AMD to Launch GPU Codenamed Hawaii in Hawaii Sept 25

[ruhtraeel]

Have AMD said anything?

I think most of the hype is made from a few rumor-sites on the web.

I'm thinking that AMD is going to have trouble bringing anything out that will do a knockout of GK110, and I am thinking the fans are reading to much into rumors about performance. Unless they are able to do a crazy 20nm stunt that no one believes in.

What AMD is doing with prices on the 7xxx series shows that they are going to bring a better, and that is always welcome.

In terms of performance, I would say that it might not completely overshadow GK110. However, I think pricing would be where AMD would do the knocking out; after all, if there was Titan performance for $500, people would jump on that pretty fast I think.

lol? No one [sane] is excited over AMD cpus, terrible analogy, But their GPUs have been pretty good for awhile. I'm glad to hear a solid date for their announcement and chiphell leaks are pretty solid for the most part.

I agree that the difference in PR/excitement between AMD CPU's and AMD GPU's is pretty different, but I would disagree that Chiphell leaks are solid.

They already messed up their last two predictions IIRC, one saying that it would have 4096 stream processors, taken from a "leaked" slide some guy actually posted on SemiAccurate in 2012, and one saying that "Curacao XT" would be released at Computex/E3 and that it would have 2304 stream processors and cost $649.

 

[RussianSensation]

Here.

Not sure what I am supposed to extract from that. You said in all my posts on the forum I throw price into the equation. You, along with others here, seem to have a problem with me stating a hypothetical scenario of HD9970 offering near Titan like performance for nearly half the price would be good for the market. You also do not agree that this would be good for the market of GPUs?

I find it amusing that all of a sudden we should all start to want to spend $1,000 on flagship GPUs. What a ludicrous notion. In every single GPU generation there is always a waiting period until some faster card comes out that warrants an upgrade and it usually requires a new node. Complaining that there is no upgrade card from $1000 Titan from AMD is like complaining there there is nothing to upgrade from during 6800U vs. X850XT or from X1950XTX vs. 7900GTX. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that the next real upgrade for a Titan owner is going to be a 20nm GPU.

This is just a blatant attempt to downplay the fact that the Titan has been overpriced and now we are starting to get traction with 7990 dropping to $660 and GTX780 after-market cards outperforming it for $650.

You also keep ignoring that the same people downplaying the idea of Titan's performance at $550 are the ones who non-stop complained about HD7970's supposed poor price/performance vs. 580 and then kept bringing up the fact that NV beat 7970 with 680 for $50 (!) less. Only butthurt Titan owners would be upset if AMD launched a $550 9970 with Titan performance 10 months later.

Lots of butthurt here today. It's sad people can't be excited for what looks to be a nice product for the gpu market, instead we have the same 2 or 3 nvidia tools crapping on whatever they can.

First they complain that NV was able to raise prices due to lack of flagship competition from AMD. Now they complain about the notion that AMD could drop 9970 @ $550 with Titan like performance (we don't know that but just discussing it). You can't reason with them. If NV doubled the price of Maxwell to $2,000, they'd still be lining up. Next thing they'll be claiming AMD is "desperate" which is why they keep undercutting NV. Typical.

 

[blackened23]

All I have to say is - AMD's Dave Bauman stated on rage3d that they learned many lessons from 7970s launch. If anyone remembers correctly, it launched with pathetic drivers which were not WHQL certified, and later driver releases increased performance by 20% or more. And then there was the crossfire thing, which didn't bother me although I did have to go through hoops (I used 7970s for a few months) with framerate limiters for acceptable performance.

If AMD did indeed learn hard lessons from 7970s launch, I remain very optimistic about the R9xxx series. I hope it brings the pain to nvidia - if it is anywhere in the realm of Titan's performance, we all have a lot to be happy about. The competition will be great, especially with AMD getting it together in terms of drivers. If R9xxx launches with great release drivers, acceptable crossfire performance, and good performance overall it will be a great thing for all of us - regardless of which brand anyone prefers.

 

[sontin]

Lol, what?
Titan costs $999 because AMD did not show up to the fight. Really, how many times do we need to say it to you?

Now AMD will release something and maybe it will bring down the prices of the GTX780s and Titans.

Or let it say me in your way:
Titan's $999 price tag is really awesome because AMD waited 8 months with their new cards.

BTW: The 7970 cost even $549 after nVidia released the GTX680 for $499. But i guess the 7970 was never overpriced and AMD never allowed nVidia to put their cards one step up on the price ladder.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I would love for AMD to go back to big die. This is the time to do it as well: the current process tech is mature and relatively cheap, they have a well established and flexible arch, their performance targets are all laid out for them.

Their small die strategy was never that great even when they weren't focused on compute and were ahead of NV from a perf/mm^2 perspective, but that really isn't the case anymore. Besides, all their small die strategy really accomplished were cheap NV cards as people still didn't buy their cards en mass.

NV has opened the door to pricing Halo products in the stratosphere and it would be great for AMD to make a little money now and again.

 

[PPB]

They also learnt that you can't be too conservative with launch clocks (even if it is to promote your yields). Even tho they came early to the 28nm game, they still got bashed by reviewers once the 680 was out, even if the 7970 were actually able to hit some mad overclocks, just because the stock tests and NV's turbo. For the (tragically flawed) enthusiast's logic, it is better to come late but with clocks pushed almost to the max vs your competition, even if once overclocked, your product tails your competition.

The turbo thing, voltage locking and stock high clocks are the reason I recommend NV to people who just want to plug and play. However, if you want to push your card to it's limit and have fun tweaking, I don't hesitate in recommending AMD 79xx-.

EDIT: To sontin. AMD also didn't show up to the fight against 580 with their 6970, still we didn't see NV price the 580 at 1k. Gotta love fundamentalists.

 

[sontin]

nVidia lost market share at that time. And they needed to recreate a better image for their Geforce brand after the GTX470 and GTX480.

With Titan they were in another sphere. And without competition i guess they tried to get the most out of it without "destroying" the new price scheme of their cards.

 

[RussianSensation]

Lol, what?
Titan costs $999 because AMD did not show up to the fight. Really, how many times do we need to say it to you?

And what's your point exactly? You can already buy a $690 NV card that whips the Titan. That's the point of the GPU industry that cards get faster and/or cheaper over time. How many times must this be repeated? You can't accept that $550 for Titan like performance 10 months later is good for the market? Ok then move along and wait another X months before $1000 20nm GPU drops. Let the rest of the market enjoy an improved price/performance curve.

Now AMD will release something and maybe it will bring down the prices of the GTX780s and Titans.

Or let it say me in your way:
Titan's $999 price tag is really awesome because AMD waited 8 months with their new cards.

Yup, like HD4890 vs. 280 for $390 less 9 months later, or GTX680 vs. 7970 for less $. You seem to have a problem with that when AMD and NV trade blows and try to one up each other on price/performance? Smart $ bought after-market 780s over Titans to begin with regardless of what AMD did or didn't do. :whiste:

BTW: The 7970 cost even $549 after nVidia released the GTX680 for $499. But i guess the 7970 was never overpriced and AMD never allowed nVidia to put their cards one step up on the price ladder.

Revisionist history I see. Almost everyone on our forums universally agreed that 7970 was overpriced at launch. Nice try. One key reason why many of us jumped on 7970s despite 680 being slightly faster is because with bitcoin mining 7970 became free and made many times over its MSRP for future GPU upgrades. I don't know where you have been for the last 1.5 years but obviously not reading the forums.

Funny how you compare 7970 @ $550 vs. 680 @ $500 to HD9970 @ $550 vs. $1000 Titan. In 7970's case too once it was overclocked, an overclocked 680 couldn't really beat it, other than 5000 units of GTX680 Lightnings.

It's a lot better to admit you got ripped off by the Titan's price but hey you could afford it rather than try to fight the price/performance curve of the GPU industry. I paid a lot more $ for the 7970 than it costs now but I don't sit there downplay awesome values like GTX760 or 7950 V2. In your case you can't seem to accept the fact that Titan was already a waste of $ compared to something like a Galaxy GTX780 HOF. The more you defend Titan's price and downplay a competitor's future card that may offer similar performance for far less, the more biased you look to the rest of the forum. It would be a lot more respectful to say you are an early adopter and you can afford a $1,000 card but you welcome this level of performance being brought to lower price levels so that the rest of the market can enjoy it. Instead you continue to whine especially if the card in question is NV's competitor.

If Titan's price didn't bother you, why are you so upset that 9970 may be priced at $550? It shouldn't bother you at all since the next logical upgrade for the Titan is a 20nm GPU anyway and since you could easily afford a $1000 GPU, the resale value of the Titan shouldn't affect you either. So what is it that bothers you so much?

 

[ruhtraeel]

Revisionist history I see. Almost everyone on our forums universally agreed that 7970 was overpriced at launch. Nice try. One key reason why many of us jumped on 7970s despite 680 being slightly faster is because with bitcoin mining 7970 became free and made many times over its MSRP for future GPU upgrades. I don't know where you have been for the last 1.5 years but obviously not reading the forums.

Funny how you compare 7970 @ $550 vs. 680 @ $500 to HD9970 @ $550 vs. $1000 Titan. In 7970's case too once it was overclocked, an overclocked 680 couldn't really beat it, other than 5000 units of GTX680 Lightnings.

It's a lot better to admit you got ripped off by the Titan's price but hey you could afford it rather than try to fight the price/performance curve of the GPU industry. I paid a lot more $ for the 7970 than it costs now but I am mad enough to admit that. In your case you can't seem to accept the fact that Titan was already a waste of $ compared to something like a Galaxy GTX780 HOF. The more you defend Titan's price and downplay a competitor's card that may offer similar performance for far less, the more biased you look to the rest of the forum. It would be a lot more respectful to say you are an early adopter and you can afford a $1,000 card but you welcome this level of performance being brought to lower price levels so the rest of the market can enjoy it. Instead you continue to whine especially if the card in question is NV's competitor.

After you put it that way, I'm sort of hesitant to buy the 9970 if it's like $500. Yes I can afford it, but I think the most I would want to spend is around $350-$450.

I think I'm losing track of how pricing has gone recently. I actually caught myself thinking that $500 for the top end GPU is a good deal just because the GTX 780 costs $650.

I want the 9970 to be close to the Titan and cost $450 with an excellent aftermarket cooler like the DirectCU II or the IceQ. Radeon 5870-like pricing at launch.

 

[blackened23]

High end prices have inflated because of intel's iGPU eating into low-end dGPU and mobile sales. Prior to HDxxxx, nvidia/AMD received 100% of mobile sales - not so anymore. Anyway, if R9xxx does indeed nip at the heels of Titan i'd expect the price to be 500$ or higher. Low end sales were the largest portion of dGPU sales in prior years, so with that being gone, it leaves less R+D funds available - and that inflates the price of high end offerings. It sucks, but it's how things are now.

That being said, as nvidia has done, AMD will offer a complete array of SKUs to cover every price point and performance point as they did with the 7000 series. So if 500$ is too much i'm sure they'll have a slightly lower SKU with an acceptable price, and it will probably overclock to much higher performance anyway.....

 

[sontin]

And what's your point exactly? You can already buy a $690 NV card that whips the Titan. That's the point of the GPU industry that cards get faster and/or cheaper over time. How many times must this be repeated? You can't accept that $550 for Titan like performance 10 months later is good for the market? Ok then move along and wait another X months before $1000 20nm GPU drops. Let the rest of the market enjoy an improved price/performance curve.

Titan is a Halo product. Comparing it with another cards makes no sense.

The rest of the market "enjoys the improced price/performance curve"... WTH? I enjoy Titan since end of February. That is impressive. And other people enjoy their GTX760 price/performance curve sind nearly two months.

But really, lol.

Yup, like HD4890 vs. 280 for $390 less 9 months later, or GTX680 vs. 7970 for less $. You seem to have a problem with that when AMD and NV trade blows and try to one up each other on price/performance? Smart $ bought after-market 780s over Titans to begin with regardless of what AMD did or didn't do. :whiste:

I dont get it. "Trade blows"? Have i missed the counter part of Titan?! :hmm:

Revisionist history I see. Almost everyone on our forums universally agreed that 7970 was overpriced at launch. Nice try. One key reason why many of us jumped on 7970s despite 680 being slightly faster is because with bitcoin mining 7970 became free and made many times over its MSRP for future GPU upgrades. I don't know where you have been for the last 1.5 years but obviously not reading the forums.

Yeah, wow. Bitcoining. Looking for straws? Try harder.

Funny how you compare 7970 @ $550 vs. 680 @ $500 to HD9970 @ $550 vs. $1000 Titan. In 7970's case too once it was overclocked, an overclocked 680 couldn't really beat it, other than 5000 units of GTX680 Lightnings.

And the next try. Now we using OC. :awe:

It's a lot better to admit you got ripped off by the Titan's price but hey you could afford it rather than try to fight the price/performance curve of the GPU industry. I paid a lot more $ for the 7970 than it costs now but I don't sit there downplay awesome values like GTX760 or 7950 V2.

I really dont get it. What has a price/performance curve of products which have a counter part to do with Titan?

In your case you can't seem to accept the fact that Titan was already a waste of $ compared to something like a Galaxy GTX780 HOF. The more you defend Titan's price and downplay a competitor's future card that may offer similar performance for far less, the more biased you look to the rest of the forum. It would be a lot more respectful to say you are an early adopter and you can afford a $1,000 card but you welcome this level of performance being brought to lower price levels so that the rest of the market can enjoy it. Instead you continue to whine especially if the card in question is NV's competitor.

Cool story bro. BTW: You still use another nVidia card to downplay Titan. That is hilarious because a GTX780 is overpriced, too. :awe:

If Titan's price didn't bother you, why are you so upset that 9970 may be priced at $550? It shouldn't bother you at all since the next logical upgrade for the Titan is a 20nm GPU anyway and since you could easily afford a $1000 GPU, the resale value of the Titan shouldn't affect you either. So what is it that bothers you so much?

I'm not upset. Would i care i had not bought Titan.
The question is: What is your problem with Titan's price? :hmm:

 

[ruhtraeel]

Ok can we just not care about who bought a Titan and stuff? Let's just agree that there's a decent chance that the AMD card coming soon will possibly have Titan-like performance for a lot less money.

Stop laughing at people who bought a Titan and trying to convince them that it was a horrible purchase, etc etc. It doesn't matter.

 

[raghu78]

Anyway, if R9xxx does indeed nip at the heels of Titan i'd expect the price to be 500$ or higher. Low end sales were the largest portion of dGPU sales in prior years, so with that being gone, it leaves less R+D funds available - and that inflates the price of high end offerings. It sucks, but it's how things are now.

That being said, as nvidia has done, AMD will offer a complete array of SKUs to cover every price point and performance point as they did with the 7000 series. So if 500$ is too much i'm sure they'll have a slightly lower SKU with an acceptable price, and it will probably overclock to much higher performance anyway.....

If HD 9970 performs better than GTX 780 and on par with Titan don't expect anything less than USD 600. AMD is going to bundle BF4 to increase value. AMD are definitely not going to throw away profit margins when it can easily get a good price for its products.

 

[ruhtraeel]

If HD 9970 performs better than GTX 780 and on par with Titan don't expect anything less than USD 600. AMD is going to bundle BF4 to increase value. AMD are definitely going to not throw away margins when it can easily get a good price for its products.

If that was the case, I don't think the 7990 dropping to $650 would make much sense.

I still think it will be around $500.
If not, I'm getting a 7970 for $300.

 

[Elfear]

If that was the case, I don't think the 7990 dropping to $650 would make much sense.

I still think it will be around $500.
If not, I'm getting a 7970 for $300.

If the 9970 is $500, I'll bet performance is closer to a stock 780 than a Titan. 15% more performance for 25% more money over the GE.

I'd love to be wrong and have it be 4870 2.0, but recent pricing trends would indicate otherwise.

 

[Jacky60]

You seem to live in a world where price is irrelevant. Your post implied that your Titan is near supposed Hawaii's performance which is just a tad faster. Ya, so what? You seem to have forgotten the other side of the coin - price. I said what if it costs nearly half of your Titan? You seem to have a serious problem understanding that people consider it a major improvement in the GPU landscape if a certain level of performance becomes available for a substantially lower price. For instance GTX760 for $250 delivering 95% of the performance of a 670/7970 is good for the GPU market. There is no point in talking about performance without looking at the price unless you are made of $. Most people who are buying GPUs for next gen games aren't going to be spending $650+ on a GPU. If more PC gamers start buying faster and faster GPUs, game developers will have more incentive to invest into next generation engines and introduce more advanced graphical effects. This is the result of a given level of GPU performance becoming accessible at lower price levels. So in 2016 we would hope the Titan's level of performance could be had in a $299 14nm Volta card. This is the very foundation of the entire GPU industry - price/performance must improve over time.



Ok and if someone posted a score of 7000 points and then told you that HD9970 card costs $10,000, you'd care? Price/performance improvements is what drives the GPU market. Without it the GPU industry would be wiped out. If tomorrow AMD released a card 20% faster than the Titan but priced it at $1,500, almost no one would care. 99.5% of the market cares about the price for a given level of performance. Discussing performance without price makes no sense unless you get GPUs for free or are loaded. I bet 99.5% of this forum would rather take a $549 card with Titan's performance than a card that costs $1000+ and is faster than the Titan.



So if someone released a card with Titan's performance for $549 that would be boring to you? Price is a major factor in the GPU landscape. Otherwise GPU makers could just release faster card and keep raising prices. Let me guess you'd rather have a $1,500 card that's 25% faster than the Titan rather than a $549 card with Titan's performance? I guess if $549 vs. $999 is the "same" to you, then sure it's boring.

Sensational rebuttal as per usual. Good Job Sir!

 

[DooKey]

I'll really be surprised if AMD drops the 9970 for $549. If they do and it has near Titan performance people will eat it up and AMD will sell a ton of them.

From a technical perspective it's boring as hell if it is only as fast as a Titan and has less Vram.

Anyway, I hope it sells for $549 and has near or greater than Titan performance. Time to make NV adjust some pricing.

 

[CakeMonster]

Considering its been 19 months since 7970 release, Titan performance at $549 (or less) is not exactly an unreasonable expectation. Or rather, it may be now, but historically it wouldn't be.

 

[stahlhart]

Thread closed while I get this out of control mess sorted out. And since another one on the same subject has already started in its place, will leave it that way.
-- stahlhart