AMD cuts Radeon HD 7870, 7950, 7970 pricing

Nothing like official price cuts to wrap up the week. AMD tells us it’s updated the suggested e-tail pricing for three of its high-end, 7000-series Radeon graphics cards. The new prices should propagate to online retailers starting Monday, the company expects, and they are as follows:

  • $299 for the Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition.
  • $349 for the Radeon HD 7950.
  • And $429 for the Radeon HD 7970.

You don’t have to wait until Monday to see the new prices in action. Actually, Newegg charges only $289.99 for its cheapest Radeon HD 7870 and $339.99 for its most affordable Radeon HD 7950 right now. Those prices are both $10 below the new AMD figures. As for the Radeon HD 7970, you can find XFX’s stock-clocked Double D model selling for $429.99 before a $20 mail-in rebate.

I took a peek at Google’s cache for those same listings, and it looks like the 7870 and 7950 were already selling at those same prices on July 7, long before AMD made its announcement. (The Radeon HD 7970 Double D did cost a little more, though—it was listed for $449.99 on July 8.) That tells us today’s cuts might not change a whole lot. Perhaps we’ll see a greater variety of models with lower prices starting next week, though.

Comments closed
    • ub3r
    • 7 years ago

    Awesome! Going to upgrade my bitcoin mining rig now. 😀

    • beck2448
    • 7 years ago

    Why did they cut prices? Simple, because they have to.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    I sensed a disturbance in the Force. As though a new wave of Geforce products are on their way and then were suddenly silenced. I fear something awesome has happened.

    • jstern
    • 7 years ago

    If I get a 7870 and a Core i7 3770K, how many Watts should my PSU be? I haven’t built a PC in 8 years. Just have a bunch of games on Steam that I bought on sale in 2010 and 2011 that I would like to play.

      • DancinJack
      • 7 years ago

      500

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/22573/10[/url<] A high-quality PSU with 24+ Amperes available on the +12 V rails should be more than sufficient. [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371033[/url<] If you might consider SLI or Crossfire insanity, a larger power supply may be appropriate. [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371044[/url<]

      • jstern
      • 7 years ago

      Thank you, the two of you. I was looking at ones that cost over $100 dollars, since I wasn’t sure, and this saved me mental stamina. My eyes went wide when I saw $43. I think I’ll get the $80 one just to be on the safe side, unless the one that cost $40 is quieter. Actually I think I’ll just go for the cheaper one.

        • Washer
        • 7 years ago

        What unit are you consider? $43 seems a bit cheap to me. Just because 500W will do doesn’t mean you should buy a cheap 500W unit. Something like this SeaSonic looks like a good buy to me:

        [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151093[/url<]

          • jstern
          • 7 years ago

          This is the $43 one.

          [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371033[/url<] It's 380 Watts and it's highly rated by the people who purchased it. The shipping is also free, so in total it's $27 less.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 7 years ago

            You didn’t apply the $15 off code (“AntecEA65015”).

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            Ahh, yeah that’s a good choice too. 380W will be fine and a high quality one is better than a cheap 500W that I thought you might be looking at.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      Get a 500-600W PSU. Don’t skimp on $20-30 because later on that 350-400W PSU may be useless for future upgrades.

      SeaSonic M12II 520 – $60
      [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151093[/url<] CORSAIR Builder Series CX500 V2 500W - $42 [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139027[/url<] Antec EarthWatts EA-650 GREEN with $15 Promo code until July 18th (AntecEA65015) - $55 (the best choice!) [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371044[/url<]

        • jstern
        • 7 years ago

        I bought this one [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151098[/url<] way out of my budget. I was going to buy the $43 dollar one. I really, really liked it, and was reassured that it can handle the 5870, and I'm sure it can, but since one of the minimum requirements for the 5870 is a 500 Watts PSU, I decided to search for something more powerful. Plus I do want to learn how to over clock and all that fun stuff. I was ready to buy the 3rd one on your link, but I read some of the reviews and it seems that unlike the other reviews for other PSUs that I read, when this one dies it also kills your hard drive, CPU, motherboard, etc. Since I have really bad luck, I thought better safe than sorry. It's better to spend more now than spend more all together.

    • no51
    • 7 years ago

    Looks like it’s time to get a second 7970.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 7 years ago

    Do these price cuts mean card manufacturers get GPUs at lower prices?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      they probably have been for a while and now AMD is trying to get those things to move off the shelves.

    • ultima_trev
    • 7 years ago

    It’s about time. At 350, the HD 7870 was way too close to GTX 670 in price given their performance. Now at 300, I’ll take the HD 7870 over GTX 670 any day.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      MSI TwinFrozr HD7950 $320:

      [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127667[/url<] Some HD7870's are going for $270-280 on Newegg with rebates and 6% off: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127662[/url<] [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161410[/url<]

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 7 years ago

    I usually go for the fastest 256-bit card. NVIDIA clealy would have won me over this round, but I still have no need to upgrade until I buy myself a 4MP display. Still, for those looking for a card right now, AMD is a great choice at these prices.

      • shank15217
      • 7 years ago

      its ok to have a vendor preference but don’t try to use technical jargon as a basis for your bias. Your ‘rule’ seems pretty unguided

      • plonk420
      • 7 years ago

      same here (with the 256-bit rule) … tho my GTX 560 sucks a fair bit compared to my 5870 it was replacing (thought it dying and didn’t have much money at the time) in BF3, with regards to framerate stability (frame time in ms, as this site has awesomely brought to its readers’ attention). i doubt the 560Ti would be much better, either.

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 7 years ago

        The 5870 is a bit faster than the 560 Ti in most games, but not by a whole lot.

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          560Ti 336 and 5870 trade blows, it depends on the game while 560Ti 448 pulls ahead of 5870.

          Don’t get me wrong, 5870 is quite a beast but the 560Ti is no slouch either.

      • Alexko
      • 7 years ago

      Why on Earth would you care about the width of the bus?

        • yogibbear
        • 7 years ago

        Cause it lets you know whether the card will be bottlenecked or not in a certain location and if the vendor is willing to spend more or less than required to release a functional product by paying the premium on parts for the increased bus width, which may or may not be a bottleneck.

          • FuturePastNow
          • 7 years ago

          Would you buy a card that used DDR3 on a 256-bit bus over a card that used GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus?

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            I was being sarcastic… but now that you mention it… YES. YES I WOULD! 😉

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          You confuse memory bandwidth with memory bus width.

          Memory bandwidth is BY FAR the more important metric than memory bus width. You can have 512-bit bus and GDDR3 vs. a 256-bit bus and GDDR5. You can’t just look at the bus width. Also, NV and AMD use memory bandwidth differently, so even if one has an advantage over the other, they cannot be directly compared (GTX580 192GB/sec vs. GTX680 192GB/sec vs. HD7970 264GB/sec).

          The memory bus width by itself is meaningless (see HD2900XT vs. 8800GTS). Even the total memory bandwidth is not always an indicator of some bottleneck or performance (see GTX470 vs. HD4890, GTX285 vs. GTX560 Ti, etc.)

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t care about bus width, but for several years now the fastest cards that still maintained a good price/performance ratio have had a 256-bit bus. Obviously I’d still be looking at bandwidth regardless of how big the bus is. If I were buying now and a GTX 670 didn’t fit into my budget, I’d probably be looking at the HD 7870. This is the point I was trying to make, not that the 256-bit bus is something I have to have.

          • Washer
          • 7 years ago

          You sure seem to be able to infer a lot of information from the bus width that I thought was impossible to tell without considering the card as a whole, but hey whatever…

            • brucethemoose
            • 7 years ago

            The logic is easy to follow. As of recently, the best value “sweet spot” cards, like the 4870, 5870, 6870, 6970, GTX 460, and GTX 560 TI, have all been 256 bit cards.

            Compute oriented cards with a wide bus, like the GTX 280, GTX 480, GTX 580, etc have always been a bad value for gaming, as they sacrifice a ton of die space for compute oriented features, like DP performance and ECC on pro cards, all of which are useless for games. Based on recent history, 256 bit cards simply give you the most FPS for your $.

            That notion was turned on it’s head this time round. AMD released their first 384 bit card, which awkwardly walks the line between a GPGPU focused card and a gaming one. As usual, Nvidia’s monster of a chip with a wide bus was delayed (hence we have no GK 100, but GK 110). Fortunately for them, the “sweet spot” GK104 clocked past 1GHZ is fast enough to compete with the modestly clocked 7970. Unfortunately, that means this “sweet spot” 256 bit card is priced and positioned like a 384 bit enthusiast GPU, causing alot of confusion for unfortunate consumers like DeadOfKnight who generally, and correctly, associates a 256 bit bus with a “sweet spot” GPU.

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            You only know that much information because you all the necessary relevant information for the card already. Saying “I usually go for the fastest 256-bit card” isn’t a good reason alone to buy a graphics card. The fastest 256-bit card next generation could be a bad deal, you just don’t know and it’s silly to buy on historic trends when you have all the real current information. The only thing you can infer from a card having a 256-bit bus is that it has a 256-bit bus.

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          Again, that makes no sense. You use the bus width as the most important criteria. $320 HD7950 vs. $280 HD7870. You are saying you’d buy the 7870 because it has 256-bit bus? That’s totally misguided since it wouldn’t consider that once 7950 is overclocked, the shader and texture bottleneck will be lifted and it will blow the doors off an overclocked 7870.

      • can-a-tuna
      • 7 years ago

      Is 256 your lucky number?

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 7 years ago

        Now that you mention it, I have been looking at 256 GB SSDs.

          • Firestarter
          • 7 years ago

          256 is definitely a lucky number

      • travbrad
      • 7 years ago

      From the rumors I’ve heard the cheapest Nvidia card with 256-bit bus is going to be the GTX670, with the GTX660Ti having a 192-bit bus.

      I don’t see why the bus width matters anyway though. It’s interesting from a geeky technical perspective, but when I’m looking to buy a new card the most important things are how it performs and how much it costs.

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 7 years ago

        I agree with you, the 660 Ti will probably be the next “sweet spot” card to have from NVIDIA, even with the smaller bus because the memory is clocked so high. I never said that the 256-bit bus was a rule that I follow, I just said that I usually go for a higher-end 256-bit card. For the past few years this has been a great choice, but the 660 Ti is also coming out a lot later and at a similar price point to the 7870. We still don’t know exactly how the two will compare. I expect that if you are shopping for a $300 card then you can’t go wrong with a 7870. Kepler breaks this “rule” by maximizing the bandwidth of GDDR5 with higher clocks, something we haven’t seen until this generation of cards. I would still also categorize the GTX 670 as the “sweet spot” for gaming because the price/performance curve is still pretty much in line with other cards until you step up to the 680, although it’s not exactly the sweet spot in terms of what is needed to run current games. The 7870 is perfect for a 1200p config, and guess what…it has a 256-bit bus.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      The width of the bus tells us very little about how a card performs without considering GPU architecture underlying the card and other specifications (Shaders, TMUs, memory size, tessellation / geometry / rasterization engines onboard the GPU, type of GDDR onboard, etc.)

      R600 (2900XT) had 512-bit memory bus and lost to 8800GTS 320-bit cards:
      [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/12458/4[/url<]

    • bcronce
    • 7 years ago

    My 6950 can run *most* games at 1080p 8xAA without breaking 30% usage. I think I will skip this generation of cards and get a medium to low range for the next gen. Assuming games will continue targeting low end, I might as well jump on the “lower power bill” train of thought.

      • plonk420
      • 7 years ago

      something tells me you’re not playing BF3, Crysis 2, or Skyrim at 8xAA…

      or, for a FREE gpu-wrecking, you could try this mild 4xAA demo: [url<]http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=54603[/url<]

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 7 years ago

        Skryim is not especially GPU demanding.

        [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/22705/6[/url<]

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 7 years ago

      I think you should get 2 GTX 690s.

    • jjj
    • 7 years ago

    The prices were cut almost 2 weeks ago, guessing it was in response to their Q2 financial results (at the time i hoped the cut signals that Nvidia is about to release some more 28nm cards).

    • flip-mode
    • 7 years ago

    Price history of the powercolor 7870
    [url<]http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16814131467[/url<] Techreport 7870 review conclusion: [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/22705/9[/url<]

    • StuG
    • 7 years ago

    Let the price war begin! (Hopefully)

    And to generate some thumb downs:

    [url<]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_v-u6YLmYwgk/TCYpFqQqtuI/AAAAAAAAAAU/hSP7BbuHKes/s1600/first+post.jpg[/url<]

      • forumics
      • 7 years ago

      i consider the raedons better buys than the geforces, with these price cuts the raedons are now much better than the geforces!

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        It really seems like AMD is focusing most of its power on GPUs these days, which is giving them some leverage over Nvidia while losing ground on Intel in the CPU game.

        Interesting nonetheless. I must agree that these Radeons are very attractive, especially with this pricing.

      • brucethemoose
      • 7 years ago

      I’m not so sure about the price wars…

      Most people still think the GTX 680/670 are substantially faster than the 7970/7950, when all the cards are essentially neck and neck.

      Perception is everything: unfortunately, people will pay $80 more for a 680 or 670 if they THINK it’s faster.

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        People may think that , but the 7970 still wins in 99th percentile frame times, and totally dominates in GPGPU. Unfortunately Nvidia propaganda works, and people want their 680s, even though they was $700 on ebay for 2 months because they was never in stock.

          • HighTech4US2
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]The GeForce GTX 670 brings Radeon HD 7970-class performance down to the $400 price point. That's an impressive feat considering that AMD's card was selling for $550 a couple of months ago. Moreover, we've seen Nvidia's new second-fastest single-GPU board in stock and available for purchase ever since it was introduced. With the Radeon HD 7970 still hovering around $440, the GeForce GTX 670 earns our sole recommendation and takes its place as the high-end value leader.[/quote<] [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-6.html[/url<] This is from a site that usually has a red tint. Or are they now part of Nvidia's propaganda machine?

            • xeridea
            • 7 years ago

            The 680 wins in average FPS, but not in 99th percentile frame times, which is what matters. This is one reason why other review sites think it is better. TR concluded the 7970 a bit faster than the 680.

            • erwendigo
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/4[/url<] Yeah man! The 7970 "wins" in 99th percentile frame times (it´s BIGGER, much BIGGER frame time), I love that a boy talks about something that doesn´t understand. BF3 99th ....-> BIGGER frame times, so worst performance and consistency of the fps. MP3 99th ..> BIGGER frame times. Skyrim 99th--->IDENTICAL frame times (of course, very differents fps). Batman AC->Very much BIGGER frame times for the red team. Again, very worst performance. Crysis 2->IDENTICAL frame times (then, similar gaming experience). Only Dirt Showdown shows LOWER frame times in the red team, and this is only because this game has crappy "optimizations" that fuck the performance in all the cards except GCN based cards (yes, it happens in the red cards too): [url<]http://blogs.amd.com/play/2012/07/03/dirt-showdown-amd-benchmark-guide/2/[/url<] The HD7700 humilliated a HD6870, yes, it´s credible... ¬¬ The same with HD7850 vs HD6970. And yes, the situation with the nvidia cards is worse. For all of them. A Dirt game, with a Dirt show of tricks/optimitations. This is "Gaming evolved", when I see this, then for comparison, the TWIMTBP is Saint Teresa of Calcuta.

            • moose17145
            • 7 years ago

            Not sure what review you were reading… cause idk where you got the much bigger frame times for the Radeons bs…

            The only two games where the cards separated from one another in any kind of meaningful way was Dirt and Batman. For god sakes in Max Payne 3 they had to lower the “time spent above 50ms” graph all the way down to “time spent above 16.7ms” in order to get something other than goose eggs… Not saying xeridea is correct with his statements…. but you are most definitely making the geforces out to sound a lot better than they really are when compared to their rival Radeons. The fact is the two cards are neck and neck with each other.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            Ok but most hardware enthusiasts won’t keep an HD7970 at stock speeds.

            Let’s see what happens once HD7970 is overclocked to 1.15-1.2ghz. There is no way an overclocked GTX670 can catch up to those speeds, not to mention you can make $ on the side with bitcoin mining for your next GPU upgrade.

            GTX680 @ 1290mhz can’t beat an HD7970 @ 1.165mhz
            [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/graphics/asus-geforce-gtx-680-msi-radeon-hd7970/20_as68-vs-msi797_big.png[/url<] HD7970 @ 1.2ghz is pulling 30-40% gains over a GTX670. GTX670 can't overclock 30-40%: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/18[/url<] I think the fact that BF3 is so popular and that so many people play it has given GTX670/680 a key advantage at 1080P/1200P. If it wasn't for BF3, there would be little reason to buy the 670/680.

          • MFergus
          • 7 years ago

          680 isnt badly dominated by the 7970 in GPGPU, you should really specify that its only dominated in anything requiring double precision which isn’t something many people will need on consumer GPU’s. Still nice to have though.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Take Dirt Showdown with its advance compute shader based lighting…

            7970 – 65FPS
            680 GTX – 41FPS

            This is a preview of what will come to game engine : more compute shader, not less.
            And the 680 GTX Achilles heel is compute.

            smallLux is float based and it runs 3 time faster on the 7970 then the 680 GTX.
            The 680 GTX is around 6x slower at double precision under openCL then the 7970.

            And the fact that the 7970 also comes with 30% more memory over the 680 GTX doesn’t hurt.

            In my view the 7970 totally dominate over the 680 GTX technically. For games its a win / lose situation.
            But long term, the 7970 seem to have the edge.

            • MFergus
            • 7 years ago

            Double precision itll get owned since its based on the 560 and not 580 but it should be fine for everything else. Still a good ammount slower than 7970 on alot of things but it should be close on others. Smalllux performance is a mystery, either really bad opencl drivers or nvidia has done no optimization on it. It’s slower than gtx580 on it and thats not a double precision benchmark.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            There is no mystery. It’s not just about single precision compute performance in theory. You have to look if the architecture has a scheduler that can utilize the shaders effectively. GK104 was to have 32 of these complex hardware schedulers, the scheduling system was reevaluated based on area and power efficiency, and eventually stripped down. With GK104, NVIDIA went back to static scheduling, from dynamic of Fermi:

            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/3[/url<] Also, your previous comment regarding single precision performance vs. 7970 is also not correct: HD7970 @ 1.15ghz+ * 2048 SPs * 2 Ops / clock cycle = 4.7 Tflops GTX680 @ 1.3ghz * 1536 SPs * 2 Ops / clock = 4.0 Tflops Kepler is still slower in single precision, but not by a lot. The static scheduling doesn't allow it to extract this SP performance though; so it's a moot point anyway.

            • MFergus
            • 7 years ago

            7870 does really well to in Showdown, just slightly slower than 7950. Nvidia definitely has some big compute problems or drivers that need alot of work. It’s not even OpenCL its all DirectCompute.

            I thought Double Precision was the only huge weakness of 680’s compute but its obviously more.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            Double Precision is only used for business purposes, and has nothing to do with regular compute performance. The 7870 has reduced double precision and trounces nvidia’s 6 series just as bad as the 79 cards. The 6 series is not a compute chip, plain and simple, and by that definition would have more problems in shader heavy games.

            • MFergus
            • 7 years ago
            • erwendigo
            • 7 years ago

            Ok, a “Gaming Evolved” game, with the same engine that Dirt 3 (you know, that game that runs very fast in nvidia cards), than runs poorly in all the cards except in GCN cards (a 7770 is “better” than a 6870, if you take Dirt Show as a “reference”).

            This isn´t a goog example for “GPGPU” with 3D gaming.

        • HighTech4US2
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]I'm not so sure about the price wars[/quote<]. How about those who purchased a $549 7970 or a $449 7590 in February. Are they still happy that they paid $120/$110 more than what they cost now? Without Nvidia's 680/670's and the aggressive pricing (at launch undercutting AMD prices by $50) AMDers would still be overpaying. You seem happy that they were!!! [quote<]Perception is everything: unfortunately, people will pay $80 more for a 680 or 670 if they THINK it's faster.[/quote<] No, people will pay more not because they think it is faster but because it is faster (in the games that matter to them) or is equally as fast but has other compelling features (low power, quiet, PhysX, smaller, etc). AMD is reducing prices because at the old prices they were uncompetitive. I expect when the GTX660 is released in July/August more price cuts from AMD will happen. And lower prices is a good thing for all consumers

          • StuG
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]How about those who purchased a $549 7970 or a $449 7590 in February. Are they still happy that they paid $120/$110 more than what they cost now?[/quote<] As one of those people, yes....yes I am still happy with my purchase. Maybe if it was a month ago that I bought it, but I paid for the latest bleeding edge tech, and I got what I expected. *shrug*

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          since when did physx become compelling? i have a dedicated phsyx card (gpu not one of the old physx cards) in my machine that’s a total waste of time/energy/space/etc. physx sucks.

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]I expect when the GTX660 is released in July/August more price cuts from AMD will happen.[/quote<] And not long after, the 8000 series will be out.

          • clone
          • 7 years ago

          given they had the fastest tech on the planet for 6 months I’d say they are notably happy, that a minor 125mhz overclock will make then the fastest video card on the planet today….. even better.

          think of how silly those who unfortunately waited thinking GTX 680 was going to be a win only to find out it’s arguably in 2nd place, unavailable and overpriced all at the same time.

        • quasi_accurate
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Most people still think the GTX 680/670 are substantially faster than the 7970/7950, when all the cards are essentially neck and neck.[/quote<] I don't think most people think that. Is there any basis to that statement?

          • brucethemoose
          • 7 years ago

          No, there’s no solid basis to that claim, but I’m just making an observation from the “uninformed” people I’ve seen. Many people just look up a benchmark on tom’s, see that the hot clocked GTX 680 beats the 7970 in BF3 FPS wise, and then buy one based on that. Like the people who buy Intel EE CPUs (or FX 8120s) nowadays, some don’t even do that, and just buy it based off of brand image, reputation, newegg reviews, and marketing bullet points.

          TR readers and people who frequent forums know better. OC for OC, the two cards are pretty dang close for a large variety of reasons which we could argue about for ages. With these price cuts, NO ONE should be buying a GTX 680 (though the 670 is still a pretty decent deal).

          But in my experience, most people eating up these high end GPUs aren’t nearly as informed as we are.

        • BestJinjo
        • 7 years ago

        The ironic part is HD7970 @ 1.165ghz+ is just as fast as an 1212mhz (1290mhz with GPU Boost) 680.

        [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/graphics/asus-geforce-gtx-680-msi-radeon-hd7970/20_as68-vs-msi797_big.png[/url<] And HD7970 now costs less and has 3 free games that can be resold. That's how it is though with perception. It seems those days of HD3800/4800/5800/6900 have hurt AMD's GPUs brand value somewhat. It's going to take another couple close generations or maybe AMD even winning outright before they can charge the same amount as NV. Sad, but true.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This