I was waiting for a price drop, well I'll wait more I think xD

Well, Tahiti is big and when TSMC levied their 28Nm price increase end of last summer, AMD was too far into the idea of making a Top Enthusiast card that supposedly destined to go up against the GK100, AMD figured they had nowhere to go but forward.

Then GK100 wasn't coming out like Nvidia had hoped, and with the price increase it was going to be an albatross. I think they even had the "Clock-Speed Nanny" being looked at to tame the GK100, but that chip with the added components to rein it in, plus 384-bit; because I don’t believe even the most ardent fan would slap down $650+ to schlep with only 256-Bit. All that was way outside what the market would pay for... What to do. :rolleyes:

Nvidia found the GK104 with Boost had great results and by November knew they could compete with Tahiti and could price it to sell. A little delay to get a new spin on a GK104 and PCB readied. They saved-face and then the comments of how "disappointing" Tahiti turn out started being flouted. That worked out good for them, but now they need good production and scavenge the cream of those chips to use on the first GTX680. That where TSMC lets all of us down, and why a longer delay than we were first looking at.

This is where it's now a little strange. If they get say 15% GTX680 of a 28Nm wafer why would Nvidia now waiting till May to start capitalizing on those GK104. I’d think they’d have plenty still to deliver as the GTX670 sitting in a bin. To me the PCB and all the things to bring that product didn’t completely stop, with all resources going to delierer the GTX680... or did they? Maybe that was what the congratulatory letter was all about from Jen-Hsun?

www.anandtech.com/show/5703/jenhsuns-email-to-nvidia-employees-on-a-successful-kepler-launch

swirl09Not to mention the fact the 680, not on sale a week, and the prices have gone up. So no, you really won't see the 7900 price drop for awhile sadly.

How have the prices on the GTX 680 gone up? Did it not release at $499 for most of them? Most places have most cards for the same price, just OOS. Or am I missing something?

oh well....this will only hurt AMDs sales imo. the 680 is already shown to be a few steps ahead in almost every review on the net. not only is it faster then AMDs flagship, its also cheaper! win for Nvidia

FreedomEclipseoh well....this will only hurt AMDs sales imo. the 680 is already shown to be a few steps ahead in almost every review on the net. not only is it faster then AMDs flagship, its also cheaper! win for Nvidia

?????? Haven't read the other review sites. But the official TPU review shows an average of 3%. Yes 3%. Hardly a few steps. Unless I'm missing a peice of the puzzle?

Dent1I'm missing a peice of the puzzle?

If you say it enough it makes it true! AMD should lower the price against what vapor cards? :wtf:

I would say its a little higher then 3%. the 680 was consistantly higher by 3-10fps in almost all benchmarks. Faster = better no?

Dent1?????? Haven't read the other review sites. But the official TPU review shows an average of 3%. Yes 3%. Hardly a few steps. Unless I'm missing a peice of the puzzle?

It's 7% at 1200p and 4% at 1600p, at 1050p it's even bigger. I only say this because you are repeating the wrong number so many times as fact. At least get it right, just saying, no offense.

Regarding the thread, I agree with Yo Wattup's comment. It's really fun to watch so many comments justifying a higher price on a product that is inferior to another one, even if only by 5% average. In every past generation in the last 5+ years Nvidia has had competing cards that were consistently 15%-25% faster and its price was only increased by just as much, except for the absolute fastest one which had a $50 premium over the perf/$ that would be expected, no more. This made Nvidia the evil one, but now that the tables have turned on pricing policies (not on who has the fastest card), it's OK to even price an inferior product higher. Funny.

FreedomEclipseI would say its a little higher then 3%. the 680 was consistantly higher by 3-10fps in almost all benchmarks. Faster = better no?

CasecutterIf you say it enough it makes it true! AMD should lower the price against what vapor cards? :wtf:

Freedom. If 60FPS is the target. 3FPS is only 1.8% faster. 10FPs is 6%.

1.8% -6% faster is not a few steps head. At best on par, maybe half-a-step ahead.


Casecutter, I'm just looking at TPU's review. Says 3% average access all resolutions and 1% at 2500x1600. Are you saying TPU's review is wrong?

tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/images/perfrel.gif
tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/images/perfrel_2560.gif

FreedomEclipseI would say its a little higher then 3%. the 680 was consistantly higher by 3-10fps in almost all benchmarks. Faster = better no?

I just read a good review by Overclockers club, used two windows to get a comparison of a Powercolor 7970 LCS and a GTX 680 (they reviewed both cards).
They do stock and overclocked tests and surround tests. The 7970 overclocked fares well against the 680 (until that is overclocked obviously). The GTX 680 loses a lot of ground at surround resolution but still tends to win.
The tell all is power consumption. At full OC on both cards the Liquid cooled 7970 draws 50 watts more and performs generally worse. But the caveat is it wins on most reviews on Metro 2033, AVP and Crysis (tells a bit about it's power).

Scary thing is, I might just buy a 7970 LCS tomorrow. Why? because it'll hump my current card (a 580) and I've waited long enough to complete my loop. And i plan on getting GK110(or 100) when it comes out. This is my expensive stop gap until then. :rolleyes:

Freedom. If 60FPS is the target. 3FPS is only 1.8% faster. 10FPs is 6%.

erm no. 60fps:. 3 fps faster is 5% (10% of 60 = 6, therefore 3 = 5%). 10 fps faster would be 10/60 x 100 = 16.6%

www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx680/
www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_lcs_hd7970/

All im gonna say is - When you have an overclock goggles you see things differently. I simply cannot and will not compere any two products that I'm gonna use by their stock frequency performance.
You can call it overclo-mania you can call it whatever. IMO the HD7850 is a better card then the GTX570\HD6970 for example.

Dent1Freedom. If 60FPS is the target. 3FPS is only 1.8% faster. 10FPs is 6%.

1.8% -6% faster is not a step better.


Casecutter, I'm just looking at TPU's review. Says 3% average access all resolutions and 1% at 2500x1600. Are you saying TPU's review is wrong?

tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/images/perfrel.gif
tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/images/perfrel_2560.gif

Look at the GTX680 review which is what you have to look at. In the SLI review everything is normalized to the SLI results which makes the difference look a lot smaller. Plus rounding one card up and down another one can make a nearly 3% difference evaporate into nothing.

BenetanegiaLook at the GTX680 review which is what you have to look at. In the SLI review everything is normalized to the SLI results which makes the difference look a lot smaller. Plus rounding one card up and down another one can make a nearly 3% difference evaporate into nothing.

OK. I'm looking at the non-SLI review now.

I'm not going to deny it, Nvidia have a fantastic card. It is faster according to reviews overall. But I still disagree that its a few steps ahead. Even in non SLI TPU shows 6% accross all resolutions and 4% on 2500x1600. Which puts it on par in the same performance bracket.

tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/perfrel_2560.gif
tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/perfrel.gif

Now the question is. Why would the "average" consumer pay for an ATI card when the Nvidia (the brand the know and trust) is $50 less. For competition reasons (not performance reasons) ATI should lower their price IMO.

Dent1OK. I'm looking at the non-SLI review now.

I'm not going to deny it, Nvidia have a fantastic card. It is faster according overall. But I still disagree that its a few steps ahead. Even in non SLI TPU shows 6% accross all resolutions and 4% on 2500x1600. Which puts it on par in the same performance bracket.

tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/perfrel_2560.gif
tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/perfrel.gif

I was not trying to say it was a few steps ahead. But it still is faster, cooler, and quieter (even if only by a little bit) so a higher price on the HD7970 is not justifiable no matter how you look at it IMO. I understand the situation and the fact that it's probably justifiable for AMD, but I don't see how consumers can justify it. More soin the face that AMD has been increasing the price of their cards by $50-150 every generation, despite the fact that the cards were almost identical. Same die size, same amount of memory, similar PCB...

Now the question is. Why would the "average" consumer pay for an ATI card when the Nvidia (the brand the know and trust) is $50 less. For competition reasons (not performance reasons) ATI should lower their price IMO.

True. IMO and as I've said plenty of times, both should be selling for $400.

Dent1Now the question is. Why would the "average" consumer pay for an ATI card when the Nvidia (the brand the know and trust) is $50 less.

:laugh::roll::laugh::roll::laugh::roll:

Funniest shit i read in a while, if Nvidia was any shadier they'd be Marshall Mathers :cool:

Well...their logic is pretty sound.

AKlassAMD has something under there sleeves... either a victory driver, or they are hiding that it unlocks into a 7990

If they did release a victory driver with gains in excess of say 25% or soo boost in performance, then by all means, I would buy one.

But right now, as it stands, the price is too high for the HD 7970 regardless.

m1dg3t:laugh::roll::laugh::roll::laugh::roll:

Funniest shit i read in a while, if Nvidia was any shadier they'd be Marshall Mathers :cool:

I agree Nvidia have done some dodgy things.

What I meant was, the average customer have heard of Nvidia - They are seen to be the best in the noob community. ATI is seen as second best or second class. 9/10 if a customer is left to their own devices they'll buy a PC with an Nvidia 560ti than ATI 7970. Ask them why? They'll say Nvidia is better *shrugs*

Super XPIf they did release a victory driver with gains in excess of say 25% or soo boost in performance, then by all means, I would buy one.

But right now, as it stands, the price is too high for the HD 7970 regardless.

Why 25%? TPU "official" review proves that upto 6% seperate the two cards.

I'm glad that at least second hand 7970's dropped in price when the 680 released

As much as I love amd cards.....gotta give it to the green team. Seems like this time around amd charged like nvidia and nvidia c harged like amd usually dose.....and they switched back plates

phanbueyNvidia does not set prices at that level - board partners do. The same thing happened with the 5850. The price per chip stays the same from NV to the board partners, but due to demand they jack up their prices to the outlets. Nvidia doesn't see a $ extra from that 680 that PNY decided to sell for $550 unless they start jacking up the price that they sell the actual GPU for, which is not the case.

Finally someone who understands that Nvidia and AMD sell a GPU chip to board makers at a set price, the board makers sell the package at whatever price they want and teh retailer sells tham at whatever price they can get. So the end price is not set by AMD or Nvidia.

Yo_WattupAnd people say AMD are the good guys... Intel is competing against itself and they still have great priced cpus. Yet they are the evil ones. :confused:

What part of your comment has ANYTHING to do with the discussion at hand?

BenetanegiaI was not trying to say it was a few steps ahead. But it still is faster, cooler, and quieter (even if only by a little bit) so a higher price on the HD7970 is not justifiable no matter how you look at it IMO. I understand the situation and the fact that it's probably justifiable for AMD, but I don't see how consumers can justify it. More soin the face that AMD has been increasing the price of their cards by $50-150 every generation, despite the fact that the cards were almost identical. Same die size, same amount of memory, similar PCB...

So let me get this right Amd design their Pcbs right , from the off manage increased performance whilst keeping costs down and your wrong about the memory their bus size has increased and memory standards is now 2 gig not 1

and as far as i can see in the uk 7970's range from 414 -465 quids ,a 680 can be had for 419 - 455 so what are you on about thats a pie and a pint, and both are refference spec at the min price ,which is ideal if you have a waterblock in mind:)

bring on the next round please this ones boreing me now :rolleyes:

prices from aria

BenetanegiaTrue. IMO and as I've said plenty of times, both should be selling for $400.

this we agree on :)

I keep saying it and i'm gonna keep saying it: These "top tier" card's should cost no more $300 - $350 :) It is not 2004 anymore, NO MORE OVER PRICED GFX CARD'S! :shadedshu :shadedshu I'd be REALLY surprised if these card's cost Nvidia/ATi more than $100/ea to produce, even then i think i'm being generous in that guesstimate

fochkophWell...their logic is pretty sound.

Yup! Capitalism at it's finest, and they are commies! :eek: American companies should take note of Nvidia's business model/practice's

Super XPIf they did release a victory driver with gains in excess of say 25% or soo boost in performance, then by all means, I would buy one.

But right now, as it stands, the price is too high for the HD 7970 regardless.

There is no way that they can gain 25% from a driver, maybe 10% or 15% if lucky. BOTH card's are overpriced but can you blame them? There are more tool's out there willing to pay top $$$ than there are smart shopper's. They know how "everyone" love's that epeen and they make 'em pay for it!

Dent1I agree Nvidia have done some dodgy things.

What I meant was, the average customer have heard of Nvidia - They are seen to be the best in the noob community. ATI is seen as second best or second class. 9/10 if a customer is left to their down devices they'll buy a PC with an Nvidia 560ti than ATI 7970. Ask them why? They'll say Nvidia is better *shrugs*

Nvidia has always been shady, at least as long as i can remember, but that's just them. They are smart businessmen, for sure, they make/release a product that is inferior to what they claim is "coming" but perform's *just* better than the competition and price it accordingly all the while every review headline's that Nvidia has the fastest single GPU card and the fantrollios eat it up and scream "I TOLD YOU SO" and the n00bs are all like "zOMGwtFBBQ!!! i need it n4o!!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Plus Nvidia does a LOT of marketing, A LOT, so brand recognition is easily made and that = sale's. Very smart business men running that co.

If you guy's are happy to pay $500+ for a GFX card and $450+ for a MOBO go right ahead i'll be :laugh: at you all the way to the bank when i go to collect my dividend's on the $$$ i lent you to pay for those over priced piece's of "tech" that will be outdated in 3 month's anyways :o

/Rant

Sorry bta and anyone else not interested in my cynical ranting :o

Ya 400 bux in 2002 was for a Radeon 9700 Pro All In Wonder.

Board partner's get their MSRP's from Nvidia/ATi. Whether they'll admit to it or not.

eidairaman1Ya 400 bux in 2002 was for a Radeon 9700 Pro All In Wonder.

And $740 for a x850xt pe in '04 :rolleyes: NEVER again! I still have that card and i used the shit out of it, think i ran that card for 4yrs, maybe 5 :ohwell: I had to there was no choice for that kind of money i spent. I aint stupid rich :o

That was a time when i had epeen envy, i actually remember spending $300 for 1gb of dual channel RAM :banghead: :laugh:

Thankfully i'm smarter now, i think? :confused: :p