However not by much if this is correct http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest [...] =208404063

That said if this is true, the 4870 x2 should be interesting, I can't wait for the reviews of 4800 series.

I find it odd than Nvidia has been making these "oohh 30% faster, 3 times more, better, faster", but in the legit benchmarks/reviews that came out today from Toms and Andantech its the TOTAL opposite in everything.

And im not buying this "card for the future crap" either. Technology, escpially in computers advances so fast that building a high end enthusiast video card "for the future" is utter bullcrap and a total waste of time, effort, and money. Nvidia themselves will release something better a year -/+ from now, not to mention the 4870X2 and Larrabe if you believe that.

Spathotan, True the reviews today kind of shocked me. I was sure Nvidia was sitting on something huge, due to the "crossfire" they have been in with Intel. They made a monster of a GPU, but it kinda fell short of the mark. And the "Card for the Future" is just marketing crap, the only card for the future is the next one they want to sell you.

I bet some driver updates will help out but yeah, like usual, it didn't live up to the hype. I bet ATI is holding the 4870 for some last minute tweaks now that the 280/260 is out and about.

Do you guys remember what ATi did for the 2900xt? Well change that to Nvidia and the 2900xt to the 280gtx. The promised so much but delivered a major disappointment.

I wonder if Hector Ruiz is working with Nvidia these days?

This is one time that ATI being a week late might get a big payoff. They now know how bad Nvidia flubbed things, so when they bring their new card out, they can talk about how nobody does it better than they do it. Even if the 4870 doesn't perform better, they still have the price edge. Buy two 4870s for the same as one 280 GTX, and get some change back. Sounds good to me.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/726/15/

i dont think so

I dont think so either. A vendor is not going to make a 2000 point difference in 3Dmark. The EVGA one scoring 2000 +/- higher than the PNY one is BS. It would take an overclock of like 400mhz to do that. Not to mention is like a $1000 card, the waterblock card shouldnt even be tested with standard units.

I'm just worried that the 4870/4850 are overhyped a little.

I reallt don't know, but I don't really see how ATI can produce a $300 card that can almost compete with a $649 dollar card. It makes me think they'd raise the price at least. Like at least $50. Unless they're really trying to get as many customers as possible.

I'm just afraid that we may be a little dissapointed when the 4800s release as well.

Seeing as the 9800GX2 can perform sometimes faster than the GTX 280 at lower resolutions and AF/AA then I think a multi-gpu like the 4870 X2 can kick the GTX 280 easily if it's got the processing power and Vram. "2 brains is better than 1" unless they conflict with each other, kind of like how tri-sli creates too much overhead for the cpu and performs less than regular sli.

280GTX should have been 2x the performance of G92 but it fell short with only 80TMU vs 64TMU on G92. All AMD has to do is release with a card that is little faster than G92 with a much lower price tag and they win. AMD fixed their AA so Nvidia won't have the edge anymore when it comes to AA.

Did I miss something? When was this?

I doubt that nvidia will have an answer for the 4870x2 if and when it arrives.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] ost3059788

A big difference is that ATI has stated that it didn't expect that its new card would be faster than the 280 GTX. If anything, its the enthusiasts who have overhyped it. ATI has merely taken the stand that it will be better than the 3870. As for the idea of a $300 card competing against a $650 card, there should be no competition. The problem is that Nvidia's new card is too expensive to produce at a middle price range and it ended up not performing as expected. That's where the disappointment is. Nvidia was talking the 280 as being the greatest thing ever, but reality shows that it leaves the question of "Why bother?" So no, a $300 shouldn't be competing against a $650 card, its more that Nvidia's $650 card should be costing about $300.