So a card that is beating out a 550.00 card should be priced 400.00. That makes perfect sense. :hmm:
Maybe this was a kick in the schins then.
Not with that price. 4-10% is not a major lead.
If it was $400, yeah that would be one hell of a kick in the nuts to AMD. Unfortunately at these prices, both companies are kicking consumers in the nuts.
With these reviews people should look at what kind of "Power Target"-setting reviewer used. For example in 3dMark11 if you put that PT-setting to maximum you can get up to 20% better result.For a midrange card it looks good. An "impressive" 5% faster at 2560 than 7970. So my expectations were right from the start. It looks like it really needs higher clocks to look good against 7970, so it better consistently oc higher because otherwise it won't be any better than 7970.
For a midrange card it looks good. An "impressive" 5% faster at 2560 than 7970. So my expectations were right from the start. It looks like it really needs higher clocks to look good against 7970, so it better consistently oc higher because otherwise it won't be any better than 7970. Buying 7970 when it first came out was a much better decision than buying this card. I'm still waiting for proper high-end card. Well, I probably still won't upgrade I want better performance than I currently have with a single card.
It's a midrange card, what did you expect? Did gtx460 against GTX285 look any better? I think this card actually performs extremely well for what it is.
Not with that price. 4-10% is not a major lead.
If it was $400, yeah that would be one hell of a kick in the nuts to AMD. Unfortunately at these prices, both companies are kicking consumers in the nuts.
With these reviews people should look at what kind of "Power Target"-setting reviewer used. For example in 3dMark11 if you put that PT-setting to maximum you can get up to 20% better result.
So it Turbos to 1260mhz? In that pic its set for maximum power.
So a card that is beating out a 550.00 card should be priced 400.00. That makes perfect sense. :hmm:
Maybe this was a kick in the schins then.
You have to take into consideration that GK104 is a midrange design and as such it was focused purely at gaming performance at the expense of DP performance. It was never meant for compute as opposed to 7970. Like I said it performs extremely well for what it is, but it's performance lead over 7970 won't be felt in use it's just too diminutive. I'm talking about 2560, things are somewhat different at 1080p.I wouldn't use those " " marks there. GK104 is 20% smaller than Tahiti and uses 256-bit memory channel and is still able to beat HD7970..with smaller power comsumption as well.
So a card that is beating out a 550.00 card should be priced 400.00. That makes perfect sense.
Well, you do have about 1200.00 worth of GPU's in your sig there. Gonna be a while before a single GPU can come close to 6990+ 2X 6950's.
680 is faster and cheaper. Works for me
You have to take into consideration that GK104 is a midrange design and as such it was focused purely at gaming performance at the expense of DP performance. It was never meant for compute as opposed to 7970. Like I said it performs extremely well for what it is, but it's performance lead over 7970 won't be felt in use it's just too diminutive.
7950 beats gtx580 by a similar amount and nvidia fanboys say they are even and in practice they are right. Such small differences are academic. In real world they provide the same gaming experience.
Look at the 7970 @ 1ghz numbers. (Asus TOP)
Clock for clock, it's not faster.
Let's see some more reviews with OC numbers to get a feel, if 1.25ghz is the norm, its good.
Yeah..and now I have to go to work for 8h..and can't browse web! Darn..these first world problemsI love launch day. It's fun to read this stuff.
Yep, true. But the clincher is price. If as a lower manufacturing cost 256bit bus mid-range card, then NV could have AMDs balls in a vice with regards to pricing flexibility.You have to take into consideration that GK104 is a midrange design and as such it was focused purely at gaming performance at the expense of DP performance. It was never meant for compute as opposed to 7970. Like I said it performs extremely well for what it is, but it's performance lead over 7970 won't be felt in use it's just too diminutive. I'm talking about 2560, things are somewhat different at 1080p.
7950 beats gtx580 by a similar amount and nvidia fanboys say they are even and in practice they are right. Such small differences are academic. In real world they provide the same gaming experience.
Am I right to guess that no matter what the reviews say, you'll find some way to show that the GTX680 is clock for clock slower than a 7970? Fine. I don't think that'll change the benchmark perception too much.
Yeah..and now I have to go to work for 8h..and can't browse web! Darn..these first world problems
I find it really interesting that the front intake slit is extremely narrow; theres barely any width there at all. Most of the air must be getting pulled in around the cards PCIe connectors.
Am i to guess you don't give a crap about OC vs OC performance for an enthusiast GPU? I guess you don't pay >$500 for cards so you wouldn't care.
Wait, you get your GPUs for free.. why would you care about their overall value, hence OC vs OC is a non factor. meh.
We were talking about "flagships". First GTX 480 was Nvidia's flagship and then it was GTX 580. Increase between these two flagships were about 15-20%
About rebranding: Everyone knows that GK104 wasn't meant as high end GPUs and Nvidia rebranded their up coming cards.
1st, I think we'd all appreciate it if you didn't start slinging the "fanboy" slur around in this thread if you don't mind.
2nd. Show any of us where somebody states a GTX580 is even with a 7970.
If you mean that the framerates are so high already that nobody could tell the difference, then that may be true, but that's not what these long awaited benchmarks are for. I think you know that.