AMD Radeon 7000-Series 28nm (Southern Islands) | 7990 7970 7870 7770 | Discussion

[skipsneeky2]

Nvidia's 3 GB GTX580 is currently $600. It's available now
AMD's 7970 3 GB is supposed to be $549, not available for 2-3 weeks.

Who's price gouging?

I don't like the prices, too much for my blood. I'm not a hardcore gamer at all, happy with my GTX 460 @ 875mhz, but I understand that premium products come with outsized price tags.

I think many early adopters know that they pay too much relative to the performance of the product.

I think to many people expected this card to be at 6970 pricing.

Not gonna happen this generation cause amd actually brought the bad boys to the table when was the last time ati/ amd had the undisputed fastest single gpu?

I think the price is fair and your right to many people are comparing it to the 1.5gb and not the 3gb...

The 7950 may cater to the 1.5gb model and come at that $349 price tag people love but the high end always catered to the"gotta pay to play" type of gamer.

Amd isn't gonna bring out a faster then gtx580 performance card with lower power consumption and not price it at high end msrp...that is a bit dreamy.

 

[96Firebird]

I shall remember you that Fermi had an awful perf/watt, it was even worse than nVidia's own GTX 280, and you know what? It was two nodes ahead.

Go ahead and remember me that all you want...

What?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

nVidia fans talking about value? This is an enthusiast level card so expect a price premium...

With a premium price should come premium performance. IMO the 7970 fails in this regard. BF3 results are disappointing. I wanted a card I could plug in and just crank the settings and play BF3 in all it's glory at an insane amount of fps'. This is a marginal bump up from a 580 which is showing its age.

 

[Arzachel]

With a premium price should come premium performance. IMO the 7970 fails in this regard. BF3 results are disappointing. I wanted a card I could plug in and just crank the settings and play BF3 in all it's glory at an insane amount of fps'. This is a marginal bump up from a 580 which is showing its age.

A GTX 580 is an even smaller bump up from the HD 6970/GTX 570 for a far bigger price hike and the 3GB GTX 580 is an insane 600$. AMD is already undercutting the competition but you wont be satisfied untill they'll undercut competition that doesn't exist yet?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

With a premium price should come premium performance. IMO the 7970 fails in this regard. BF3 results are disappointing. I wanted a card I could plug in and just crank the settings and play BF3 in all it's glory at an insane amount of fps'. This is a marginal bump up from a 580 which is showing its age.

Relative to the competition, 7970 *does* offer premium performance. As you climb the GPU ladder, performance per dollar usually decreases, and often drastically. It's strange that performance/$ actually improves with the 7970, relative to the competition.

What the logical, unbiased person should be doing right now is railing at the prices of the GTX 580 & GTX 580 3gb, lesser-performing cards which are overpriced.

 

[formulav8]

With a premium price should come premium performance. IMO the 7970 fails in this regard..

Huh? How much does the 3GB 580 cost? How much does the 3GB 7970 cost? The 580 I believe costs more than the 7970 with less features and performance. So why is it wrong for AMD to price it near the 580's price tag?

 

[SirPauly]

It doesn't matter. The Fermi comparison was not made by me. The 7970 is not "slow, hot, suffering from yield issues" like Fermi was. At all. It was a dumb comparison at best.

Fermi wasn't slow. It's really tough to gauge yields but when the original Fermi launched there were two sku's offered, must of had solid yields to offer this.

 

[MrTeal]

While I'm not in until the midrange cards are released, this looks like a promising architecture.

I honestly don't get what the fuss on the pricing is about. Yes it would be nice if the card was launched at $500, but even at $550 it's less expensive and better performing both in games and at the plug than a 3GB GTX580. I'm not sure if some people were expecting to be able to sell their 580's and upgrade to a 7970 without having to lay out any cash, but this card appears to be positioned pretty well.

 

[RussianSensation]

He said it was hot and power hungry and performs bad, 10-20%.Not all correct. In fact, its not hot at all, runs very cool and if anything its the most power efficient GPU outside of iGPU, period. Power hungry? I would say overall, Apop's sources are in fact incorrect..

He was 100% correct regarding the performance estimate. He never said it would only be 10-20% faster, he specifically said 25-30% faster over GTX580 (overall). In fact, that's true as Anandtech, Hardware Canucks, Computerbase and others have shown, this card is 25-30% faster on average than a GTX580, and that's including DirectX11 games too.

Again, 50% faster than 6970 and ~30% faster than gtx580 is not terrible considering every other factor.

You keep saying this but no single review is showing this. It's about 33-41% faster than HD6970, depending on the source. But yet, you continue to magically round this up to 50%....

I just did a calculation of all the games at 1920x1200 from Anandtech, and HD7970 is only 37% faster over HD6970 in Anandtech's review (I dropped the unplayable BF3 4x MSAA performance and instead added the FXAA into my average). This is almost exactly the same that Hardware Canucks derived - 38%. I don't recall EVER a new ATI/AMD generation GPU being only 37% faster on average in newer games over the previous generation. Maybe 7800GTX 256mb over 6800 Ultra was this slow? And compared to a GTX580, "depending on the game being tested it’s anywhere between 5% and 35% faster than NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 580, averaging 15% to 25% depending on the specific resolution in use."~ AnandTech's own review

The performance was nothing like this ridiculously exaggerated slide. Also, I read his 3 page preview and I don't recall him mentioning anything about the 10-20% figure. So all in all, apoppin's sources were more or less correct. On the power consumption front, its idle ZeroPower feature is very impressive but it consumes more power at load than HD6970 did, which is a step back for people who care about these things for high-end GPU. You can also make the argument that it isn't cool either since to get it 74-75*C, the fan is running louder than it is on HD6970 (which already isn't a quiet card at all).

The reference in regard to HD7970 being "like Fermi" is NOT to say that it's going to be have similar power consumption like GTX480 did. It means that HD7970 will be a hotter and louder version than the next iteration of HD7970-revision. This is what the comment meant of HD7970 being like Fermi - in another words a stop-gap card for AMD until the "real" HD7970 follows. The comment regarding poor yields was probably unjustified, however. We have no way of knowing if this will be true or not. If HD7970 goes out of stock for weeks, then it's probably fair to assume that yields are poor. For now, I think that statement was premature.

Either way, I think AMD should do an HD4890 style upgrade in 6-8 months and release a 1050-1100mhz version. Then, this card would really start to be more impressive. Based on Arkadrel's links, the card overclocked to 1165 mhz at Legit Reviews. This is amazing.

 

[SirPauly]

The 7970 offers over twice the performance/watt as the 480. The power draw/heat was one of the biggest complaints about Fermi initially, which is why the comparison is so out to lunch. Fermi still has some heat/power issues, Nvidia has wisely implemented aggressive power draw clamping in drivers to help offset this.

The 7970 certainly has strengths and is a welcomed choice but it does have similarities to the original Fermi -- performance leadership, specifically in tessellation and GPU processing, which was welcomed with the original Fermi and with this chip from AMD.

 

[3DVagabond]

Fermi wasn't slow. It's really tough to gauge yields but when the original Fermi launched there were two sku's offered, must of had solid yields to offer this.

Both of those sku's were cut down salvaged parts. Zero fully functioning chips. Solid yields? :\

 

[AnandThenMan]

...but it does have similarities to the original Fermi --

You can find similarities between any piece of hardware if you look hard enough.

For people that say the 7970 costs too much, perhaps. But take a look at the launch prices of Nvidia over the years. AMD is doing exactly what they need to do, price the product based on performance, in fact they are pricing it a little bit low relative to its performance.

Year	Board				Price at launch		Adjusted for Inflation, 2011 dollars
2000	Geforce 2 Ultra			$500 					$650 
2001	Geforce 3 TI 500		$350 					$450 
2003	Geforce 4 TI 4600		$400 					$490 
2003	Geforce 5950 Ultra		$500 					$615 
2004	Geforce 6800 Ultra Extreme	$540 					$650 
2006	Geforce 7900 GTX		$500 					$560 
2007	Geforce 8800 Ultra		$850 					$930 
2008	Geforce GTX 280			$650 					$685 
2009	Geforce GTX 285			$400 					$420 
2010	Geforce GTX480			$500 					$520 
2010	Geforce GTX580			$500 					$520

source

 

[badb0y]

8800 Ultra..... My god

 

[RussianSensation]

8800 Ultra..... My god

Yup, that card was awfully expensive. Cost me $970+ CDN. Then I realized if I just wait 15 months, I can get a card within 20% of that speed for a fraction of the price, while I am catching up on a backlog of Steam games ^_^. I remember GTX280 came out for $650 and then I bought an HD4890 for sub-$200 barely more than a year after. Recall HD5970 for $299 not long ago, GTX480 for $175-200 on Newegg? This fate awaits almost all videocards soon enough! By summer of 2013, we'll likely have a card for $275 that beats HD7970 or comes within 10%. If you always want the best performance, then you gotta play with the big boys at $500 price levels. Right now, GTX580 looks incredibly overpriced. Needs to come down to sub-$400 imho. $379-389 MSRP would be good, but if HD7950 barely beats it, then NV might not even drop it that much.

 

[badb0y]

Yup, that card was awfully expensive. Cost me $970+ CDN. Then I realized if I just wait 15 months, I can get a card within 20% of that speed for a fraction of the price. Recall HD5970 for $299 not long ago, GTX480 for $175-200 on Newegg? This fate awaits almost all videocards soon enough! Summer of 2013, we'll have a card for $275 that beats HD7970, guaranteed. Buying top of the line is expensive. ^_^

I can stomach 500-600 but 800 is kinda ridiculous territory lol. I guess that's what you get when you don't have competition.

 

[SirPauly]

You can find similarities between any piece of hardware if you look hard enough.

For people that say the 7970 costs too much, perhaps. But take a look at the launch prices of Nvidia over the years. AMD is doing exactly what they need to do, price the product based on performance, in fact they are pricing it a little bit low relative to its performance.

Year	Board				Price at launch		Adjusted for Inflation, 2011 dollars
2000	Geforce 2 Ultra			$500 					$650 
2001	Geforce 3 TI 500		$350 					$450 
2003	Geforce 4 TI 4600		$400 					$490 
2003	Geforce 5950 Ultra		$500 					$615 
2004	Geforce 6800 Ultra Extreme	$540 					$650 
2006	Geforce 7900 GTX		$500 					$560 
2007	Geforce 8800 Ultra		$850 					$930 
2008	Geforce GTX 280			$650 					$685 
2009	Geforce GTX 285			$400 					$420 
2010	Geforce GTX480			$500 					$520 
2010	Geforce GTX580			$500 					$520

source

I have no problem with pricing anyway because, to me, market and competition sets pricing. However, considering AMD's mantra was banging that sweet spot drum so loudly since the HD 3870, some may consider this a flip-flop. But, to me, it is more-so a potential change of strategies that companies do and no big deal.

 

[Smartazz]

Looking at the overclocked performance of this card, it looks to be very impressive. With driver improvements, it'll likely get even better. Not a great value at $550, but not a terrible one either, especially since it is the single GPU king.

 

[wand3r3r]

The worst part of this launch is that the HD 7950 might actually be $450. I am waiting for about $100 less but considering the $550 estimate was right the $450 is probably too.

 

[SirPauly]

Both of those sku's were cut down salvaged parts. Zero fully functioning chips. Solid yields? :\

Solid and flexibile enough to create two sku's and bring in revenue -- yes.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

A card has to knock my socks off these days to get me to $500. I paid $500 for a gtx 580 asus direct 2 CU just about 5 months ago so yes I'll go there for the right card. $550 and the thing better be friggin amazing. Just different levels of expectation I suppose. I got real life crap I want/need so it would take a hell of a card to get me to fork over $550. This card isn't the one. We all know this card is basically a gtx 670 but they want gtx 680 money. Sorry AMD you arent there yet imo. 3d is subpar with AMD, drivers aren't nearly as stable, nvidia is always improving performance of their cards through drivers much more than AMD does, and there are many more AAA games optimized for nvidia. I'll save the big boy money for Kepler. Sorry if I don't sugar coat it but that's my opinion.

 

[badb0y]

A card has to knock my socks off these days to get me to $500. I paid $500 for a gtx 580 asus direct 2 CU just about 5 months ago so yes I'll go there for the right card. $550 and the thing better be friggin amazing. Just different levels of expectation I suppose. I got real life crap I want/need so it would take a hell of a card to get me to fork over $550. This card isn't the one. We all know this card is basically a gtx 670 but they want gtx 680 money. Sorry AMD you arent there yet imo. 3d is subpar with AMD, drivers aren't nearly as stable, nvidia is always improving performance of their cards through drivers much more than AMD does, and there are many more AAA games optimized for nvidia. I'll save the big boy money for Kepler. Sorry if I don't sugar coat it but that's my opinion.

Yea man I mean the GTX 580 was like 30% faster than the GTX 480. So worth the 500$ I can't even imagine how everyone didn't dump their GTX 480s and hop on the GTX 580.

Yes /sarcasm

 

[formulav8]

We all know this card is basically a gtx 670 but they want gtx 680 money. Sorry AMD you arent there yet imo. 3d is subpar with AMD, drivers aren't nearly as stable, nvidia is always improving performance of their cards through drivers much more than AMD does, and there are many more AAA games optimized for nvidia. I'll save the big boy money for Kepler. Sorry if I don't sugar coat it but that's my opinion.

:whiste:

 

[ddarko]

The reference in regard to HD7970 being "like Fermi" is NOT to say that it's going to be have similar power consumption like GTX480 did. It means that HD7970 will be a hotter and louder version than the next iteration of HD7970-revision. This is what the comment meant of HD7970 being like Fermi - another words a stop-gap card for AMD until the "real" HD7970 follows.

This is a bit revisionist and distorted. It's hardly noteworthy to say that a respin of a chip will be cooler and quieter. That's the norm, it's only noteworthy when it doesn't happen. In your interpretation, you have him saying his sources revealed to him the obvious. I have enough respect for him to think he was saying something more substantial than the equivalent of "sources told me today the sky is blue."

The opening two paragraphs of his section entitled "Is Tahiti Short-Lived?" is

The most interesting thing about this launch is that it appears that Tahiti’s HD 7970 may be short-lived. AMD’s 28nm yields are known to not be great and the specifications of the new GPU indicate that something strange is going on. The chip itself is quite complex with 4.3 billion transistors but its core only runs at a very conservative 925MHz. Most telling is that its performance is not that great except in DX11 games and especially in heavily tessellated scenarios – only about 25% faster than a GTX 580 overall.

Inside sources tell ABT that the HD 7970 is likely to be released much like GF 100 Fermi was. Originally, Nvidia released the hot-running and poor-yielding GTX 480 which was later reworked into the greatly improved GF110 GTX 580. It is pure speculation, however, that this new HD 7970 may ship with some parts disabled that may be enabled in a respin to meet the next generation of Fermi, the GTX 680 in Q1 of 2012.

When you start with "yields are known to not be great" - a bald assertion that I have no idea whether is accurate but are yields ever initially great on a new process? - and "something strange is going on" which then leads into 7970 will be released like the "hot-running and poor-yielding GTX 480" and that "this new HD 7970 may ship with some parts disabled" - which of course he and we all know is how the GTX 480 shipped - it's pretty clear he implied the 7970 has manufacturing issues like the original Fermi and requires a respin to get it to perform up to spec (like the original Fermi). He goes on to speculate that 7970 may ship with disabled parts which would be enabled with a respin, which implies those parts couldn't be turned on the current process (just like the GTX 480). Adding "it is pure speculation" to cover himself is odd; anyone can speculate so if you turn out to be completely wrong, it's okay?

I don't have a problem with his overall preview but it's pretty clear to me he was saying his sources told him the 7970 was a troublesome part (forget whether it was troublesome like Fermi, he said it wasn't yielding well and needed to have parts disabled to ship). And the evidence so far is that the chip is fine. There's none of the usual indications that it's poor yielding, difficult to make or jerry-rigged to work. I think the problem is his numbers were within range but the impression he gave that the 7970 is hobbled by manufacturing problems seems off-base.

 

[3DVagabond]

Solid and flexibile enough to create two sku's and bring in revenue -- yes.

Well, I guess? If you want to use your own definition of what yields means.

 

[Crap Daddy]

While I understand this 550$ MSRP, the true performance isn't there for this price point and it's bad for overall pricing. The Kepler dude, when he'll enter the scene, might ask 600$ for a ride as I can't imagine it'll be just 20-30% faster than his fellow Fermi.