AMD cuts 7900-series prices, throws in free games

And so the 28-nm price war begins. AMD has let us know that, starting today, you should be able to find Radeon HD 7970 and 7950 graphics cards for as little as $479 and $399, respectively. Also, “select etailer and retailer partners” will be offering the cards with a trio of free games: Codemasters’ Dirt: Showdown, Alientrap’s Nexuiz, and Ubisoft’s Deus Ex: Human Revolution. AMD calls this the “Three for Free” promotion.

Considering the the 7970 and 7950 launched at a respective $549 and $449, those price cuts are sizable. Not to mention appropriate. The 7970 should now be slightly cheaper than Nvidia’s new GeForce GTX 680, which outperforms the AMD card overall and costs $499. Yes, the GTX 680 still isn’t in stock at Newegg, and that spoils its competitive position somewhat—but still.

AMD also tells us its Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition should now be available “as low as $139,” which is a good $20 below the launch price. I always thought the 7770 was a tad overpriced compared to previous-gen offerings, so that’s another welcome adjustment.

I’m surprised AMD hasn’t touched pricing in the Radeon HD 7800 series, though. All of a sudden, higher-clocked variants of the Radeon HD 7870 are looking awfully unappealing. Why spend $389.99 on one of those when you can get a 7950 for an extra sawbuck? Even $349 for a vanilla 7870 might not be such a bargain anymore.

Comments closed
    • rjseo1
    • 8 years ago

    as Ashley responded I am in shock that anyone able to make $7579 in a few weeks on the computer. did you read this website… [url<]http://ohxiid.notlong.com[/url<]

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      REALLY? WHEN DID ASHLEY SAY THAT?!?! I DIDN’T HEAR HER STORY!

    • rjseo
    • 8 years ago
    • Madman
    • 8 years ago

    Well, the GTX680 is not that rare actually. We have 4 in stock at one store over here and for a very “reasonable” price of 737$ a piece.

    • tbone8ty
    • 8 years ago

    Powercolor 7950 going for $379 @ the egg

    7870 has a serious problem now

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    Wonder why they nuked the prices on only the top tier cards instead of repositioning all their products.

      • Airmantharp
      • 8 years ago

      Because it will have the same effect?

      They have to trim the top-end to stay competitive, but they’re already price competitive below that. Really it just means ‘you’re move, Nvidia’.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        But that also impacts their lower card lineup as Cyril noted. There is more to pricing competitively then just copying performance/price of their competition. If this impacts their lower end cards then they have to reposition them so people will still consider buying them. Very few people will now buy the 7870.

        It’s not just about having the same exact price/performance ratios, but also trying to market their own cards so people buy them… which may or may not be what the other company is doing.

    • tfp
    • 8 years ago

    Maybe if they put in 3 50-60 dollar games I actually wanted this would be a good deal…

    • merryjohn1
    • 8 years ago
    • rythex
    • 8 years ago

    What is with constant whining from some Techreport readers seeming to always bash/rag on AMD for anything they do?

    If it wasn’t for AMD/ATI you’d still be rolling around with Voodoo2’s and RivaTNT2’s.
    Whiner kids.

    Formula for techreport post for AMD

    “Why isn’t AMD’s (product) cheaper than Nvidias (Product) it obviously sucks. Nvidias (Future product) will destroy AMD’s (product) Look at the bench for (Game) it got (fps x 1.05) faster than AMDs (product) Haha! “

    • kc77
    • 8 years ago

    I’ll probably get downrated into oblivion but I think this should be said.It seems people are being highly critical of AMD when Nvidia doesn’t really even have their next generation cards available. It’s been about 3 weeks and to say team green’s cards are not meeting demand would be an understatement.

    You ask how could the 7870 be priced at 389? Well because it performs about the same as a GTX 580. Thats’ why, and that card is priced around $419 – $500 and that card doesn’t have any of the features that have been added to the 680, it runs hotter, and sucks down more power. Anyone asking for a price reduction on the GTX 580??? Nope.

    I would say be very careful of comparing tangible cards that are in supply with cards that are well….. ghosts. $549 might be too high a price….. but it’s available. You can find it in supply. You really can’t compare tangible cards with cards you can’t buy, or even cards that Nvidia “was going to release”. Shoulda Coulda Woulda, isn’t going to make your games faster nor drive a display.

    • merryjohn
    • 8 years ago
      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      whoa. this is the answer to clone’s discussion!! 77$ an hour! great!

    • Game_boy
    • 8 years ago

    Nexuiz is free anyway.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    yeah, no discounts yet. LOL

    [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127670[/url<]

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 8 years ago

    Is it unreasonable to want a 7850 for $200? Because that’s pretty much what my price/performance point is before I’ll make a purchase.

      • clone
      • 8 years ago

      if I had to guess I believe it’s possible but not knowing the costs to manufacture the card it’ll all depend.

      the real question is when do you want the HD 7850….. today it costs “this” much, 5 years from now it’ll sell for less than $50 in the classifieds, how long are you willing to wait?

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 8 years ago

        Well I have a 4870 right now, which is fast enough for 95% of the gaming I do (at 1680×1050), but I’m getting envious when I can’t turn on DX11 options,

      • flip-mode
      • 8 years ago

      Given it’s performance – no, it’s not at all unreasonable.

    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 8 years ago

    I see the free game coupons but no price change yet on the Egg. Amazon seems to be the only one with the price drop.

    • N3M3515
    • 8 years ago

    “Even $349 for a vanilla 7870 might not be such a bargain anymore.”

    Newsflash, $349 has NEVER been anything even remotely close to a bargain for a HD 7870, it’s always been a ripoff. $100 overpriced.

    • crsh1976
    • 8 years ago

    I’m still disappointed the 7770 is just a sidegrade for my aging 5770 that I was looking forward to recycle in a secondary machine, but if I were in the market for something pricier that offers more performance, the 79xx cards are looking very tasty with those cuts.

      • xeridea
      • 8 years ago

      Its not a sidegrade to the 5770, but the 6850. Its barely slower than 6850, but consumes far less power, compute is hugely improved, and has more features, so is still a better card, and the 7770 price is also reduced similar to 6850.

      • enzia35
      • 8 years ago

      I was disappointed in how little difference in performance there was between the 5770 and 7770.

      • jdaven
      • 8 years ago

      According to Techpowerup, a stock clocked 7770 is 20% faster overall than a 5770 or 27% faster when the 7770 is overclocked.

      [url<]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/HD_7770_OC/26.html[/url<] How much faster did you want it to be?

        • Farting Bob
        • 8 years ago

        Given the higher price and 28nm process i would have expected more. The 5770 is a fairly old card, launched 2 1/2 years ago (october 09). Can buy one new from Amazon for around £80. The 7770 costs at least £30 more.

          • kalelovil
          • 8 years ago

          The HD 77xx series is, based on die size, the true successor to Turks while the HD 78xx series is the true successor to Barts.

          Unfortunately low volumes and high prices on TSMC’s 28nm process at the moment have resulted in the present situation.

    • maroon1
    • 8 years ago

    GTX 680 is not only faster but it has advantage in other areas, such as better drivers and physX support

      • xeridea
      • 8 years ago

      As long as you don’t mind more frequent abnormal frame times, use Linux, or do any sort of compute intensive tasks.

        • Deanjo
        • 8 years ago

        Sorry but all other vendors linux drivers pale in comparison to Nvidias and have been doing compute intensive tasks longer then any other.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    I really would like to get my hands on one of these and cut another 100 dollars and I’m game!!!

    • flip-mode
    • 8 years ago

    Cyril – you know a sawbuck is $10, right? Where can we get a 7950 that’s just $400 ($390 + 1 sawbuck).

    Edit: sorry Cyril, I’m a boob.

      • Farting Bob
      • 8 years ago

      You know that article you just read and commented on? The whole point of that article was to tell you that the RRP of a 7950 is going to be $399, exactly 1 sawbuck more than the $389 example of the OC 7870. Give it a day or 2 for prices to adjust, im guessing sites would prefer to sell inventory they have already paid for at a profit before dropping the price $50.

        • flip-mode
        • 8 years ago

        Whew, that’s a lot of egg on my face…

    • flip-mode
    • 8 years ago

    Oh yay, another chance to mention what a joke Nvidia’s GTX 680 paper launch is/was. Nvidia seems to be able to bring about 100 cards to market per day. That’s not nearly enough production to legitimately bring this product to market.

    Still, it’s pretty awesome that Nvidia’s vaporware is enough to get AMD to bring some much needed price reductions to the 7900s.

      • flip-mode
      • 8 years ago

      Yes, I know I’ll get many minuses.

        • forumics
        • 8 years ago

        well at least you got a plus from me 🙂

      • DancinJack
      • 8 years ago

      You think it’s possible that TSMC’s 28nm has picked up a little for AMD? I mean instead of this being a response entirely to the GTX680? Just sayin’, we may not know all the details here.

        • flip-mode
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah, I think it is possible. It is also possible that people just stopped buying and started waiting for stocks of GTX 680. Or that the early adopter wave has mostly passed.

        • Stranger
        • 8 years ago

        AMD would have to sell quiet a bit more cards to just break even in this case. Even ignoring costs AMD has to ship~15% more cards to be even on pure revenue. plus it hasn’t seemed like AMD has been unable to deliver working chips unlike nVidia.

          • Firestarter
          • 8 years ago

          I don’t get what you’re saying. Do you think AMD is making less per GPU sold than Nvidia? Unless you can cite some kind of plausible data, I’m going to call bullshit on that. Reason is that AMD seems to be shipping GPUs at a decent rate, while Nvidia isn’t. That could mean that Nvidia is having more problems with creating functional GPUs on TSMCs 28nm process, even if the resulting functional GPUs seem to be pretty efficient. With lower yields, they probably end up paying TSMC more per working die, which would affect total cost for the graphics card. All this is wild speculation of course.

    • Joerdgs
    • 8 years ago

    Still waiting to get one of those sweet custom cooler Sapphire HD7950s when the price is right… or when I’m in one of those compulsive buying moments.

    • BRiT
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Why spend $389.99 on one of those when you can get a 7950 for an extra sawbuck?[/quote<] WTF [b<]sawbuck[/b<]?

      • flip-mode
      • 8 years ago

      Google is your friend. My friend Google tells me it’s a $10 bill, which has me wondering where Cyril can find a 7950 for $10 more than a 7870. Cheapest 7950 I see on Newegg is $40 more than $390.

        • Alexko
        • 8 years ago

        Not anymore, there’s one for $379.99 with $7.56 shipping now.

      • Buzzard44
      • 8 years ago

      According to this post, a sawbuck is $59.01.

      Considering the … 7950 launched at … $449.
      Why spend $389.99 …

      I have to agree with you. I don’t understand this unit of money.

      • clone
      • 8 years ago

      haven’t heard the term in a long time… thought it was awesome when I read it, made me smile.

    • gmskking
    • 8 years ago

    Still out of 99% of peoples price range.

      • clone
      • 8 years ago

      what are you talking about?….. who do you know who can’t afford to pony up $400 on something that they’ll have for 3 or more years?

      the cards are not out of my price range, I’m not seriously looking for a new video card and instead they are out of my interest range…. huge difference.

        • Prion
        • 8 years ago

        I know plenty of people who can barely afford to lay out $400 all at once for their entire computer budget and hope that it lasts 3-5 years or more. Take your poor-bashing somewhere else.

          • LovermanOwens
          • 8 years ago

          $400 for something that lasts 3-5 years is something that pretty much anyone can afford. 2-3 shifts at waiting tables will cover that easy. It isn’t poor bashing at all. Try to over-react somewhere else.

            • Firestarter
            • 8 years ago

            Have you considered that many poor people work full time? Don’t act like people who can’t afford $400 computers or video cards are just lazy.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            Firestarter you and Prion are one in the same, overly defensive and putting words into ppl’s mouths that aren’t being said.

            no one said lazy, I never mentioned the poor nor would I, the reality is if you can’t scrape together $400 then you have a spending issue, you aren’t budgeting, you are getting caught unaware and unprepared because you have spending issues.

            I was in that boat working 11 years and having nothing to show for it, putting my car insurance on my visa because I didn’t have the coin and the insurance cost more than the value of my car.

            my life turned around once I prioritized what I spend my money on.

            • Firestarter
            • 8 years ago

            Your life will turn around again when the priorities are [b<]set for you[/b<] due of circumstances.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            in life their are no guarantees.. health, prosperity, success but you can certainly improve the odds and the stability if you want too… that usually does not involve dictating how it’s done but instead learning how it’s done.

            some ppl never figure that out.

            • flip-mode
            • 8 years ago

            You prioritized video card purchases and turned your life around?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            you think i’ve got 400$ to drop on a video card? You think my friends have 400$ to drop on a video card? well, one does, but he’s the only one. I don’t know who you think these people are with 400$ to drop on video games. Not people with families…

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            sweatshopking I’m not talking about buying $400 video cards each week but for a purchase that’ll last 3-5 years…. yes every single one of your friends has the money including you and if you don’t you have a spending problem.

            as an example I own no cell phone… do you? because it’s not a needed expense.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            You’re confusing priorities and the ability to purchase this product. I do technically have 400$, but there is no way 400$ on video games is in my budget. I don’t have a spending problem, I have priorities that make more sense. This kind of purchase, for most people would be the bottom of the budget list. Its not about spending problems, its about priorities.
            I don’t have 400$ for this card, nor do the people I know. If they did, they’d probably buy one. I don’t drink, smile, gamble, buy much stuff, etc
            I and my wife are both students, and we get by on less than minimum wage. Its cool that you think people’s finances are all their fault, but you’re discounting reality.

            I dont have a spending problem, and I don’t have 400$ for this card

            As for your cell phone bit, I do. Its 10$ a month cheaper than having a landline where I live. Or does having a phone fall under a spending problem? I probably shouldn’t have internet access either. Screw vegetables, they’re too expensive anyway. My kids can eat hotdogs.

            EDIT: lol, how did write smile? freudian slip! should be smoke

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            “You’re confusing priorities and the ability to purchase this product. I do technically have 400$”

            exactly my point and I’m not confusing anything…. you have the money, you can indeed afford a $400 video card but choose not to….. hugely different from someone whining they can’t afford a $400 video card.

            as to the cell phone, so you are saying that your cell phone bill month to month is $10 cheaper than basic phone service?…. that’s promising as I have always said I wouldn’t get a Cell until it was cheaper than my land line.

            my point was luxuries but you already knew that and are being specious.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            no. you’re assuming people have budgets that have room for 400$ toys. You’re wrong. I CANT afford this card. i have to eat instead. You’re simply incorrect.

            I need long distance on my phone, and it’s 10$ cheaper for unlimited national calling on my cell (50$) vs a landline ($60).

            I don’t have 400$ for luxuries. You’re not right.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            you just said you have $400 but wouldn’t waste it on a video card….. why are you still talking?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            because your reading is failing. to claim that a person has physical money, and can therefore afford something, regardless of realistic responsibilities isn’t realistic. what decides i can afford something is decided by a budget. I don’t have 400$ for a video card. it’s out of my budget, and there for unaffordable.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            you can try and convolute it all you want, it’s not unaffordable, you have the coin, you can claim life is in the way, responsibility is what’s stopping you from spending $400 on something that’ll last 3-5 years it’s not my concern but don’t bother claiming it’s not affordable.

            • Mourmain
            • 8 years ago

            You simply don’t know what the word “afford” means. From Merriam-Webster:

            Definition of AFFORD
            transitive verb
            1
            a : to manage to bear [b<]without serious detriment [/b<]

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            $400.00 is an overwhelming amount of coin to pay for a high end video card and $150 in free software when the same card 6 years ago was $830.00… doubtful.

            what I know is that if a person is in the market to buy they look for the best deal and they find a way because they want it, when they don’t really want it…. they don’t find a way and instead just continue to complain.

            • VILLAIN_xx
            • 8 years ago

            I would LOVE to see you guys keep squabbling, but he did make it clear its not in his interest for him, in multiple ways of wording, that he wouldnt drop $400 on card for his reasons. You already said it wasnt in your interest to be looking at these particular cards for what ever your reasons are. So, why harpy him over what many others agree on anyways?

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            congrats…lol.

            you have noticed the foundation of almost every prolonged internet discussion ever had…. and more often than not all the while at least one side would be professing “100% disagreement because of “this” insignificant detail.”

            politics and religion baby.

            lol.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Do you live in your parents’ basement?

            Some people have to pay rents, buy their own food etc. Sure, you could blow your $400 on a graphics card and eat leaves off neighbor’s apple tree, but the card doesn’t help you much when the power company shuts off your electricity for missing your power bills.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            no, moved out decades (plural) ago.

            • flip-mode
            • 8 years ago

            Sure, but there are probably 20 items on the list of “wants” for those people and I’m betting a video card falls pretty low on that list for a lot of people. Here’s my list, and not in order of importance:

            1 upgrade to sandy bridge
            2 new laptop
            3 new trailer – 5′ x 8′ is really all I need
            4 new bike
            5 tv for the bedroom
            6 mini van (that’s $400 a month!)
            7 second monitor
            8 new desk
            9 architect’s license (7 tests, $200 each, plus books)
            10 software (there are several things but I’ll condense to one item)
            11 kegerator
            12 home theater computer
            13 decent home theater speakers
            15 a new fricking kitchen; I hate my kitchen
            16 build an “office” in the basement
            17 redo plumbing from kitchen / laundry
            18 redo my lawn and get some decent gardening going on
            19 get a compost system

            and the list goes on

            So… $400 gets extremely expensive when you look at all the things in life that you want that cost somewhere around $400. And the list never gets shorter. Some things get crossed off because you buy them or you decide you’re not going to buy them, and some new things get added along the way.

          • clone
          • 8 years ago

          if you can’t scrape together $400 then you have a spending problem not a poverty problem.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            You don’t even know what you’re talking about.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            yes, I do, been their, done it, started with nothing and after 10 years of having nothing decided I’d improve my situation, had to look within for the answers because I was the problem.

            wasn’t easy but once done and bad habits were gone the world became different to me, I became freer.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            Bah. If you’ve climbed out of real poverty you didn’t do it by spending $400 on video cards and a commensurate amount of time on gaming.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            I lived in dirt ace, slugged block while living in a room in a basement sharing the bathroom with 3 others, clothing in a pile on the floor, paycheck to paycheck, drunk thursday to Saturday and on Sunday I’d scrape together the change for a meal at KFC, then I’d go 4 days without eating until the next paycheck…. and you are correct I wasn’t buying $400 video cards at the time, instead I was complaining about how I didn’t have any money.

            • anotherengineer
            • 8 years ago

            I make decent money and don’t have $400 (even if it lasts 10 yrs) to drop on a video card, like you said about the cell phone it’s not a need.

            I have to feed my kids, save up an education fund for them and a pension for myself. With those extra costs $400 is a lot of money that could be better used elsewhere.

            And I am fairly good at budgeting, in school I had about $50 ‘play’ money a month. Now if the economy was better and I knew I was going to have a job for the next 30 years without getting a lay-off I might consider it, but tis not the case.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            as I said to SweatShopKing…. you have the coin but not the interest…. I’m not accusing anyone of anything aside from saying if they really really wanted it but can’t get $400 scraped together then they have a spending issue.

            you consider it a luxury not worth sacrificing for…. that’s exactly what I assumed regarding the vast majority of the ppl claiming “I don’t have $400.00”

            • ish718
            • 8 years ago

            What about people living from paycheck to paycheck with no assets? There are a lot of people who can’t afford to spend $400 in one shot.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            ME!

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            is their such a job where the employer guessed exactly right with regards to his employee’s wages so that a perfect balance is truck…. not a penny more not a penny less required?

            doubtful.

            when someone gets a raise or moves to a new job that offers a higher wage… why can’t they save 50% of that raise?

            they lived off the lower amount why the need to spend all of the raise as well… because that is the new perfect balance?…. really?

            can’t find a way to save $10 a week?… impossible?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            nice, i’ll get a 10 cent raise! that’s 5 cents an hour! at that rate, it’ll only take me 4.2 years! yay? your point is moot. All you’re doing it saying “i’m amazing, other people have no money cause they suck.

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error[/url<]

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            why all the character attacks?……given the card comes with a lifetime warranty and will easily last 5 years if not longer… $0.05 is all that’s needed SweatShopKing… but that’s totally unreasonable and completely unaffordable.

            on a side note apparently highlighting the blatantly obvious has made me guilty of a lot of things.

            I’m guilty of poor bashing.
            I’m guilty of taking vegetables away from children
            I’m guilty of calling ppl lazy
            I’m guilty of being a liar
            I’m guilty of not understanding common sense
            I’m guilty of claiming ppl shouldn’t have phones….lol.
            I’m guilty of being completely unreasonable for thinking $400 isn’t that much coin.
            and I’m guilty of arrogance because of expressing that $400 isn’t really that much.

            all this from saying “who can’t afford $400 on something that’ll last 3-5 years”….. and my position was always 3-5 years of great gaming, the card itself will likely last another 10 years after that….. so I’m guilty of everything under the sun because ppl believe $400 is an insane amount of coin, totally unaffordable, so out of reach to anyone who actually wants it.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            Character attacks? there was none. I was merely stating what you said, that people who can’t afford 400$ on a toy have spending problems. no character attack intended, and you’re a good guy, clone. sorry if you think you’re getting attacked unnecessarily. the FAE point was just pointing out that people have a very difficult time assessing how other people ought to behave, and we must be mindful of that.

            The issue people take with you statement is that you’re pushing blame onto people who MAY not deserve it. that’s all.

            I never called you any of those things, though i see you’re using some of them from points i said.
            400$ is an unreachable level for an adult toy for a great many people.

            Do you have any kids? you’re at least 30, i’m just curious. You may very well, and there are of course a great many people making very good incomes. I don’t know what you do professionally, and that would of course impact your perceptions of income. You stated that you had an issue making bill payments, then decided to change priorities, and then were ok. for a great many people, it’s not a spending issue, it’s an issue of debits vs credits, there simply isn’t enough coming in to cover the [i<] necessities. [/i<] Beyond that, there are other issues. Could i technically buy this card on credit and manage to pay it off? sure. I could. but it'd be a fool, and doing so would really be a [i<] very poor decision, [/i<] hence the "i can't afford it" statement. 10 cents is a realistic wage increase for a great many people making minimum wage, i'm not sure if you're saying in your last post that saving 5 cents is realistic way to save for this card? cause it isn't. that's dumb. 4.2 years for a gpu? you'd have to be crazy, nvm inflation....

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            I don’t believe I’m getting attacked I’m laughing about the odd accusations that have been made.

            the card isn’t unaffordable to ppl who want it, what it is at $400 is at a price point that makes some ppl pause to really consider how much they are willing to spend on graphics for a computer….unaffordable not really…. and if it is they have far bigger problems than wasting time talking about graphics cards and their pricing.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            Clone, part of the reason why everyone is willing to bash your character is because it seems you have some character to bash. That’s a compliment. People are willing to hammer at metal when it seems misshapen to them. They are unwilling to hammer at lint.

            There are worthwhile truths about the character of choice and human freedom at the core of what you’ve been saying. It reminds me of Matthew 13:44-46 (the parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price). When people want something badly enough, they will show it in the choices and sacrifices they make, and those sacrifices can move mountains. [b<]It's because of this that what people say they can't afford really does show just as much about their priorities as it does about their circumstances.[/b<] If a destitute and starving Chinese rice farmer suddenly decided he wanted that video card more than anything, it would change his life. The Quest for the Ultimate Gaming Rig could be as ennobling as Galahad's Quest for the Holy Grail. He would make his way to a place where he could find the opportunity to earn and purchase that card and a system to match, even if he had to cross continents on foot. He would work and scrimp and save; his fortitude and diligence might become legendary. And when he had achieved his aim, his supreme enjoyment of gaming on his new rig would-- though I, with my very different priorities, would not be able to understand it-- be something truly glorious and transcendent. I still think the way you put things was unreasonable, and it took reading quite a number of your posts to be able to see that core idea past the unreasonableness.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            nobody is arguing that it’s impossible to purchase. we’re just saying that based upon current income, it’s out of many people’s budgets.

            nobody is even saying the card shouldn’t be that much money. i have no qualms about the price, it’s just not something i could purchase sensibly.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            And clone, in his own unreasonable way, is saying that the reason it’s out of many people’s budgets is not just because of their current income but more importantly because they choose not to budget for it, because they have other priorities.

            I entirely agree with you that it’s not something I could purchase sensibly, even if I had a much larger income. But you have to be able to see that our finding it insensible is because of our priorities.

            I can’t really understand the kind of priorities which would lead someone to spending that kind of sum on a video card for gaming when there are so many other uses for their money, they could get perfectly adequate performance for half the price, and the video card will be surpassed by newer technology so rapidly. I can better understand the kind of priorities which lead one to become a perpetual drunk or an ascetic monk or a thousand other things far removed from my everyday experience. But I can see that it’s conceivable someone could have their priorities so ordered, like the rice farmer in my legend.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            my wording was off but thanks for the response, figured I’d let you know it was read and appreciated.

            • Nocturin
            • 8 years ago

            I can’t believe I’m actually up voting you.

            • flip-mode
            • 8 years ago

            If you can’t acknowledge that some people have better things to do with $400 than buy a video card then you might have problems of your own.

        • Airmantharp
        • 8 years ago

        You know, I don’t think clone is approaching the cost subject from the best angle, but I agree with him.

        It’s not a question of the price of the product, but whether or not you choose to afford it. The popularity of these top-end cards lends me to believe that many, many people do choose to afford them after all.

          • clone
          • 8 years ago

          probably not given the responses accusing me of hating the poor, demanding ppl not to have phones and of denying children their vegetables… lol.

          ROFLMAO.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah… it’s about what people want to buy. He’s saying that instead of saving up to buy something, they just complain about how expensive it is. $400 dollars isn’t like saving up for a $250k car.

          I want to say this is all about priorities and wants. I’m surprised he got so many downvotes.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        Successful troll is successful.

          • clone
          • 8 years ago

          I wasn’t trolling, it’s like pushing the term “fanboy”…. any comment that meets with disapproval by others is suddenly “trolling.”

          still kinda funny though.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Yuh… when people want to immediately discredit someone for something they feel is worth arguing for they just call them a troll. On the other hand, some people really are trolls.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            you really have a tough time with this trolling thing, don’t you?

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            I thought we were bros SSK? What happened?!?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            you tell me! you were advocating for my ban last time i checked!

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Ah that was you? I thought it was some other guy being mean.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            mean? i’m starting to think you don’t read my posts at all….

          • Firestarter
          • 8 years ago

          Some people just want to see the databases burn.

      • Kurotetsu
      • 8 years ago

      99% of people won’t be buying this card (or any discrete graphics card) to begin with. So it all works out!

      • rrr
      • 8 years ago

      Then don’t buy it. What’s the problem? You want everything for free or dirt cheap? Oh, right. I can’t help you with that then.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 8 years ago

      Yeah its seems most of their lineup still has another 50-100 dollars to take off each items price tag. I’m not being snooty but when it looks like a product will drop in price SOON you kinda just want to wait. I do finally need to replace my 460 its been great I have someone who’ll buy it for 120 (that includes my instillation fee) and I’m game to upgrade soon as these guys get closer to their expected resting place of 180, 250, 300, and 350 respectively.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    Finally. I began to think AMD had just given up on the prospect of ever making any money.

    Begun, the Card Wars have.

    EDIT:

    [quote<]I'm surprised AMD hasn't touched pricing in the Radeon HD 7800 series, though. All of a sudden, higher-clocked variants of the Radeon HD 7870 are looking awfully unappealing. Why spend $389.99 on one of those when you can get a 7950 for an extra sawbuck? Even $349 for a vanilla 7870 might not be such a bargain anymore.[/quote<] I'm not. It took them a month to decide the 680 was in sufficient supply to compete with them and knock the price down. They're waiting for nVidia to have something on the "mainstream" level (mainstream albeit without mainstream pricing). We can all hope nVidia pulls the same trick as before, drops a part that outperforms AMD's and is lower-priced at launch to boot. I wonder if it's too much to hope for a part that's faster than the $350 7870 and priced at $250? Imagine the squeeze on AMD then. More likely, nVidia will toss out a $300 660, a $379 670, and possibly put the 680 at $479. And then call it a day. The beauty on the 680 side is that nVidia took a mainstream part and can use it as high end because of AMD's complete failure to bring a truly high performing part. So the 680 part was meant to be much cheaper than it is and so they have a lot of flexibility in dropping the price and still making money. Not so for AMD whose 3GB part with its higher memory bus and larger GPU is costing AMD to drop the price on. It seems nVidia learned a lot from the 480/580 vs 5870/6970 wars and AMD learned... nothing.

      • shank15217
      • 8 years ago

      All your logic based on a mythical high end part that doesn’t exist, oh wait.. neither does the 680.. one of the largest e-tailers in North America has precisely 0 in stock for weeks now, so keep living in your dream world.

        • wierdo
        • 8 years ago

        I think at least the renaming part has some merit based on some investigations of drivers etc:
        [url<]http://www.techpowerup.com/162901/Did-NVIDIA-Originally-Intend-to-Call-GTX-680-as-GTX-670-Ti-.html[/url<] It's an interesting read that makes one wonder, though take with a grain of salt as usual.

      • Forge
      • 8 years ago

      Would you believe I had that same misquote in my mind when I read the headline?

      Bring on the war! I want a 350$ GTX 680, since that’s where this “GTX 660 Ti” really should have been all along. Let Nvidia bleed AMD’s margins, we’ll all win in the short term.

      I’d totally pony up 500$ for the real GTX 680, though. What will Nvidia call it now? They’ve crowded the top end of the namespace too much with this switch. The GTX 690 should be the dual 680 part, and that leaves nothing for the ‘true’ 680. GK100 or GK110, whatever it ends up being. I’m guessing it’ll be the GTX 780 this fall/winter, whenever AMD brings something hot up against the current chips.

        • Hirokuzu
        • 8 years ago

        There’s always room for a GTX685, like what happened with the GTX465 (ugh), GTX275/285… if there’s a dual gtx680 and gtx685 (i hope they don’t give another number generation it’s getting annoying) they’ll be the gtx690 and gtx695… I’m hoping they’ll bring it down… I know quite a few engineering friends who’d love the compute.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          You’re bad at history. The 465 was out long before the 460, and was a trimmed down version of an already-trimmed-down high-end part. Your logic, it is fallible.

      • quasi_accurate
      • 8 years ago

      You can’t use a part that does not exist right now and doesn’t have to firm release date as your main argument 😛 But two can play that game. By the time this mythical beast comes out, it will have to contend with the Sea Islands generation 😉

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]which outperforms the AMD card[/quote<] ORLY? I've looked at other reviews of the 680 and it's not the stupendous 7970 killer claimed to be, although it still is a good card and does beat the 7970 in many games. Nevermind they are not dx11/shader heavy. Regardless, neither is worth $500 aside from supply reasons, and there still isn't anything decent for 200. I can wait. Older dx11 cards aren't quite obsolete yet. Heck, the 460 was obsolete on release but people still can get acceptable framerates playing games like Deus Ex. Another bonus is FXAA being added to nvidia's general feature set, and who knows how much that'll extend the life of older cards, being you no longer need to max out AA to get a decent picture.

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 8 years ago

    I thought that Nexuiz already was free. I played it when it was open source, but apparently they’ve since made it not open source.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 8 years ago

      The original Nexuiz is now Xonotic. Nexuiz IP holders sold out to make a new game based off CryENGINE 3. I have mixed feelings for purchasing this game. Better off donating $10 to the Xonotic guys. Reminds me of the whole OO to Libre debacle.

        • TDIdriver
        • 8 years ago

        [quote<]Reminds me of the whole OO to Libre debacle.[/quote<] except that involved no selling out and remained open-source, unless Xonotic is the Document Foundation. I do agree that I have mixed feelings about buying the new one, as I've liked the original for many years

    • shank15217
    • 8 years ago

    The 7800 non-overclocked cards do almost as well as the oc cards and they oc about 20% without a sweat, I think AMDs 7800 has always been their secret weapon and their best value.

    • wira020
    • 8 years ago

    Considering the the 7970 and 7950

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 8 years ago

    Kick ’em while they’re down, AMD!
    Kinda logical move by AMD seeing how GTX 680 is scarce. Too bad about 7800 prices though. Gotta wait, but my patience is slowly running out as the Diablo III launch is approaching and I’m stuck with Intel HD2000 which can’t even run Magicka properly.

    • novv
    • 8 years ago

    So I don’t get it. First the TR review says clearly: “However, if we switch to an arguably superior method of understanding gaming performance and smoothness, our 99th percentile frame time (converted to FPS so the plot reads the same), the results change a bit. The GTX 680’s few instances of higher frame latencies, such as that apparent GPU Boost issue in Arkham City, move it just a couple of ticks below the Radeon HD 7970 in overall performance.” Then you come here pointing to TR review and are saying that “The 7970 should now be slightly cheaper than Nvidia’s new GeForce GTX 680, which outperforms the AMD card overall and costs $499”. I can clearly see that now, again, AMD has the faster and cheaper card on the high-end segment and also available.

      • BestJinjo
      • 8 years ago

      That’s 1 instance with drivers that have been updated. Check multiple reviews on the net. 680 is clearly faster than a stock 7970. Of course a 7970 can be overclocked which starts to perform much faster, but at stock speeds, a 10-15% gap exists in favor of the 680. That’s why 7970 needed price cuts.

      In this review a $600 MSI Lightning trades blows with a stock 680:
      [url<]http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53263-msi-hd-7970-lightning-3gb-review.html[/url<]

        • cegras
        • 8 years ago

        You completely missed the point. FPS is not a good measure of performance.

          • BestJinjo
          • 8 years ago

          No, I didn’t miss the point. When FPS are recorded over a continuous timeframe, they become a good measure. Hardware Canucks, Computerbase and many other websites do manual tests for the games.

          What you are saying it playing a game for 10 minutes and recording FPS is totally inaccurate way to measure performance of a card? So in the last 10 years all the cards we purchased and which performs exactly how reviews stated they would are a pigment of my imagination?

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            I wouldn’t go so far as to say “it’s not a good measure” but it’s not as good as looking how long it takes to render individual frames.

      • clone
      • 8 years ago

      I noticed the 99% frame thing as well but I believe TR knew and knows when they do the tests that the element can only carry so much weight because it usually gets fixed via software eventually.

      beyond that …. 3 free games and a large price drop is all good in my books.

    • phez
    • 8 years ago

    Early adopters usually get a bad rap, but this price drop is a pretty brutal punch in the gut.

      • Alexko
      • 8 years ago

      Not really, this is perfectly normal for high-end hardware.

      • Firestarter
      • 8 years ago

      It’s been 2 months since release, so it’s not so bad. If they did this after 1 month it’d be much worse.

      • jensend
      • 8 years ago

      When a product is first launched supplies are low and demand is high. The early adopter premium isn’t a “bad rap,” it’s the premium you pay to have access to scarce resources when they really matter to you.

      Somehow people have got to internalize the idea that markets are more efficient ways to allocate scarce resources than Soviet-style queues.

      –more detailed rant–
      They could instead choose some arbitrary way to allocate scarce initial runs of cards, like having all the people who were willing to buy the 7970 at $480 enter a drawing to see if they would get to actually buy one or would have to wait four months.

      That would pointlessly destroy value. AMD would have less money and the people to whom getting a 7970 matters most (and who would therefore have been willing to pay more than others) would be outta luck. The same is true of and any realistically-achievable non-price-based way to choose who gets the cards, most notably just saying “first come, first served.”

      Some of that inefficiency would be reclaimed by gray market sales- if I won the drawing I might turn around and offer to sell it to anybody for $600, making a profit and giving somebody to whom it really mattered a chance to get the card. Besides the fact that this is arbitrarily rewarding random resellers rather than the company making the product, transaction costs (advertising and information costs, unknown risks of buying from individuals, shipping it again) mean relatively few such sales would happen.

    • Duck
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Why spend $389.99 on one of those when you can get a 7950 for an extra sawbuck?[/quote<] Sawbuck??? Riddles. 7870 can keep pace with a 7950 and sometimes outperform it thanks to both having 32 ROPs but higher clocks for the 7870. I never liked the 7900 much. Higher end cards should outperform lower tier ones in all metrics.

      • ultima_trev
      • 8 years ago

      Aye. The 79xx and 77xx series are complete jokes, at least at their price point. They at least should have more ROPs, and perhaps a 192-bit bus for the 77xx series.

      • BestJinjo
      • 8 years ago

      But you aren’t accounting for 50% overclocking headroom on the 7950. Once you overclock 7950, it’ll come in within 10% of an overclocked 7970 (that’s because 7950 also has the same 384-bit memory bandwidth which helps 7900 series scaling). It’s kinda pointless to compare an HD7870 to an stock HD7950 when HD7950 has a huge pixel fillrate bottleneck. 7950 is also bottlenecked by shader speed and memory bandwidth. Once you overclock it, it will surpass a stock 7970 and match a 680. It’ll obliterate an overclocked 7870.

      HD7950 was not great at $450 but for $400, it’s a much better deal than $350 for the 7870.

      People aren’t giving enough credit to an overclocked 7950:
      [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/sapphire-radeon-hd-7950-oc_6.html#sect4[/url<]

        • Duck
        • 8 years ago

        So much is wrong with this.

        50% overclocking headroom? O rly?? If all the 7950s are perfectly stable at 1200MHz/7500MHz (+50% core/mem), then that’s what their stock clock would be.

        Kinda pointless to compare an HD7870 to an HD7950? O rly?? I don’t think it is if you read what I wrote.

        The review you linked doesn’t even have a 7870 in the results.

          • DancinJack
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]If all the 7950s are perfectly stable at 1200MHz/7500MHz (+50% core/mem), then that's what their stock clock would be.[/quote<] I don't know where you get that info, but I don't think that's the case. I'm sure there aren't very many 7950s that can reach that speed, but if they could that in no way means that would be what they would be clocked at coming from the factory. I'm sure their clocks have a lot to do with what the other 7 series cards can do. Gotta hit those market segments. For the record, I don't disagree with anything else you said.

            • BestJinjo
            • 8 years ago

            Your argument lacks logic. Almost 99% of 7970s can hit 1125mhz. If that’s true why didn’t AMD release them at those speeds? Dave Baumann of AMD even officially acknowledged that they purposely went conservative and left a lot of overclocking headroom for 7950/7970s cards.

            But even at 1075mhz, HD7950 is already as fast as an HD7970. It’s a far better deal at $400 than HD7870 is at $350.

          • Firestarter
          • 8 years ago

          1200mhz is pretty attainable, but not practical for 24/7 operation. Many chips will do it as far as I can tell, but it takes a lot of power, more than the power circuity can reasonably support I guess.

          • BestJinjo
          • 8 years ago

          800-1100/1200mhz is doable on a lot of 7950s. So a 40-50% overclock for the 7950 is not outside of extraordinary.

          $399 for Sapphire 7950 makes all 7870s irrelevant. This card is known to hit 1100-1200mhz.
          [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102963[/url<] I am not going to do research for you on how fast an overclocked 7950 performs. There is Google for that.

        • ultima_trev
        • 8 years ago

        1.1 GHz core / 7+ GHz memory for HD 7950 is the exception, not the rule. If many HD 7970s have trouble hitting such speeds, then chances are the gimped HD 7950 will even have more trouble.

        At $350, HD 7870 is just fine where it is. However, HD 7950 makes no sense at anything over $380.

    • Ryu Connor
    • 8 years ago

    Deus Ex: HR is a Square Enix title. Not Ubisoft.

    • ImSpartacus
    • 8 years ago

    Until AMD gets some competition from mid-range Kepler, AMD has little incentive to lower prices.

    And the mid range stuff isn’t here, so…

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      Based on the codename for the GTX 680, I’d say the midrange stuff is here but after the 7900 series came out nVidia realized they could price it at high-end prices.

        • Duck
        • 8 years ago

        7770 is midrange. 7870 is performance mainstream. 7970 and GTX 680 are high end niche.

          • ImSpartacus
          • 8 years ago

          The GTX680 (GK104) is a ~$300 mid-range GPU, just like all the other G*1*4 parts.

          Nvidia is able to [i<]price[/i<] it like high-end because it can clock high enough to compete with the 7970. So at this time & pricing, the GTX680 is basically a high-end part, but Nvidia has a 500mm^2+ computing monster waiting to pounce. Just wait for the next Tesla/Quadro parts. Nvidia [i<]needs[/i<] GK110's computing muscle for their next professional cards.

            • Duck
            • 8 years ago

            GTX680 is 300mm^2, needs multiple aux power inputs, is taking the performance crown. Nothing about it is midrange. It’s a high end niche card just like the 7970.

            Above the high end niche class is the compute monster class.

            Nvidia doesn’t have a 500mm^2+ computing monster waiting to pounce. It’s months away at best. Probably at least 9 months behind the 7970.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            yeah but the joke was before the delay this GPU was not going to be named the 680 GTX or be priced at 500 dollars, lol.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            Not convinced? Let’s look at history…

            The GF104 was the GTX460 (332mm^2, 2×6-pin). The GF100 was the GTX480 (529 mm^2, 6-pin & 8-pin).

            The GF114 was the GTX560Ti (360mm^2, 2×6-pin). The GF110 was the GTX580 (520mm^2, 6-pin & 8-pin).

            The GK114 is the GTX680 (294mm^2, 2×6-pin). How do you think the GK110 will look?

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            You’ve restricted your history to a single process generation where there were only tweaks and no major redesign. If you try to extend that further back than the 400 series it’s apparent that your argument is more tentative/speculative than your post suggests.

            Internal model numbers get completely shaken up on a regular basis. Die area/power of the different price points is a little more predictable but still has occasional major shifts from generation to generation.

            It’s true that thermal/power and die area characteristics suggest nV has room for a larger chip, and their commitment to Tesla and GPGPU means something else really has to be on its way (GK114’s GPGPU performance is considerably worse than GF110’s).

            But not only do we have no idea when the larger chip will show up, we have no guarantee that it will actually be marketed to consumers as a GeForce. nV’s compute-oriented and games-oriented designs have been gradually diverging, and their higher-compute-performance chip may not be able to get a large enough advantage over GK114 in games to be worth the extra die area, cost, etc. Besides, the GK114 performs more than well enough on modern games as it is.

            • Ushio01
            • 8 years ago

            The 200 series never had a midrange chip it was either GT200 or the 55nm G92b (256mm^2) there was the 40nm GT215 (144mm^2) but that is more an equivalent to the 7700 series in positioning.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            You’re right that the GT200 didn’t have a same-generation “performance mainstream” i.e. GF104/114 equivalent. Product positioning aside, the GT215 came a year and a half later with a large process node leap.

            So though the GF100/110 have a clear predecessor in the 576mm GT200, the next chance for a comparison is the G92 and G94. The G94 was 240mm^2 and the top-of-the-line G92 was 324mm^2. That’s only 30mm^2 larger than the GK114.

            That supports an alternate interpretation of the history: nV had tremendously huge die sizes for two generations + 5xx refresh of dual-purpose gaming&compute chips. Now their compute and gaming designs are diverging and they can go back to the ~300mm^2 point for their highest-end gaming chips.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            BTW a few more figures: 6800 was 305mm^2, 7800 was 334mm^2, they made a big architectural leap without any help from a die shrink for the orig. 8800 so it shot up to 484mm^2 before going back to 324mm^2 for G92.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            Wasn’t it the die shrink that caused the 480 to be so hot and late?

            So it’s kinda hard for me to hear you say that a die shrink has [i<]helped[/i<] Nvidia keep die size down when the bloated 480 was famously late (and huge!) [i<]because[/i<] of its die shrink. If this seems contradictory, it's because a "die shrink" doesn't have to actually shrink the die. Recently, jumping to a new process has been a headache for Nvidia. It caused their flagship to be big and hot. I have little reason to think that the latest process change is going differently. The only difference is that Nvidia was able to withhold their flagship and let their mid-range product go toe to toe with AMD's underwhelming 7970. GK110 exists, but its yields might not be good enough at this time. Not surprising considering the abysmal yields of the GTX 680.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]it's kinda hard for me to hear you say that [b<]die shrinks[/b<] have helped Nvidia [b<]keep die size down[/b<][/quote<][url=http://xkcd.com/481/<]Listen to yourself[/url<]. That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            I’m using “die shrink” analogously with “process shrink” or “node shrink.” If that wasn’t what you meant, then I’d like to hear your non-tautological definition of die shrink. In lieu of that, I’ve elaborated my comment for simpler minds.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            The 480 wasn’t big and hot because of its process shrink. That’s beyond ridiculous, it’s a tremendously ignorant thing to say. (It amazes me that you have the audacity to condescend about “simpler minds” compared to your overwhelming genius after making a comment like that.)

            You can blame the process shrink for its being late, but the only reason anybody bothers putting billions of dollars of engineering into process shrinks is because a process shrink allows faster operation, lower power consumption, and more transistors in the same amount of physical space.

            The 480 wasn’t hot and large because of the process shrink; without the process shrink it would have been too hot and too large to work at all. It was 3 billion transistors; on the previous process node the 280 had been dangerously hot and prohibitively costly to manufacture at 1.4 billion transistors.

            Even with the most famous process change fiasco- Prescott- Intel couldn’t blame anything on the new process. The 90nm node really did allow lower power consumption and higher performance when people designed things correctly. But Intel overreached by trying to go from a 55 million transistor chip at 130nm to a 125 million transistor chip at 90, and they failed to take reasonable design steps to deal with leakage current.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            Moving to a new process can [i<]never[/i<] affect fab yields? And diminished yields can [i<]never[/i<] delay products? And such products are [i<]never[/i<] sloppily changed to improve yields? And those sloppy changes [i<]never[/i<] affect the performance/size/heat of the product? ... You can't be reasoned with. Good day.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            Yields, delays, performance compromises, sure; I already acknowledged that the switch can cause delays. But those are totally irrelevant to the discussion, which was about die size. And while people do make changes to improve yields, those changes aren’t going to inflate the die size any noticeable amount- because doing so would significantly [i<]worsen[/i<] yields. Your "indignantly quitting the field of debate after trying desperately and without success to change the topic" tactic didn't save you any face, but at least you can quit while you're behind. Some people seem to have a hard time doing that.

            • Airmantharp
            • 8 years ago

            Reversed your -1 because I agree that process nodes are generally positive in all respects (generally because apparently this doesn’t apply to flash).

            The 480 was a huge step forward, but yields and a massive design bent on HPC meant that it was easily outclassed on power usage and thermals by AMD’s 5000-series on the same node. Nvidia proved this point as they improved their design of the same GPU to make the GTX580.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            You think Intel adopted Tick-Tock for fun? Moving to a new process is hard.

            If you do it like Intel does it, your chip [i<]actually[/i<] shrinks. If you do it like Nvidia (and many others), you try to change too much of the architecture and things can go wrong. Delays ensue. Quick fixes suck up transistors, which increase die size, which increase heat. A new process is great, but not how AMD and Nvidia do it.

            • Airmantharp
            • 8 years ago

            Reversed another -1 because I agree that AMD and Nvidia are not nearly as good as Intel when it comes to advancing their processes.

            Thing is though, they rely on TSMC as the premier high-volume high-quality fab when migrating to a new process, but since they build such large, complex chips with stringent requirements they wind up being TSMC’s ‘beta testers’ themselves.

            Further, much more of the advancement in computing power has come from the GPU side of things. Intel is essentially competing with themselves on the CPU side, having left AMD behind, but there are still gains to be had on the GPU side for sure.

            Heck, we don’t even really need faster CPUs, but Intel keeps making them. Faster GPU’s, well, we DO need those. Those like me with a 30″ panel (or 3×1080 panels) find that even the fastest single GPU card out there, the GTX680, isn’t fast enough for everything- we’d still need two cards.

            Further that with the clamor going on about higher resolution displays coming where we start putting >4MP in smaller screens, and you can see where this is going.

            • Airmantharp
            • 8 years ago

            Issues with the die shrink caused the GTX480 to be late, yes. But the die shrink itself didn’t cause the issues, rather Nvidia’s use of it- without the die shrink, the GTX480 wouldn’t exist at all.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            The G92 was an anomaly. G80 was a 484mm^2 monster, before it.

            Granted, G80 only used two 6-pin power connectors, but that was because 8-pin connectors didn’t exist.

            But G92 was a fluke. It was released early as the 8800GT (and cannibalized G80), but had enough gas to power an entire generation because AMD went for a price war with the tiny 4000 series. If it hadn’t worked out that way, G92 might not have been such a success.

            • Voldenuit
            • 8 years ago

            +1 for common sense.

            • jensend
            • 8 years ago

            Looks like you’re outnumbered by the folks giving -1 for common sense.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            That’s what I’m trying to say.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            yeah Nvidia has been really mum as to weather or not the high end GPU will even release this gen. I know it was supposed to then there was a huge delay and bam we got slapped with a 250 dollar GPU priced at 500 dollars with the name 680 GTX

          • jensend
          • 8 years ago

          You’re completely right, both according to the manufacturers’ own definitions and according to common sense. I think everyone’s inflated expectations that led to calling 68xx/78xx “midrange” were off-base. The x7xx cards of the last four generations do not count as “low-end” by any means.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 8 years ago

        I would definitely agree, but I defined mid-range by price. The GTX 680 is not priced in the mid-range.

        But yeah, Nvidia has “Big Kepler” hiding somewhere. A lot of people don’t like to admit it, but the evidence is everywhere. The code name notation, the die size, the lack of compute power, it’s all pointing towards a mid-range part. The GTX680 wasn’t meant to be Kepler’s flagship, but a lack of competition allowed Nvidia to gouge us.

          • N3M3515
          • 8 years ago

          LOL just lol, “lack of competition allowed Nvidia to gouge us”
          Are you dellusional?, GK110 isn’t out because it is not READY for production, at the very best the will be able to release it 6-7 months from now at minimun.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          I think if this was true they would be selling a GTX 690 for $1000.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            Strawman much? No one said a hypothetical GTX “690” would be $1000. You made that up.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if the 680 dropped to $400 in a few months, so a GK110 “685” could fit into the $500 slot.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            If Nvidia could right now make a graphics card that was significantly faster than the 680, they would be doing so and selling it for a considerable markup. The fact that they have no card out tells me they can’t yet produce such a card.

            • Airmantharp
            • 8 years ago

            Rather, they don’t need a hypothetical card based on the GK110, because the GTX680 with it’s mid-level feature set (low HPC capability, mid-level power usage and thermals) can keep up with AMD’s 7900’s with their high-end feature set (high HPC capability, higher power usage and thermals) in games, where it will be used the most and graded upon.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            But why not make a super card that blows away even that for an insane amount of money?

            The only reason not to is that they can’t.

            They can still sell the 680 for the same amount of money because the competition is the same, but then have a boutique super card that’s even better for $800-$1000 dollars.

          • Airmantharp
          • 8 years ago

          Absolutely. This was evident all along.

          The lack of compute power, the dual 6-pin (instead of 6+8-pin) power, the transistor count, the thermal envelope, all of it looks much more like a GTX460/560 mid-range part than a high-end Nvidia part.

          It’s sad that we may never see “Big Kepler” on the desktop, but I’m fairly certain that Quadro and Tesla parts are well on their way.

          • Krogoth
          • 8 years ago

          Nvidia learn the hard way with the 480 not to launch their flagship part with an unproven fab process. (late, underwhelming performance, hot/power hungry).

          TSMC’s 22nm process is a repeat of 40nm process. Nvidia’s gamble to settle for a “mid-range” component as the launch part is paying off.

      • burntham77
      • 8 years ago

      Yeah, once we start to see cards in the 200-250 range, then my 6850 should start worrying.

    • ish718
    • 8 years ago

    Radeon HD 7800 series pricing is ridiculous.
    I wonder how much $$$ AMD has made off of the 7000 series video cards so far.

      • Hattig
      • 8 years ago

      Knowing AMD, somewhere between -$200m and $2.67.

      Anyway, this is a much needed price drop, enough so that people possibly hanging on for a 680 might just give up on the wait and go with what they can get.

      It also probably reflects improvements in 28nm yields since late 2011 when the original chips were being fabbed. Alternatively, it is a tactic to clear inventory to allow GHz Edition 79xx cards to be introducted soon.

      • yogibbear
      • 8 years ago

      $12.50 after mail in rebate to the box manufacturers.

      • ultima_trev
      • 8 years ago

      Um, no. Even at $400, the price/performance of the HD 7950 is still weaker than the $350 HD 7870. The difference in performance is on average 6-7%, much less than the $50 price premium. Granted, that could change with overclocking, however there’s no guarantee you’ll get a decent overclock on the HD 7950 as it’s a gimped chip to begin with.

      The HD 7850 and HD 7870 are still the price/performance champions in the realm of 1080P gaming performance and will remain so at least until the GTX 670 / 670 Ti release. There’s absolutely no reason to waste money on anything more powerful unless you game on a 2560*xxxx display.

        • BestJinjo
        • 8 years ago

        This is an enthusiast site. Most 7950s will hit 1150-1200mhz. That overclock will put it near GTX680/HD7970 @ 1110mhz in performance. HD7870 will never touch that. For $50-60 more, HD7950 is a much better card than a $340 HD7870. This is especially true if you also do bitcoin mining/GPGPu on the side in which case 7950 will destroy the 7870 since its dual precision performance isn’t crippled.

        HD7870 should drop to $299.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This