Can you show me a 7950 which is as fast as a 7970GHz?
HD7950 with voltage control has no problem beating an HD7970GE. Once both the 7970GE and HD7950 are overclocked to the max, the performance difference between them is minimal. This is why many enthusiasts this generation bought the 7950 over 7970s.
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...z_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,13.html
If NV allowed voltage control on the GTX680, people might have been able to hit 1350-1400mhz on air with cards like the Asus DirectCUII or GTX680 Lightning. All NV needs to do now is bump the voltage to 1.25-1.27V and launch a 1350mhz GK114 and there you get a nice performance bump that a GTX680 can't touch without a volt-mod. Neutering voltage control on GK104 makes a lot of sense strategically, especially after NV decided to charge $100 premium for a mere 7-8% performance increase from a 670 to a 680. This is the exact opposite of what AMD lets you do. Get an HD6950 and unlock it and OC to 6970; get an $280 HD7950 and overclock it to 1200mhz to come within 5-6% of $420 HD7970GE OC. AMD gives enthusiasts freedom to get as much free performance as possible within reasonable limits, while NV blocked it out. This is a complete reversal of the legendary GTX460/470 OC.
Wait, you really tell us that AMD did not increase the price of their gpus over the previous generation? :|
What? I just said AMD did increase it but to ATI's historical levels. ATI used to sell cards at
$499-549. $549 price for HD7970 that still happens to be the fastest single GPU with OC 12 months after launch is nothing unusual in the context of historial ATI/NV prices. Also, $549 is a 49% increase in price for a card that was 45% faster than $369 HD6970. A fairly linear increase in price/performance. Not a bad deal in hindsight considering 925mhz HD7970 had 25%+ overclocking headroom in it. If you are going to bring HD7970's launch price into this, then a $900 Titan would need to be nearly 80% ($900 / $500) faster than GTX680 to have a similarly linear price/performance curve that HD7970 delivered over 6970
and 25% overclocking headroom on top.
HD7970 OC ends up 72% faster than HD6970 at 1080P and 79% faster at 1600P. If NV delivers this same level of performance increase with just a 49% increase in price, then sure it's comparable to what happened between HD7970 vs. HD6970. You also conveniently ignore the absolute value of the price increase. Going from HD6970 to HD7970 was a bump in price of $180. Going from $500 to $900 is a price increase of $400. My wallet doesn't just operate in %, but also in absolute value terms. $400 increase is more than double the price increase from HD6970 to HD7970.
NV raising flagship GPU prices to $900-1000 is not at all comparable to AMD going back to $499-549 price level of ATI:
7800GTX 256MB = $599
8800GTX = $599
GTX280 = $649 but dropped to $499 just 1 month later
GTX480/580 = both $499
All of a sudden NV is raising prices to $900-1000 with GTX690/Titan. That's not even remotely close to normal historical pricing of NV. Cards like 8800GTX Ultra or 7800GTX 512MB were limited run cards with very limited shelf-life. GTX690 sold for 12 months as a regular flagship GPU. It was never built to be a limited run card. Now that NV conditioned PC enthusiasts that $1K for a flagship card is not a big deal, there comes the rumoured $900 Titan card. Nearly a year later and NV is going to sell a card slower than GTX690 for just a $100 discount? That's a great deal you are saying? Did you forget HD5870? That card deliver GTX295/HD4870X2 level of performance for $369. Both GTX295 and HD4870X2 were $500 GPUs.
Okay, now i'm confused:
AMD was allowed to rise the prices because they got back to their "historical levels" but when nVidia is doing
the same it's a "no thanks"?
You seem to be confused about historical price levels of single GPU flagship cards. ATi-NV generally sold in the range of $499-649. $899-999 are not historical normal levels. You seem to think $900 for a Titan is good value. NV's marketing team will be happy to know this.
AMD was able to raise prices to $549 because that's actually the 'normal' historical price level for flagship cards. I have no problem with $499-549 GTX680/HD7970 cards. $899 for the next flagship? Ya, that's a
No Thanks. Using the same logic, NV should have been raising prices every time they added 60-70% more performance starting with GTX280 to 480 to 680. They didn't do that but after seeing people happily giving them $1K for a GTX690, it seems they see the market can bear $900-1K for flagship cards.
Also, you may want to compare the die sizes of the previous generation flagship cards from NV I already listed in this thread and then compare ATI die sizes and their prices. 365mm2 die for $549 is pretty similar to ATI's per mm2 prices for their flagship GPUs. NV charged $499-649 for 484-576mm2 dies. Therefore, $649 for a 550mm2 Titan with 50% more performance over GTX680 would have been reasonable. $900 for a 550mm2 is completely out of line with what NV used to charge per mm2.
In case you didn't notice after-market cards like HD7950 that launched at $469-499 can now be had for $280-300. That's how the GPU industry generally works - a similar level of performance can be purchased for less over time. GTX690 is not worth $999 anymore since it's not a new GPU in tech terms. Trying to justify Titan's $900 price in the context of GTX690's current market prices assumes GTX690 is itself reasonably priced, which it really isn't anymore, just like HD7970GE, GTX680 are no longer worth their $420-450+ prices either since they are now old GPUs in tech terms.
Facebook
Twitter