A few months... you mean an undetermined time of months before an undetermined product will launch that will have undetermined performance?
Months where they have a supply that will be sold at almost any price... so why again would they launch a product with a lower price thus competing with their other products and at the same time have shortages. Seems foolish... as we see now, they sell every card they make with an additional 150$ profit compared to your pricepoint.
What?
How does that make any sense? We could extrapolate on that, you know. The 7970 should have been released at 150$ because in 4 years there'll be a card that performs similarly at that price point!
Compare the 7970's price with current products and see that its price makes total sense.
Lol, it's amazing how you look at this 100% from a company perspective, and 0% from a consumer perspective. Do you work for AMD? Maybe you have stock options?
Yes I do compare, and I am seeing that two 6870 1GB cards match it's performance at 1920x resolution for $200 less. And two 6950 2GB cards in crossfire comfortably beat a 7970 at 2560x resolution for $100 less. Name one thing this card brings to the table that is worth recommending over two 6950s 2GB. This is not new gen performance, this is 2 year old gen performance with a new box and a new price. 5870 +50% performance + 50% price. What a great deal! Next year with the 8970 are we gonna get another +50% performance and +50% price?
We don't, which is likely more evidence that this rumor is false, but then again not unbelievable as a part like that if released to day would be more than justifiable @ $400. And again, does not detract from GK104 not being GK100.But if you are looking on things historically where do you see the $400 mid-range part ?
Nope, just establishing that GK104 is a step below GK100, in retrospect "mid-range" has been used too loosely. Wherever pricing, performance, and of course price/performance shakes out remains to be seenBut again 'mid-range' you think a mid-range card will be $400 ?
Again, GK104 is a step below GK100. If GK104 is fast enough to justify as a "sub-high end" card per your standards with a $400 model, is that really such a bad thing? All that really implies is that GK100 will be super high end.At $400 we are talking the sub-high end card again going on your historical ruleset. 470/570 class, in which case it is a disappointment and not 'doom and gloom'
GK104 is not a card, its a GPU. Its not the flagship GPU, GK100 is, and whether or not it ends up in a card priced in range to be described as "midrange" per your standards remains to be seen. If nVidia can compete with AMD's flagship with the non flagship GK104, why couldn't they price it to match what AMD has established?See above. $400 is not a mid-range price. See 7970/7950 @ $550/$450. These are not mid-range cards, they are flagship/sub-flagship cards. Mid-range cards are $200-$300.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be a "mid-range" card in any traditional sense if it was priced @ $400, but the original root of this particular discussion is that relative to GK100, GK104 is "mid-range", and for the sake of the argument if this is all true (which seems extremely unlikely) it would in turn mean very expensive GK100 cards.Again discussing this, likely false rumour, at $400 we are not looking at a mid-range card.
I will now prove how utterly ridiculous your argument is:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/167?vs=158
I am seeing that two GTX 285 cards match GTX 480 performance at 1920x resolution for 300$ less. And two of these cards in SLI comfortably beat a GTX 480 at 2560x resolution for over 300$ less. Name one thing the Fermi brings to the table worth recommending over 2 GTX 285's in SLI, this is not next gen performance.
Seeing as the GTX 580 is 10% faster than the GTX 480, we can extraplate from these figures and determine that the GTX 285 SLI is the clear winner in value. Why would *anyone* get a GTX 580?
Again, GK104 is a step below GK100. If GK104 is fast enough to justify as a "sub-high end" card per your standards with $400 model is that really such a bad thing? All that really implies is that GK100 will be super high end.
And if you still consider it a disappointment then I take it you must feel the 7970 @ $550 is a massive disappointment per your established standard?
Do you post drunk or something? How was GTX 285 SLI $300 cheaper than a single GTX 480? Point 1
And point 2, what does it bring to the table? Umm, how about DX11? Lol what a fail comparison you made.
I don't recall where but NV did say that they are releasing from the bottom up. So any theoretical performance kepler (GK100) will not be released until Q3 2012.
That was not an official NVIDIA release, again you taking rumors as facts/official releases.
Japanese site 4Gamer.net reports that the entry-level GK107 card could be the first model of Nvidia's new 28 nm GPU series and arrive with a 128-bit memory interface as well as GDDR5 memory.
Nvidia declined to confirm the information published by 4Gamer.net.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-BFG-GeF...o_TV_Cards&hash=item23186f41eb#ht_2277wt_1139
How about 460 SLI to GTX 580? The comparisons go on and on. Stupid comparison is stupid.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/314?vs=305
Why would anyone get a GTX 580 when you can get 2 used 460s in SLI for hundreds less? Or if you don't play DX11 games, you can grab 285s off ebay for ~50$. The point is clear. GTX 580 is *not* a next gen card. (i'm not being serious on that point, just pointing out how stupid your comparison is)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...nc.-_-14133428
GTX 460 new: 129.99. So you can get 2 of those and match a GTX 580 performance wise. Again, stupid argument is stupid.
I will now prove how utterly ridiculous your argument is:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/167?vs=158
I am seeing that two GTX 285 cards greatly exceeding GTX 480 performance at 1920x resolution for 300$ less. And two of these cards in SLI comfortably beat a GTX 480 at 2560x resolution for over 300$ less. Name one thing the Fermi brings to the table worth recommending over 2 GTX 285's in SLI, this is not next gen performance. This year we will get kepler for +50% performance +50% price. What a great deal!
Seeing as the GTX 580 is 10% faster than the GTX 480, we can extraplate from these figures and determine that the GTX 285 SLI is the clear winner in value. Why would *anyone* get a GTX 580? I bought a GTX 285 off ebay for 50 bucks, so we have a clear winner in the GPU field folks. GTX 285.
If this rumor is true, I'm a little perplex by this move, why put out something just 15% more than the previous gen? Kinda waste of time, should just R&D some more and put it out when it's faster. And typically NV makes a huge jump in each new line compare to previous gen. I somehow think it will be more like 50% faster than 580.
JAG87 said:Oh and thanks for further proving my point that a GTX 480 ($499) offered GTX 285 SLI ($800) performance for $300 cheaper.
Something that Tahiti as a new architecture, fails to do.
Unless you need CUDA or are totally unwilling to go AMD, you could get a 1.5 GB 7950 for 399$ when it releases. It should be slightly (~5% better then a GTX 580 with a lot lower TDP.
Oh and thanks for further proving my point that a GTX 480 ($499) offered GTX 285 SLI ($800) performance for $300 cheaper.
Something that Tahiti as a new architecture, fails to do.
This is all speculation, but it could easily turn out that GK100 is a single product -the 680 to give it a name and the GK104 it the next card down; the 670 to give it a name. It would fit with the $400 price and would not bode well for the overall performance of the lineup.
In the context of what nvidia has out now it would be a disappointment. I expect to see nvidia gain about 40% over the 580 in their 28nm flagship. If this rumour were true I would take a $400 card to be their second best card in their lineup, making their best card not much better than it.
Actually looking on it again, in that context it may not be all bad. If their best gpu is 40% better than the 580, I can see the second best being 20% better.
No, because I'm comparing LAUNCH PRICES, while you are making idiotic current value comparisons. And I've already stated that the GTX 580 was a bad value, which is why you don't see any in my computer. The 480 was a good value for the price at launch. The 580 is a bad value for the price 8 months later.
Dude go take some economics classes.
499$The 480 was a good value for the price at launch
499$The 580 is a bad value for the price 8 months later.
However, some people would still choose the single GPU option, even at 70$ differnce, to not have CF issues ect.
Name one thing this card brings to the table that is worth recommending over two 6950s 2GB.
very much this
there are also those who simply demand performance that no single GPU was capable of delivering or even two budget GPUs
I kind of fit into both as I gave up SLI GTX470s for a single GTX580 during my BFBC2 days as I simply didn't care for SLI and its drawbacks and a 580 was certainly more than fast enough, but then BF3 came out and destroyed my single 580 and I begrudgingly went back to SLI by adding a second 580, and I still don't get frame rates I'm completely happy with for my most GPU intensive games (ie BF3, Skyrim, Crysis, etc)
this is why I'm torn on the 7970; its not fast enough for me to know I'd be happy with just one, and I'm not too eager to plop down $1100+ for a pair when the goal is to try and ditch multi GPU, particularly when at the end of the day I still need an nVidia rig for CUDA support. I'll probably end up grabbing a single 7970 anyway, particularly once we start seeing some good aftermarket coolers (would prefer at least a triple slot model, as I really would only run just 1 card and thus would need the card most conducive to overclocking on air) and running two rigs if I have to.