swirl09For the love of <your god here>, why do people keep bringing up nV saying they thought AMD would have released something better? If you are mentally challenged, I apologise. Otherwise, the next time you feel like stating this, pause for just a moment and think how likely would it be for nV to make a statement which congratulated AMD on a great GPU.

....... If the penny still hasn't dropped, kindly don't reproduce.

people are saying it because thats what nvidia said. They also could have said nothing and continued on with their productions. But instead they did say something so why can';t we talk about it?

Long as with this news the price comes down on the 7970 I can care less that the 680 didn't blow away the 7970. Will be getting one or two 7970's any way.

N3M35151. If it was already competitive to begin with, why not release it simultaneously with 7970?, why take 2.5 months?

Because it didn't take 2.5 months to release it. It took them years, just like it took AMD years to create and release Tahiti. Chips are ready when they are, not even one minute earlier. If you want to speculate, Nvidia was probably going to (trying to) release GK100 when 28nm was ready, which is when Tahiti launched and had GK104 ready for 2-3 months later, just like Pitcairn came later and just like it has happened with mid-range cards for ages. GK100 was not ready, so it was most probably cancelled or they delayed it to make another respin, but instead of delaying every other chip like they did with Fermi, they decided to push GK100 release and make it the last one in the series and GK104 just continued on its schedule which happens to make it launch now.

PS: It doesn't take 2.5 months to increase clocks. And 2.5 months is not nearly enough to make any change besides that. GK104 is just what it ought to be.

EDIT: And the "we exected more from AMD" comment is probably closely related to the scenario above. GK100 was not ready, they had to make a decision and decided to make it last instead of delaying the entire lineup again, like I said. This means they decided and were ready to loose the high-end momentarily and release their performance part to try and take the market "hole" between Pitcairn and Tahiti, which they probably thought would be bigger (they know at least die sizes for sure), because that's the most profitable market segment anyway.

There is no Turks replacement this time around so, taking that into consideration, how can we know that Cape Verde wasn't really meant to replace Turks but then, when TSMC starts to show problems with 28nm, AMD decides to adjust tiers (Cape Verde -> 7600 to 7700, Pitcairn -> 7700 to 7800, etc). Kinda how they had to scale back FX speeds to improve yields (remember that the FX had a targeted speed of >4Ghz). For all we know AMD was having the same problems nVidia has with GK100 and so launched a mid range part as high end.

Anyway, the only truths so far is that nVidia will launch the GK104 as GTX680 and price it accordingly. This generation won't see a price/performance improvement from either company :banghead:

TRWOVAnyway, the only truths so far is that nVidia will launch the GK104 as GTX680 and price it accordingly. This generation won't see a price/performance improvement from either company

Depends. Those who paid 500$ at the end of 2010 for the best card (GTX580) will have to pay 50$ more for 20% more perf in the case of the 7970 and probably 30% more perf for the GTX680. We know the 7970 overclocks well and the performence scales very well and we should expect the same from the GTX680 so that performance increase can reach 50%.

While we don't know what NV will bring in lower segments as price/perf goes we do know that AMD offers the same perf for the money as the 6000 series with the 7770/7870/7850

TRWOVThere is no Turks replacement this time around so, taking that into consideration, how can we know that Cape Verde wasn't really meant to replace Turks but then, when TSMC starts to show problems with 28nm, AMD decides to adjust tiers (Cape Verde -> 7600 to 7700, Pitcairn -> 7700 to 7800, etc). Kinda how they had to scale back FX speeds to improve yields (remember that the FX had a targeted speed of >4Ghz). For all we know AMD was having the same problems nVidia has with GK100 and so launched a mid range part as high end.

We know that Tahiti is AMD's high-end because of the same signs we know GK104 is mid-range. First of all the codename, which was leaked along the rest of the lineup several months ago, earlier than TSMC problems arised. And secondly the die size which is similar to Cayman and Cypress, while Pitcairn is similar to Barts and slightly bigger than Juniper. And finally memory controler width is that of a high-end card. A new gen mid-range card would never have a wider memory bus than previous gen high-end.

Turks replacement is really Cape Verde despite the names of cards. Again because die size is the same, and same memory width, etc. Remember that HD6700 was just a rebranded Juniper, while it was really Turks that should/could have been called HD6700 and now HD7600 is a rebranded Turks.

Crap DaddyWhile we don't know what NV will bring in lower segments as price/perf goes we do know that AMD offers the same perf for the money as the 6000 series with the 7770/7870/7850

And that's why it sucks. New generations have always brought significantly better perf/$ (usually close to 2x) than previous gens when they launched and now they are only matching it. Of course part of the problem is also that GTX500 and HD6000 are priced virtually the same as when they launched 15 months ago. It's a clear sign of price fixing to me, even if e-mails have not been exchanged. Legally punishable? I don't think so and I know we are not entitled to better perf/$ when we want it, but IMO they better treat customers better because people will not support that behavior too long, just to play console ports, be them XB360/PS3 ports or XB720/PS4 ports.

This man:



is taking AMD in new directions. He's making a top tier product (7970) and pricing it accordingly. Many people see the inflated price of something and assign it a higher value. If someone tried to sell you a ferrari for $5000 you;d want to know what was wrong with it. The converse is true (unfortunately). Items with high cost are often perceived (sometimes erroneously) as 'prestige' products. Face it, many sad people brag about their 'expensive' this or that.

Back to that goofy guy Rory. He's making a statement with 7970 prices by drawing a line in the sand and saying, "we're that good and you'll pay for the privilege".

Meanwhile, this man:



is using the price of the 7970 to position his product against. It's not price fixing. It's making sure he sells his item at the competitors price point while delivering (possibly) a better product (at stock values). By pricing the same and selling as "the best single gpu ever!" (which guaranteed NV PR will) they will get sales by making the 7970 look like a worse option.

Who makes more money? Nvidia of course because the card they were meant release:



is late to the:



I'm done.

the54thvoidBy pricing the same and selling as "the best single gpu ever!" (which guaranteed NV PR will) they will get sales by making the 7970 look like a worse option.

Don't know if you noticed but this has changed to:

"The fastest, most efficient GPU ever built"

Crap DaddyDon't know if you noticed but this has changed to:

"The fastest, most efficient GPU ever built"

LOL

Sounds like thier playing with words.

Does that mean fastest as to efficiency or the fastest-fastest:laugh:

Later;)

sanadanosaNah, you asking about benchmarking 680 and 7970 at same mhz core and memory, and you called 1006mhz 680 is overclocked. According to previews news, 1006mhz is the GTX 680 base clock, and turbo clock is 1058mhz. So, if you still asking about benchmark with same core clock & memory, It's like comparing 880mhz HD6970 with 880mhz GTX 570, is that fair enough for you?

you have to make example with a 6970 vs gtx 580 not a a gtx 570,but why they dont make the benchmark with same clock on the 7970? this is what i wanna know ,nvidia make the "stock" clore at 1000mhz after amd comes out with preoc card with 1000mhz = its same like make a benchmark with an oc card vs stock clock card, if you are NVIDIAFANBOY its not my fault, i wanna see real benchmark with the card out not make from nvidia with stupid result manipolated,is like the benchmark making from amd with the fx series vs the first 6 core intel , please use the mind not the eyes for think is true only thing you see

Capitan Harlockyou have to make example with a 6970 vs gtx 580 not a a gtx 570,but why they dont make the benchmark with same clock on the 7970? this is what i wanna know ,nvidia make the "stock" clore at 1000mhz after amd comes out with preoc card with 1000mhz = its same like make a benchmark with an oc card vs stock clock card, if you are NVIDIAFANBOY its not my fault, i wanna see real benchmark with the card out not make from nvidia with stupid result manipolated,is like the benchmark making from amd with the fx series vs the first 6 core intel , please use the mind not the eyes for think is true only thing you see

I'll try to make it very simple for you. Wait for the real benchmarks, they are not so far, next week on the 22nd. It's not your fault you can't understand that the stock clock for the GTX680 is that from those benchmarks and from other countless leaks. It is Nvidia's fault.

All I want to know is how much OC headroom is left on it from the base clock?

Am Sure benching in the next few weeks are going to bring that out.
If clocked out of the box, Not going to be any different than some of these
Non Ref spin off cards that come out after first releases that can't go any higher
on average as the Ref cards.

A few cards Like Mars and Asus differ in better components ect to do it.

Getting ready to pull the trigger from my CF 5770's, But going to make sure as
to the results between them.
Already have two strikes against them as to Mem and Bits.

We'll see:rolleyes:

Later;)

I would to say:

AMD and Nvidia changed the price policy.

Did you see any price cut at nvidia side after release AMD 7 series? If your answer is simply no, then you cant expect the same from AMD for 7 series. (I hope Nvidia proves me wrong.)

My guess is the price for mid-range gpu will be arround 550 and for the high-end 650$ and more.

The new pricing policy for both of the firms is:
Produce for low price and sell it higher. With the new policy they dont drop the pricing but they put the own high-end card models for sale at the same price or higher price from the opponents cards. (i mean the MSRP)

example: When nvidia has faster gpu: Lets say it costs 50$. If AMD have a higher performance gpu in they hands they will price it 75$. And Nvidia makes a new gpu and is faster then first duo and priced around 100$. Then both of the firms will continue to selling they products without changing the price policy.

So this is a win-win policy for both of the firms.

When it comes to price, it may be worth noting that at release the HD6970 was on par for the GTX480, and they still priced it $80 lower. AMD generally had a policy of pricing their similar performing cards just below Nvidia's. When you look at the 7xxx series they kind of just made a pricing scheme that went 250-350-450-550, regardless of how it performed with comparable products available.

I don't really plan on getting a GTX680, I might go for a 660 or 670(Ti?), but $550 is steep for a GPU in my mind.

xenocideWhen it comes to price, it may be worth noting that at release the HD6970 was on par for the GTX480, and they still priced it $80 lower. AMD generally had a policy of pricing their similar performing cards just below Nvidia's. When you look at the 7xxx series they kind of just made a pricing scheme that went 250-350-450-550, regardless of how it performed with comparable products available.

I don't really plan on getting a GTX680, I might go for a 660 or 670(Ti?), but $550 is steep for a GPU in my mind.

Agree, $550.00 is very Steep for a Vid card.

In my case, I'm about 3 gens back even though CF helps a bunch. I think its time and
sure couldn't do this on a yearly basis.

Way I do it, Is get the strongest single card for the best price at the time.
Then Double up when and if it starts to fall behind as to what you want it to do.
And also getting the 2nd card usually alot cheaper.
Can usually stretch it to a 2 or 2 1/2 year cycle.

Later:)

The end result is, for the vast majority of gamers with 1 screen, the 7970 or 680 will be more than enough to run new games on max settings for the next 18 months at least.

You cant go wrong with either card.

buggalugsThe end result is, for the vast majority of gamers with 1 screen, the 7970 or 680 will be more than enough to run new games on max settings for the next 18 months at least.

You cant go wrong with either card.

your about the only Aussie here that makes sense actually. Its user preference honestly.

All I can make out of this is that it appears NV saw that there "mid range" chip could compete with AMD's top chip with a "little" overclocking. What I see is they overclocked the snot out of it to get it past the 7970 and bingo they have their "high end" card without needing to worry about the fate of the GK100 for awhile.
I have a sneaking suspicion there won't be alot of headroom left with these chips.

INSTG8RAll I can make out of this is that it appears NV saw that there "mid range" chip could compete with AMD's top chip with a "little" overclocking. What I see is they overclocked the snot out of it to get it past the 7970 and bingo they have their "high end" card without needing to worry about the fate of the GK100 for awhile.
I have a sneaking suspicion there won't be alot of headroom left with these chips.

Your Sayin NVs chips right?

So I overclocked my system with out voltage tweaks and I could have pushed harder, but all I did was go into my Asus bios chose EZ mode and turn the sliders in the Catalyst to the right. This is the result I get with 12.3rc drivers, and I got to say the jump in performance since launch is pretty big here. I mean in those slieds above the fella is getting low 7k score. With a much better CPU at 5ghz, so not sure how much we can trust that slide. Now there is no doubt the 680 stock for stock will be faster than the 7970 that be just silly.


3dmark.com/3dm11/2983294

Enjoy :rockout:

eidairaman1Your Sayin NVs chips right?

Yeah I don't think there is gonna be alot more left in the 680. I think it's pushed pretty hard already.

INSTG8RYeah I don't think there is gonna be alot more left in the 680. I think it's pushed pretty hard already.

There are multiple reports that the 680 core can go much higher. We will see.

beck24There are multiple reports that the 680 core can go much higher. We will see.

If they are so many why havent we heard about them?

GK104 overclocked to 1100:



HD7950 overclocked to 1260:

hwbot.org/image/739971.jpg

Crap DaddyGK104 overclocked to 1100:

i39.tinypic.com/344a07b.jpg

HD7950 overclocked to 1260:

hwbot.org/image/739971.jpg

It overclocks allot but doesn't scale as much, compared to the 7950.

EDIT

Not factoring in the dynamic clock thingy, @ 1110 core, the 680 is 57% overclocked (core) while the 7950 is 43% overclocked (core).

Would be helpful if the extreme stock 680 was also shown, not just overclocked.