[GPU.RU]Playing the first half of 2013 against modern cards

[Mombasa69]

Just use what the next gen games are optimized for radeon with an 8 core amd cpu....


Nuff said. :d

 

[SirPauly]

How will a single 770 4GB play modern games in 1080P x 3 or 1200P x 3 configuration? You can throw 32GB of VRAM the GPU will run out of power. Also, please link benchmarks that show 4GB of VRAM provides a tangible increase in performance over 3GB in surround gaming before the GPU of 7970/680/770 level runs out of power. If you really were dead serious about multi-monitor gaming you wouldn't spend $550 CDN on a 770 4GB card. Instead you'd save a bit more and get GTX760 4GB SLI because you are going to need the extra GPU power.

There is a feature called Sli BTW and there are possible configurations of surround that may use 1440p and 1600p BTW!

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/02/21/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_video_card_review/11#.UfpOcm2iZ5g

Once we get to 4GB or 6GB of VRAM the game behaves much better at high MSAA settings at high resolutions

If one desires more price/performance there are more value choices like the GTX 760 4 gig sku's for a nice valued platform!

Personally feel 2 gigs are enough over-all but glad to see 3, 4 and 6 gig choices offered for gamers that may desire extremer settings and enhancements for their platform of choice currently or for the future window of time utilizing their platform of choice!

 

[SirPauly]

And what you always conveniently forget is that the 7970 had the benefit of the 28nm node - the GTX780 does not. That alone makes this comparison kind of pointless.

Indeed!

 

[RussianSensation]

Indeed!

Umm, no. It makes no difference what node 7970 was made. Card A (580) is compared to Card B (7970) and Card B (7970) is compared to Card C (780). Strictly from a price/performance increase, the 780 fails miserably compared to the performance increase 7970 brought over 580. It's simple mathematics.

Stock vs. stock

7970 vs. 580 = +20% for $100 more
780 vs. 7970 1Ghz = +25% for $350 more (780 fail)

OC vs. OC

7970 vs. 580 = 50-60% faster for $100 more
780 vs. 7970 = 40-45% faster for $350 more (780 fail)

Is 780 is a good videocard? YES. Problem is you can't see the hypocrisy of your own posts. All you talk about is "let the market decide" and all this other irrelevant stuff without addressing your own comments. If you had said 7970 offered terrible increase in price/performance for a node change from 40nm to 28nm, then we would agree. But then, it only stands to reason that 780 offers FAR worse price/performance increase compared to the 7970 and yet you have said nothing of the sort.

The same applies to sontin, boxleitnerb, Balla. The minute NV releases a faster card, you claim its pricing is justified because it's the "fastest". Guess what, when 7970 came out, it was also the fastest. With that logic, AMD could have priced it at $650 then? I am fully consistent on my price/performance opinion but the rest of you pick and choose when price/performance matters and when it doesn't. When NV fails miserably at delivering strong value, you come up with excuses such as flexible features, TXAA, etc. When NV delivers great value (760), you keep calling AMD's cards overpriced. This forum never changes. Cherry picking galore of opinions.

And what you always conveniently forget is that the 7970 had the benefit of the 28nm node - the GTX780 does not. That alone makes this comparison kind of pointless.

No, I don't forget. Price/performance metric doesn't care what tech, node, architecture is behind the product. The measurement relates to 2 factors: Price vs. Performance. If one were of the opinion that 7970 was overpriced at launch, then 780 is even more overpriced. This is not an opinion, but a fact because the measurement of price/performance relates to how much does $X buy in you FPS. Nodes, architectures, features, standing against Titan, none of that matters. It is how many FPS you can get for an added amount of $ spent.

Right now 7970 1Ghz costs $300 USD. 7970 at $550 brought 20% more performance at stock over 580 1.5GB for $100 more. 780 is about 25% faster than 7970 1Ghz and costs $650.

Conclusion:

When 7970 launched, for 20% more performance in stock form, 1% increase in performance over 580 costs $5.
Now looking at 780's price, for 25% more performance in stock form, 1% increase in performance over 7970 1Ghz costs $14.

The price/performance ratio that 780 delivers over 7970 is nearly 3x worse of what 7970 delivered over the 580.

Double Check:

7970 cost $100 more for 20%
780 cost $350 more for 25%

I guess because 780 is made by NV, it gets a pass. Right, right?

*** 7970 also doubled the VRAM over 580 but 780 is still same 3GB providing no benefit whatsoever.

But hey, it's hard to have an objective discussion with people who think a $1000 Titan and $550 770 4GB cards are worth their price.

780-Titan are the most overpriced cards from NV since $650 280 vs. $299 4870.

I also find it stupid to downplay such notable performance differences. 35% more is 35% more, period. First "it's not enough for 1600p", then "it's not a real upgrade". These statements show pure bias as I've always suspected. Please leave it up to the people to decide if they value 35% more fps or not.

It's not my fault you have such low standards. After I sold my 6950 unlocked, I got 75% more performance. I would never spend $600 more for a card that's only 35% faster out of the box. I don't consider anything a viable upgrade unless it's 75-100% faster for me, especially if I have to spend $600+ to get that.

P.S. It's common sense that when you move from 1080P to 1600P, you need a GPU more than 35% faster to retain the same performance.

IPlease leave it up to the people to decide if they value 35% more fps or not.

You keep losing track of context. It's not "35% more fps or not" but how much $X you gotta pay to get that. 35% more performance for $50 is not the same as 35% more performance for $600.

If 35% more performance for $600 is worth it to you, I am all for it because that means NV reinvested huge profit margins into Volta development that will mop the floor with my next card. In a way it's actually good that NV has loyal & price inelastic customers such yourself. They should try to release Titan II with 15% more performance for $1,200 USD. I look forward to the awesome Maxwell architecture you helped to finance with your GTX580 purchase too.

The difference between you and I is if my salary increased 100x tomorrow, and I bought 4 Titans, I'd still be of the opinion that Titan is overpriced. The difference is I would admit that Titan is overpriced but because I can easily afford it, I could care less. But I sure as heck wouldn't be posting on forums how its price is somehow justified.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Price difference is 200 Euros over here for a performance difference of 35% as mentioned. I wouldn't touch a 780 reference if I can get my hands on the OC card for 15 Euros more which is 17% faster. I live in Europe and my reasoning is based on the local supply.
I also think an upgrade from a 580 to a 7970 was rather pointless, even with OC. For me, that step would have been too small, insofar I agree with you. It should be 70+% to make me happy. I think the main issue people had with AMDs pricing was not in comparison to Nvidia but compared to AMDs own predecessor. AMD went from offering very good value with the 6970 to mediocre value with the 7970. That surely was unexpected.

It's not my fault you have such low standards. After I sold my 6950 unlocked, I got 75% more performance. I would never spend $600 more for a card that's only 35% faster out of the box. I don't consider anything a viable upgrade unless it's 75-100% faster for me, especially if I have to spend $600+ to get that.

P.S. It's common sense that when you move from 1080P to 1600P, you need a GPU more than 35% faster to retain the same performance.

It's also common sense to adjust settings to achieve playable performance. And btw, who said anything about upgrading from a 7970 GE to a 780??? No one. From earlier cards (40nm), yes. And my standards are perfectly fine, thank you. What a cheap shot...

You keep losing track of context. It's not "35% more fps or not" but how much $X you gotta pay to get that. 35% more performance for $50 is not the same as 35% more performance for $600.

You should really learn to read. As mentioned above - no one said one should make the upgrade from a 7970 GE to a 780. Jeez. And stop lying. I never said Titan was a good deal. Never!

And finally: I still think Nvidia overall has the better feature set (for my personal taste), thus I think their premiums are - at least to some degree - justified. If this seems unfair to AMD in your eyes...well it's reality (again, my personal taste). So no, I don't measure with different rulers.

 

[SirPauly]

Umm, no. It makes no difference what node 7970 was made.

Sure it does!

 

[SirPauly]

If you had said 7970 offered terrible increase in price/performance for a node change from 40nm to 28nm, then we would agree. But then, it only stands to reason that 780 offers FAR worse price/performance increase compared to the 7970 and yet you have said nothing of the sort.

Titan is another example of a predator and aggressor but that is nVidia to me and expected that kind of price-point based on they always desired the 1000 dollar MSRP when they have a competitive advantage! GK-110 chips are more of examples of a evolutionary and incremental price/performance on a substantial and significant node and arch. Go premiums!

As I said clearly above with AMD's execution advantage and engineering prowess and how it was still a win-win for consumer and company -- the same points apply for the GK-110 for the same exact reasons!

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1337299243&postcount=7286

 

[BallaTheFeared]

760 best chip on graph?

We go down to 650B and 7850 and they'll be even better.

Do you not see the problem with your argument RS?

You aren't offering a card with similar performance for the comparison, then using reasoning that makes the card you're arguing for look stupid compared to the cards below it using the same thought process.

Come up with a more logical argument that actually makes sense for the users you're arguing it with.

 

[raghu78]

Lets accept that pricing is truly a reflection of competition in the market. AMD would love to be in Nvidia's position with a dominant single GPU. yes the GTX 780 does not provide as good price perf as HD 7970. but thats because Nvidia knows very well that for enthusiasts who want a significantly faster single GPU than HD 7970 there is only Nvidia.

remember pricing in the HD 4800 / GTX 200 series. that was the most brutal price wars ever seen in GPU history between the 2 vendors. the HD 4890 and GTX 275 provided better performance than GTX 280 in 9 months time at half the revised launch price of USD 500(original was a whopping USD 650). that kind of price wars is good for consumers but unhealthy for the companies involved.

I don't ever expect to see price wars of that kind ever again given the newer tech nodes are very expensive and they are not even able to provide traditional gains in transistor performance every new process gen.

With HD 9970 AMD should put some fight back in the high end GPU space. GTX 780 could see a shift down to better prices. there could also be a GTX 785 and GTX Titan Ultra or Titan II (full GK110) with better perf. so here is hoping to better competition all round. :thumbsup: