nVidia: "We expected more from the 7970"

[MrK6]

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%

I think out of that entire list BF3 is the only reasonable comparison. It's been proven that NVIDIA actually had Civ5 coded to run better on its GPU's alone. The fact that Anandtech still uses it in its suite is a black mark. Also, the Batman AC results are completely skewed by the fact that there's some driver error when AA is enabled. For example, at 1680x1050, the 5870 is only 12% slower than the GTX 570, but at 1920x1200, it's suddenly 47% slower? Come on. Also, I'm not even sure the BF3 results are universal. For example, [H] showed the 7970 coming out much further ahead of a GTX 580 (an overclocked GTX 580), yet Anandtech's bench shows it barely ahead. Seems odd.

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

Again, Crysis 2 was developed with NVIDIA and has been shown to use ludicrous amounts of tessellation to make NVIDIA GPU's look better. Same with Lost Planet 2 really. Essentially, most of these tests show how behind the 5xxx series was in tessellation, but not much more.

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...

The 5870 runs much cooler and quieter, can display 3 monitors from one card, had MLAA first, and was available for six months prior. Both cards have good features, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Grooveriding]

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?

It makes it the same. The best card on the market with a $500+ price tag. Nothing new. If you bring overclocking into it as you want to, the 7970 overclocked is 50% faster than an overclocked GTX 580 in BF3.

I have 3 480s overclocked to 580 speeds and I know for a fact I would get nowhere near 54FPS on a single one of them like the 7970 is here, and this is my resolution.


All the rest is just nvidia fanboys pissing on the launch of a card that destroys anything nvidia has out. When nvidia manage to release their flagship, we'll see the exact same thing reversed. AMD fans are going to piss on that launch and find its flaws, and the same ones posting here crying about a card they can't/won't afford playing the defense rather than attack role.

Tech forums are fun.

 

[tviceman]

I think out of that entire list BF3 is the only reasonable comparison. It's been proven that NVIDIA actually had Civ5 coded to run better on its GPU's alone.

Why, if it is coded to run better specifically on Nvidia software, would it run really well on Tahiti? And there are quite a few reputable hardware sites that use it in their GPU evaluations - do all those get black marks (in your point of view) as well? Could you provide the link to this accusation? I'm curious to read about it.

 

[SirPauly]

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.

As of right now, easily understand why a potential enthusiast or early adopter may buy the products. Can easily understand why their priced where they are but if posters only hammer just one side of the coin - kinda one sided views, one may imagine.

I like to offer and discuss both sides and play devil's advocate, too.

I made one simple point about performance/value in this forum and was like a lightning rod, hehe and many, many posters have been trying to dismiss it. The more some try -- the more it gets repeated. Real simple.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yes well you can already see it taking place here.

The same reasons AMD users bashed/are bashing the 480/580 are the same reasons they're now using to defend their purchase.

There are others who value what we can get for what we paid, and there are some who paid the most they can to get the best they can. Neither should be considered wrong in the their own right so long as they're doing what it is they wish to.

If the 480 was a bad card because it was only x amount faster than the cheaper 5870 than the 7970 is bad for the same reason. If the 480 wasn't a bad card and you paid for the fact that it was the fastest card than the 7970 isn't a bad card either.

That's the sole argument of those few people who actually spend the most to have the best, the rest of us have the same arguments as we have for any other card that is overpriced for the performance it provides. Weather it's AMD or Nvidia it doesn't really matter, that's why we don't have 6970s or 580s in the first place.

 

[ader098]

For me: Stock 7970 = meh
OC 7970 @1.2ghz+ = good

However, what is really going to determine whether the 7900 series are great cards or not is the release of nVidias offering.

As far as the price of the cards is concerned, I can't blame AMD for pricing the cards so high considering what the competition is charging.
At the end of the day AMD is out there to make money, if it can avoid a pricing war with the competition and still sell there cards at a higher price, I say kudos to them.
Its AMDs business decisions that allowed them to release their cards months ahead of the competition. If anything blame nVidia for being late and not learning from the mistakes of the Fermi launch.

 

[SirPauly]

If anything blame nVidia for being late

I agree with this.

 

[Arzachel]

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?

The 7970 is faster(+25%) and priced equal to the competition(GTX580), the GTX 480 was faster(+15%) and priced 35% more than the competition(5870). The GTX 480 also had almost no overclocking headroom on launch, ran hot, loud and draw far more power than the 5870. I've said it before, Tahiti is basically the anti-Fermi.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah 480's had no overclocking headroom, neither did 470s they went supernova when you increased them by 1Mhz as I've heard before on this forum.

Oh well, ignorance is bliss.

It's must be hard for you to talk about overclocking when AMD's 5 and 6 series barely did any for so long.

 

[Grooveriding]

For me: Stock 7970 = meh
OC 7970 @1.2ghz+ = good

However, what is really going to determine whether the 7900 series are great cards or not is the release of nVidias offering.

As far as the price of the cards is concerned, I can't blame AMD for pricing the cards so high considering what the competition is charging.
At the end of the day AMD is out there to make money, if it can avoid a pricing war with the competition and still sell there cards at a higher price, I say kudos to them.
Its AMDs business decisions that allowed them to release their cards months ahead of the competition. If anything blame nVidia for being late and not learning from the mistakes of the Fermi launch.

Exactly.

If you are dying for a price war on the best cards this is your solution. But, with nvidia again behind on 28nm like the were with 40nm, we're not going to get one. They'll take another 6 months of development time and release something +/- 20% faster and charge the same or more for it.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Used to be we were comparing AMD's currently released product to rumors of an nVidia card yet to be released. Now we're moving to comparing against an nVidia one which is discontinued. Strange you don't want to just do the obvious and compare what's currently shipping from both companies.

 

[SirPauly]

The 7970 is faster(+25%) and priced equal to the competition(GTX580), the GTX 480 was faster(+15%) and priced 35% more than the competition(5870). The GTX 480 also had almost no overclocking headroom on launch, ran hot, loud and draw far more power than the 5870. I've said it before, Tahiti is basically the anti-Fermi.

You know how one solves these arguments? By how the market reacts and what the market thinks after some reflection and time.

If Tahiti and GCN bring in the kind of revenue and margins Fermi did and still does over-all -- AMD has a true winner.

 

[MrK6]

Why, if it is coded to run better specifically on Nvidia software, would it run really well on Tahiti? And there are quite a few reputable hardware sites that use it in their GPU evaluations - do all those get black marks (in your point of view) as well? Could you provide the link to this accusation? I'm curious to read about it.

Anandtech's own Ryan Smith wrote a great analysis of the situation: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28 . It's great to see what kind of performance multi-threading rendering in the drivers can lend, but it's pointless to use as a comparison until both companies are on the same page. If you're a Civ 5 buff, then it's good to see the tests regardless, but if you're designing a limited benchmarking suite, there are better games out there. It's just weak if you're going to use any form of scientific process to analyze the cards.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes well you can already see it taking place here.

The same reasons AMD users bashed/are bashing the 480/580 are the same reasons they're now using to defend their purchase.

Hot, power hungry and late are adjectives being used to bash 7970s?

 

[Arzachel]

Yeah 480's had no overclocking headroom, neither did 470s they went supernova when you increased them by 1Mhz as I've heard before on this forum.

Oh well, ignorance is bliss.

It's must be hard for you to talk about overclocking when AMD's 5 and 6 series barely did any for so long.

ON LAUNCH. Should I put some siren gifs so you actually read the context?

 

[Arzachel]

You know how one solves these arguments? By how the market reacts and what the market thinks after some reflection and time.

If Tahiti and GCN bring in the kind of revenue and margins Fermi did and still does over-all -- AMD has a true winner.

That was mostly because Nvidia knocked it out of the park with the GF104. I'd like to see something similar this gen.

 

[SirPauly]

Used to be we were comparing AMD's currently released product to rumors of an nVidia card yet to be released. Now we're moving to comparing against an nVidia one which is discontinued. Strange you don't want to just do the obvious and compare what's currently shipping from both companies.

That's all ya can do is compare with what is offered and another example of the importance of execution. AMD is placed in a nice position and can price their small die in monolithic price-points! Good for AMD and for enthusiasts and early adopters that desire and demand the very best. One can make the case, that AMD was too committed to the sweet spot strategy with the 5870 and 5850 and left too much revenue, profits and margins on the table.

I've said this countless times and no one argues this really! A side of the coin but be damn, if I offer the other side, hehe!

 

[Lonbjerg]

I think out of that entire list BF3 is the only reasonable comparison. It's been proven that NVIDIA actually had Civ5 coded to run better on its GPU's alone.

That has to do wih that NVIDIA released a multithreaded DX11 driver:
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index...idias-geforce-gtx-560-top-to-bottom-overclock

Ever since NVIDIA unlocked multithreaded rendering for Civ V a few months ago they’ve had a solid lead, and this has yet to abate. Even the GTX 560 Base (810MHz) can beat the 6970, and it only gets better from there.

But I guess that is a unfair comparison then...? :whiste:

 

[Grooveriding]

You know how one solves these arguments? By how the market reacts and what the market thinks after some reflection and time.

If Tahiti and GCN bring in the kind of revenue and margins Fermi did and still does over-all -- AMD has a true winner.

This is wrong on so many levels it's not even worth explaining, but I'll try to get it across to you. Revenue and margins means nothing in the context of how gamers and end-users receive and appreciate a product release.

AMD has the best selling DX11 card ever in the 5770 and holds the majority of the installed DX11 discreet based cards. But their revenue and margins are lower than nvidia's. See how that works ? Revenue and margins only matter to nvidia, people who own nvidia stock and people who have an emotional attachment to nvidia.

They are not an indication of how gamers received and felt about a specific DX11 discreet card product lineup against another when they are affected by a host of other dynamics beyond how many of those specific cards sold.

AMD has sold more DX11 cards than nvidia, but they didn't make more money. So more gamers chosing AMD than nvidia for DX11 /= more margins and revenue for AMD.

 

[blackened23]

Lets clear up a few misconceptions.

1) AMD has a higher overall GPU share than NV does. NV has a higher discrete share. Looking at the data from Dec 2011 from market analysts, the figures are 22% AMD, 16-17% nvidia, and the rest intel
1a) Look at any quarterly results for analyst proof of above
2) iGPUs are cannibalizing discrete sales in a major way. This is why NV is focusing on the Tegra visual computing platform. AMD is focusing on Fusion APU's.
2a) AMD is sticking to x86 to combat intel iGPUs, while NV is going ARM.
3) Why are we even talking about this? Is this the immature way for someone to lash out at AMD and bash them? Give me a break
4) intel apparently hates both AMD -and- nvidia, especially after intel had to pay nvidia millions from litigation. If intel could put both out of business, they would - and I suspect this is what they're trying to do with the iGPU.
5) AMD has other market share with consoles, and they have design wins on all 3 upcoming consoles. Xbox 720, PS4, and Wii U will use AMD designs.
6) Many PC's come pre-installed with AMD discrete cards, including dell.
7) On the flip side of the coin, nvidia definitely has more discrete share among users that are DIY'ers. Something like 60 vs 40%
8) nvidia prices their hardware such that their profit margins are ridiculous high (see: 499$ GTX 580). AMD now follows suit.

So I think intel is our enemy. iGPU's are probably going to ruin our hobby someday, iGPU's are already eliminating the need for low end / mid range discrete cards in most pre-assembled PC's. So, screw intel, long live amd + nvidia :awe:

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yes well you can already see it taking place here.

The same reasons AMD users bashed/are bashing the 480/580 are the same reasons they're now using to defend their purchase.

There are others who value what we can get for what we paid, and there are some who paid the most they can to get the best they can. Neither should be considered wrong in the their own right so long as they're doing what it is they wish to.

If the 480 was a bad card because it was only x amount faster than the cheaper 5870 than the 7970 is bad for the same reason. If the 480 wasn't a bad card and you paid for the fact that it was the fastest card than the 7970 isn't a bad card either.

That's the sole argument of those few people who actually spend the most to have the best, the rest of us have the same arguments as we have for any other card that is overpriced for the performance it provides. Weather it's AMD or Nvidia it doesn't really matter, that's why we don't have 6970s or 580s in the first place.

No, the difference is that unlike the GTX 470 and 480, the HD 7970 and 7950 have good power efficiency and don't turn your house into a furnace. And no, almost no one (including me) cares about your water coolers. The fact is that the GTX 480 is 15% faster than the HD 5870, but at the time it also consumed around 50% more power and ran extremely hot. The HD 7970 is fast, and apart from it being expensive there's not really much you can fault about it compared to what's out on the market. It's 20% faster than the GTX 580, and as a result it costs 17% more. If you set the reference fans correctly, it runs similarly to the GTX 580 when it comes to noise and temps, but it also consumes significantly less power. When NVIDIA has a card that's faster, THEN you can talk. Unfortunately, when it does, AMD can easily release an HD 8970 then.

 

[SirPauly]

This is wrong on so many levels it's not even worth explaining, but I'll try to get it across to you. Revenue and margins means nothing in the context of how gamers and end-users receive and appreciate a product release.

AMD has the best selling DX11 card ever in the 5770 and holds the majority of the installed DX11 discreet based cards. But their revenue and margins are lower than nvidia's. See how that works ? Revenue and margins only matter to nvidia, people who own nvidia stock and people who have an emotional attachment to nvidia.

They are not an indication of how gamers received and felt about a specific DX11 discreet card product lineup against another when they are affected by a host of other dynamics beyond how many of those specific cards sold.

AMD has sold more DX11 cards than nvidia, but they didn't make more money. So more gamers chosing AMD than nvidia for DX11 /= more margins and revenue for AMD.

Sure it does. The market will tell all. And you're kinda short sided based on the architecture changes with GCN. You're actually making it sound like AMD has this massive desktop discrete advantage. Market speaks much louder than your vocal view, sorry!

 

[Arzachel]

So I think intel is our enemy. iGPU's are probably going to ruin our hobby someday, iGPU's are already eliminating the need for low end / mid range discrete cards in most pre-assembled PC's. So, screw intel, long live amd + nvidia :awe:

On the contrary, I think we will all be using GPU's with a few small and efficient cpu cores a few years from now . Both AMD and Nvidia are pushing that way.

 

[bryanW1995]

Big talk from a company that doesn't have a competing product.

This is typical for either company. JHH has even gone on record saying "talk about the future when you have nothing in the present", and that is extremely good advice imho. However, that also tells me to discount any sort of rumors and/or unofficial mumbo-jumbo from NV right now. The fact is that AMD has a 28nm high end gpu that overclocks like mad on the loose, while NV has paper clips, press clippings, and maybe a few wood screws. When kepler comes out and starts kicking A$$ then wake me up.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

This is wrong on so many levels it's not even worth explaining, but I'll try to get it across to you. Revenue and margins means nothing in the context of how gamers and end-users receive and appreciate a product release.

AMD has the best selling DX11 card ever in the 5770 and holds the majority of the installed DX11 discreet based cards. But their revenue and margins are lower than nvidia's. See how that works ? Revenue and margins only matter to nvidia, people who own nvidia stock and people who have an emotional attachment to nvidia.

They are not an indication of how gamers received and felt about a specific DX11 discreet card product lineup against another when they are affected by a host of other dynamics beyond how many of those specific cards sold.

AMD has sold more DX11 cards than nvidia, but they didn't make more money. So more gamers chosing AMD than nvidia for DX11 /= more margins and revenue for AMD.

It should be obvious to those that follow the market, but NVIDIA has much higher enterprise market share.