this card is being priced at around $180 compared to $250 for a 8800gt (street prices, comparing at online sites). id say it's a good deal for those looking into performance.

but ill wait for my 8800gt

i have AMD x2 3800 2ghz with 2gb ram. if i upgrade my card to Radeopn 3870 or GF 8800gt do you think my CPU can keep up with crysis? or even the recently released games like COD4 or bioshock?

linking the website will do

cant be true, why would they use a more expensive process - 90nm - to create a card which undoubtedly require a larger amount of transistor? not to mention heat due to the larger die and its presumably lower clocking capability. im not familiar with the G92 clocking issues, but it sure is clocking higher than the g80. i find ure logic terbalik

what is a full version of G92? increased number of SP and higher memory bandwidth?

anyone who buys a g80 GTS and gtx now and the past 2 weeks deserves to be laughed at.

i dont recall any high end latest gen graphics card using the previous gen chip nor processes. GeForce 7800 GTX used 110nm and the GeForce 7900 GTX used 90nm. just look through the R520 and R600 series and ull see the same pattern. also, isnt the Ultra also using a 90nm process which is the pinnacle of nvidia's offering at that time?

if they could have made G80 go beyond 612 mhz without producing too much heat, they would. and maybe they are working on it hence the G80 plus. but currently G92 is churning less heat with its 65nm process, packing more transistors, and boasting better clocking performance with GTS coming out at 650mhz on a reference chip.

now that they are capable of producing G92 using 65nm process, it's just insane to go back to back to using 90nm. if ure talking about optimizing G80+ on 65nm then that sounds plausible. but staying at 90nm?