7800 specs leaked (and possibly prices)

[WMD]

BF3 1920 * 1080 4MSAA FXAA ultra-*7950 36.7fps*7870 35.9fps*GTX570 35.5fps*6970 32.5fps*7850 30.1fps*6950 28.6fps

*Crysis 2 1920 * 1080 AA ingame DX11 High Detail*7950 43.5fps*7870 39fps*GTX570 36.2fps*6970 33.1fps*7850 32.4fps*6950 29.9fps*

Wow amazing! 40% faster than 570. That's means better than 580 performance at $299.

Oh yes anyone complaining about price nowadays is pointless. You will be getting answers along the lines of:

poor yield/ supply demand
why should it be priced lower if it equals last years card
you want the best then pay more
its more overclockable and less power

In fact we should forget moores law ever existed because from now gpus will not follow that trend. The trend now is dictated by 'leess' law which means every new generation of gpu will be accompanied by massive price increase due to "supply and shortage". Once we accept leess law we can much better justify our purchases and companies like AMD can once again make money.

 

[Homeles]

Wow amazing! 40% faster than 570. That's means better than 580 performance at $299.

Oh yes anyone complaining about price nowadays is pointless. You will be getting answers along the lines of:

poor yield/ supply demand
why should it be priced lower if it equals years card
you want the best then pay more
its more overclockable and less power

In fact we should forget moores law ever existed because from now gpus will not follow that trend. The trend now is dictated by 'leess' law which means every new generation of gpu will be accompanied by massive price increase due to "supply and shortage". Once we accept leess law we can much better justify our purchases and companies like AMD can once again make money.

Or you could just wake up and stop ignoring the blatant fact that 40nm is dirt cheap compared to 28nm currently, when taking yields and production into consideration. It's amazing how many people just don't get that an ancient (40nm debuted in 2008) process is somehow supposed to be more expensive than a process in its infancy.

If AMD and Nvidia were stuck on 28nm for the next 4 years, you'd be bawling your head off when the brand new 20nm process is way more expensive than the ancient 28nm process. Except no one would blame it on TSMC - they'd point the finger at whichever company got their foot in the 20nm door first.

 

[WMD]

Or you could just wake up and stop ignoring the blatant fact that 40nm is dirt cheap compared to 28nm currently, when taking yields and production into consideration. It's amazing how many people just don't get that an ancient (40nm debuted in 2008) process is somehow supposed to be more expensive than a process in its infancy.

If AMD and Nvidia were stuck on 28nm for the next 4 years, you'd be bawling your head off when the brand new 20nm process is way more expensive than the ancient 28nm process. Except no one would blame it on TSMC - they'd point the finger at whichever company got their foot in the 20nm door first.

Why don't you wake up and realize you are in fact agreeing with my whole post. Why do you even have to make this pointless post in the first place? As if everyone don't already know a smaller process node is more expensive.

 

[toyota]

Or you could just wake up and stop ignoring the blatant fact that 40nm is dirt cheap compared to 28nm currently, when taking yields and production into consideration. It's amazing how many people just don't get that an ancient (40nm debuted in 2008) process is somehow supposed to be more expensive than a process in its infancy.

If AMD and Nvidia were stuck on 28nm for the next 4 years, you'd be bawling your head off when the brand new 20nm process is way more expensive than the ancient 28nm process. Except no one would blame it on TSMC - they'd point the finger at whichever company got their foot in the 20nm door first.

what? the first card to come out at 40nm was the 4770 and that was in April 2009 NOT 2008. the 4770 was also cheap at 110 bucks but still offered great performance matching the $130 4850 while using way less power. 55nm was around much longer and the transition to 40nm was not a pricey one at all as cards offered way more performance per dollar at 40nm than they did at 55nm.

 

[Homeles]

what? the first card to come out at 40nm was the 4770 and that was in April 2009 NOT 2008. the 4770 was also cheap at 110 bucks but still offered great performance matching the $130 4850 while using way less power. 55nm was around much longer and the transition to 40nm was not a pricey one at all as cards offered way more performance per dollar at 40nm than they did at 55nm.

Where did I say that 40nm based graphics cards debuted in 2008? I said the process came out in 2008... there's a very big difference. Also, 55nm came out in 2007.

Why don't you wake up and realize you are in fact agreeing with my whole post. Why do you even have to make this pointless post in the first place? As if everyone don't already know a smaller process node is more expensive.

The tone of your post suggests the opposite. Also, apparently there are plenty of people who don't know, as everyone seems to think it's solely AMD's fault for the high pricing (and they apparently have some duty to the world to sell everything at a loss).

 

[ViRGE]

Locking this for now; infractions will be going out later tonight and you know who you are. Count on at least one person getting a long vacation.

-ViRGE