TR Forums

This rumors that 7770 will launch at $185.
This rumors that the 7770 will perform like a 6850.

This shows how the 6850 launched 1 year and 4 months ago at $180.

So if those two rumors are true then AMD is about to treat us to the least progressive GPU launch in history, I think. Heck, that's regressive!

Currently you can get a 6850 for somewhere around $140 before rebate, $120 after rebate.

What's the power consumption of the 6850? If the 7770 generates less heat it is still a step forward in at least one area... but $185 still seems rather high for a launch price.

And it *is* fudzilla...

just brew it! wrote:

And it *is* fudzilla...

I did call it a rumor. And, yes, it *is* fudzilla, and they get things right a fair bit too. They were dead on for the 7970 / 7950 stuff by the time it got to a this close to the launch.

As for heat - if power consumption has become the chief characteristic of video cards these days and the reason for their pricing rather than based on performance, then the world has changed and I missed it. $185 for 6850 level of performance is officially a rip off, and I'm hoping the rumor is wrong.

flip-mode wrote:

As for heat - if power consumption has become the chief characteristic of video cards these days and the reason for their pricing rather than based on performance, then the world has changed and I missed it. $185 for 6850 level of performance is officially a rip off, and I'm hoping the rumor is wrong.

...and I *did* say the price seemed too high. IOW I'm basically agreeing with you.

I for one would be willing to pay (somewhat) more for the same level of performance and lower power consumption. But given the street price for 6850s these days, not *that* much more.

flip-mode wrote:

So if those two rumors are true then AMD is about to treat us to the least progressive GPU launch in history, I think. Heck, that's regressive!

You're only taking price into account though. Now, I'm not saying that I don't want the prices on the whole 7 series of cards to be lower but they have done some new things with this series that I feel like you're not taking into account.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/5
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/7
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22384/11
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22384/12

Just sayin'. It hasn't been THAT bad. You just don't want to pay that much for the stuff they decided to include this time.

DancinJack wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

So if those two rumors are true then AMD is about to treat us to the least progressive GPU launch in history, I think. Heck, that's regressive!

You're only taking price into account though. Now, I'm not saying that I don't want the prices on the whole 7 series of cards to be lower but they have done some new things with this series that I feel like you're not taking into account.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/5
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/7
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22384/11
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22384/12

Just sayin'. It hasn't been THAT bad. You just don't want to pay that much for the stuff they decided to include this time.

Actually I'm only taking gaming performance into account. When I buy my next video card that purchase is going to be overwhelmingly based on getting the most performance for the price.

But it's looking like I'm the only one that feels like 6850 level performance for $185 is a bad bargain these days. :shrug: Perhaps AMD is pricing it right then.

flip-mode wrote:

But it's looking like I'm the only one that feels like 6850 level performance for $185 is a bad bargain these days. :shrug: Perhaps AMD is pricing it right then.

Only if you've been selectively ignoring what I've been posting in this thread:

I wrote:

$185 still seems rather high for a launch price.
-and-
I for one would be willing to pay (somewhat) more for the same level of performance and lower power consumption. But given the street price for 6850s these days, not *that* much more.

Considering its made on a 28nm node you would think that would offset the price since many more 7770 chips can be produced compared to a 40nm 6850/6870 on the same wafer.Not only that i am sure voltage regulators and that sorta stuff would not have to be so beefy.
But with there cpu division not doing so hot perhaps its a ploy to make as much$ as poss until the green team arrives.
But a low profile 7770 without the need for a pcie power connection would be fantastic for HTPC applications that would allow for some moderate gaming.

Amazing who can convince themselves that this wouldn't be a rip off. The power differences are not significant enough for what would be price gouging, unless they're far greater than anyone would expect (and I'm expecting similar improvements as seen in the 7970 relative to market position). There's "somewhat" paying for a lower power level part then there would be this. This card should be coming in around $130 or $140 in my opinion, not $45 more than that.

vargis14 wrote:

Considering its made on a 28nm node you would think that would offset the price since many more 7770 chips can be produced compared to a 40nm 6850/6870 on the same wafer.

Not if they're having yield problems at 28nm (which would not surprise me).

just brew it! wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

But it's looking like I'm the only one that feels like 6850 level performance for $185 is a bad bargain these days. :shrug: Perhaps AMD is pricing it right then.

Only if you've been selectively ignoring what I've been posting in this thread:

My bad!

The real issue here is that AMD doesn't have any 28nm competition yet. They'll stay with the same price structure even without significant performance gains as long as they can keep selling the cards. It may even work -- the target buyer for 7770 probably isn't the owner of a year-old 6850, it's someone like me who is running a 2.5yo Nvidia GTX-460 and might want a good, low-noise replacement for under $200.

For that matter, take a look at the "year old" 6850s on Newegg right now: they start at $135 but go up pretty quickly from there. They're obviously not feeling a lot of price pressure right now.

I'm not sure if it would be possible to build, but I would jump on a passively cooled version of this.

.

.

Hyperbole?
On the internet?
Among tech enthusiasts?
Unpossible!

(I agree, when I clicked on the link I was expecting to see something far more grave / dire / important than this)

As has been pointed out, assuming performance and features are similar, the relevant price for comparison isn't the *launch* price of the product it is replacing; it is the *current* price of said product.

Wouldn't these be smaller than a 6850 too? The lower power might mean less heatsink too. I might pay $180 for a card that only needs a single slot cooler with 6850 performance.

Gaming performance should be the only metric that hints at a GPU's price. If AMD charged extra for the power saving features, they would be charging a lot more for HD68xx and HD69xxx versus nV's far power hungrier offerings.

I thought Fudzilla touted a 150$ asking price for HD7770 at first. Even then, that is a bit high. One would hope Tahiti's improved Tessellation would be making an appearance here... Otherwise, IMO, this shouldn't be priced any higher than $130.

ultima_trev wrote:

Gaming performance should be the only metric that hints at a GPU's price.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

Even if you're not trying to "save the planet," shouldn't less heat and noise, and the option of using a less expensive PSU be worth something?

just brew it! wrote:

ultima_trev wrote:

Gaming performance should be the only metric that hints at a GPU's price.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

Even if you're not trying to "save the planet," shouldn't less heat and noise, and the option of using a less expensive PSU be worth something?

Having dealt with a handful of overheating issues with video cards, for me power consumption and heat are actually big factors in my decision to purchase a card.

Me too. It can't be downplayed.

On the opposite side of the "lower power = price premium" coin you have the fact that it's less expensive to produce smaller dies and less-intricate cooling solutions. It's as much a benefit for AMD as it is for the end user, and to me that premium should (mostly) cancel out.

derFunkenstein wrote:

On the opposite side of the "lower power = price premium" coin you have the fact that it's less expensive to produce smaller dies and less-intricate cooling solutions. It's as much a benefit for AMD as it is for the end user, and to me that premium should (mostly) cancel out.

Only if they're not having yield issues on the smaller process.

JBI wrote:

Only if they're not having yield issues on the smaller process.

And since it's a new node, they are.

I think flipmode has a pretty legitimate worry. The 6870 already has rather excellent idle and load consumption, and aftermarket cards with good coolers run at 150 AR on Amazon and newegg. If the 77xx turns out this way, I would have waited months for nothing.

And now for the obligatory "This Just In" post. Apologies in advance.

This just in: Businesses that exist in a free market economy will try and charge as much for their products as the market will bare.

Just because AMD may not have been as savvy with their pricing for HD4000 and HD5000 series cards, largely due to trying to win market share from Nvidia, does not mean this will always be the case. As has been said 1000s of times on the internets since the HD7000 launch, until Nvidia shows up with its 28nm refresh AMD has absolutely no impetus to try and decrease the price/performance ratio to any real degree for its customers. While this is kind of a let down relative to their past pricing of products at launch, I don't think AMD can really be blamed for trying to make higher margins until Kepler arrives - especially in light of their financial difficulties (regardless if this resembles trying to extinguish a barn fire with a super-soaker).

Also, the price/performance ratio for discrete GPUs cannot keep decreasing at the same rate in today's environment of relatively stagnant hardware requirements for games. With most people using 2 megapixel monitors or less, you can easily get away with $150-$200 for a GPU (an entry level price point largely established by the launch of the HD 4850). Why would AMD or Nvidia be in a rush to lower this entry point to $100-$150 or lower? Without competition, there's just no reason to expect it.

I was a bit chagrined after learning the $550 lauch price of the HD7970. However, given that, this move is hardly unexpected.

derFunkenstein wrote:

On the opposite side of the "lower power = price premium" coin you have the fact that it's less expensive to produce smaller dies and less-intricate cooling solutions. It's as much a benefit for AMD as it is for the end user, and to me that premium should (mostly) cancel out.

It's also 128 bit versus the 256 bit 6850.

clone wrote:

given the launch price for HD 6850 was $179 and HD 7770 is only $6.00 more I don't see the problem.

$6.00 more seems like a bargain for the same performance 16 months later with a smaller die and a simpler circuit board and simpler cooling requirements and needing less robust VRM and power supply circuitry? Did you buy the AMD FX 8150?

UberGerbil wrote:

Hyperbole? On the internet? Among tech enthusiasts? Unpossible! (I agree, when I clicked on the link I was expecting to see something far more grave / dire / important than this)

/waves
Sorry I came to discuss tech on a tech forum?

flip-mode wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

On the opposite side of the "lower power = price premium" coin you have the fact that it's less expensive to produce smaller dies and less-intricate cooling solutions. It's as much a benefit for AMD as it is for the end user, and to me that premium should (mostly) cancel out.

It's also 128 bit versus the 256 bit 6850.

I was only speaking in generalities. If X has the same performance as Y but with lower power consumption, I expect X to replace Y at the same price. Lower power consumption for a given performance level should be a no-brainer for the reasons I gave. It's cheaper for them to produce, so there shouldn't really be any premium on lower power consumption.

I would much rather see the 7800 series to be honest.
Another thing 1920/1080 can overly tax a 6850/6870 or gtx 560,Much more so if its on a large screen running 8xaa or higher.Sure you can turn down the settings and it looks ok.But the point is we game on PCs so we have all the bells and whistles, not to run a game so it looks slightly better then a console with a keyboard and mouse.
Now i know its not popular but throw in 3D and most games are slide shows unless you drop resolution to 720p on under 200$ cards.
Now add BF3 and its even more apparent, and that is without 3d.

P.S. i like the blue forum much easier on the eyes