JAG87: Your ticks and tocks only make sense in Intel's world. The 6xxx series was a tock as they moved from VLIW5 to VLIW4, and this 7xxx series is both a tick and a tock with the drop to 28nm and move to GCN. If anything, most of the performance boost should come from the tick as GCN is focused on compute.
No it doesn't. This type of strategy was in place long before Intel brought it up.
G70>G71, G80>G92, GT200>GT200b, GF100>GF110.
And ATI is exactly the same
R520>R580, R600>R670, RV770>RV790, Evergreen>Cayman, Tahiti should be a tock.
If Cayman was supposed to be a tock, it was a pretty awful one.
Are you really saying this isn't a good value when you have a GTx 480SLI rig? The 480 was $499 vs. 5870 at $379 and was only marginally faster, while using way more heat and arriving 6 months late.
Does not compute.
Don't turn this into an NV vs AMD value discussion.
This isn't what I'm contesting. I'm contesting value against AMD's own products, value of 7970 vs 6970, at 50% more performance = 50% more price. Do you want to know where we would end up like this?
8970 = 50% more performance than 7970 = $823
9970 = 50% more performance than 8970 = $1235
This card is a HORRIBLE value if priced at $549. And the only reason it's being priced like this is because NV has no product to counter it yet. Competition shouldn't be necessary to keep the price down. Look at Intel vs AMD. AMD hasn't had a competing product in years, yet we've gone through Core 2, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, and now Ivy Bridge, all being released at comparable price points to their predecessors and offering us more performance for the same money.
But whatever, buy one, you'll see. You'll either feel taken by AMD when NV releases their card in Q2 and the MSRP drops to $399, or we will all feel taken if NV follows the same pricing model, i.e. GK100 is 50% faster than GTX580 = $549*150% = $823. This card should be priced at no more than $399, considering GK110 has very good chances of ending up faster.
But hey, don't listen to me. Buy one for $549 on launch day. I bought two GTX280s on launch day for $650, so I've walked the road before. I'm just trying to give you a heads up.
Ok, now with that response I can see where you are coming from. Now, I don't particular agree with all of it, but now at least I can understand. Basically, since you already have two high performning GPUs, the idea of spending $1100 to upgrade seems like a bad bargain. I'd fully agree with you. If I had two 480's in SLI I wouldn't dream of dropping $1100 for a simply 50% increase. But that doesn't have to do with the 7970 being a bad value so much as you already sitting with a high-end setup. For someone who has a GTX 280, or a 4870, the upgrade to a 7970 is going to be a steal compared to someone that already has a high end card.
With that said the biggest jump in performance ever, in my opinion, was the 7800GTX to the 8800GTX. It was often 3-4 times the performance... The 8800GTX was probably the best stomping, ever. nVidia really kicked butt with that design. Since that time, the gains have been sub 100%. Generally around 50-70%, or even less.
8800 GTX -> Ultra = 25%
8800 GTX Ultra -> 280 GTX = 65%
280 GTX -> 480 = 65%
I'd grant you that the 8800 to 9800 series was negligable, that 280 to 285 was negligable and that 480 to 580 was negligable... So, I guess, I'd agree with you about the 'tock' so to speak, but quite honestly, I can care less whether a tick or tock is what brings the performance boost. If it is the highest performing part at the time, it deserves to have a price premium.
Again, as a BUYER, I'd love to see these things priced at $1. But, that isn't going to happen, is it?
No not really. I have no problem spending $1100 to upgrade. I've had these 480s for almost TWO years, so you see, my initial $1100 investment has well payed off.
All I'm saying is that if something launches at a certain price premium, it will either drop, or we will pay through the nose going forward. Hence this card launched at $549 is bad value for us.