You probably bought the 8800 GTS at around 300 last year. Today the average price of the GTS 320 is around 220. Compare that to the average price of the 3850 being around 185. 35 dollars difference and the cheaper outperforms the more expensive. The 8800GT 256 is what you should have put against the HD 3850. It is closer in price (around 15-25 dollar difference) and beats the 3850 in lower resolutions (sub 16×12).

The 8800GT 512 is NOW the best card for the money. When it was released, the 3870 was tied in price performance, followed by huge gouging making the 3870 a much better deal. However, lots of sites out there are having huge sales at the time of this post putting the 8800GT at around 235. At this price, it is pointless to buy a 3870.

Do your research before you post drivel like this.

You didn’t specifiy who made the Nv card when the cost of that card (looking at a local popular online retailer) can range anywhere from $230 up to $330 – with the avg being more towards the $300/300+ range and going as high as $450. Then you compare it vs. a card that, from the same retailer, costs $195? This card scores higher (albeit it just slightly) and you make it sound like it’s primary benefit is that it is quieter?

Contending that “A year on and ATi can’t manage to beat what was nvidia’s best one year ago.” is also retarded b/c a) That’s not true, ATI has already with the X2 which is currently better than even the GTX ultra (again for less money) and b) that was clearly not the point of the 3850/3870.

Trying to kill Nvidia in one fell swoop would be both unrealistic, impractical & unnecessary. When the 880GT came out how many people kicked themselves for buying a GTX or GTS within the prior months? That and the overall success of the GT, 38x0s points to the fact that a good quality card with a better price and better bang for buck is a great way to go whether you’re trying to compete or just sell more cards. It may not get you the performance crown but more importantly it will get you market share and great reviews. Which is exactly what ATI/AMD needed at the time.

The closing statements especially seem like biased fanboism. As I understand it, with the X2 ATI currently holds the performance crown, Nvidia with their upcoming sandwhich card (I believe it’s 2 GT cards?) is likely to take it back in short order, though it will remain to be seen how well that design works vs. ATIs. Since the design is significantly different and Nv’s prior attempt at a similiar model was a bust it’s not completely unlikely that particular faults might hold what should be a suprior card back. After that we have Nvidia’s new line and ATI’s has their new chip in the pipeline as well. Given all that, knowing what both companies have in the pipeline – it seems silly to think that ATI will just fall into second seat and just stay there when they seem to so far be having success with their current strategy.

The effect of Nvidia aquiring Aegia will remain to be seen since PPUs in themselves have never really been successful in the first place. But one way or the other I doubt that we’ll see the effects of that in the immediate future though b/c if nothing else that, like say DX10.1, requires games that support it to be useful. With Nvidia’s development programs this has a decent chance of being likely but it will take time and if ATI has significant market share by that time they will most likely have a say in the matter as well.

As for the HD3850 being a competitor to the 8600 series. The 8600 series can score around 5K to 6K in 3Dmark06, the HD3850 is in the 8K to 9K range, I’ve never seen it top 10,000 but I suppose it’s possible.

The 8800GT scores easily in the 10K to 11K range. Now, what do you suppose the HD3850 was designed for. I say it was designed as competition for the 8800GT/GTS and fails at it. It scores too high to be in the same league as the lowly 8600 series and scores too low to danger the 8800GT in any way.

This article definitely is biased and full of half truths.