The only thing better about Ultras is their garunteed to work at those speeds, GT's arn't but most work at those speed, I'll take that chance.
I'm sorry, but that made zero sense. You just said that since it's riskier to overclock a GT, it's a better choice? How does that work?
For the average person(not a pro OCer), the OCing he can get out of a 68GT is the same he can get out of an Ultra.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'll drop this.
No, hes commenting that hes suprised that theres no quantum leap, while forgetting that it went:
NV30(Fx 5800)> Refresh(5900) > NV40(6800GT)>refresh(7800GTX)
I'm commenting that he SHOULDN'T be surprised that there's no quantum leap, which has historically been the exception rather than the rule. The reason the jump to the 6800 series was so great was because the FX series sucked. It has nothing to do with the way things SHOULD be.
The reason the jump was so great that it was nearly an entirely new design, like the X800 being a quantum leap over the 9800, thats how it SHOULD BE. Refreshs like the 7800GTX\5900XT bring us minor improvements, while new designs like the 6800GT\X800 bring us quantum leaps.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
Uraniun235 wrote:I think the chart is meant to represent PCI-Express only, especially as the 7800 is probably going to be PCI-E only.
I PM'ed the guy over at SA that created the chart.
I wrote:Out of curiosity, how were the prices for the video cards selected?
Dr. Fred, of the Something Awful forums, wrote:They're all from newegg. For the nVidia cards I went for the eVGA boards, since eVGA make the reference models, and for the ATI one I think I went with the stock ATI OEM board since it was cheaper.
I suppose I should just compile an average of prices, but they're only there as a guideline, so a $5-10 fluctuation here and there isn't going to change much.
Ahhh goons, what pie don't we have a finger in?
I'd agree with him, a small price difference doesn't break the chart, it still tells the general story.
