[techpowerup] Radeon HD 7970 FOB Price Cut to $475

[MrTeal]

I agree. It's shot sideways at a angle for a reason. Facts we know. AMD is releasing the card with stock clocks of 925mhz.

Or it's shot sideways at an angle because it's a camera phone taking a picture when one isn't supposed to be taken.

Given that AMD has come out and said that Tahiti XT is a full die, I don't think it's very likely that document is correct at this time. Now, that doesn't mean that AMD doesn't have another refresh in the pipe with more shaders. They were late with SI, but they would be crazy to not be planning a tweaked refresh for Nov/Early Dec 2012 to get in on the holiday season and possibly compete for the top with Kepler.

 

[Quantos]

I agree. It's shot sideways at a angle for a reason. Facts we know. AMD is releasing the card with stock clocks of 925mhz.

True, true, I totally agree that it's only talk for the moment. However, we do know a bit more than that the card is good at 925MHz. We also know that the card is overclockable to 1125MHz without voltage tweak. At that frequency, the cooler is keeping the card cool, but is quite loud. This in itself confirms that at least the card is a good overclocker without voltage tweak (190MHz is decent at the very least).

Granted, that doesn't mean anything other than that. However, we do know for a fact that cards can be overclocked beyond default voltage, and nothing suggests that it would be different with the 7970. Thus, to me, until confirmed otherwise, the 7970 does OC beyond 1125MHz with voltage tweak. Also, with a custom cooler, it's reasonable to think it can be done while keeping the card cool and silent.

Now, as I said above, there's something else that suggests the card OCs well beyond 1125MHz, and that's the fact that the card was OCed to 1700MHz on LN2. Yes, the cooling method isn't valid, but the voltage is. It's a fact that if properly cooled, the card has the possibility to OC to 1700MHz on the voltage side. Keep in mind that was a reference card too. Add again a custom PCB/cooler to that, and you're probably going to end up with a card going at least over 1125, and probably well over that.

So, yes, it's nothing certain for the moment, but there seems to be strong evidence pointing towards the 7970 being an OC monster.

 

[bryanW1995]

You're just completely missing the point.

First of all, the GTX 580 is a product based on an architecture that is almost 2 YEARS OLD. It wasn't a good value when it released in Nov 2010, and it's even worse of a value today. The GTX 480 on the other hand was a good value in March 2010, because for $499 you got performance that is still near the top almost 2 years later. Same thing with the 5870 in Sept 2009... now that was a good investment.

The 7970, being barely faster than a Fermi card that is almost 2 years old architecture, doesn't give any indication of being able to stay on top for 2 years (actually it may be just a few months before it gets obliterated), hence it's a bad investment. Of course it may overclock by 30% like some claims, but this is all garbage until you see it with your own eyes that it overclocks and it's actually stable.

Wasn't 5870 considered a minor bust/slow when it first launched b/c it was "enough faster" than gtx 285? And now, 2 1/2 yrs later, it's looking like one of the all-time high end bargains. As a comparison, 5870 was ~ 10% slower than 4870x2, while 7970 is only ~ 15-20% slower than 6990 (which is much more competitive vs nvidia than 4870x2 was btw). But as nvidia took longer and longer to respond, and we met the wood screws, and then we saw how loud/hot/slow/etc gtx 480 was, 5870 started to look better and better. And then the refresh parts for both camps were iterative rather than revolutionary. And now the "next big thing" on 28nm is late coming out and not fast enough again.

I think that we need to adjust our expectations, we were spoiled for a long time by huge improvements every single year, now I think we're on a 2 + yr cycle for that same amount of improvement. Is 7970 going to be a great card or a flop? We won't know until we meet Kepler, and even then it will largely depend upon how soon the refresh parts come out from both camps.

 

[Quantos]

Wasn't 5870 considered a minor bust/slow when it first launched b/c it was "enough faster" than gtx 285? And now, 2 1/2 yrs later, it's looking like one of the all-time high end bargains. As a comparison, 5870 was ~ 10% slower than 4870x2, while 7970 is only ~ 15-20% slower than 6990 (which is much more competitive vs nvidia than 4870x2 was btw). But as nvidia took longer and longer to respond, and we met the wood screws, and then we saw how loud/hot/slow/etc gtx 480 was, 5870 started to look better and better. And then the refresh parts for both camps were iterative rather than revolutionary. And now the "next big thing" on 28nm is late coming out and not fast enough again.

I think that we need to adjust our expectations, we were spoiled for a long time by huge improvements every single year, now I think we're on a 2 + yr cycle for that same amount of improvement. Is 7970 going to be a great card or a flop? We won't know until we meet Kepler, and even then it will largely depend upon how soon the refresh parts come out from both camps.

To be fair, the 480 wasn't slow. It was fast, but not efficient and too hot.

Now, there's nothing either suggesting that Kepler will be slow. So far, it does seem like the same thing occurs, with the 7970 replacing the 5870 as the new generation card that has the playground for itself for a while, but there's nothing suggesting that Nvidia will not have learned from its mistake to release a card seemingly too soon. Hopefully, Kepler will be an iteration of 28nm closer to what the 580 is in terms of 40nm. Thus, Nvidia's 28nm would skip the inefficient and seemingly not ready part that the 480 was. If that is the case, that should be a good card(s).

 

[Grooveriding]

Wasn't 5870 considered a minor bust/slow when it first launched b/c it was "enough faster" than gtx 285? And now, 2 1/2 yrs later, it's looking like one of the all-time high end bargains. As a comparison, 5870 was ~ 10% slower than 4870x2, while 7970 is only ~ 15-20% slower than 6990 (which is much more competitive vs nvidia than 4870x2 was btw). But as nvidia took longer and longer to respond, and we met the wood screws, and then we saw how loud/hot/slow/etc gtx 480 was, 5870 started to look better and better. And then the refresh parts for both camps were iterative rather than revolutionary. And now the "next big thing" on 28nm is late coming out and not fast enough again.

I think that we need to adjust our expectations, we were spoiled for a long time by huge improvements every single year, now I think we're on a 2 + yr cycle for that same amount of improvement. Is 7970 going to be a great card or a flop? We won't know until we meet Kepler, and even then it will largely depend upon how soon the refresh parts come out from both camps.

This. We're not getting another 9800PRO / 8800GTX again, unless something drastically changes in the way these cards are being made and the direction AMD/Nvidia are taking their cards.

This should be self evident after what you have seen from 90 to 65, 55 to 40 and now 40 to 28.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

5870's scaled poorly into DX11, even my 470s will mop the floor with them in many newer DX11 titles.

Which is why my thought process is to wait and see, but then I don't need more fps currently and I never put stock in technology "future proofing".

There is no question the 7970 had big gains over the 6970, but this isn't a single company race.

 

[SirPauly]

One of the all time high end bargains?

 

[JAG87]

Especially if you don't have a 120hz monitor...

Please, don't back up his stupid fan boy argument. It's about as valid as saying, who cares is a cpu finished 10 seconds faster, it's just 10 seconds. Or who cares if my SSD loads faster, it's just 1 second.

1) We don't know what the margin with Kepler is.

2) Just because you can't see the benefit of 70 fps over 60 fps, doesn't mean no one cares. There are plenty of cases today even with just a 60Hz monitors to reap the benefits of more performance, just learn to actually max out your IQ settings. If a card gets 70 "reviewer" fps instead of 60, it matters to me. It's more leeway for me to increase IQ without dropping below 60.

This. We're not getting another 9800PRO / 8800GTX again, unless something drastically changes in the way these cards are being made and the direction AMD/Nvidia are taking their cards.

This should be self evident after what you have seen from 90 to 65, 55 to 40 and now 40 to 28.

You did see that perf/watt of Kepler is a bit more than 2x of Fermi right? That's a good indication of what's coming. Same perf, half the power, or twice perf, same power. Take your pick, if NV meets their expectations, either one will make the 7970 look bad.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

More performance is always welcomed. The tolerance levels and subjective levels may differ from individuals but considering the enhancements and features offered today -- some may always use more raw performance to raise the bar for gamers' gaming experiences and over-all immersion.

 

[SirPauly]

We're not getting another 9800PRO / 8800GTX again, unless something drastically changes in the way these cards are being made and the direction AMD/Nvidia are taking their cards.

I don't know about that.

 

[superjim]

I've updated my GPU every 2 years for the past 12 years always going with the best-bang-for-the-buck towards the performance end ($200-$300). I splurged ($380) on the 5870 and regretted it for a few weeks. Fast forward nearly 2.5 years (as bryan points out) it was a good buy and is still giving the higher-end 6950 (and in some cases the 6970) a run. The 5870 has close-enough performance to both 69xx cards for them not to be a worthwhile upgrade. Can anybody see 4-10fps increase in games assuming min frame rate is always above 30fps? I know the science behind fps is nowhere near exact but for gaming on a 60hz LCD we would want at least 30fps.

As I pointed out in another thread, I don't think the 7870 will be much faster than the 6970 stock for stock, at least until drivers mature but even then it won't be a big increase. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[SirPauly]

I think the best over-all performance/value chips are the G-92 and G-92b, Cypress and Juniper, R-700 based HD 4870/4850.

Years and years of strong performance/value and hopefully still continues with competition banging heads. All of sudden this should change? Why? Because gamers were spoiled? Because AMD has an execution advantage?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Please, don't back up his stupid fan boy argument. It's about as valid as saying, who cares is a cpu finished 10 seconds faster, it's just 10 seconds. Or who cares if my SSD loads faster, it's just 1 second.

1) We don't know what the margin with Kepler is.

2) Just because you can't see the benefit of 70 fps over 60 fps, doesn't mean no one cares. There are plenty of cases today even with just a 60Hz monitors to reap the benefits of more performance, just learn to actually max out your IQ settings. If a card gets 70 "reviewer" fps instead of 60, it matters to me. It's more leeway for me to increase IQ without dropping below 60.

You did see that perf/watt of Kepler is a bit more than 2x of Fermi right? That's a good indication of what's coming. Same perf, half the power, or twice perf, same power. Take your pick, if NV meets their expectations, either one will make the 7970 look bad.

The thing is, you can actually notice 10 seconds on a CPU, or an SSD vs. a HD. You can turn any post into a personal attack to try and prove a point.

The fact remains that the 7970 and gtx780 are in the realm of diminishing returns as long as we are stuck on the dx9 console generation. I use my GPU for gaming only so that's all I care about, and the 7970 will have gaming power to spare for the next 2-3 years unless someone releases actual PC games in the future and hardware gets pushed again. So if me saying that I will buy a 7970 early because kepler won't be here for another 6 months and that the card has all the horsepower I need for the long haul makes me a "stupid fanboy" then yes. COLOR ME RED!!! GO AMD!!!! NVIDIA SUCKZORZ!!!

The faster I buy a card the more value it will give me long term. Same thing applied to my 5870. After 2 years it owes me nothing, and I don't truly need to upgrade because it under performs. I'm upgrading because I've got Amazon gift cards burning a hole in my pocket and I see this shiny new toy and I want it.

 

[Grooveriding]

Please, don't back up his stupid fan boy argument. It's about as valid as saying, who cares is a cpu finished 10 seconds faster, it's just 10 seconds. Or who cares if my SSD loads faster, it's just 1 second.

1) We don't know what the margin with Kepler is.

2) Just because you can't see the benefit of 70 fps over 60 fps, doesn't mean no one cares. There are plenty of cases today even with just a 60Hz monitors to reap the benefits of more performance, just learn to actually max out your IQ settings. If a card gets 70 "reviewer" fps instead of 60, it matters to me. It's more leeway for me to increase IQ without dropping below 60.




You did see that perf/watt of Kepler is a bit more than 2x of Fermi right? That's a good indication of what's coming. Same perf, half the power, or twice perf, same power. Take your pick, if NV meets their expectations, either one will make the 7970 look bad.

Really man, you're posting nvidia PR slides and this is what you're basing your performance expectations on ? Also you know this is related to GPGPU, not gaming ?

You're setting yourself up for a mighty big disappointment 6 months from now when the 680 drops. What did you think of the 480 ? I mean it was 10-20% faster than a 5870 and six months later ? In the context of GPUs improving over time, it was not any better than the 5870, as it came six months down the road.

I only own them because where AMD dropped the ball was releasing the 5870 with only 1GB of VRAM, and the achilles heel of the 5XXX series was poor CF scaling. The actual performance on its own for the wait was a joke, not to mention the thermals. Those mistreads of AMD are over now with the 7970 having 3GB of VRAM and Crossfire scales better than SLI now. Once the 1300core 7970s are out, I'll be buying two of those, not waiting on endless announcements of announcements for a marginal increase.

You're putting the saying 'once bitten, twice shy' to the test with your optimism. Hope it pans out for you.

 

[ArchAngel777]

You did see that perf/watt of Kepler is a bit more than 2x of Fermi right? That's a good indication of what's coming. Same perf, half the power, or twice perf, same power. Take your pick, if NV meets their expectations, either one will make the 7970 look bad.

Roadmaps are fun to look at. But in many cases are very far from accurate when the product is actually released. Unless nVidia makes some massive changes to their architecture, I personally think it would be predictable. They will likely attempt do what they have done since G80. Add more cores with the same basic configuration. So, if they move from 512 to 768, we can predict probably 35-50% performance increase. Can they fit 1024 cores with the 28nm die shrink? Maybe, but if it were that simple, why has this not been done? AMD designed a new architecture AND beat nVidia to 28nm. Yet you make it sound so simple for them just to double everything from the die shrink alone.

Time will tell.

 

[tincart]

You did see that perf/watt of Kepler is a bit more than 2x of Fermi right? That's a good indication of what's coming. Same perf, half the power, or twice perf, same power. Take your pick, if NV meets their expectations, either one will make the 7970 look bad.

Double Precision performance per watt.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

There are several games out where with enough IQ it can bring a single 7970 to it's knees.

Just because they bench it at certain settings doesn't mean that's what people play at, nor does it mean we all run vanilla Skyrim.

But it seems we come from different worlds a single 5870 even at 1080p wouldn't do it for me.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

There are several games out where with enough IQ it can bring a single 7970 to it's knees.

Just because they bench it at certain settings doesn't mean that's what people play at, nor does it mean we all run vanilla Skyrim.

But it seems we come from different worlds a single 5870 even at 1080p wouldn't do it for me.

There are several games that are used as benchmarks that are notoriously sluggish pieces of crap that will never run good on any hardware. GTA4, Metro 2033, and Crysis ring a bell. Fast Forward to more modern DX11 titles and you have games that look better and have 3x the frame rates.

You can't use broken games to state that the 7970 runs out of juice in benchmarks.

 

[SirPauly]

Sure, and when you add abilities like multi-monitor or Stereo3d, maybe even two cards to their knees. The great thing about raw performance is one may have less sacrifices and don't have to settle for "good enough!"

 

[blackened23]

There are several games out where with enough IQ it can bring a single 7970 to it's knees.

Just because they bench it at certain settings doesn't mean that's what people play at, nor does it mean we all run vanilla Skyrim.

But it seems we come from different worlds a single 5870 even at 1080p wouldn't do it for me.

I never have and still don't understand why people are so obsessively loyal to certain brands and feel the need to be apologists for them nonstop.

Not you in partciular, but we've seen this here with the argument over the 7970 price, when it is in fact cheaper than the GTX 580 3gb. Personally I will go with whatever company offers the most performance, I don't care about value. I don't care if its amd or nv. It just so happens that the 7970 has much better value than the 580 and performs much better when overclocked, so I will likely get aftermarket cooled 7970s in a month or so (preferably asus or MSI lightning)

 

[Arkadrel]

Double Precision performance per watt.

Yes Nvidia has big deal of the pie for GPGPU market, it makes alot of money there.

AMD makes a card that does GPGPU (much better than their 69xx cards, and better than the 580)
, and Intel has Knights Corner, whats Nvidia to do?

same thing... make a card much much more GPGPU focused than before.

Thats one of the reasons, I dont expect the 680 to be masivily faster than the 7970. I think this card will have alot of focus dedicated to GPGPU with good performance/watt at GPGPU, not nessarly for gameing.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

There are several games that are used as benchmarks that are notoriously sluggish pieces of crap that will never run good on any hardware. GTA4, Metro 2033, and Crysis ring a bell. Fast Forward to more modern DX11 titles and you have games that look better and have 3x the frame rates.

You can't use broken games to state that the 7970 runs out of juice in benchmarks.

I get almost 80 fps avg in Crysis 1 w/o AA, still get 60+ with 16xQ and many would argue it looks better than a lot of modern titles.

Metro 2033 runs fine without DoF, metro is one of the few titles where cpu doesn't matter.

Never played GTA4, but most complaints are about cpu bottlenecking.

My my you do love nvidia. I never have and still don't understand why people are so obsessively loyal to certain brands and feel the need to be apologists for them nonstop. So much so that they will argue the stupid, such as 7970 price when it is in fact cheaper than the GTX 580 3gb.

I do love performance per dollar, I think the 580 was an awful card in that respect. I have no loyalty to either camp, only to my pocket book and what I see on the screen. Using the overpriced for it's performance 580 and speaking of 3gb as if it matters to the average "enthusiast" doesn't lend you any credit in my book.

 

[SirPauly]

There are several games that are used as benchmarks that are notoriously sluggish pieces of crap that will never run good on any hardware. GTA4, Metro 2033, and Crysis ring a bell. Fast Forward to more modern DX11 titles and you have games that look better and have 3x the frame rates.

You can't use broken games to state that the 7970 runs out of juice in benchmarks.

What the heck? Of course the 7970 may run not offer enough raw performance for potential enthusiasts with the settings or experience they may desire and may go CrossFire x2, x3 or x4. That is why its awesome to have multi-GPU choice and great scaling, too.

 

[blackened23]

I do love performance per dollar, I think the 580 was an awful card in that respect. I have no loyalty to either camp, only to my pocket book and what I see on the screen. Using the overpriced for it's performance 580 and speaking of 3gb as if it matters to the average "enthusiast" doesn't lend you any credit in my book.

Well I can't argue with that. High end GPUs are almost without exception horrible values.

 

[Arkadrel]

@BallaTheFeared

a Single 7970, at 1920x1200 resolution, enthusiast quality, 4xAA ect.
Does around 50.3 fps.

With overclocking, its possible to play at those settings over 60 fps avg, with a single 7970.

You realise that even a 590, cannot do more than 64 fps at those settings?
Thats like haveing 2 x 580 in SLI.

Only ~21% faster than a 580 in this game/settings (only ~29% faster than hte 6970).

This game obviously still needs some driver work, for this card, because in other newer titles, the 7970 is more like 40% faster than the 6970.

However look at the 590? only 64 fps, a 7970 overclocked will get really close to that result, and its a single card, so no mirco stuttering.