I was at Best Buy the other night, and I saw an intriguing selection of graphics cards. At the high end, there was a GeForce FX 5900 (non-Ultra) for $399 and a Radeon 9800 Pro for the same price. There was no GeForce FX 5900 Ultra to be found. At the supposed mid-range of the market, things were a little more even. The new GeForce FX 5600 Ultra cards with 400/800MHz core/memory clocks were available, priced at $249. However, ATI's Radeon 9600 Pro card was selling for only $199.
In other words, the NVIDIA Ultra cards are not competing head to head with the ATI Pro cards on price. That's especially bad news since, as the euphoria has worn off after the intial FX 5900 Ultra reviews, benchmarkers have become much more wary of possible driver tweaks, and performance expectations for the FX 5900 Ultra are being revised downward. In many cases, the FX 5900 Ultra looks no faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro.
Judging by the situation at our local retailer, NVIDIA's struggles with the ill-fated NV30 seem to have extended throughout the FX lineup. This development should be no great surprise, since all the NV3x chips are largely based on the same basic technology. Still, the persistence of problems with availability and competitive pricing seems a little jarring. Are you guys seeing the same thing at your local shops?
|G.Skill KM560 MX keyboard drops the numpad||5|
|Rumor: Acer Triton 700 may use an unreleased Pascal GPU||12|
|Silverstone Vital VT02 could hold a Core i7 in under two liters||4|
|Galax and KFA2 induct the GTX 1080 Ti into the Hall of Fame||18|
|Acer's Aspire GX-281 lineup brings Ryzen to the masses||12|
|Deals of the week: discounts on CPUs, mobos, and more||8|
|Asetek gets $600,000 from Cooler Master in AIO cooler patent spat||14|
|Acer Predator Triton and Helios laptops are ready for serious play||8|
|Intel enjoys healthy revenue and profits for Q1 2017||27|