nVidia: "We expected more from the 7970"

[SirPauly]

IT depends on what metric one desires when gauging over-all:

62 percent faster than an HD 4870 at 1920 x 1200 with x4 AA -- solid metric. And had an MSRP of 379, but demand was very strong for some time and was selling actually above MSRP, very understandable considering the strong performance/value and commitment from AMD on pricing. The MSRP price of the HD-4870 was 299.


http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...870/23/#abschnitt_performancerating_qualitaet

 

[Arzachel]

Accept the fact that the GTX 580, 480, 5870 are on the same node and both using their respective 40nm arch and the 7970 is on a substantial and significant node change and new arch.

Here is the other side of the coin:

AMD softened their commitment to the sweet spot.

AMD is charging around 50 percent more MSRP than their past chip

This may be the first time in history that a GPU's MSRP percentage increase offered more than its over-all performance increase.

This may be the first time in history that a new node and arch didn't actually redefine price performance.

And, there is such strong defense for this; as if the sweet spot never existed. It's like I've entered the twilight zone after over a decade of posting.

You're ignoring the fact that GPU's are right next to the 300W wall right now and can't just throw wattage at the problem until it goes away. Also you're ignoring the fact that the 7970 is the fastest single chip GPU and Nvidia are known to trail behind AMD on node changes.

No sane person is going to look for sweet spot pricing in a flagship product.

 

[SirPauly]

3. GTX 8800 Ultra?

Yep, good example for a GPU that offered more percentage MSRP gains than actual performance gains and totally redefined premium and the lack of performance/value.

With both thinking like this being predators and aggressors -- defenders of premiums so strongly may see this more often. Isn't that great?

 

[MrK6]

Sorry to say but GTX480 was far from a joke,

Even today it can play all DX-11 games at 1080p much faster than HD5870 and in games like BF3, Crysis 2, metro 2033 etc, at 1080p with high/ultra settings it can produce more than 30fps when HD5870 can't.

Im not saying it was the best card of all times, but it was more future proof (DX-11) than HD5870 and it is very fast even for today's standards

Would you have felt you bought a decent card if you had to wait at least a year for it to finally pull further ahead more than 10%, especially after you spent $500 on it? This of course, after two new series of better GPU's were released by both companies? Especially if it was a $500 loud furnace? Furthermore, would you have felt valued as a customer if NVIDIA released what should have been (the GTX 580) 7 months later? I'm not arguing that the Fermi architecture wasn't forward thinking, but it's execution in the GTX 480 was laughable. They released a card that was 10-15% faster at most, and consumed about 50% more power, six months later. This was against AMD's effort, where all they did was scale a two year old architecture, slap on a tessellation engine and some other features, and released a competing product.

 

[SirPauly]

You're ignoring the fact that GPU's are right next to the 300W wall right now and can't just throw wattage at the problem until it goes away. Also you're ignoring the fact that the 7970 is the fastest single chip GPU and Nvidia are known to trail behind AMD on node changes.

No sane person is going to look for sweet spot pricing in a flagship product.

Obviously, it's like the 5870 and 5850 never existed.

 

[MrK6]

Accept the fact that the GTX 580, 480, 5870 are on the same node and both using their respective 40nm arch and the 7970 is on a substantial and significant node change and new arch.

Here is the other side of the coin:

AMD softened their commitment to the sweet spot.

AMD is charging around 50 percent more MSRP than their past chip

This may be the first time in history that a GPU's MSRP percentage increase offered more than its over-all performance increase.

This may be the first time in history that a new node and arch didn't actually redefine price performance.

And, there is such strong defense for this; as if the sweet spot never existed. It's like I've entered the twilight zone after over a decade of posting.

Wait, what? If AMD is first to market with a dominating flagship product, why shouldn't they charge a premium for it? As it is, the 7970 is still a much better buy than a GTX 580.

Obviously, it's like the 5870 and 5850 never existed.

So because at one point AMD offered a great bang for-your-buck solution in the high end, they now always have to? Ironically, the 7970 still has the best price/performance ratio in the high-end, so most of your points are moot.

 

[Grooveriding]

Obviously, it's like the 5870 and 5850 never existed.

Obviously, it's like the 9700PRO, 9800PRO, X800XT, X800XT-PE, X1900XT, X1900XT-PE, 4870X2, 5970, 6990, 7970 never existed.

 

[Arzachel]

Obviously, it's like the 5870 and 5850 never existed.

The 5850 is not a flagship card and is much better performance/$ than the 5870.

 

[kidsafe]

My anecdote...

I tend to upgrade to whatever's the best or second best graphics card available at the time. After giving up on Mac gaming in 2002, I built my first PC with a Radeon 9700 Pro. That card lasted me three years, an eternity, because Nvidia dropped the ball hard with the GeForce FX 5000 series. The GeForce 6000 series was definitely an improvement, but I was in no hurry at the time to upgrade.

I moved to a GeForce 7800 GT + Athlon X2 3800+ in 2005 when my 9700 Pro + Pentium 4 2.4B were no longer cutting it in WoW. The 256MB 7800 GT compared favorably with the 256MB X1800 XL, so it was a coinflip.

After that I went with an HD 3870, then a GTX 260 Core216. The GTX 260 was a bit much and it would overheat in games where the shaders were allowed to go full bore. The card hit the mid-90C range and would lock up my PC, so I sidegraded to an HD 4890. Because the next generation of ATI was so good, I bought an HD 5870. I had originally planned to upgrade after a year, but neither the HD 6000 series or GTX 500 series blew me away.

And now I have an HD 7970. This wasn't really an upgrade out of necessity, but because the market for used HD 5870s is surreal (thanks Bitcoins.) I sold mine for $200 and put it toward the new card. Admittedly the HD 7970 does not blow the GTX 580 out of the water. In fact, I hate the reference coolers on the AMD cards vs. Nvidia's. I bought the card because I didn't feel like waiting anymore. Had Nvidia released an equivalent GPU at the same time, I very well may have bought that instead.

The problem with Kepler for me? It's literally vaporware right now. There simply was not any concrete info about the product for me to justify waiting a bit longer. If the high end Kepler part proves to be a massive jump in performance, I will gladly sell my HD 7970 on CL or eBay for one.

For me it came down to timing.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

7970 only pulls ahead by 6% at 1200p, which is even more of a disappointment performance wise than 480 vs 5870 at release.

Today as was stated, 480 is a much better card. It has more features, better DX11 performance, and isn't something you'd really actually need to sell for the latest and greatest because it held up better than the 5xxx series.

 

[SirPauly]

Wait, what? If AMD is first to market with a dominating flagship product, why shouldn't they charge a premium for it? As it is, the 7970 is still a much better buy than a GTX 580.
So because at one point AMD offered a great bang for-your-buck solution in the high end, they now always have to? Ironically, the 7970 still has the best price/performance ratio in the high-end, so most of your points are moot.

I'll agree with a respectable and reasonable offering from the HD 6970, a good chip, but based on the 50 percent MSRP increase? And to you it is dominating. Okay! You made your points clear and noted.

 

[Arzachel]

7970 only pulls ahead by 6% at 1200p, which is even more of a disappointment performance wise than 480 vs 5870 at release.

Today as was stated, 480 is a much better card. It has more features, better DX11 performance, and isn't something you'd really actually need to sell for the latest and greatest because it held up better than the 5xxx series.

...Wow. The more you post, the more it decreases eh? Maybe you should dig up some cpu limited games to cherry pick. I've heard the Quake timedemo is faster on the GTX 580!

That's the problem, the GTX 480 should have been a much better card 2 years ago for the price it retailed.

 

[SirPauly]

The 5850 is not a flagship card and is much better performance/$ than the 5870.

With all due respect, there was a 50 percent MSRP increase. Sorry, personally don't ignore this simple fact.

 

[SirPauly]

The 5850 is not a flagship card and is much better performance/$ than the 5870.

Not really!

 

[SirPauly]

Obviously, it's like the 9700PRO, 9800PRO, X800XT, X800XT-PE, X1900XT, X1900XT-PE, 4870X2, 5970, 6990, 7970 never existed.

Not really. The 9700 pro truly dominated and redefined performance/value.

 

[Arzachel]

With all due respect, there was a 50 percent MSRP increase. Sorry, personally don't ignore this simple fact.

Edit: Oh, you edited. Yes, the 5850 was a sweet spot product instead of a flagship, which was the 5870 just like the GTX570/GTX580 or the 6950/6970

I personally think the 7970 isn't worth the money, but there are plenty people thinking otherwise. Hammering the fact over and over again will only make people think you have an irrational dislike for AMD and as such your arguments can just be dismissed as nonconstructive.

 

[sontin]

That's the problem, the GTX 480 should have been a much better card 2 years ago for the price it retailed.

Why? It was priced allright. It was the fastest card and today is the much better card, too. Look at a few DX11 Games from Last year:

GTX480(performance = GTX570) 1080p + AA/AF:
Anandtech.com:
CIV: 47%
Batman: AC: 90%
Battlefield 3: 37%
Dirt 3: 25%

Other Sites:
Crysis 2: 45%
WoW DX11: 36%
Lost Planet 2: 54%

In other DX11 games like Dragon Age 2 or Shogun the 5870 is slower, too - around 10%.

And it's not only performance. The GTX480 has a lot more to offer than the 5870:
GPU-Physx, HQ-AF, SSAA in all APIs since April 2010, Downsampling, Profiles, more memory...

 

[chimaxi83]

So it all boils down to tears because a flagship top of the line product commands the price premium? Bookmark this thread and see what happens when NV comes out with their flagship, and see how many of these same bashers defend them using their own arguments, reversed to suit them of course. It's funny

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

1. HD5870 was basically 33% more than the 4870 launch price ($400 effective street price vs $300 launch price), and more than that over the 4870 price when the 5870 came out, although I don't have a hard number for the 4870 end of life price.
2. GTX 8800 Ultra?
3. GTX 8800 Ultra?

You're not really helping your argument. You cite the going street price vs an actual msrp. You also didn't include how much % performance increase the 5870 is over the 4870 (which for a $80 increase in msrp the performance increase was staggering). Third you reference the 8800 ultra pricing which is a running joke on every tech forum. If you have to compare 8800 ultra pricing to the 7970 then there is something terribly wrong with 7970 prices.

 

[96Firebird]

So it all boils down to tears because a flagship top of the line product commands the price premium? Bookmark this thread and see what happens when NV comes out with their flagship, and see how many of these same bashers defend them using their own arguments, reversed to suit them of course. It's funny

The same can be said for those who bashed Nvidia for having premium pricing on the GTX 480 and GTX 580, can it not? Now they are ok with it...

 

[MrK6]

I'll agree with a respectable and reasonable offering from the HD 6970, a good chip, but based on the 50 percent MSRP increase? And to you it is dominating. Okay! You made your points clear and noted.

Considering the 6950's unlocked and overclocked the same, I'd actually consider a 6970 a poor buy, but I understand your point. Also, like I said, I look at what hardware is capable of, not just stock. Right now I have a single GPU card that gives me twice the performance of my previous 6950 in a more well-rounded/up-to-date architecture. There's nothing else on the market that comes close and I've been waiting for it for some time. GTX 580? Almost as expensive and far less performance. 6950 CF? GTX 570 SLI? Two card multi-GPU = teh sux. There's just nothing else out there.

 

[Arzachel]

Why? It was priced allright. It was the fastest card and today is the much better card, too. Look at a few DX11 Games from Last year:

GTX480(performance = GTX570) 1080p + AA/AF:
Anandtech.com:
CIV: 47%
Batman: AC: 90%
Battlefield 3: 37%
Dirt 3: 25%

Other Sites:
Crysis 2: 45%
WoW DX11: 36%
Lost Planet 2: 54%

In other DX11 games like Dragon Age 2 or Shogun the 5870 is slower, too - around 10%.

And it's not only performance. The GTX480 has a lot more to offer than the 5870:
GPU-Physx, HQ-AF, SSAA in all APIs since April 2010, Downsampling, Profiles, more memory...

Because futureproofing is stupid? Because Getting a 5870 6 months earlier and pocketing the difference would've been a far better thing to do?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'd agree future proofing is stupid, but having a product that takes you into the future much more gracefully isn't stupid. Nor is keeping a product longer because it held up better. 470s when they came out were priced below the 5870, but as you can see out perform it considerably in modern titles even with it's drastically low factory clock speed of 607 MHz.

6% isn't far less, and it's been out for over a year?

Why would you go with AMD if what you've really wanted all along was the 580?

Maybe if your only experience is with AMD, I can't say on that front. I've had a great time with my SLI setup, I probably won't even upgrade to Kepler at least not at first, I don't want to be in a situation where I downgraded performance for more money which is what the 7970 is currently offering.

 

[SirPauly]

Considering the 6950's unlocked and overclocked the same, I'd actually consider a 6970 a poor buy, but I understand your point. Also, like I said, I look at what hardware is capable of, not just stock. Right now I have a single GPU card that gives me twice the performance of my previous 6950 in a more well-rounded/up-to-date architecture. There's nothing else on the market that comes close and I've been waiting for it for some time. GTX 580? Almost as expensive and far less performance. 6950 CF? GTX 570 SLI? Two card multi-GPU = teh sux. There's just nothing else out there.

Thank you for understanding!

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Because futureproofing is stupid? Because Getting a 5870 6 months earlier and pocketing the difference would've been a far better thing to do?

Really? I'm using a gtx 480 today. Put an aftermarket cooler on it I picked up for $40 and it's quieter and cooler than any reference card and overclocked It beats gtx 580 performance. I'd bet at 861 on the core and 7970's lackluster BF3 performance I'm pretty close to a stock 7970 in BF3. If the 480 was a bad purchase 2 years ago for $500 what does that make the 7970 two years later?