Originally Posted by Pinchy
Yeah, i agree with you there. But, i think its more to do with nvidia doing well as opposed to AMD doing poorly. For example, look at a couple of generations back; the highest of the old generation always beats the mid of the new generation.
9800XT (cant really talk about the FX series
) > X600/6600
X800XT PE/6800 Ultra > 7600/X1600 <-- (not x1650, remember we are talking about the midrange that they first release....for all we know, there is a HD 2650 coming out
I reckon AMD should have made the HD 2600 256-bit tho, unless they are saving that for a future model.
Again, agreed, I think the 256Bit 2600 would make it cost prohibitive tho against the competition, some would say that does it matter if it's faster than the 8600GTS but YES it does because there is only a small gap between the 8600GTS and the 8800GTS 320Mb price wise, whether by chance or deliberate, it would appear so far that NVida have all the options covered! You could argue that the 320MB 8800GTS is technically mid range in NVidia's portfolio which until DX10 shows us the real potential of these cards has gotta be a bit worrying for the red team.
One think is for sure, we really do need ATi to be at least competetive in DX10 otherwise these card prices are never going to come down enough to appeal to the majority of mainstream buyers, and thats bad for us.