Comments Locked

19 Comments

Back to Article

  • Regs - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    AMD yet again shows no performance. I guess will have to be paitent one more month and hope AMD doesn't try the same stunt again and give it to reviewers hands.


    Or...always another trip to Africa.
  • Griswold - Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - link

    Smartass. Maybe they're trying to get it right this time by giving their driver-monkeys enough time to get it right - so this thing actually takes off instead of throwing out some numbers with a premature set drivers that wont help anyone especially not AMD?
  • synic - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    What's the price? If it's under the price of two HD 3870's (say, $349?) and delivers close to twice the performance, then it would be more cost effective to get two of these HD 3870 X2's and CrossFire them on an X38 motherboard than two 8800GTS on the 780i motherboard.
  • tcool93 - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    Typical Nvidia fanboys once again trashing ATI. Trying to drive away their business, then they whine when there is no competition due to the fact ATI has no money to invest. Kinda like shooting yourself in the foot isn't it.
  • synic - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    WTF? Did you mean to reply to my post?

    Do you even know what fanboy means?
  • Makaveli - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    I think he was talking about the first poster who is obviously a moron.

    And I seriously doubt this will retail for $349 as the other poster was suggesting. I would say either $399 on the low end to $499 on the highend. Don't forget about the retailers and their bastard markups!
  • geogaddi - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link


    ...farging bastages...

  • DigitlDrug - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    Focusing resources on a superior middle-tier solution may work, especially given that a multi-gpu config may be able to reach a lower idle power state if the correct hw and sw exists.

    This probably is not an ideal discrete graphics solution, but given that nvidia may be about to shoot themselves in the foot (which I will explain in a second), there may be a place for multi-core gpu's.

    A previous post reported on NVidia's use of integrated GPU's to save pwr when discreet gpu is not needed. As I stated, this may allow ATI to accomplish the same goal without an inherent system bandwidth penalty.

    NVidia's strategy involves loading the frame buffer into system memory and outputting it through the integrated gpu. I have my doubts about this tech given the value of bandwidth (and low latency requests) in multi-core systems.

    NVidia is flush with cash and dev teams (at least compared to AMD/ATI) so they can play with solutions like this and solve much of the problems with Brute Force engineering (the way Intel kept the p4 on life support for so long). ATI does not have that luxury and will need less exotic solutions like multi-gpu's to offer a competing low pwr feature.

    It should also be noted that though engineering costs will be saved, margins will inevitably be lower given the costs associated with manufacturing each discrete gpu chip. In short, this is NOT a slam dunk.

    Unfortunately, to my knowledge ATI's strategy of designing for the middle has never been implemented in the pc space successfully. In practice the best hardware platforms use a trickle down approach where the low-end inherits tech from the high-end. The high-end's higher transistor/thermal/pwr budget allows for a greater degree of innovation in terms of features, etc.
  • kilkennycat - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    ... since they have no money at the moment to develop next-gen GPUs. Consumer-appealing tweaks on the current generation is all that they can afford.
  • Griswold - Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - link

    Stop posting, idiot.
  • teldar - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    That's actually all Nvidia is going to be doing as well. Did you read that the 9800 is just going to be two INDIVIDUAL 8800 boards? I like AMD's solution better. One card with two processors should be more efficient than two individual boards, I would think

    T
  • tcool93 - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    That is a hypocritical comment considering Nvidia is doing the exact same thing for their next card.
  • Peristalsis - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    Funny... Didn't Nvidia try the same thing with the 7950x2?, and yet we can't help but poke at AMD/ATI when they try it.

    If I remember correctly, this was Nvidia's way of 'buying time' to compete while they developed the 8800 series (I own an 8800 GTX OC) and I thought that was a great idea. Too bad it didn't pan out in SLI like I had hoped.

    Now, if AMD can pull this off in CrossFireX - this could generate some interest for high res gaming.
  • mekert - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    Yes, and they're doing it again with the first reports of the 9 series.

    But it makes sense for nVidia, why bust their rear ends at this point, when the best AMD comes up with is the same thing.

    It'll buy nVidia more time, once again, to develop brand new tech.
  • Rajinder Gill - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    If ATI can get the drivers right and bring this product in at a good price, these cards will steal the show. Imagine chipset/platform freedom for dual card (or near) performance. I can't wait to bench some of these babies...

    regards
    Raja
  • Bursk - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    Does anyone know how long these things are?
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    10.5" I believe

    Take care,
    Anand
  • Bursk - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    Thank you both.

    I fear this may be .5" too long to fit inside my Antec Solo (I currently have a 1900XT in there). I guess I'll have to see what other people report.
  • shabby - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    The same lenght as the 8800gtx.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now