Current GPU Pricing

[3DVagabond]

Just looked on Newegg and was quite surprised at the way pricing is going on the HD 7900's and the GTX 670/680.

There's now plenty of stock on 680's. They are averaging $550 though. The most shocking to me are the 680 Lightning at $600 while the 7970 lightning is $530, and the Asus 680 DCII at $530 with the 7970 DCII at $430(AR). On the other extreme is the MSI TF 7950 for $320(AR). None of the 670's or 680's are below their release prices. The Cheapest 670 is still $400.

I'm surprised people are willing to pay that much more for the nVidia cards. Judging by the amount of people buying and recommending them on these boards I guess they are still considered competitively priced. Am I the only one that thinks at these prices the 670's and 680's are overpriced relative to the 7900's?

 

[BrightCandle]

Having used both cards (7970's and 680's) I can tell you AMD cards are overpriced and that NVidia cards are more expensive than I would like, but nevertheless worth their additional cost compared to the competition.

You don't have to search long for my posts to understand why I think that. Suffice to say AMD's cards are pretty rubbish on the working scale and I value "it works" enough to pay the extra for NVidia's cards.

 

[3DVagabond]

Having used both cards (7970's and 680's) I can tell you AMD cards are overpriced and that NVidia cards are more expensive than I would like, but nevertheless worth their additional cost compared to the competition.

You don't have to search long for my posts to understand why I think that. Suffice to say AMD's cards are pretty rubbish on the working scale and I value "it works" enough to pay the extra for NVidia's cards.

That's a pretty strong opinion to say that AMD cards are rubbish. Especially since there are no objective numbers to back that up. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I just think that the majority of people's opinions would be far more moderate than yours.

 

[Axon]

Having used both cards (7970's and 680's) I can tell you AMD cards are overpriced and that NVidia cards are more expensive than I would like, but nevertheless worth their additional cost compared to the competition.

You don't have to search long for my posts to understand why I think that. Suffice to say AMD's cards are pretty rubbish on the working scale and I value "it works" enough to pay the extra for NVidia's cards.

That's quite extreme. The 79xx line is by no means a bad set of GPUs. They are not as good as the 680, but they're certainly not bulldozer 2.0. Don't get infected by the whole "if it's not 'the best' it's complete crap" attitude that is prevalent in enthusiast circles.

 

[Homeles]

Having used both cards (7970's and 680's) I can tell you AMD cards are overpriced and that NVidia cards are more expensive than I would like, but nevertheless worth their additional cost compared to the competition.

You don't have to search long for my posts to understand why I think that. Suffice to say AMD's cards are pretty rubbish on the working scale and I value "it works" enough to pay the extra for NVidia's cards.

Well you can thank your glorious leader, Jen-Hsun Huang, for those high prices. Nvidia's complete failure to launch competitive products in the midrange has led to severely bloated prices.

 

[YBS1]

That's a pretty strong opinion to say that AMD cards are rubbish. Especially since there are no objective numbers to back that up. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I just think that the majority of people's opinions would be far more moderate than yours.

I agree with him, but it has nothing to do with the hardware. I personally think both camps have overpriced this generation but IMO that all started with AMD being overly proud of their under performing 7970 and pricing it at $550 to start with, enabling nVidia to price (what many speculate was initially intended to be their mid-range cards) their 6xx series quite high as well. As to the price difference between the two camps, it's very telling that nVidia set suggested retail well below AMD's, yet here we are a couple of months later and actual market correction has occurred. So apparently the market does think those price differences are in line. A year ago I wouldn't agree, but now I absolutely would pay ~$100 more on the high end for the nVidia card rather than suffer through AMD's software assuming the hardware is roughly equivalent.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well you can thank your glorious leader, Jen-Hsun Huang, for those high prices. Nvidia's complete failure to launch competitive products in the midrange has led to severely bloated prices.

In all fairness we don't know if that's the reason. I think it's low yields for Kepler personally. When they were priced competitively they were constantly sold out. They've raised prices and they are now in stock. I'm surprised though that AMD, or the AIB's, have found it necessary to drop pricing as much as they have to sell their product. $320 for a 7950 TFII in the current market is shocking, IMO. At least relative to nVidia pricing. An O/C'd 7950 will run with a stock 680. Albeit, while using a lot more power when pushed that hard. Also consider that nVidia has nothing competitive at those prices.

 

[Homeles]

In all fairness we don't know if that's the reason. I think it's low yields for Kepler personally. When they were priced competitively they were constantly sold out. They've raised prices and they are now in stock.

AMD has 5 (really, 6 with the GE not in stock yet) out of their 7 SKUs with no current generation competition. It's pretty damn obvious that it's the reason.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD has 5 (really, 6 with the GE not in stock yet) out of their 7 SKUs with no current generation competition. It's pretty damn obvious that it's the reason.

I don't see how that equates to the big pricing disparage between Tahiti and the GK104 cards.

 

[Homeles]

I don't see how that equates to the big pricing disparage between Tahiti and the GK104 cards.

You don't see how bloated pricing on the 7750, 7770, 7850, 7870 and 7950 due to the lack of a direct competitor isn't affecting the "high end" cards as well?

 

[3DVagabond]

You don't see how bloated pricing on the 7750, 7770, 7850, 7870 and 7950 due to the lack of a direct competitor isn't affecting the "high end" cards as well?

I'm not talking about overall pricing being high. Why is it $100 more for a 680 over a 7970? Strictly looking at the numbers the 680 isn't worth it, except looking at efficiency. To offset that the 7970 has more VRAM and better compute performance. I don't understand how nVidia not making a midrange SKU would effect that.

 

[Homeles]

I'm not talking about overall pricing being high.

You are, but you don't realize it.

Why is it $100 more for a 680 over a 7970? Strictly looking at the numbers the 680 isn't worth it, except looking at efficiency. To offset that the 7970 has more VRAM and better compute performance. I don't understand how nVidia not making a midrange SKU would effect that.

They've got similar performance per dollar:

Spoiler

Back to my first comment -- when the low end and midrange GPUs have bloated pricing, the high end isn't going to suddenly be priced fairly. The reason the 680 costs so much more over the 7970 is because the 7970 is priced high as is (due to everything else below it being overpriced), so the 680 is priced in line with the 7970.

 

[Silverforce11]

Wow, 320 for a custom 7950?? Dang if only they were so cheap here.. I would grab one right away and clock it to 1.2ghz for the lols.

 

[Ventanni]

The price of the 680 has remained consistent since it's debut. It's the 7970 that has dropped in price due to lower demand.

I don't understand how nVidia not making a midrange SKU would effect that.

It affects it all the way down the line. If Nvidia is late to release a midrange line, it's safe to assume that they're having trouble with the manufacturing process across the board (which they are). High end parts, despite being bigger and more complex chips, are produced in quantities significantly lower than lowend/midrange chips are. That also means that the chips that they do have on the market are priced higher than they could be, since there are fewer of them, and the overhead to make them is likely higher as well. AMD on the other hand isn't having as many issues with the 28nm process like Nvidia is.

All of it really just boils back down to the fact that Nvidia doesn't have the handle on the 28nm node like they could/should, which makes it too expensive to release a midrange product in sufficient quantity to compete. If Nvidia had a full range of products like AMD has, it would force a price war across the board.

 

[3DVagabond]

You are, but you don't realize it.

They've got similar performance per dollar:

Spoiler

Back to my first comment -- when the low end and midrange GPUs have bloated pricing, the high end isn't going to suddenly be priced fairly. The reason the 680 costs so much more over the 7970 is because the 7970 is priced high as is (due to everything else below it being overpriced), so the 680 is priced in line with the 7970.

No I'm not talking about the same thing. I completely realize what I'm talking about. Also did you check the prices in the review that were used when compiling that chart. The difference in price between the 7970 and the 680 is $50 not $100, and the difference between the 7950 and 670 is only $20. The price gap I've listed is far greater than that.

Edit: W1zzard is also still on Cat 12.3's for the 7950/70 benches. They would be a bit faster overall with newer drivers. (He did use 12.7's for the 7970GE, of course)

 

[Homeles]

No I'm not talking about the same thing. I completely realize what I'm talking about. Also did you check the prices in the review that were used when compiling that chart. The difference in price between the 7970 and the 680 is $50 not $100, and the difference between the 7950 and 670 is only $20. The price gap I've listed is far greater than that.

You're looking at non reference, factory overclocked cards. The 680 is selling for $500. Also, the difference between the 670 and 7950 is much larger... it's $60.

 

[Smoblikat]

The price of the 680 has remained consistent since it's debut. It's the 7970 that has dropped in price due to lower demand.



It affects it all the way down the line. If Nvidia is late to release a midrange line, it's safe to assume that they're having trouble with the manufacturing process across the board (which they are). High end parts, despite being bigger and more complex chips, are produced in quantities significantly lower than lowend/midrange chips are. That also means that the chips that they do have on the market are priced higher than they could be, since there are fewer of them, and the overhead to make them is likely higher as well. AMD on the other hand isn't having as many issues with the 28nm process like Nvidia is.

All of it really just boils back down to the fact that Nvidia doesn't have the handle on the 28nm node like they could/should, which makes it too expensive to release a midrange product in sufficient quantity to compete. If Nvidia had a full range of products like AMD has, it would force a price war across the board.

Seeing as their current cards WERE their midrange line, im sure it will take a while before they can dumb it down even more to fill the new need for slow cards.

 

[Homeles]

Seeing as their current cards WERE their midrange line, im sure it will take a while before they can dumb it down even more to fill the new need for slow cards.

Not 4 months. This is just ridiculous. AMD launched 3 chips in 3 months. Nvidia launched 2 over the course of 3 months, with one of those chips still not available at retail and is also completely uncompetitive (GK107).

 

[3DVagabond]

You're looking at non reference, factory overclocked cards. The 680 is selling for $500. Also, the difference between the 670 and 7950 is much larger... it's $60.

Yes, I know what I'm looking at. I'm comparing custom cards from both companies. They're the cards most people are likely to buy. If you look at the price chart at the beginning of the article the 670 is listed at $400 and the 7950 is listed at $380. That's $20.

 

[Homeles]

Yes, I know what I'm looking at. I'm comparing custom cards from both companies. They're the cards most people are likely to buy. If you look at the price chart at the beginning of the article the 670 is listed at $400 and the 7950 is listed at $380. That's $20.

And according to this one, it's $40. Newegg has a couple models available for $60 less.

 

[tornadog]

I think the AMDs are very competitively priced. Now if only their drivers were not absolute sh*te and they actually worked with devs on the games that mattered, they may actually have sold a fair bit. Nvidia's pricing is a bit high, but in this market, I wouldnt blame any company for pricing according to demand, if they can turn a good profit.

 

[ocre]

No I'm not talking about the same thing. I completely realize what I'm talking about. Also did you check the prices in the review that were used when compiling that chart. The difference in price between the 7970 and the 680 is $50 not $100, and the difference between the 7950 and 670 is only $20. The price gap I've listed is far greater than that.

Edit: W1zzard is also still on Cat 12.3's for the 7950/70 benches. They would be a bit faster overall with newer drivers. (He did use 12.7's for the 7970GE, of course)

yea, i think people are really missing the topic completely.

So back on it i think maybe we need to look at this from a greater distance to see the whole picture. The fact that the 680 is priced higher than the 7970 by a bit comes as no surprise to me. I see nothing out of the ordinary. If we look back to past generations everything is falling in line. The 580 vs 6970, gtx 480 vs 5970, and on and so forth.

When we look at the past generations i dont see any mystery what so ever. Everything seems to be falling exactly in place actually. The 580 was faster than the 6970 but was it worth the premium they sold for? The same thing before that generation and before......

Was the 580 worth the premium over the 6790? Considering the performance difference some might not think so. But, now we get to the meat. Performance isnt everything, its obviously important but not everything. People look at other things too, like the brand and its presence. Nvidia has the stronger name, they have for some time. The name means something. It means a lot. In cloths, cars, and watches just about in everything humans purchase the brand name is considered. It may not always be the final say in the matter, but it often has a huge say in it.

AMD has spent generations hammering in that they are the value brand. The budget brand. Sadly this is a common view for them, but they created it. This will not go away just like that. Its effect will be long lasting, just look at how long the ATI/AMD drivers suck has lasted. It may never die. Once people have an impression, it can be next to impossible to change. Their identity is what it is, and partly they are responsible for it.

Nvidia has the stronger brand name and they have a larger user base. Their flagship can sell for a higher price just on name alone even if the performance is equal. With the name people feel like they are getting a better product. And to them it is better. Nvidia strives to give this image. They work to create this. They want to deliver this. Nvidia does a lot to try to uphold this position. A lot that gets noticed by their user base.

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, nvidia has a better brand recognition. This is something that doesnt come over night, its pretty embedded and will stick for awhile. Humans are strange at times, but this is fundamental to our social nature.

 

[Jaydip]

Well said Ocre.

 

[YBS1]

yea, i think people are really missing the topic completely.

So back on it i think maybe we need to look at this from a greater distance to see the whole picture. The fact that the 680 is priced higher than the 7970 by a bit comes as no surprise to me. I see nothing out of the ordinary. If we look back to past generations everything is falling in line. The 580 vs 6970, gtx 480 vs 5970, and on and so forth.

When we look at the past generations i dont see any mystery what so ever. Everything seems to be falling exactly in place actually. The 580 was faster than the 6970 but was it worth the premium they sold for? The same thing before that generation and before......

Was the 580 worth the premium over the 6790? Considering the performance difference some might not think so. But, now we get to the meat. Performance isnt everything, its obviously important but not everything. People look at other things too, like the brand and its presence. Nvidia has the stronger name, they have for some time. The name means something. It means a lot. In cloths, cars, and watches just about in everything humans purchase the brand name is considered. It may not always be the final say in the matter, but it often has a huge say in it.

AMD has spent generations hammering in that they are the value brand. The budget brand. Sadly this is a common view for them, but they created it. This will not go away just like that. Its effect will be long lasting, just look at how long the ATI/AMD drivers suck has lasted. It may never die. Once people have an impression, it can be next to impossible to change. Their identity is what it is, and partly they are responsible for it.

Nvidia has the stronger brand name and they have a larger user base. Their flagship can sell for a higher price just on name alone even if the performance is equal. With the name people feel like they are getting a better product. And to them it is better. Nvidia strives to give this image. They work to create this. They want to deliver this. Nvidia does a lot to try to uphold this position. A lot that gets noticed by their user base.

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, nvidia has a better brand recognition. This is something that doesnt come over night, its pretty embedded and will stick for awhile. Humans are strange at times, but this is fundamental to our social nature.

Excellent post, particularly the part about AMD. I've leaned heavily toward ATI/AMD cards for quite some time. I never had horrible driver issues, both vendors will have a screw up here and there and as long as they sort it out in a reasonable time frame most customers will be happy. That started changing for me about a year ago and after getting fed up with it I switched to nVidia about four months ago. Now I'm one of those "AMD drivers suck" guys, I know logically (historically) they aren't that bad, but over the past year they were bad enough, for long enough that it cost them a customer. A customer that won't be back until/unless it happens on the other side of the fence. Because of that, they may make flawless drivers from Catalyst 12.7 on through the next five years, but I may not know because I probably won't be using them because in the back of my head "AMD drivers suck". Companies bury themselves doing this.

 

[RussianSensation]

The fact that the 680 is priced higher than the 7970 by a bit comes as no surprise to me. I see nothing out of the ordinary. If we look back to past generations everything is falling in line. The 580 vs 6970, gtx 480 vs 5970, and on and so forth.

I disagree. I find myself in agreement with the OP.

Most after market HD7950s were going for $460-490 when GTX680 launched and were still $350-390 when GTX670 launched, while HD7970 was going for $550-590 depending on the version. With current pricing, AMD's lineup actually looks good.

It's not at all like last 2-3 generations (GTX280 vs. 4870, GTX285 vs. HD4890, GTX480 vs. HD5870 or GTX580 vs. HD6970). This time it's literally impossible to claim that GTX680 is the faster card overall. In fact, HD7970 overclocked to 1.2ghz+ with Cats 12.4 or newer would beat any voltage locked overclocked GTX680 in the majority of games.

The comparison of GTX680 vs. HD7970 as it relates to GTX580 vs. HD6970 is not even remotely close. It's beyond laughable or simply ignorant to the benchmarks.

GTX580 smashed HD6970 in pretty much every game that had Tessellation in it or where deferred MSAA was used. Where GTX580 was leading, it was dramatic:

1920x1080/1200

- Civilization 5
GTX580 = 72.9 (+61%) vs. HD6970 = 45.4)
GTX680 = 81.7 vs. HD7970 = 80.3 vs. HD7970 GE = 87.2

- Crysis 2
(GTX580 = 47.3 (+43%) vs. HD6970 = 33.1)
GTX680 = 65.9 vs. HD7970 = 62.2 vs. HD7970 GE = 69.0

- Battlefield 3 4xMSAA
GTX580 = 51.7 (+25%) vs. HD6970 = 41.3
GTX680 = 71.8 vs. HD7970 = 64.4 vs. HD7970 GE = 72.3

During the original launch of HD7970, it took about a 1050-1070mhz HD7970 to catch up to GTX680 but with 3-4 months of driver releases, game patches, HD7970 1050mhz is winning against the 680 in all the games where GTX580 annihilated the 6970. The margin is very small but AMD is now from at least as fast to faster.

Sometimes it's important to revisit reviews since launch to see if the situation has changed.

Recently Xbitlabs pitted a GTX680 overclocked to 1212 (1290 GPU boost) / 7168 memory vs. HD7970 1165mhz/7160 memory and GTX680 couldn't win.

That means anyone with an HD7970 at 1.2ghz+ has a faster card than any voltage locked GTX670 or GTX680 for the majority of games. Considering most HD7970s are going for $450 now, that puts GTX680 in an overpriced position right away, but frankly factory preoverclocked 670s already did that

Tally up the reviews at TPU, Xbitlabs, Computerbase, etc. and the situation has changed dramatically since AMD is very close in BF3 and is winning in SKYRIM and all Dirt games:

HD7970 GE edition wins in these games:

- BulletStorm
- Serious Sam 3
- Metro 2033
- Crysis 1/Warhead
- Aliens vs. Predator
- Anno 2070
- Dirt 3
- Dirt Showdown
- Civilization 5
- STALKER: COP
- SKYRIM
- ArmA series games
- Alan Wake

GTX680 and HD7970 GE are very close in these games (trade blows depending on the resolution):
- Shogun 2
- Crysis 2
- Batman AC
- Dragon Age II
- Deus Ex: HR

GTX680 clearly wins:
- Hard Reset
- Blizzard games with MSAA (Starcraft 2, WOW)
- Lost Planet 2
- HAWX 2
- Just Cause 2
- TrackMania 2

And actually in more recent games, HD7970 is winning (Dirt Showdown, Ghost Recon Future Soldier):

Really, since Battlefield 3, GTX680 hasn't won decisively in any recent game. In fairness to NV, the performance in Dirt Showdown is probably a driver issue that will be resolved. They fixed the performance in Shogun 2.

Here is the thing, most HD7970s with after market coolers have dropped to $430-465 and some of them can overclock to > 1.165ghz. They also come with a free game voucher that can be sold for $20-30. By extension that means no factory locked GTX670 can possibly beat an overclocked HD7970. GTX670 hovers at $400 though but it is now visibly slower.

If you look at GTX680s that go for $500-510, those are reference versions. There is no chance in the world that a reference GTX680 overclocked to 1290mhz on the GPU can hold a candle in noise levels or temperatures to an overclocked after market HD7970.

So we are looking at $525 for the cheapest quiet GTX680.

I've been recommending GTX680 when it launched at $499 because most reference HD7970's hovered for $550 at that time while non-reference HD7970 were going for $570-590.

AMD paid the price by launching a $550-600 HD7970 with drivers that were poor at the beginning (BSOD, black screens when GPU was unable to come out of sleep, etc.). They also took about 3-4 weeks to drop prices after GTX680/670 launched. As a result, NV's duo looked a lot better for at least 2-3 weeks in US/Canada and became ingrained in the mind of new buyers as the faster and cheaper alternatives. It made 670/680 cards a no brainer. After that point, some of HD7970's reputation was permanently damaged, not to mention gamers had to pay more $ and endure higher power consumption vs. the 680/670. Now NV has the momentum and that's why the prices on the 7950/7970 are dropping.

6 months after HD7970 launched, prices have fallen, drivers have improved and chips have matured that you can now undervolt an HD7970 and achieve better overclocks. A lot of MSI Lightning HD7970 owners are hitting 1.25-1.3ghz while 2-3 months ago most reviewers barely got 1.175-1.2ghz on those cards.

Things change so fast on the GPU market that I found myself changing my mind regarding the HD7970 vs. GTX670 vs. GTX680 in the last couple of weeks.

I know people have been gravitating towards GTX670s such as this MSI Power Edition as of late but now with so many HD7970s hovering at the $450-465 level with free games such as this Vortex II, it's becoming impossible to recommend the $60-80 more expensive 680 and very difficult to recommend the 670.

I think the GTX670 captures the important $399 price point (in this price bracket) and it also consumes a lot less power than an HD7970. A lot of people who are just gamers (don't care for compute/double precision performance) will pocket the $30-60 over the 7970. GTX670 looks particularly good when it costs $100-130 less than a quiet 680. So it's still the bang for the buck this generation. After market HD7970 for $320 is very nice though but at stock speeds HD7950 is barely faster than the 580 and overclocking to 1.15ghz+ on the 7950 is not guaranteed. GTX680, well, I now find that card impossible to objectively recommend since it's now the most expensive and no longer the fastest, even when overclocked. It commands the NV price premium minus the top performance necessary to justify it (unless BF3 is the primary game in question).