Ati & nVidia (Price Comparison)

[BawA]

i dont get it why is it that ati Cards are always cheaper even if they're more powerful? whats the catch?
i personally have bad experience with ati cards, every time i buy them they dont last much before they over run and they dont give same gaming experience as nvidia. last time i bought 9600 pro it was decent but then i went to nvidia 7600Gs and i bought it for almost same price but was better and remained cooler.

now for an example:
XFX GeForce 8800GTX
* 768MB 384-bit, GDDR3
* PCI Express x16
* HDCP Ready SLI Supported
$539.99

DIAMOND 2900XT1GPE Radeon HD 2900XT

* 1GB 512-bit, GDDR4
* PCI Express x16
* HDCP Ready CrossFire
Price: $489.99

now those difference's are clear and still nvidia is 50$ more expensive, why?
now i know you may say performance may be different but c'mon those extra numbers should make difference.
1Gb GDDR4 against 768 GDDR3
384Bit against 512bit.

[lynx]

1GB vs 768MB sounds impressive, but if you aren't filling 768MB what's the point of adding an extra 256MB? Future games may well utilise that memory, but as always they will probably need some other performance boost in order to work efficiently.

If you aren't going to fill the extra memory, is the 33% increase in bus width any use either?

So far, GDDR4 is only marginally faster than GDDR3, and at the moment probably operates at the same voltage, so there's no real benefit there. That will change as faster and lower powered versions come along, but Nvidia cards will probably use GDDR4 by then anyway.

Maybe reliability is the issue then. More rigorous chip selection results in higher rejection rates, which in turn gives increased costs. Can't say I've noticed that myself though.

Another possibility is the amount of time a design will stand the test of future games. If Nvidia boards are better future-proofed then it stands to reason that you would expect to pay more because their useful lifetime will be longer. Again, I'm not saying that they are better in that respect, just an observation of the possible reasons.

Ati did have higher market share, possibly because of these lower prices, in turn allowing them economies due to larger scale production. Still, Nvidia seem to be increasing their market share, and if they can do that even with higher prices there's little incentive to make price cuts.

BTW, it's Western, not Westren.

And Arsenal can be abbreviated.

[BawA]

1GB vs 768MB sounds impressive, but if you aren't filling 768MB what's the point of adding an extra 256MB? Future games may well utilise that memory, but as always they will probably need some other performance boost in order to work efficiently.

If you aren't going to fill the extra memory, is the 33% increase in bus width any use either?

thats not what i asked, your saying although those extra spec's are available it wont be a factor for choosing between ati and nvidia becuase i/we cant fill them.

[Seedler]

If you aren't going to fill the extra memory, is the 33% increase in bus width any use either?

thats not what i asked, your saying although those extra spec's are available it wont be a factor for choosing between ati and nvidia becuase i/we cant fill them.

According to ATI, the 2900XT is experiencing driver issues at the moment, however with that aside, the 8800GTX outperforms the X2900XT in almost all benchmarks, despite having seemingly "inferior" specs.

[mr. nails]

idk how to answer ur original question. so, back when amd was trying to be someone they sold a better product (imo) over intel and for cheaper. now, they are trying to do the same thing and provide a "better" product again, but this time it's just not working. the extra ram on these boards are not providing any noticable or if any difference today at all. amd's card run hotter and take more energy to run. also, their driver base is getting better, but still not up to par. same is said about nVidia as well for their driver support is getting marginally better it's still shit. so, having said ALL that... nVidia can charge more for it is the "better" product right now. if any of this made any sense to begin with.

[BawA]

well then ill wait for 89xx series
i knew ati is shit, they were always, the only good thing i can see in ati's are a more lasting fans maybe because they dont provide enough cooling

[Peerzy]

No game is going to need 1GB of GPU memory and I'll bet my dinner that memory is a lot slower than the card with the smaller amount of memory. Meaning the card with more memory will be slower and you won't be using the 'extra' memory.

[lynx]

No game is going to need 1GB of GPU memory and I'll bet my dinner that memory is a lot slower than the card with the smaller amount of memory. Meaning the card with more memory will be slower and you won't be using the 'extra' memory.

I'm not sure that the memory will be slower (nor am I convinced that current versions will be much faster), but I'm not sure it us really relevant.

I don't think I put my case forward very well earlier.

The very fact that these cards are cheaper means one of two things:

• card makers can produce ati based cards cheaper than nvidia based cards with equal performance
• card makers have to sell ati based cards cheaper than nvidia based cards because they have poorer performance

I'd suggest that benchmarks will tell you which is the case

[mr. nails]

i knew ati is shit, they were always...

wrong. the ati 9800pro was the best card to get for a good 2 years.

[DooMeD68]

too right NIN ! it was a brilliant card for it's time !
NVIDIA like to charge NVIDIA prices for whatever they produce - yes there fast - but so are ATI (and cheaper) !