$299 is quoted as the “list price.” This is what Woot says about list price: “List Price is the original sticker price, the MSRP, or our own best attempt to find the full price online. It’s mostly worthless, so we rely on Wooters like you to post the best price comparisons in our forum. You’ll be a hero!”
In this case, $299.99 is the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). MSRP is what is usually called the “retail price” or the “list price.” That MSRP was set when this card was new, which was several years ago. The card is now selling at much lower prices, as it is nearing obsolescence. However, it is doubtful that the manufacturer ever changed the MSRP…they probably just dropped the card from their price list once it had been superseded.
Woot has accurately reported the MSRP on this product. What you can purchase an item for at Amazon or elsewhere does not change the MSRP, nor does the age or actual worth of the item. Only the manufacturer can change the MSRP.
If you look at the second image, you’ll see that there’s a DisplayPort to DVI adapter included. You plug that into one of the DisplayPorts, then connect a DVI monitor to that. If you need an HDMI output, DVI to HDMI adapters are just a few dollars. If you need two VGA outputs, you can purchase a DisplayPort to VGA adapter for around $20 to support the second monitor.
69 bucks for a 512mb card? It should be 39. Sorry but maybe just as a back up video while waiting for a replacement of a dead card but seems costly for such a bottom line card. JMO
Generally prefer NVIDIA over ATI’s cards. That said, while this looks like a steep discount from this card’s recent price history, there definitely appears to be better choices out there for similar costs or much better cards for just slightly more.
Using original MSRP pricing for computer electronics is a hilarious way to benchmark an item’s discount given the industries tendency towards obsolescence at a lightning pace.
I should sell 14.4 modems at 99% off for $49. I’ll sell thousands with discounts this steep!
Very much yes. Maya and any other 3D professional package sees tremendous improvements with a professional workstation graphics card such as this one. In short, software like Maya is what this card is tooled specifically for.
I see a lot of confusion every time a graphics card like this comes up. These are not meant for gaming or other standard all-purpose graphics, but instead for professional graphics-producing workstations. We’re talking CAD, 3D animation, or art programs.
I could explain why, but this article on Icrontic.com does a FANTASTIC job of explaining the advantages and disadvantages of workstation cards vs standard desktop (“gaming”) cards. The article’s from 2009, but still relevant. Very much worth the read.
But if you’re lazy, here’s the TL;DR version: workstation is a pickup truck where utility and reliability rules; desktop/gaming is a racecar where only speed is king.
NO! Bad for anything after Maya 2009 (Maybe 2010). It is not up to current specs and in my case caused many crashes. Made the interactive split polygon tool totally useless, and appears to have been the cause of many random crashes in 2012 and 2011. You can check Autodesk Site for certified cards (these are workstation cards) or if you use a gamer card check the specs for the card against the software. Otherwise you will have a lot of grief.
I guess I stand corrected. Well, my point was in general, workstation cards are good for Maya. Didn’t realize there were compatibility issues with this particular card.
Perhaps a driver update could fix it? I’d check into the Maya or AMD forums for answers before buying.
My understanding is that five features are most important in a CAD card, which is what this card was meant to be: number of CUDA cores or equivalent, video RAM size (for large CAD models and 3D), drivers, drivers, and drivers. This would be a decent card for cash-strapped users of older CAD software. As others have suggested, checking specific CAD approved driver lists will be a good start. If using a whizbang graphics card without optimized drivers, local MicroCenter claims you will lose CAD performance equivalent to loss of about half the CUDA core count. The standard for CAD performance (and cost) is probably Nvidia Quatro 5000, which has probably the greatest number of driver compatibilities. I am interested in a (much) cheaper card for CAD, but as yet have no idea of which programs I will settle on using. I have pretty much decided for now to look for a gaming card with plenty of cores and RAM, since I might not end up with a really optimized driver anyway, and might use it for gaming as well. I am tentatively thinking along the lines of GTX660 w/3GB RAM when it is about $300; with 1344 cores, I’m thinking that should work out. I am not speaking as an authority, and solicit other opinions.
It’s common practice for sites like this to give out inflated MSRP prices as the going price. Always do your homework because often the deal isn’t as much of a deal as you think it is.
I have a GeForce GTX 465 (1GB DDR5) paired with a Geforce GT 250 for PhysX right now, and do a fair mix of gaming and 3D modeling. Would getting two of these give me any benefit in my 3D modeling experience? (3DS Max 2011.)
Even the PassMark benchmark list shows the MSRP as $295 so really it’s not a stretch. Woot doesn’t pull MSRPs out of thin air, they aren’t trying to pull a fast one on anybody, and frankly you should never even bother to look at an MSRP they are that worthless, so why is there all this hostility going on here? Just ignore the MSRP/retail price, folks!
