# Radeon HD 7990 "Malta" Prices Slashed to $699, Targets GTX 780



## btarunr (Aug 7, 2013)

In a bid to step up competitiveness of its Radeon HD 7990 "Malta" dual-GPU graphics card against NVIDIA's GeForce GTX TITAN and GTX 690, AMD add-in-board (AIB) partners slashed prices of the card by almost a third. What was once retailing for $1,100-1,200, is now down to $699.99. Prices of the card on American retailer Newegg.com, are ranging between $699.99 to $789.99, with two AIBs capturing the $729.99 and $749.99 price points, along the way. With the right kind of CrossFire profiles, a Radeon HD 7990 can offer frame-rates rivaled only by GTX Titan and GTX 690. Then there are also AMD's recent CrossFire micro-stuttering fix, and eight Never Settle games with realistic resale value of $100 to account for. These prices should also give GeForce GTX 780 buyers second thoughts.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 7, 2013)

That's one ballsy move by AMD. 



Impressive.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 7, 2013)

Indeed. You still have an Radeon setup Dave?


----------



## Jorge (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm sure everyone is making plenty of money with a retail price of $700 for a graphics card. It's amazing the prices people are willing to pay for entertainment.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 7, 2013)

If you think that's expensive, you should see how much go fast goodies cost for a car. Computers are the cheaper hobby for me. lol.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2013)

Here's hoping the 780 will drop at least $50, but honestly I don't think nvidia cares what they do.


----------



## DarkOCean (Aug 7, 2013)

Down to the price that should have been released at in the first place.


----------



## Akrian (Aug 7, 2013)

Well, that's great news. Now, if only AMD did this about 55 days ago, I would've went and buy it without a second though instead of struggling to find unlocked 7970 and a koolance wb for it 


But hey, that's how that card should've cost in the first place. Now I hope to see 780 and titans go down he he =)


----------



## TRWOV (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 7, 2013)

This is great news. Nvidia came up with the 690 at 1k, AMD had to go with the pricing flow. Now I could only see one reason for this price drop. Prep for the HD9xxx launch later this year perhaps?


----------



## TRWOV (Aug 7, 2013)

Sempron Guy said:


> This is great news. Nvidia came up with the 690 at 1k, AMD had to go with the pricing flow. Now I could only see one reason for this price drop. Prep for the HD9xxx launch later this year perhaps?



PR. It isn't as if there was a flood of 7990s.


----------



## ViperXTR (Aug 7, 2013)

clearing the inventory, grab it while supplies last >:]
But yeah, its a sweet deal for its price


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 7, 2013)

ViperXTR said:


> But yeah, its a sweet deal for its price


Only in relation to what the previous price was. In relation to a couple of HD 7970 GE's the price still kinda sucks. A couple of these, or these for instance are going to OC better, have better cooling, and likely better resale value for the same money (or less). The only upside to the 7990 seems to be for people that only have one mobo PCIEx16 slot (probably a very small percentage of people willing to spend $700+ on a graphics card), or have their existing PCIE slots earmarked for SSD's/RAID/Sound AIB's


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 7, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> ...The only upside to the 7990 seems to be for people that only have one mobo PCIEx16 slot (probably a very small percentage of people willing to spend $700+ on a graphics card), or have their existing PCIE slots earmarked for SSD's/RAID/Sound AIB's



Which is a weird one.  The card is very long so if you had a small mobo you may also have a small case, therefore the 7990 really is set for folks with larger set ups, so as HumanSmoke says, better with 2 x 7970.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 7, 2013)

I thought they were dropping the 7990 all together.


----------



## Sir Alex Ice (Aug 7, 2013)

The problem I have with such big price cuts is the fact that it means they were screwing us by at least 300$ with the old price.


----------



## Ghost (Aug 7, 2013)

"Competition is good for the consumers".

Cheers to all who bought it for 1000$+


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 7, 2013)

ohhh thats great now i have to threat the seller i found (for a 2nd hand 7990 1 week of use who brought it a bit more than 1000$) that his "low" price isnt "low" anymore

if the new price go as low as 699$ his 777.14$ is off the chart ! so if he apply the same "rebate" he should do 476.14$ or i buy a new one at 699$! bahah ... no joke ... or ... 

second thought ofc i should not mention the actual price range


----------



## Johnny Rook (Aug 7, 2013)

The OP -and TPU -, are putting a high degree of confidence the AMD HD7990 prices will drop tremendously, when all they have to back it up is a single deal from a single online shop.
Do they know something we don't? Something leek from AMD itself?
Or, as I think is the case, this is just a "best offer" deal from an online shop that does this kind of promos all the time?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 7, 2013)

In EU still retails for 1K Euros...


----------



## Ghost (Aug 7, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> In EU still retails for 1K Euros...



Alternate.de has XFX version for 639€, Sapphire for 749€.


----------



## Frick (Aug 7, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> In EU still retails for 1K Euros...



€646 at its cheapest here..


----------



## Widjaja (Aug 7, 2013)

As usual online retailers over here will be very slow to update.
Right now the 7990 Malta GPUs are selling at 1420USD.


----------



## RCoon (Aug 7, 2013)

Widjaja said:


> As usual online retailers over here will be very slow to update.
> Right now the 7990 Malta GPUs are selling at 1420USD.



Still £800 here.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 7, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> That's one ballsy move by AMD.



Ballsy indeed, but worth noting that frame pacing fix only work on rez up to 2560x1600 so if you run 3 displays issue is still there with microstudder. Then wonder what this does for the rumor that AMD was gonna stop 7990 cards?


----------



## librin.so.1 (Aug 7, 2013)

Waaaaaait a sec... aren't the 7990s supposed to be EOL'd Real Soon Now™?


----------



## Ghost (Aug 7, 2013)

Vinska said:


> Waaaaaait a sec... aren't the 7990s supposed to be EOL'd Real Soon Now™?



Maybe 7990 going EOL is just a rumor. Or maybe they're already clearing inventory.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 7, 2013)

Vinska said:


> Waaaaaait a sec... aren't the 7990s supposed to be EOL'd Real Soon Now™?



And I stand by that. If you absolutely need to buy the card, now is a good time. Personally, I'd still spend that much money on a GTX 780.


----------



## BigMack70 (Aug 7, 2013)

This is a great move by AMD. Still don't think the 7990 is worth it at any price due to coil whine, but it's great to see the custom cards like the powercolor devil 7990 at $650... that's a steal!


----------



## techtard (Aug 7, 2013)

If I didn't already blow my video card budget earlier this year, I might have gotten one of these. 
They must be trying to get rid of whatever stock is left over before the 9000 series drops.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2013)

MEH. Old hat from AMD. Wasn't the 7970 $550+ upon release, then slashed prices to compete with the slightly better performing and cheaper 680? Then slashed dramtically again to reach its pricepoint now?


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 7, 2013)

HD7990 Malta here still at 45,000 pesos ( $1071 ) Chances of that new price being implement here is close to zero this year


----------



## cdawall (Aug 7, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> MEH. Old hat from AMD. Wasn't the 7970 $550+ upon release, then slashed prices to compete with the slightly better performing and cheaper 680? Then slashed dramtically again to reach its pricepoint now?



Umm both manufacturers do that...


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2013)

Sure they do... I never inferred otherwise. 

But note that the 7970 went from $550 upon release, to $375 today (not including MIR). A $170 (32% difference). While the $680 went from $499 upon release to $420 (16% difference). Pretty big drop from AMD there versus what one can consider a normal market price drop on the $680. 

As I stated, AMD usually lowers their pricing to be even more competitive in the market. This is not impressive, ballsy, or shocking in the least to me.


----------



## radrok (Aug 7, 2013)

As much as I love dual GPU cards I'd still buy two 7970s if I had to choose simply because the 7990 showed wierd over clocking behaviour.

Good move nonetheless 

Let's hope this is a sign they are going to roll out their new GPU generation soon.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 7, 2013)

Now nvidia really should drop prices.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 7, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Now nvidia really should drop prices.



Maybe they don't cause they invest the money in to a decent dev team for their drivers? Where as AMD had to use software patch to fix frame problems, nVidia has hardware built in to do the job.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 7, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Sure they do... I never inferred otherwise.
> 
> But note that the 7970 went from $550 upon release, to $375 today (not including MIR). A $170 (32% difference). While the $680 went from $499 upon release to $420 (16% difference). Pretty big drop from AMD there versus what one can consider a normal market price drop on the $680.
> 
> As I stated, AMD usually lowers their pricing to be even more competitive in the market. This is not impressive, ballsy, or shocking in the least to me.



Both companies try and align to the market. NV used to do it more competitively back during the GTX 4X0 series and such. The latest series is the only one I have seen try and stay priced up. 



arbiter said:


> Maybe they don't cause they invest the money in to a decent dev team for their drivers? Where as AMD had to use software patch to fix frame problems, nVidia has hardware built in to do the job.



No nVidia has software patches already built in to do the job. It uses the same frame pacing as AMD.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 7, 2013)

arbiter said:


> Maybe they don't cause they invest the money in to a decent dev team for their drivers? Where as AMD had to use software patch to fix frame problems, nVidia has hardware built in to do the job.



there wasn't that many complaining before Nvidia released Fcat and my fives were not bad before, now they are throwing a good argument for keeping with them until pirate islands or maxwell turns up.
ima do some benches one day showing the day 1 upto now improvement in performance from Amd drivers on five series and next time ill be doing the same ie bigest pocket dent for a day 1 next gen card then a year later on get another Its the way.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2013)

cdawall said:


> SNIP.


Right. I get it (had it). You are saying what I am saying for pete's sake. I guess my reply was towards anyone that was surprised of this happening and not towards someone that agrees and posts common, well known information in rebuttle? 

Not sure wth happened there honestly. :rofl:


----------



## erocker (Aug 7, 2013)

arbiter said:


> Maybe they don't cause they invest the money in to a decent dev team for their drivers? Where as AMD had to use software patch to fix frame problems, nVidia has hardware built in to do the job.



So they claim. 

No, their cards aren't overpriced due to a "dev. team". They're overpriced due to a lack of competition.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 7, 2013)

Good price but too little of a drop to late in the game.. if it was that price when I grabbed both 7970's I'd rather been all over it as I've always preferred single dual gpu cards.


----------



## progste (Aug 7, 2013)

Finally! that's a reasonable price: like 2 7970s


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 7, 2013)

Wile E said:


> Indeed. You still have an Radeon setup Dave?



Yeah, I have multiple Radeon cards, one in my personal rig, one in my memory testing rig, one at a forum member's house(he really should have returned to me a long time ago, just remembered a few minutes ago), but at the same time, I have dual GTX670's for board testing.




erocker said:


> No, their cards aren't overpriced due to a "dev. team". They're overpriced due to a lack of competition.


Personally, I am pretty sure that AMD's bitcoin potential is part of what is keeping the sales of their cards up a bit higher than expected, adding additional value to their cards that many don't have any interest for. At the same time, there are many users running AMD GPUs, and don't use them for gaming, or video at all, really.



Wile E said:


> If you think that's expensive, you should see how much go fast goodies cost for a car. Computers are the cheaper hobby for me. lol.



Precisely why my wife has ZERO problems with what I do with PCs and reviews.  However, I am shopping for a new car....


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 7, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> Personally, I am pretty sure that AMD's bitcoin potential is part of what is keeping the sales of their cards up a bit higher than expected, adding additional value to their cards that many don't have any interest for. At the same time, there are many users running AMD GPUs, and don't use them for gaming, or video at all, really.



Yep, I actually purchased another HD 7950 and 7970 in January for distributed computing. I haven't been able to use them for World Community Grid for months because all the GPU users finished the work 16x faster than WCG was expecting, but Folding@Home finally got their act together and made OpenCL beta work units that make a 7970 earn more points than 3 GTX 480s, but TITAN/780 beats a 7970 by a good 40-60K points per day (7970 baseline is ~100-120K PPD). Most of my GPUs are used solely for distributed computing purposes, and I game occasionally when I have time.


----------



## radrok (Aug 7, 2013)

erocker said:


> They're overpriced due to a lack of competition.



Also because Nvidia has a better name among buyers and tends to be the popular choice when a graphics purchase is involved.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 7, 2013)

progste said:


> Finally! that's a reasonable price: like 2 7970s


Depends where you live. Cheapest price in my country is $US 1400 ( or nearly three times the price of a 7970 GE from the same store...Tiger Direct by another name)...needless to say, they aren't particularly sought after here.


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 7, 2013)

All the pricing for AMD and Nvidia can traced back to early in 28Nm coming into the picture. Sorry this is Long Winded.

*TSMC* – Indicated early on 28Nm production would be more costly... "by somewhere between 15-25%"
*Nvidia* –  Would start purchasing full wafer production, not per chip as had been the case previously.  
*AMD* – Foresaw GK100 being expensive given the die-size, but then when it was cancel AMD assumed they had cornered that market.  Then they received less than optimum Tahiti's from TSMC production, but still figured they could go for brass ring asking $550.   
*Nvidia* – Finds they can have GK104 best Tahiti with the implementation of Boost, even if that adds cost they can easily under-cut a 7970 @ $550.  
*Nvidia* – Surely designed Kepler knowing they'd buying wafer production, and designed the whole "multiple variants" from a single wafer (not 2 and then one gelding as AMD traditionally).  They've binned 5 different variants from every GK104 wafer, which absolutely gives them a price advantage.  That alone was the early strategy that really turn to be the boon for Nvidia against AMD LE/XT harvest.

*AMD* – Tahiti doesn't have the efficiency to offer higher clock performance.  I always thought Tahiti XT was to be a GHz offering, but at first because of TSMC production issue they released with 7.5% lower clocks believing good production could provide a straight-up 1GHz card.  Even once good production was the norm, AMD found going with TSMC "HPL" (lower power) process and GCN architecture wasn't working out as well as first wafer trials might have indicated and took a page from Nvidia also adopting the Boost approach.

*Nvidia* – Kepler architecture was from the beginning designed to be extra efficient so it could profit more from the "HP" without being inefficient.  The problem was at first GK100 was still a unwieldy. I think Boost was originally something conceived/experimented to aid the GK100 although quickly realized Boost could make the GK104 a contender to Tahiti.  The cancelation of GK100 was because of realization for Boost performance worked on the GK104 (also believe due more to cost, maturity in the TSMC process, but also a fix or two).  So canceling and delaying things a little help; lengthen time for good HP GK104 wafer production, while time to develop/implement boost.  That was another great boon to Nvidia.

That might be how the cookie crumbled… just one person’s thinking.   So AMD had miss-steps, but assumed they would come out on top... So why underprice what traditionally Nvidia had always shown to do?  Nvidia had done things smarter, but had they not found some windfalls they might have had to do things different.  So Nvidia came to the table in a healthier position than ever, and pull the rug out from under AMD.   I'm fairly certain Nvidia could move further on price when AMD made cut and added bundles, but Nvidia needed to hold firm to maintain pricing, so when stacking the 780 and Titan on top of the revamped 6XX cards pricing appeared apropos down the road.


----------



## Deadlyraver (Aug 7, 2013)

So, who's volunteering for more quad-fire benchmarks?


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 8, 2013)

Deadlyraver said:


> So, who's volunteering for more quad-fire benchmarks?



You offering to buy cards? IF so, I'm in.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 8, 2013)

arbiter said:


> Maybe they don't cause they invest the money in to a decent dev team for their drivers? Where as AMD had to use software patch to fix frame problems, nVidia has hardware built in to do the job.



That same driver team that messed up some peoples GPUs last month??


----------



## radrok (Aug 8, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> That same driver team that messed up some peoples GPUs last month??



Yeah when Nvidia screws up, screws up for good


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 8, 2013)

radrok said:


> Yeah when Nvidia screws up, screws up for good



I use those "problem" drivers for board testing. Haven't seen any issues. Maybe it's beucase of the custom PCB my MSI cards use...


----------



## radrok (Aug 8, 2013)

To be honest It didn't give me that many issues to me, unstable overclocks which were stable (and still are) on other releases and a few game crashes.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 8, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> I use those "problem" drivers for board testing. Haven't seen any issues. Maybe it's beucase of the custom PCB my MSI cards use...



Could be, I didn't have issues with them when I first had them. Then it hit about the 3 day mark and hello texture corruption in BF3. Also had issues with BioShock Infinite right away.

Thankfully my card didn't get damage, but I have seen reports at the Nvidia forums all over of people rolling back to other drivers, or doing clean windows installs with different drivers, and then they have lines all over the screen, and card isn't stable in games anymore. There's lots of videos on it too.

But there were also many people with no issues with the drivers. Looks like you were one of them.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 8, 2013)

Well Nvidia did start a stability feedback. 500+ post.

Geforce R320.xx-R326.xx display driver stability feedback thread.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 8, 2013)




----------



## 15th Warlock (Aug 8, 2013)

Whoa! AMD is playing hardball!, $699 (after rebate) for such a powerful card! Nevermind with all those AAA titles included, no Nvidia card can match that value!

Well played AMD, well played 



Deadlyraver said:


> So, who's volunteering for more quad-fire benchmarks?



Unfortunately quad fire is crippled on these cards, due to a defect in the fans design, the first GPU on the frist PCIe slot overheats, causing all 4 GPUs to throttle, that's why no OEM offers these cards in quad fire unless you use water cooling, still, one of this cards would be a great choice for a small factor gaming PC!


----------



## arbiter (Aug 8, 2013)

15th Warlock said:


> Whoa! AMD is playing hardball!, $699 (after rebate) for such a powerful card! Nevermind with all those AAA titles included, no Nvidia card can match that value!



I wouldn't say nVidia can't match it, pair of 770's is only 800$. As for title's value of them is different per person. Mostly all those title's i already own so they have almost no value to me. Even how great the 7990 is it still has frame issues on all dx9 games and on eyefinity setup's. Their frame pacing fix is limited to dx10/11 games and resolutions 2560x1600 and lower. When and if they will fix multi monitors and dx9 is still unknown as AMD hasn't said a word. DX9 seems like it would be an easy fix but some reason multi monitors seems another matter that can't be done with software.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 8, 2013)

> I wouldn't say nVidia can't match it, pair of 770's is only 800$.


770's match 2x 7970s for the most part, and cost $100 more, and do not come with those games (regardless if there is no value).


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2013)

btarunr said:


> With the right kind of CrossFire profiles, a Radeon HD 7990 can offer frame-rates rivaled only by GTX Titan and GTX 690.



Too bad their crossfire profiles tend to suck, and you only get that kind of performance rivaling GTX Titan and GTX 690 in a select few games.  Dual-GPUs(even on the same card) will always fail compared to a single GPU.  The dual-GPUs might match or beat it every once in a while, but overall they don't compete.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Aug 8, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> 770's match 2x 7970s for the most part, and cost $100 more, and do not come with those games (regardless if there is no value).



I'm sorry, but try again.

2x GTX *6*70 outperform 2x 7970s, because lets face it the 7990 is just 2x 7970s.  

The GTX 690 is a good 15% faster than the 7990(proof here), and that was with AMD cheating by rendering stub frames.

Now, 2x GTX *6*70 is within 3% of a GTX 690(proof here).

So 2x GTX 670 outperform 2x 7970. 

You can probably pull a benchmark or two out of your ass that shows the 7970s winning, but overall they loose by a good margin.

And since 2x GTX 770 are even faster than 2x GTX 670 there is no way 2x 7970 even comes close to competing.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 8, 2013)

I looked HERE and the difference was 4% (1080p) overall. To me that not noticeable. That said, I pulled 3 games out of my ass, Grid2, Hitman Absolution, and Tomb Raider (ok, TR was less than a FPS, LOL!) that the 7970 wins in. But there are a few ties and a few where the 7970 just gets plain worked. Now that the facts are on the table, let's look at the math again...

Is 4% difference overall worth the 13.5%/$100 price difference ($700 versus $800)?


----------



## BigMack70 (Aug 8, 2013)

Eric_Cartman said:


> You can probably pull a benchmark or two out of your ass that shows the 7970s winning, but overall they loose by a good margin.



2 7970s are faster overall if you exclude the games where CF is broken, and slower overall if you don't exclude them.

But yeah, 770s are going to be faster unless you're talking about overclocked 7970s (with broken games excluded).


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Aug 8, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> I looked HERE and the difference was 4% (1080p) overall. To me that not noticeable. That said, I pulled 3 games out of my ass, Grid2, Hitman Absolution, and Tomb Raider (ok, TR was less than a FPS, LOL!) that the 7970 wins in. But there are a few ties and a few where the 7970 just gets plain worked. Now that the facts are on the table, let's look at the math again...
> 
> Is 4% difference overall worth the 13.5%/$100 price difference ($700 versus $800)?



It doesn't matter where you look, even in your review the GTX 690 was 3% faster than the 7990 at 1080.

So since we know 2x GTX 670 is within 3% of a GTX 690, the review you picked confirms what I said, a 7990 only matches 2x GTX 670.

That means 2x GTX 770 would be faster than a 7990 or 2x 7970s.

The reason a 2x GTX 670 matches a 7990 is because SLI scales way better than Crossfire.

Plus those benchmarks were still using AMD's cheating.



BigMack70 said:


> 2 7970s are faster overall if you exclude the games where CF is broken, and slower overall if you don't exclude them.
> 
> But yeah, 770s are going to be faster unless you're talking about overclocked 7970s (with broken games excluded).



By why should be exclude games were CF doesn't work?

We shouldn't, that would give an unfair advantage to AMD.

Unless you let me exclude a few of the games were nVidia does poorly too.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 8, 2013)

AMD cheating...? SLI scales better than CFx? OOof, ok Cartman...


... have a nice day...I'm taking the blue pill on this one. 

EDIT: Just let me clarify before I bail on this potential shitstorm...

AMD, I don't believe, was cheating. Nobody knows for a fact. Until the FCAT stuff came out, we knew the problem existed for some people, and after AMD found out about it (ok, I will concede that is a tough pill to swallow), they worked on changes that were recently implemented and show tremendous promise. Now cheating? Those are some hard words, especially considering a title or two, didnt show a FPS loss. You(we) have no proof they knew there was a difference in FPS and the runt frames and that it would affect FPS. 

As far as the SLI and CFx scaling. I find both scale well in most titles. Both camps have their bad and good with scaling. As you (should) know,  scaling with vary by title, resolution, drivers, and in-game settings. So to make a blanket statement like that without being more granular leaves a lot to be desired to me.  

.....and, IM OUT.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 8, 2013)

Why are we comparing 1080P? these are still $700 video cards if you are playing at 1080P seems a bit of a waste.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 8, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Why are we comparing 1080P? these are still $700 video cards if you are playing at 1080P seems a bit of a waste.


Like a 5ghz cpu? Just poking at ya bro


----------



## BigMack70 (Aug 8, 2013)

Eric_Cartman said:


> By why should be exclude games were CF doesn't work?
> 
> We shouldn't, that would give an unfair advantage to AMD.
> 
> Unless you let me exclude a few of the games were nVidia does poorly too.



I didn't say we should. I said that if you exclude those games, the 7990 is faster. There's a lot of people who don't play those games, and for them it doesn't matter that the 7990 doesn't scale in them.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 8, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> Like a 5ghz cpu? Just poking at ya bro



Yea I need to update my specs. Using eyefinity again now that I am home.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 8, 2013)

Lets put this to a fact IF you are 1080p gameing, using a gtx690 or 7990 is way overkill. As for which is faster, its a Toss up really as one card is better in game A other card is better in game B. Now 1440 and multi monitors is where there cards will be best use.  Even with the change AMD made in the driver to fix the problem with CF, It don't work on more then a single monitor running 2560x1600. Running 2560x1440/1600, 7900 would be a good buy if some games you get with it you don't have and want, but if you already have them all its still a good buy but not as good of one less you know someone that would give ya say 50cents on the dollar for the games or even 25 cents.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Aug 8, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> AMD cheating...? SLI scales better than CFx? OOof, ok Cartman...
> 
> 
> ... have a nice day...I'm taking the blue pill on this one.
> ...



It is obvious AMD knew about these problems, people have been complaining about them for months.

Our own Cadaveca had been complaining about the problem for months actually, and he's a reviewer for a top rated review site(HERE).

To say AMD didn't know about the problem and wasn't cheating is ignorant.

There was just no way to catch them cheating, until now, and they got caught, plain and simple.

Now, as for SLI scaling better, that is a given considering it turns out Crossfire doesn't scale at all!

Maybe these new drivers will fix the issue, but who knows what the framerates will actually be like with the fix in place.

Will we see framerates that are the same as they were before?

I highly doubt it.

They won't be able to sync the frames properly and keep the same framerates.

And some people like to use their 120Hz monitors to their fullest, so a 7990 or GTX 690 is not overkill for 1080p for some.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 9, 2013)

Eric_Cartman said:


> It is obvious AMD knew about these problems, people have been complaining about them for months.
> Our own Cadaveca had been complaining about the problem for months actually, and he's a reviewer for a top rated review site(HERE).
> To say AMD didn't know about the problem and wasn't cheating is ignorant.


Might be more a case of:
1. Internal inertia within AMD's managerial hierarchy. It is well documented that product divisions within AMD are unnecessarily compartmentalized (ATI especially). Getting anything done seems to a long slow painful process. Cases in point are the Evergreen PowerPlay issue (Grey Screen of Death). Reported in their own forums ad nauseum along with high return rates from the launch in September 2009, it took months (and a lot of adverse press coverage in Feb/March 2010) before AMD allocated resources to fix the issue. The Enduro mobile dual graphics issue has also taken some time to alleviate.

2. AMD don't seem to be particularly attuned to their user base (at least not to the same extent as their market rivals). AMD obviously don't monitor the consumer feedback ( sites, forums, support tickets) to any great extent. Citing complete surprise at Nvidia's implementation of frame metering seems like a colossal fuck up in market research.

All this seems to point to a divisive management structure, a lack of funds, and a lack of monitoring of the end user experience- which may be a product of the first two (management and funding), rather than an strategy of cheating

my $0.02


----------



## arbiter (Aug 9, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> 2. AMD don't seem to be particularly attuned to their user base (at least not to the same extent as their market rivals). AMD obviously don't monitor the consumer feedback ( sites, forums, support tickets) to any great extent. Citing complete surprise at Nvidia's implementation of frame metering seems like a colossal fuck up in market research.



Yea I haven't payed much attention to when complaints started, but i know people back in least 6000 series and most like even before that complained of the problem. It wasn't til nVidia released these tools and sites like Techreport and Pcper that were some first few to release data on the results before AMD even took steps towards it. Weather it was just AMD not caring or they didn't even know what problem was is anyone's guess. AMD yes they are making a huge push with their very aggressive pricing of their video cards, but is they seem to be outta touch with users issues then that will be something that will leave the door open for nVidia to stay firmly in the game.


----------



## BigMack70 (Aug 9, 2013)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Maybe these new drivers will fix the issue, but who knows what the framerates will actually be like with the fix in place.
> 
> Will we see framerates that are the same as they were before?
> 
> I highly doubt it.



This has already been tested by several sites, and the difference is minimal. Frame pacing does not hurt overall performance numbers in any meaningful way. I think you need to stop with the hatorade.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 9, 2013)

This thread has gone to the wind! 

Just nice to see a legend card at fair price no mater what company made it.

Amd/Nvidia Who cares! Sure Nvidia can do this and that, but does it do what Amd does?

Some things yes and others not. I'm just glad the price dropped and If I had the cash Id pop one into my rig 

You know tbh amd's latest driver is slick, and playes games so bloody smooth you Nvidia fans might get a bit jealous, jk but yeah nice news


----------



## manofthem (Aug 9, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> This thread has gone to the wind!
> 
> Just nice to see a legend card at fair price no mater what company made it.
> 
> ...



Amen to that, my brother


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 9, 2013)

I had a decent first-time Crossfire experience with an HD 7970 and 7950 with these drivers. I only tried Tomb Raider and TF2 (only utilizes the first card anyway) and while Tomb Raider is still somewhat stuttery, I still enjoyed the much higher FPS over my single 7970.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 9, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I had a decent first-time Crossfire experience with an HD 7970 and 7950 with these drivers. I only tried Tomb Raider and TF2 (only utilizes the first card anyway) and while Tomb Raider is still somewhat stuttery, I still enjoyed the much higher FPS over my single 7970.


Do you run V-sync in the game? If not you should 

Hair tess amd the ultamate runs sweet even if i disable cross-fire


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 9, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> Do you run V-sync in the game? If not you should
> 
> Hair tess amd the ultamate runs sweet even if i disable cross-fire



I didn't since I used the same ultimate settings that my 7970 used and wanted to see the FPS difference/not have lots of VSYNC frame drops, but I'll probably set my monitor down to 100Hz as it seems my setup should handle it most of the time.


----------



## manofthem (Aug 9, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I had a decent first-time Crossfire experience with an HD 7970 and 7950 with these drivers. I only tried Tomb Raider and TF2 (only utilizes the first card anyway) and while Tomb Raider is still somewhat stuttery, I still enjoyed the much higher FPS over my single 7970.



I'm surprised that TR is stuttery, as TR has been pretty amazing for me.  I haven't experienced any issues with that game with crossfire. 

What do you mean when you say it is somewhat stuttery?


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 9, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I didn't since I used the same ultimate settings that my 7970 used and wanted to see the FPS difference/not have lots of VSYNC frame drops, but I'll probably set my monitor down to 100Hz as it seems my setup should handle it most of the time.


Here's a game, Gears of war! Turn V-sync off and when you look left and right you get screen tear.. Some games I find require to always change the video setting size for the monitor. GOW a prime example when you dont go to low res at start up the visuals look the shits. So I always change the monitor size to the lowers and click apply then go back and select the highest setting and click apply again with V-sync on and the game runs smoother then 40 creek over the rocks 

Id just try every game with V-sync on then off and take note what plays and looks the best.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 9, 2013)

It didn't feel *completely* smooth although that may be a sideaffect of not using VSYNC or a refresh rate that better matches the framerate. My monitor seems to be quite sensitive to FPS drops  so that may be why.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 9, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> It didn't feel *completely* smooth although that may be a sideaffect of not using VSYNC or a refresh rate that better matches the framerate. My monitor seems to be quite sensitive to FPS drops  so that may be why.


Have you tried to drop the monitor refresh rate from 120 to 60hrz?

I know my monitor is capable to go higher nut looks and plays the shits so I leave it on 60hrz and it plays and looks sweet.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 9, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I had a decent first-time Crossfire experience with an HD 7970 and 7950 with these drivers. I only tried Tomb Raider and TF2 (only utilizes the first card anyway) and while Tomb Raider is still somewhat stuttery, I still enjoyed the much higher FPS over my single 7970.



With the drivers pre <13.8 the "higher" fps you seen really wasn't higher i was just a tiny frame a few pixel's wide being inserted. Fraps or any other software that gives fps messures the speed of what comes outta the game engine and before drivers. So on say what is registered at 120fps was more like 60-70 due to all those tiny frames that didn't do anything for you. with 13.8 beta driver AMD fixed the problem on single monitor up to 2560x1600 cases.


----------



## Jaffakeik (Aug 9, 2013)

btarunr said:


> In a bid to step up competitiveness of its Radeon HD 7990 "Malta" dual-GPU graphics card against NVIDIA's GeForce GTX TITAN and GTX 690, AMD add-in-board (AIB) partners slashed prices of the card by almost a third. What was once retailing for $1,100-1,200, is now down to $699.99. Prices of the card on American retailer Newegg.com, are ranging between $699.99 to $789.99, with two AIBs capturing the $729.99 and $749.99 price points, along the way. With the right kind of CrossFire profiles, a Radeon HD 7990 can offer frame-rates rivaled only by GTX Titan and GTX 690. Then there are also AMD's recent CrossFire micro-stuttering fix, and eight Never Settle games with realistic resale value of $100 to account for. These prices should also give GeForce GTX 780 buyers second thoughts.
> 
> [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-04-24/180a_thm.jpg[/URL]



Strange name for videocard ''MALTA'' its cityname in my country


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 9, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> This thread has gone to the wind!
> 
> Just nice to see a legend card at fair price no mater what company made it.
> 
> ...



you mean a ASUS ARES II dual 7970 GHZ Ed right? oh wait this one will still be above 1400 no ... the "normal" non "limited" to 1000 pcs "official" 7990 oh well its a card of legend too indeed.

oh i noticed someone is trying to sell a ARES 5870x2 4gb start bid 600 direct buy 1000 and argue the card is 1400 new ... well ofc its 1400 new but a 5870 in these days ... ARES or not ... well he might find a buyer for a collection but he better do it on Ebay


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 9, 2013)

Does anyone else considering there's something close to this performance, although one GPU that could could be price like this? So, AMD figures they need to make this price fall-in-line well before buyers find out what they could be recieving for $699.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> This has already been tested by several sites, and the difference is minimal. Frame pacing does not hurt overall performance numbers in any meaningful way. I think you need to stop with the hatorade.


Got to agree... Nobody can prove AMD was 'cheating' as this dude incessently says. The FCAT testing came out which shined a brighter light on the problem (as if user complaints were not enough), but more importantly WHAT the problem was/is. It was then that AMD worked on the problem. Cartman nor I know if they knew or didn't know. What I take exception to is the 'absolute' type wording that he 'knows' they were 'cheating'. All we know is it was proven, by an Nvidia tool none the less, and AMD has made significant strides in fixing it, on time with their 13.8 release. 



AMD Crossfire clearly scales, and quite well so I am not sure what garbage he is going on about when ANY review site, including here, shows good scaling. I mean christ, its like we are watching the sunrise in the east with some muppet standing next you swearing up and down its the west. I mean, Cartman is clearly not an idiot so I do not understand why he would say such a thing that is bunked with EVERY SINGLE CFX REVIEW POSTED. Im at a loss with that one.

As far as the last dude that says FPS are cut in half... friend, read a review. The one I read didn't remotely show a FPS reduction on the order of "half". If you have a link from one that does, post it on up please. 

Here is one review..: http://techreport.com/review/25167/frame-pacing-driver-aims-to-revive-the-radeon-hd-7990/2


----------



## el etro (Sep 5, 2013)

Sempron Guy said:


> HD7990 Malta here still at 45,000 pesos ( $1071 ) Chances of that new price being implement here is close to zero this year



  $1071!! Wow!

 Here in Brazil it still costs 2200 dollars!


----------



## el etro (Sep 5, 2013)

Eric_Cartman said:


> I'm sorry, but try again.
> 
> 2x GTX *6*70 outperform 2x 7970s, because lets face it the 7990 is just 2x 7970s.
> 
> ...



 Where matters, 7990 wins. They push higher than the 300W limit, but the card performs Good when matters(i'm not talking about games that the cards can make more than 200FPS and i'm talking about resolutions above 1080p.)

 Facts are facts, then... http://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_780_Lightning/images/perfrel_2560.gif (still counting games that two cards make more than 150fps gaming!)


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2013)

el etro said:


> Where matters, 7990 wins.


You mean some numbers on graphs or the user experience?


----------



## el etro (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm still don't care about this over-detailed metric. The only of these new metrics that seems reasonable to me is 99% FPS. Paced 7990 is not bad on this TOMSH tests, really.
 IMO the only 7990 flaw today is to be a >300W card.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2013)

el etro said:


> I'm still don't care about this over-detailed metric. The only of these new metrics that seems reasonable to me is 99% FPS. Paced 7990 is not bad on this TOMSH tests, really.
> IMO the only 7990 flaw today is to be a >300W card.



Well 7990 being 2 gpu's, no chance of getting under 300watts. But other flaw is if you are a 3 monitor gamer, the pacing doesn't work on anything over 1 monitor 1440p.


----------



## el etro (Sep 6, 2013)

arbiter said:


> Well 7990 being 2 gpu's, no chance of getting under 300watts...


 But power consumption of 690 stays under 300W in practically any condition, this is the problem. Tahiti is the worse of all GCN gpus by far and GK104 is the best GPU of all time.



arbiter said:


> But other flaw is if you are a 3 monitor gamer, the pacing doesn't work on anything over 1 monitor 1440p.


 Sure but i really care more about improving more one time the obtained frametimes. 99% FPS produced by 7990(paced) is most of times tied or sightly ahead of 690 99% FPS. Extend the pacing to Eyefinity comes in second.


----------

