thats crazy, i have to say though, nvidia has though a little bit about power, i mean the 7800GTX uses les power than a 6800Ultra or something doesnt it? so at least they have thought about it, maybe not done an awful lot but a little bit is better than nothing.
Thats because the GTX was only a 6800Ultra with some modifications, better performance and lower power consumption.
A much faster card that comsumes around the same amount of power as it's progenitors is a pretty good stratagy if you ask me. I'm pleased with their efforts as well.
some 6800 ultras must be better than 7800gtx's becouse i see in some shops 6800 ultras cost more than a 7800gtx, i noticed the 6800 ultra was 512mb though, well i think it was 512mb, i might be mistaken.
yeah there was one on the net for like £590 i remember seeing a post about it a while back. That sort of money is just crazy!
and would the 7800gt or gtx still beat it with only 256mb? as 7800gt and gtx has higher clock speeds, memory speeds, more pipelines, and proberbly more transistors. 2 6800gt's are cheaper, and they would proberbly beat one of those 6800ultras (512mb)
see this is where it gets confusing, you end up forgetting what one your talking about.....and there's so many combinations for example "would 2 6800Ultras in SLI beat one 7800GTX not in SLI?" "Would 2 6800GT's (256MB) in SLI beat a 6800Ultra (512MB) not in SLI"... i blame nvidia for making so many suffixes Ultra....GT...GTX...No suffix...then there's 128MB....256MB....512MB....in SLI...not in SLI there are so many configurations to suit everybody, a good thing but a bad thing if you're trying to compare them as people want to compare cards in SLI with cards not in SLI and there's so many things to take into account
There's vertually no performance boost with 512Mb's of memory, the GTX would smoke the 512Mb 6800U any day, even with 128Mb's or memory (which oddly enough XFX makes one for some reason). 512Mb's or memory won't be necessary for a while now, it's just an expensive gimic at this point.
i wish graphics cards were customizable, so then you could add more ram if you wanted to, and have like 784mb ram graphics cards, and max supporting 4gb
Ahh, yes. The old "add more memory and jack up the price" game. If you take a lot of large textures into play, the extra RAM can help, but the 7800GTX is so far a head of the 6800U that it's not enough to keep pace with the 7800GTX. However, I still wouldn't pay double the price on a GeForce 2 MX simply because it has 128MB of RAM, but that's just me. Don't kid yourself: while it can help, there's also alot of marketing in there too. I haven't really seen any 6800U's with 512MB RAM, but I've heard talk about it, and given the way the market goes, it really wouldn't surprise me if it had that amount.
lol they probably could put in another 256MB of memory in those things, but could you imagine the price? £600 for a 512MB 6800U.....£God-Knows-How-Much for a 512MB 780GTX/U...the prices just wouldnt be competetive, and the only people who would buy them would be people with more money than sense/people who want bragging rights...
If nVidia really wanted to they could be selling 512Mb 7800's but they're holding that out for when ATI's R520 is realeased so the 7800Ultra or whatever is a match for it as the 520 will surely have 512MB's or vram. I don't think it's particularly expensive to add in 512Mb's over 256, there is a 6200 with 512Mb's and it's not much over $120 I believe. They have X800XL's with 512Mb's and they're sub $400 I think so it can be done.
if its not too expensive to add another 256MB of memory then why does the 6800ULTRA cost like £600 which can be nearly triple what a 256MB 6800Ultra costs?
