Quote Originally Posted by legionaire45 View Post
....your kidding me, right?

...The 8800 GTS 320 mb costs $299 (seen it for as low as $250) and the 640 costs $400, but I have seen it for as low as $320. The HD2900XT costs $400-$430. The HD2900XT trades spots with the 8800 GTS 640 mb and currently has awful drivers. This is ATI's low-high end product, not their highest end -- save that for the HD2900XTX or HD2900XTX2 (dual cards in a single slot, either like the Sapphire dual X1950 card or the 7950 GX2, not yet known) if it isn't simply a rumor.

And as for the X1650 vs the 7600GT....



(remember that ATI cards usually run Source based games better)



And in the video card industry, there is no such thing as an unfair advantage -- there is no cheating in this industry.

When you quoted my post of the 8800GTX being a 2-in-1 card, I wasn't joking. Check it out at the nVidia forums, it actually is. The HD 2900XT is very new so of course the drivers are gonna be Fubar. They may need to create new ones altogether. What's your point when you put those benchmarks up of the X1650XT and the GeForce 7600GT? It just restates what said in my previous post. Those two cards are set against each other and perform relatively the same. I actually expected the 7600GT to come out as the best since it really is the best I have seen for only $189 Canadian.

There is such thing as an unfair advantage when it comes to benchmarks and overall performance seeing as two cards clocked at, let's say 1.3Ghz will be 2.6ghz overall. That card is then sent against a card clocked at maybe 1.4Ghz. The card with the higher overall clock speed will obviously have better performance than the lower clocked one, otherwise there is something seriously wrong.