7800 specs leaked (and possibly prices)

[BallaTheFeared]

wtf are you talking about? open your eyes and see. the 7970 at 1100 core is on average about 40-45% faster than an overclocked 580.

My i5-2500k seems even more impressive now that I'm comparing it at 5.2GHz vs a 3.7GHz C2 955 black edition processor from last gen.

 

[toyota]

This just shows a clear lack of understanding simple supply and demand and how slow 28 nm production is right now.

I find it ironic when the people who accuse others of being fanboys are actually the ignorant ones.

I agree that production may not be all that great and that it plays a role. the main justification that people have defending the prices though is that it is faster than the gtx580 which I think is a bit silly. it also offers less performance per dollar than the card it replaces. those are the two main things that people are arguing about.

and if anyone is known for making accusatory comments its you. you say people have green tinted glasses or call them nvidiots when they disagree with you. the fact is nearly everyone here would complain if it was Nvidia in the same situation.

 

[railven]

And here we go with the classic editing of posts adding in whole new arguments...

A response to your edit:

Your view goes like this:

"I buy the best card available at the price I want to spend when I am ready. I wasn't ready to buy 15 months ago. I am ready to buy now. I see HD7950 is better than GTX580. HD7950 is awesome".

I don't recall saying HD 7950 is "awesome" in comparative to GTX 580, it is "awesome" in comparative to my HD 5870, and frankly so is GTX 580 - both are "awesome" compared to my HD 5870, and if I were going to buy in that price bracket I'd buy an HD 7950 since it's cheaper, has more RAM, runs cooler, and uses less power.

It's amazing that you are expending so much energy trying to prove my opinion and buying habits wrong. Haha. Yet you use no energy to prove my counter points wrong.

I get that you expected more, clearly it seems a lot of people did, but you aren't even attempting to say what the cards should have been priced possibly due to no reference outside of cards that currently exist. /shrugs.

 

[MrK6]

the main justification that people have defending the prices is that it is faster than the gtx580 which I think is a bit silly. it also offers less performance per dollar than the card it replaces. those are the main things that people are arguing about.

and if anyone is known for making accusatory comments its you. you say people have green tinted glasses or call them nvidiots when they disagree with you. the fact is nearly everyone here would complain if it was Nvidia in the same situation.

Nice work making it personal. I point out the hypocrisy seen in many posts. If you don't like it, well, most don't when they're under the spotlight .

 

[BallaTheFeared]

lol

 

[RussianSensation]

HD 7950 is reasonably price to me because it has more VRAM, is marginally faster (yes Toyota, I get with 4xAA it is 0% faster, I'm aware of that), and it has a lower price tag.

Ok, I'll try to make it as clear as possible. There are 3 ways to look at the price of HD7950.

View #1: Which is if I understand correctly is your view:

"Which is the best card to buy today at $450-500?"

HD7950 is the best card today at $450-500 = almost everyone agrees. Not a single person here disagrees with that assessment and hasn't since HD7950 launched. Based on GTX580's $450 price, HD7950 at $450 is reasonably priced today.

View #2: What a lot of us have been saying for the last 2 months since HD7950 launched to understand if its price makes sense in the historical context and in terms of technological innovation:

"How much faster should next generation be based on a node shrink + new architecture and in light of historical price/performance curve and Moore's Law and what we have seen in the last 10 years of generational leaps?"

= HD7950 doesn't live up to that expectation and therefore is not appropriately priced in this context.

Therefore, HD7950 is severely overpriced based on the technology curve, Moore'se Law and the assumption that technology gets cheaper for a given level of performance or much faster at a similar price level. This applies to tablets, smartphones, laptops, CPUs, RAM, SSDs, etc.

And there is actually a 3rd view which relates to lack of competition and 28nm supply constraints.

View #3: "In the absence of high-end competition from a competitor, and lack of 28nm capacity at TSMC, AMD can afford and should price their cards as high as the market will bare to offset their higher manufacturing costs at the beginning of the 28nm ramp-up and to maximize its profits for as long as possible."


Based on View #1 and #3, HD7900 pricing is 100% justified.
Based on View #2, HD7900 pricing is not justified.

When we are discussing why we think HD7950's price makes no sense, we are coming from View #2. And that's exactly why the discussion about GPU cycles vs. consumer readiness to buy came up.

When we discuss our viewpoint, it's not from the context of what "we expect" like a charity as many people here claim. It's 100% from a context that technology should get cheaper over time OR much much faster (for GPU generations that's about 40-50%, for smartphones that might be going from a single core to a dual core, etc. each market segment varies). HD7000 series as a whole fails to meet that historical criteria without resorting to required overclocking. Which means from a technology curve perspective, it's either too slow, or too overpriced.

What you aren't understanding is that it's not "OUR perspective" but how the world of technology works.

Does that clear things up now?

 

[SirPauly]

Some PR slides and performance numbers:


http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1336858882&postcount=34

 

[SirPauly]

Ok, I'll try to make it as clear as possible. There are 2 ways to look at the price of HD7950.

View #1: What you are talking about or trying to explain to reason the price of HD7950 is this:

"Which is the best card to buy today at $450-500?" HD7950 = everyone agrees. Not a single person here disagrees with that assessment ever has since HD7950 launched.

View #2: What a lot of us have been saying for the last 2 months since HD7950 launch to understand if its price makes sense in historical context:

"How much faster should next generation be based on a node shrink + new architecture and in light of historical price/performance curve and Moore's Law?" = HD7950 doesn't live up to that expectation and therefore is not appropriately priced in this context.

And there is actually a 3rd relating to lack of competition and 28nm supply constraints.

View #3: "Based on no competition, and lack of 28nm capacity at TSMC, AMD can afford and should price their cards as high as the market will bare to offset their higher manufacturing costs at the beginning of the 28nm ramp-up and to take advantage of the competitor not having a faster price at that given price point."


Based on View #1 and #3, HD7900 pricing is 100% justified.
Based on View #2, HD7900 pricing is not justified.

Does that clear things up now?

As I like to say, two sides of a coin! An objective person, to me, would try to evaluate both sides.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

Then it seems you have more gripes with nVidia than AMD. If they would deliver faster they can set their price and not gouge you. You'll still buy it, as you said - it's the superior product.

Go Premiums!

By your logic, we should see ever increasing prices for performance gains. This has not been true in the past.

The whole point of a new generation of cards is to improve upon the price : performance ratio. A failure to do that is a failure to progress. Stop defending premiums as if they are any good for the industry, they are not.

If the market acted like you think it does, gamers would not be able to upgrade every couple of years because the cards released at the same price as the previous generation would offer no increase in performance, and if you wanted more performance, you would have to pay exorbitant prices over the baseline price : performance ratio set by an old card.

 

[railven]

Ok, I'll try to make it as clear as possible. There are 2 ways to look at the price of HD7950.

View #1: What you are talking about or trying to explain to reason the price of HD7950 is this:

"Which is the best card to buy today at $450-500?" HD7950 = everyone agrees. Not a single person here disagrees with that assessment ever has since HD7950 launched.

View #2: What a lot of us have been saying for the last 2 months since HD7950 launch to understand if its price makes sense in historical context:

"How much faster should next generation be based on a node shrink + new architecture and in light of historical price/performance curve and Moore's Law?" = HD7950 doesn't live up to that expectation and therefore is not appropriately priced in this context.

And there is actually a 3rd relating to lack of competition and 28nm supply constraints.

View #3: "Based on no competition, and lack of 28nm capacity at TSMC, AMD can afford and should price their cards as high as the market will bare to offset their higher manufacturing costs at the beginning of the 28nm ramp-up and to take advantage of the competitor not having a faster price at that given price point."


Based on View #1 and #3, HD7900 pricing is 100% justified.
Based on View #2, HD7900 pricing is not justified.

Does that clear things up now?

Clear what up? I never once said I didn't understand why some people didn't like the pricing/product. What I've been posting against is people with view #2 claiming View #1 is wrong.

Someone can completely agree with view #2 and view #1 (believe it or not I do.)

Even if you think the card is priced wrong, trying to argue against #1 is pointless since your whole argument is based on basically nothing physical. You can reference events in the past all you want and keep chirping this "well 15 months ago this performance existed" all you want, that doesn't change what is available on the market today. People aren't going to build time machines to go back 15 months ago. If they are going to buy today, View #1 stands. If they are willing to wait, they can see what Kepler launches and test view #2 and wish for the best.

These stubborn mentalities people have are tiresome. Markets change - nothing is set in stone. I don't get why people expect certain things when clearly they've been shifting in different directions, and then when you factor in the issues in resources and over-all the weakening value of the dollar...I just don't even know what to say sometimes. You guys act so entitled some times it's mind blowing.

 

[Grooveriding]

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*

 

[railven]

By your logic, we should see ever increasing prices for performance gains. This has not been true in the past.

OMG this again!? Really? Really for the, what, billionth time again. OMFG I don't even know if I have the energy (or frankly interest) to even go down this rabbit hole again. Just do a search on my posts, you'll find me answer this inane counter-point multiple times.

The whole point of a new generation of cards is to improve upon the price : performance ratio. A failure to do that is a failure to progress. Stop defending premiums as if they are any good for the industry, they are not.

Holy crap!? I'm defending a product that in my opinion is worth the price it is asking. Do I wish it was cheaper? Of course. I also wish I didn't have to pay for gas. But, I don't start posting in forums that the price set by the manufacturer is "too high" when I look at the metrics. I only see "hey, it's $50 more than the competitor's card and beats it in every measurable metric. Not bad."

What do you see? ANd since we're going down this road - are you not bothered that a card held it's value for 13+ months? You know, if the GTX 580 actually had a price cut at some point in it's life span - we wouldn't be sitting here.

ANd if your counter to that is 'well it had no competition, so it didn't need one' thank you because you just made my point.

If the market acted like you think it does, gamers would not be able to upgrade every couple of years because the cards released at the same price as the previous generation would offer no increase in performance, and if you wanted more performance, you would have to pay exorbitant prices over the baseline price : performance ratio set by an old card.

How I think it does? Okay, this is how I think it does, and correct me where I'm wrong (and if you question me look at my posting history):

The market will sustain a product at a price point it tolerates. If the product has no competition it will set a price most likely above the closest competitor and ride it until A) the market rejects it and the price is adjust or B) the markets accept it and then we get into supply vs demand (ie the price make go up through gouging by vendors since the product is in high demand.) When competition is introduced into the market, the products will then compete for buyers and in turn will offer incentives ranging from free games to possibly price cuts and or rebates. People will flock to the product that offers the best over all incentives. The rival will counter with whatever means. Hopefully, we have price cuts but I don't mind rebates and free games (personally.)

Did I miss something? I'm the one who argues against the ideology you accuse me. It has never been supported. The markets respond through competition. We have none right now. NONE. Kepler is around the corner, it may change things - whether for good or bad is yet to be determined. But people whining now just mystify me. The markets did this nvidia setting the top tier price so high and the consumers for sustaining it and AMD is adding to it.

I just should just copy and paste my position from now. Sheesh.

 

[Smoblikat]

Why are people such dicks online? This thread, and EVERY other thread i have seen turns into a bunch of random assholes who think that they are right and everyone else is annoying for disagreeing. Why cant it just be about facts.

 

[Homeles]

*snip*

Obviously, reviews won't paint the 78xx as well, but that's pretty impressive.

 

[RussianSensation]

Even if you think the card is priced wrong, trying to argue against #1 is pointless since your whole argument is based on basically nothing physical.

Reiterating my previous point:

What you aren't understanding is that it's not "OUR perspective" but how the world of technology works.

You can reference events in the past all you want and keep chirping this "well 15 months ago this performance existed" all you want, that doesn't change what is available on the market today.

That's not how the world of technology works, unless you are Apple. Even even Apple delivers more for less over time. If you are OK with buying 15 months old performance at today's prices, you don't have expectations of technology improving over time and don't think consumers should either. You'd be great in marketing selling old products as "new" again. :thumbsup:

People aren't going to build time machines to go back 15 months ago. If they are going to buy today, View #1 stands.

Ya, it does stand, just don't expect most people to agree with View #1 because we follow technology. If you don't follow technological or in this case GPU cycles, you can go right ahead and make similar style purchases by getting an iPad 2 right now. Using your logic, iPad 2 is reasonably priced since it's the best tablet at the moment.

No one would argue something so trivial that any product's price today is reasonable because nothing else is better today. It's just stating the obvious. Think about what you are saying. That's why no one is arguing it or using it. In other words, no one here is interested in proving that GTX580 is a better buy than HD7950 today. Because it's obvious. But using that as the basis of an argument to say HD7950 is reasonably priced misses the whole point about how the world of technology actually works.

Markets change - nothing is set in stone. I don't get why people expect certain things when clearly they've been shifting in different directions, and then when you factor in the issues in resources and over-all the weakening value of the dollar...I just don't even know what to say sometimes. You guys act so entitled some times it's mind blowing.

Markets do change, and partly based on the perception of consumers and what consumers are willing to pay. And if you sit here and accept things the way you are doing right now, prices of GPUs will skyrocket to resemble that of prices of hi-fi headphone equipment. Guess what happened? Guys like you who were perfectly fine dropping $500 on mid-range headphones because they were "ready to buy" fundamentally changed the expectations of the market and thus the market itself. Suddenly what used to be $250 mid-range headphones became $500 headphones and what used to be high-end $650 headphones became $1000-1500 headphones when the new generation launched.

What you are so bent on defending is going against the fundamental principle of the world of technology: that things should get cheaper over time for a given level of performance OR much faster at a similar price.

But if you are happy with that, don't come back later when GPUs are $800 for high-end for $400-500 for mid-range.

Oh look you are happy paying $500 for what normally would be upper-midrange based on technology curve. Why not price the next high-end GPU at $800 and the next after at $1200, etc. Using your logic, technology would never get cheaper because every new part would be better than the part before it, and thus its pricing would always be 100% justified.

How are you not seeing how your way of thinking goes against the very principles of technological innovation?

 

[Grooveriding]

Obviously, reviews won't paint the 78xx as well, but that's pretty impressive.

No it is crap because it is going to be too expensive because nvidia sucks right now and is slower top to bottom and has not released my $300 7970 green edition, but it's coming mark my words, hurrrrrrrrr

Not directed at you, just the general rabbling of people wanting welfare prices on luxury items.

 

[tviceman]

I paid $500 for my HD 5870 in 2010.

You got royally ripped off.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

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*

lol marketing!

So from almost 50% faster at 1600 to .4 fps at 1080, serious gamers indeed.

AMD marketing is epic, cut down cards for $1000 screens. Durrrr.

Fail.

At least they comparing them to the 570 and 560ti (non 448)..

Maybe that means you'll be priced around $200 and $300.

 

[railven]

Ahh...another edit with another giant addendum. Really guy? Haha.

When we are discussing why we think HD7950's price makes no sense, we are coming from View #2. And that's exactly why the discussion about GPU cycles vs. consumer readiness to buy came up.

I get that, but view #2 shouldn't affect view #1. You can say "the card isn't what I expected considering the node shift and architecture change. I expected more" which still supports view #2, but view #1 is set by the competition of the card in the market TODAY. "this card should be better, it shouldn't cost less than (here is where view #2's application fails) a card that is equal in performance, has less VRAM, runs hotter, and is 15 months old." Don't you see how that application is flawed? So what card is next, the GTX 570? "It shouldn't cost more than a card that has less RAM, is slower, uses similar power, and is 15 months old." Again, another fail in application.

You never told me where you thought the card should be priced. I'm curious. It's only ~$80 more than the MSRP of the HD 6970. Should it have cost $380? Than the HD 7970 being a lot faster should have cost less than the GTX 580? Where?

When we discuss our viewpoint, it's not from the context of what "we expect" like a charity as many people here claim. It's 100% from a context that technology should get cheaper over time OR much much faster (for GPU generations that's about 40-50%, for smartphones that might be going from a single core to a dual core, etc. each market segment varies). HD7000 series as a whole fails to meet that historical criteria without resorting to required overclocking. Which means from a technology curve perspective, it's either too slow, or too overpriced.

It most certainly is what you expect. And your expectations are based on trends of the past. There is no flaw in that opinion. You trying to argue that it isn't based on what you expect is misleading.

Technologies change, there are other categories of technology that aren't seeing double gains also. In those threads I read interesting conversations about diminish returns, and where do go from here to continue Moore's Law. Here I read a tit-for-tat about how the card's aren't price right. Clearly something is up. Or Clearly AMD has the shittiest engineers. I can't even make an assumption yet because I don't know how nVidia is going to fare. They might be in a similar situation or, sailing high. When they release I can make a better judgement.

What you aren't understanding is that it's not "OUR perspective" but how the world of technology works.

Does that clear things up now?

? How the world of technology works? Really...gotcha. Someone should tell Intel their doing it wrong. Really, because it isn't my opinion - it is how the world of technology works.

Does that clear things up now?

 

[tviceman]

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*

PR slide decks are worthless when using competitor's products for comparison. It's a much more accurate picture when a company uses it's own past products to show improvements to it's new ones. In this case, I doubt AMD wants to show how pitcarin stacks up against an hd6970, hd6950, or probably even an hd6870. Hmmm I wonder why.

 

[Grooveriding]

lol marketing!

So from almost 50% faster at 1600 to slower at 1080, serious gamers indeed.

AMD marketing is epic, cut down cards for $1000 screens. Durrrr. Slower at the most popular "serious gamer" resolution.

Fail.

You need to learn how to read a graph. Here is a hint, don't just look at the pretty bars.

 

[railven]

You got royally ripped off.

MSRP for the HD 5870 2GB was $480, taxes and shipping covered the last $20. For the benefits the card brought to my setup, I think I got a decent product.

 

[Grooveriding]

=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee925OTFBCA

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You need to learn how to read a graph. Here is a hint, don't just look at the pretty bars.

I'm on a phone, I edited my post though because you're so mean to me.

 

[toyota]

Why are people such dicks online? This thread, and EVERY other thread i have seen turns into a bunch of random assholes who think that they are right and everyone else is annoying for disagreeing. Why cant it just be about facts.

um because people have opinions about those facts...