GTX 970 and GTX 980 is officially launched

[DarkKnightDude]

Also they do those Mantle benchmarks with top of the line CPUs which makes it pointless. Unless you're doing crossfire or have a less then optimal CPU. That's where it truly shines.

But anyways we should go back to the topic. The 970 is the best value for money out of this gen. AMD will need to drop their 290s to maybe 270 dollars to compete.

 

[f1sherman]

You are really unninformed if you are comparing memory bus of different architectures.

According to your logic, the 384 bit bus GTX 780 should be better than the 256 bit GTX 980?

and you must be new around here if this is the first time you see it

midrange, true high-end... never heard it before?
AMD itself bragged about 512 bit bus on Hawaii(!), until Tonga came out. Now they are touting compression similarly as Nvidia.

JHH is describing BW as the oxygen

 

[Silverforce11]

780ti boost to 1155mhz

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_780_Ti_Classified/27.html

Compared to 980 boosting to 1439mhz

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/29.html

Hmm?

 

[SimianR]

The 970 is going to cause a pretty big price shake up, not just for AMD but for older NVIDIA products as well. I imagine AMD will have to have an answer soon rather than later unless they want their high end single GPU card to be give or take $300. I have a feeling on AMD's line your going to see a huge amount of products now between the $200-350 range compared to before. I feel like there is going to be a lot of redundancy there, though.

 

[Vesku]

Nvidias pricing on these two cards pretty perfect.

Clean up in high end at 330, and where to go above that? 980 sits fairly alone and yea, that'll cost you.


A $399 290x might fit. Probably has to get down to $349 with the 290 getting in under $300. But AMD is fish outta water as of today, how soon do we see price cuts...

Cost of ownership if you keep the card 3 years goes up about $0.50/watt, a $399 290X will be about right to keep it selling. 290 is going to have to be ~$280 or less, though. Very aggressive pricing on the 970 which is probably the best part of this release. 980 isn't nearly as impressive, imo, other than being able to handle 4K decently on a 256 bit bus.

 

[RussianSensation]

midrange, true high-end... never heard it before?

You are really trying to be deceptive with that comment. Even though NV improved efficiency of memory bandwidth by at least 30%, 256-bit on Maxwell is mid-range, 398mm2 GM204 is mid-range in the Maxwell stack, and its performance for a next gen 970/980 product is just mid-range 960Ti/970 level, not 980 = end of story. We know this is not the real flagship Maxwell card over the next 2 years until Pascal; and even NV primarily compares 980 to GK104 680 in its marketing slides as an upgrade replacement.

Obviously it's pointless to say that 512-bit bus on 2900XT makes that card high end vs. 256-bit 970. When we discuss the limitations of 256-bit bus, it's in relation to NV's Maxwell stack overall. The delta compression benefits will apply to GM210 just as well and that card will surely have a wider than 256-bit bus. Even though 980 keeps up with 780Ti/290X at 4K, it is only 7-8% faster, which changes nothing about 4K gaming playability for single GPUs. What's revolutionary here are 970 SLI bang-for-the-buck, some HTPC features such as HDMI 2.0 finally hitting mainstream, and perf/watt on the same 28nm.

As far as moving the absolute performance level from 780/780TI, 970/980 are nothing special from what was available 1 year ago. It's just that 970 brings 90% of 780Ti's performance at $330.

Now they are touting compression similarly as Nvidia.

Except AMD introduced this tech before NV with 285 so the statement should be NV is touting compression tech similar to AMD.

I have a feeling on AMD's line your going to see a huge amount of products now between the $200-350 range compared to before. I feel like there is going to be a lot of redundancy there, though.

1) A 354mm2 R9 280 has seen drops to $180 for a while so a cheaper to manufacture 256-bit bus Tonga 285 should be $169.

2) R9 280X has seen prices of $240-260 for months so if AMD officially drops it to $219, and that's $110 less over 970 and R9 280X. 960 priced at $229 could really kill 285/280X sales though. If R9 280X is $219, then it will offer better performance/$ than a $329 970.

3) If AMD moves R9 290 to $269, there is still a market for it I think since performance of after-market 290s is pretty close to the 970. A lot of people look at R9 290 level of performance (~Titan/780) and keep thinking $500-650 but R9 290 came out at $399 and it's been 1 year since it came out. Surely AMD can afford to cut prices on that card.

 

[moonbogg]

$330 for 970? Holy Damn. That DOES remind me of the 8800GT goodness from long ago. Wow that's nice.

 

[Silverforce11]

The problem with the R290 vs R290X as anyone who knew, at the same clocks, the delta in performance is miniscule, thus, there cannot be a large price gap else people would not bother to look at the R290X.

As a gamer looking to buy a new card, I would NOT pay $299 for a R290 or $349 for a R290X when I can get a 970 for ~$330 (just note that these are US prices, here in AUS, its a massive difference). The massive power difference alone would mean it deserves a significant premium over the competition.

They would have to sell R290 at $249 for me to consider it a good deal and R290X has to be $299.

NV is ending 780/ti and soon 760/770 so downward forcing wont hurt them in a few months time, but AMD has nothing coming for a long time. If R290/X had to go for <$300, what the heck is gonna happen to the rest of the lineup? <$200. GG AMD.

AMD is in a world of hurt until GCN 2.0 (if its any good)!

 

[SimianR]

I have a feeling AMD will probably match the 290X pricing to the 970 for now, but as you said, the rest of the lineup has to sell for less than $300.

 

[AtenRa]

1: Very impressive perf/watt
2: At last, 28nm is getting interesting at perf/$ to the point of 40nm 3 years ago.

but

Absolute performance remains the same the last 1-1.5 years. We really need 20-16nm yesterday.

 

[RussianSensation]

They would have to sell R290 at $249 for me to consider it a good deal and R290X has to be $299.

The worst after-market 290 is 7% faster than 290X and that basically means after-market 290 = 290X (max) at minimum. So a 970 would be 3-5% faster for 32% more money just because it uses 100W less power? If R9 290 is $249, it's now the reverse: 970 would be kinda unattractive honestly. AMD doesn't have to go below $269+game bundle for R9 290 and probably $319 for R9 290X+game bundle. I mean if you could buy dual R9 290 for $500, you'd have $160 left over towards a 512GB SSD and considering 295X2 and 970 SLI trade blows, you wouldn't lose much in performance here.

 

[sontin]

Despite the fact that there will be custom cards with higher clocks for $329, the GTX970 supports FL11_3, more (software) features, better Shadowplay options, HDMI 2.0, option for 4x 4K displays, better VR support, less power consumption...

It's still a better buy, when you are considering the whole package.

 

[f1sherman]

Except AMD introduced this tech before NV with 285 so the statement should be NV is touting compression tech similar to AMD.

by what... a whole month? we are that sensitive?
are you THAT sure GM107 does not use similar image compression?

NVIDIA first introduced color compression on the GeForce FX series [...]

NVIDIA&#8217;s 3rd generation of color compression[/B] then is the latest iteration on this technology.
The fundamentals between the various generations of delta color compression have not changed,
but with each iteration NVIDIA has gained the ability to apply more and more patterns to the blocks to find better matches.
3rd generation delta color compression offers the most patterns yet, and the most opportunity to compress pixel blocks

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/3

Point is, I've seen AMD comments about huge available BW on Hawaii and 512 bit bus standing proudly on their offic. slides, and I thought that was funny.
Because although I like the fact that my 290 has 512 bus ,
I know that there are guys at AMD who should NOT be congratulated on this achievement
(and there are those who should be - those who managed to incorporate it with a rather small area footprint)

Funny part is that now with Tonga LESS BW suddenly becomes a good thing

 

[Abwx]

1: Very impressive perf/watt
2: At last, 28nm is getting interesting at perf/$ to the point of 40nm 3 years ago.

but

Absolute performance remains the same the last 1-1.5 years.

All things being averaged...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-20/recapitulatif-performances.html

 

[amenx]

And for the 10th year in a row (since the 128-bit 6600gt demolished the earlier higher bit bus flagships), we again see powerful lower bit bus performance with a newer arch. Expect the same lower bit bus detractor crowd to pop up again with Pascal too and again the same pie in the face outcome they saw with maxwell . Tbh, surprised myself at the 4k performance... not that it holds any interest for me yet.

 

[RussianSensation]

Despite the fact that there will be custom cards with higher clocks for $329,

From what I am reading in reviews, custom cards are $339-350. If after-market R9 290 is $249, that would make 970 a really tough sell.

the GTX970 supports FL11_3

You mean the most DX extensions?

Pointless. DX10.1, 11.1 = no value. And since all GCN and starting with Fermi support DX12, I don't see that as a selling feature. By the time DX12 games start coming out, we'll be half way into Maxwell generation and honestly a real DX12 game designed from the ground-up would crush 970/980. 15 years of GPU history has proven that for next gen native DX gaming, you need at least a 2nd gen generation of that DX (i.e., 1st gen DX9/DX10/DX11 GPUs aren't fast enough for natively coded DX9/10/11 games). Try playing DX9 Witcher 2 on the 1st gen DX9 flagship card or Crysis 3 on a 1st gen flagship DX11 card and see how that goes.

, more (software) features, better Shadowplay options, HDMI 2.0, option for 4x 4K displays, better VR support, less power consumption...It's still a better buy, when you are considering the whole package.

Yes, but some people may only have $250-270 to spend vs. $330-350. For example, I'd rather take i7 4790K + R9 290 than an i5 4690K + 970 at that point if I was building a new system. So AMD doesn't have to be that aggressive and price R9 290 at $249.

 

[Subyman]

Snagged a 970 from Amazon for sat delivery. Going to compare to my 780. May add another later in the month for SLI.

 

[Silverforce11]

The worst after-market 290 is 7% faster than 290X and that basically means after-market 290 = 290X (max) at minimum. So a 970 would be 3-5% faster for 32% more money just because it uses 100W less power? If R9 290 is $249, it's now the reverse: 970 would be kinda unattractive honestly. AMD doesn't have to go below $269+game bundle for R9 290 and probably $319 for R9 290X+game bundle. I mean if you could buy dual R9 290 for $500, you'd have $160 left over towards a 512GB SSD and considering 295X2 and 970 SLI trade blows, you wouldn't lose much in performance here.

You are not factoring in OC, I do. Hawaii can run at 1.2ghz so its got 20% headroom, but to get there, it end up using A LOT of power. Thus its even worse when you compare OC vs OC, where they end up with similar performance, but 970 would still be <200W whereas the R290/X will be 350-400W.

If in the US, 970 goes for $330, R290 has to be ~$249 - 279 range, that doesn't leave much room for R290X. I would NOT pay more than $50 difference for the R290X over the R290 since to me, both running at 1ghz clocks the difference in performance isn't major.

I mean the situation is BAD for AMD and they are probably shitting themselves right now figuring out what to do and where to price their entire stack, bottom to top. If NV had the 970 at $399 or $449, it would not have done much damage to AMD. Clearly nobody expected 970 to come in at $330, which is a MIRACLE by NV standards.

It is indeed the 8800GT again.

ps. If R290X was $330, I would not even consider it over a 970. Both are in the similar performance bracket and after OC, would still be similar, except for the massive power difference. It also looks like NV has improved their 4K performance too, so SLI @ 4K is a great option. You can see the dilemma, no doubt AMD feels it too. R290X HAS to be cheaper than 970.

 

[raghu78]

The worst after-market 290 is 7% faster than 290X and that basically means after-market 290 = 290X (max) at minimum. So a 970 would be 3-5% faster for 32% more money just because it uses 100W less power? If R9 290 is $249, it's now the reverse: 970 would be kinda unattractive honestly. AMD doesn't have to go below $269+game bundle for R9 290 and probably $319 for R9 290X+game bundle. I mean if you could buy dual R9 290 for $500, you'd have $160 left over towards a 512GB SSD and considering 295X2 and 970 SLI trade blows, you wouldn't lose much in performance here.

the pricing to reduce market share loss, since I don't think AMD can stop market share loss is

R7 265 - $129
R9 270 - $149
R9 270X - $169
R9 285 - $199
Tonga R9 285x - $249 vs GTX 960
R9 290 - $299
R9 290 Vapor-X - $329 vs GTX 970
R9 290X - $369
R9 290X Vapor-X - $399
GTX 980 - $549

AMD will have to accept lower margins as the only way out for now. If GCN 2.0 is competitive against Maxwell they have a way out of this rut in 2015 or else its pretty much game over for their GPU division

 

[sontin]

From what I am reading in reviews, custom cards are $339-350. If after-market R9 290 is $249, that would make 970 a really tough sell.

They will come down through competition with each others.

You mean the most DX extensions?

Pointless. DX10.1, 11.1 = no value. And since all GCN and starting with Fermi support DX12, I don't see that as a selling feature. By the time DX12 games start coming out, we'll be half way into Maxwell generation and honestly a real DX12 game designed from the ground-up would crush 970/980. 15 years of GPU history has proven that for next gen native DX gaming, you need at least a 2nd gen generation of that DX (i.e., 1st gen DX9/DX10/DX11 GPUs aren't fast enough for natively coded DX9/10/11 games). Try playing DX9 Witcher 2 on the 1st gen DX9 flagship card or Crysis 3 on a 1st gen flagship DX11 card and see how that goes.

DX12 is a low level API. There will be a lot of developers who wont go this way. FL11_3 is an addition to DX11 and will be supported under Windows 8.1. The piece on the front page is great btw.

Yes, but some people may only have $250-270 to spend vs. $330-350. For example, I'd rather take i7 4790K + R9 290 than an i5 4690K + 970 at that point if I was building a new system. So AMD doesn't have to be that aggressive and price R9 290 at $249.

Sometimes it makes more sense to pay more. And dont forget that the power bill will be higher with a r9 290. So After two years the difference will be ~$30 with the average core gamer time of 22h per week.

 

[f1sherman]

All things being averaged...
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-20/recapitulatif-performances.html

ouch...
using NV marketing slang that's

up to 100% better perf/W than the competition

[/IMG]

 

[dangerman1337]

Not sure if I want the GTX 970 OC'd + Maybe a PhysX card (GM107 750 non ti?) or a OC'd 980 with my Z67 board + stock 2500K for games like the Witcher 3. The 970 looks amazing value but since I'm going to play the Witcher 3 and maybe Batman Arkham Knight I'm not sure if I should stretch to a single OC'd 980.

 

[Silverforce11]

the pricing to reduce market share loss, since I don't think AMD can stop market share loss is

R7 265 - $129
R9 270 - $149
R9 270X - $169
R9 285 - $199
Tonga R9 285x - $249 vs GTX 960
R9 290 - $299
R9 290 Vapor-X - $329 vs GTX 970
R9 290X - $399
R9 290X Vapor-X - $429
GTX 980 - $549

AMD will have to accept lower margins as the only way out for now. If GCN 2.0 is competitive against Maxwell they have a way out of this rut in 2015 or else its pretty much game over for their GPU division

There's zero value in spending $399 for R290X when 970 performs so close to it out of the box, and with decent OC headroom.

It's a hard sell even if they priced it at $330 for R290X. ~= performance for massively more power/heat, no thanks.

Tonga has to be $199 or less. It's a good thing they did 256 bus and 2gb vram on it!!
R290 = $249 with custom models $259-279.
R290X = $299 with custom models $309 - $319.

I don't think its profitable at those prices. 512 bit bus, 4gb vram, complex pcb and beefy cooler for the high TDP...

If the delayed GCN 2.0 isn't competitive, its literally game over for AMD in a few years time. They will have no chance on mobiles where efficiency is king. Now NV is aggressively pricing 970 means they are going for the killing blow on desktop.

 

[RussianSensation]

I mean the situation is BAD for AMD and they are probably shitting themselves right now figuring out what to do and where to price their entire stack, bottom to top. If NV had the 970 at $399 or $449, it would not have done much damage to AMD as its very good price at $330.

Yes, 970 at $329 is a slam dunk but you are painting this as doom and gloom.

1) NV survived just fine with nothing to compete against 5850/5870 for 6 months.
2) NV survived just fine with nothing to compete with 7770/7850/7870 for 6-9 months until they rolled out sub GTX670 cards.
3) AMD survived just fine after 2900XT/3870 disaster.
4) R9 290X has always been pointless from the beginning so no need to discuss it at all really.
5) AMD managed OK despite R9 290/X late by 5 months.

I think AMD is in a very tough spot but R9 290/X are 1 year old. You think AMD has been sitting still all this time? 980 is 20-21% faster than 290X. It's possible that 285 has been developed by a separate team to test out new features with no focus on performance/watt while another team has been working on improving performance/watt and when these are combined we could see a decent R9 290 successor.

Short-term solution: a new stepping of R9 290X + add AIO liquid cooling and AMD could bump clocks on R9 290X by 150mhz to 1.15Ghz to claw back performance to within 6-7% of 980 and price that card at $399-429 and then what? 980 wouldn't look so hot at $549.

 

[wand3r3r]

All things being averaged...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-20/recapitulatif-performances.html

I don't think the situation is dire for AMD.

Compared to AMD it is a little more complicated. The AMD Radeon R9 290X was outperformed by the GeForce GTX 980 more than it outperformed the GTX 780 Ti. We often saw 20% performance improvements with GTX 980. You may have just spent a lot of money on your Radeon R9 290X (Or you may have just paid $403 for it.), but the GeForce GTX 980 is actually faster and in comparison to the 290X it looks as though it might also be more expensive. If you are coming again from a last generation AMD Radeon GPU, or even farther back, then you are probably contemplating between the AMD Radeon R9 290X or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 now. Pricing is a bit better, i.e. lower on AMD Radeon R9 290X right now, but you do get faster performance out of GeForce GTX 980. That said, a Radeon R9 290X purchased in the low $400 price range is a great deal.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/09/18/nvidia_maxwell_gpu_geforce_gtx_980_video_card_review/14

The main thing is that the 970 is a good solid card for a great price. It will simply require some price cuts on AMDs 1-3 year old cards.

Sure it will be worth a little premium, but looking at the performance charts it's not that special overall, just an excellent card for the price ($329).

For a change NV is actually selling a card good for consumers, instead of raising prices.