0 to what ever the max price is among these cards. In some graphs 2$ difference in price over few days looks like there was a revolution in prices. Price gone up by 50% and down for 75% (but in reality its 1$ up and 3$ down)
 
Near everyone who's posted so far has already commented on the inacuracies, but i can't help but add to it as it's finally clear proof of the shameless bias and fanboy-ish statements that are spouted not only on Toms but every most of the big hardware review sites.

Taking a quick look back down the memory lane, ATI hasn’t had an easy ride over the past four years. In 2004, the GeForce 6800 outperformed the Radeon X800 and brought support for DirectX 9.0c.
The only accurate part of that statement is that the 6800 supported DX9.0c. All of the geforce 6 series cards did. However the only game that supported it at the time was Doom 3, so much like the 8800 series with DX10 it was a marketing ploy to be able to say they had support around for a year before anything really was even able to take advantage of the hardware.

Actually, i suppose it's technically accurate in fanboy logic, since the 6800 and x800 cards had half a dozen different versions released in 2004 and the R423 core x800 pro were about half the price of the 6800 with about the same performance having slightly faster Tfill rate and 2GB/s less memory bandwidth. Despite both cards being launced in may of 2004, it was near impossible to find the 6800 ANYWHERE until jan of 2005, if you could find it the card cost upwards of $550-650. The 6600 GT was the common nvidia card of choice at the time. the R430/R480 x800/x850 card that came out in Dec to counter the 6800 ultra however stomped nvidia. Unquestionably. The R480 was DX9.0B which meant it could run 9.0c games, just not with the full feature set, which didn't really matter as even Doom3 didn't take advantage of all the 9.0c capabilities and having the hardware support actually hurt performance in pretty much every other game out at the time. Thus the x850xt PE ended up performing astoundingly better than nvidia even in their own "the way it's meant to be played" games.

In 2005, the GeForce 7800 slaughtered the Radeon X850
Well the 7800 GTX 256mb card came out in june of 2005, and it hardly slaughtered the x850, it was just able to beat it in some instances but hardly something to boast about. In october of 2005 the x1800 XL/XT's launched. The XL version stomped the 256mb 7800. The 7800gtx 512mb card came out in Nov of 2005... which was stompted by the x1800xt. THE COMPARISON OF THE 7800 AND x850 IS IRRELIVENT WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A NEW CARD LAUNCHED.

while the GeForce 7900 trumped the Radeon X1800/1900

Actually the 7900 performed about 10% better than the x1800xt. the x1900xtx beat it out by about 5%, the x1950xtx beat it by 10%. In fact a single x1950xtx was almost dead even with 7800 GT in SLI. The x1950xtx in CF was beat out only by the 7800gtx SLI, 7950x2 SLI though only by about 4%.

So Theo, you have given a shining example of a biased fanboy that picks comparisons that prove your wet dreams justified, while ignoring reality. Either you have been vary creative in how you pair these cards against each other, in which case you're the biased fanboy douchey tool it appears, or you don't bother to check your facts. Either way you obviously should have someone not on the payroll read over your work first.

Having owned the 6600 GT, x800xt x850xt PE, x1800xt, x1950xtx i knew i was justified in laughing until my sides hurt before i checked the actual numbers. Hopefully someone at Toms will fix this offensive article, but seeing how biased toms has become if they can get away with it i don't expect much.
 
[citation][nom]finsfan62[/nom]2 Nvidia 8800 Ultras in SLI! End of story!!![/citation]
Huh?If you mean two of those in SLI is outperforming any of those cards,then you would be wrong.
 
i own them idiot,you have to have a high end system to back up your graphics performance,LIKE I SAID:2 NVIDIA 8800 ULTRAS IN SLI,END OF FN STORY!
 
[citation][nom]cal8949[/nom]and Nvidia may be selling "less than 3000 GTX 260/280 cards per month"wow then nvidia is getting crushed i haven't heard anyone talk about buyin a nvidia card on the forums lately its all ati card i wonder how low the 260 will goand then the ati 4850 oc'ed editions4870x2 will steal the marketwoot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woot ati[/citation]

hells yea, ati 4850 FTW
 
Oh, shut up with the "this and this card did not trump this and that card" BS. This article is trying to illustrate a point; ATI has been the underdog in gpu's for a while (which it has). Way to go ATI with this series. Seems the guys at AMD have taught them a thing or two about price and performance (now if only AMD could find a way to combat those damn core2s...).
 
Wow...YOU own them finsfan? well..exscuse the confusion, the fact that YOU own them and say in

caps END OF FN STORY! that is just the most logical and informitive argument that could possibly

be given.

Wait...no no i'm not a lobotomized douche bag of a tool. So your statment as it is can be

attributed to ignorance, idiocy, fanboyism or some combination of the 3.

The GTX 260 out performs the 8800 ultra...and the 4870 stomps the GTX260, competes with the

gtx280 in some places. 4850's in CF beat the gtx280. In numerous games at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600

the 4850 CF and/or 4870 CF out perform the GTX 280 SLI as well as every other nvidia card in SLI in the majority of bench marks.

Those benchmarks being performed on the highest end system you can buy, i don't imagine your magic cards can beat the 4800's. Especially with the 8800 ultras still costing upwards of $500...In no scenario does your claim ring even remotely true. The 8800 ultra is beat by more recent nvidia cards that cost $250-$300 which are beat by the $450-$600 nvidia cards which are beat by the $199-$299 ATI cards.

Mothergoose, i'm sorry but that kind of blatant idiocy cannot be tolerated. When it's at such a high level it must be proven unequivically false and whom-ever claimed it must be made aware of the possibility of mental disabilities.
 
I think video cards are becoming less important -- as long as card has 512MB, it's more then good enough -- regarless of which company produced it.
 
The comment about the number of GTX 260/280 cards being sold is pure garbage. I have sold and worked on around a half dozen GTX260 and GTX280 based systems in the last several weeks. The number of Radeon4850 and 4870 cards that I have sold or worked on? None. The Nvidia fans are alive and well here. I have just ordered a GTX260 for myself as well. All is well with Nvidia as far as I can tell.
 
These graphs are a joke. A 4-dollar drop on 195$ looks like a price crash ! This is not any more helpful than a table showing raw values. In fact it's worse, as it's misleading.

Make graphs start at 0 not some random arbitrary value to make it look sensational !
 
Taking a quick look back down the memory lane, ATI hasn’t had an easy ride over the past four years. In 2004, the GeForce 6800 outperformed the Radeon X800 and brought support for DirectX 9.0c. In 2005, the GeForce 7800 slaughtered the Radeon X850 while the GeForce 7900 trumped the Radeon X1800/1900.
I know people already said this, but....

HAHAHAHA! Oh my God!
What idiot even allowed this to be published? WHAT A LOAD OF COMPLETE AND UTTER CRAP! Check you own VGA charts, moron!

Shame on you, Tom's!
Everyone has been noticing the STEEP decline in quality of your articles this past year, and it's only getting worse with every new one.
I am disgusted and appalled at the bias you have been showing.
How about you learn a thing or two about objective journalism and.. wait what was that other thing?.. oh yeah.. FACTS!

I'm sad to say, but Tom's is no longer a relibale source of information as far as I'm concerned.
 
This has to be the worst article I have ever had the misfortune of reading. Every time Theo Valich publishes something he always seems to get shot down in flames by the readers but on this occasion it's well deserved.

I would be lying if I said some of it is misleading because the reality is the report blatantly wrong. The graphs have no caption and most of them have no relevance to the actually article (a lot of them show a mere $3 movement).

Why doesn’t some critique Theo’s work before it gets published? Your publishing to hardware fans, were geeks and if there’s something wrong it’s you can guarantee it’s going to picked up on by the readers.


Theo, you must do better.
D+
 
+hey IOCEDMYSELF,nobody that owns those newer cards has anything good to say about them,as i said you friggin tool of an idiot:2 8800 ULTRAS IN SLI,,END OF FN STORY PERIOD!
 
Finsfan62, you got to be kidding me. Not everyone has the coin to purchase a 1200 Watt power supply to go with that 8800Ultra setup.
I can run two HD450 in CF with a cheap 580 Watt PSU which is just as good if not better and save a bunch of money. We don't have a bottomless pocket.
 
Even if the information in parts of it are fairly inaccurate, the general idea remains true and intact. Some gtx 280 models are selling for as low as 450 before tax. The cheapest I've seen on the Egg is 420 after mail in rebates

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133228

And maybe I'm crazy, but I think prices are only going to keep dropping. Round one for the consumers and ATI.

Isn't market capitalism amazing?
 
finfan you pathetic retard, no one has anything good to say about the newer nvidia cards because they have pathetic performance gains if any at all compared to the 9800 and 8800GT cards. The GTX cards are being hailed as the worst product launch IN HISTORY as reported by nearly every hardware site.

Another reason no one has anything good to say about the newer cards is the fact that ATI destroys them. In performance, in price in every area possible. The 8800 ultra's were the best ....two years ago. But they are old, overpriced and out performed.

Take a look there
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964-9.html
or there
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=20

Or read any review of the 4800 cards that provide bench mark comparisons. The 8800 ultra's are beat out by the 4850's ffs. They are slaughtered by the 4870's.

The 4800's scale better in crossfire in nearly every game comparison. and considering the fact that my 3d mark 06 scores in 1280x1024 4aa 8 AF for a single 4870
SM2 4750
SM3 5866

Compared to the 8800 ultra which has a SM2 of 4332 and SM3 of 3920...you're a mornoic fanboy with $1100 worth of video hardware that can be replaced with two $200 cards.

Read some reviews, get a clue then get steralized.
 
Why is this listed as "news" here on tom's? Today is Feb 16 and this article is from a long long long long long time ago. Way to go Tom's!!! Just another example of how this site is spireling downward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.