Malaysian Crackpot Seller...sells gtx 670?

[Grooveriding]

JHH sure is loving it with his F458 Italia, after all pushing 294mm^2 die chips on 256-bit memory bus as "high-end" in the $400-500 segment with just 30-35% faster performance than the previous flagship is quite a marketing accomplishment after 484mm^2 GTX8800GTX, 576mm^2 GTX280, and 520-530mm^2 GTX480/580 gave us 50-75% performance increases on massive dies.....

GTX260 216/275/HD4890 users also had to wait quite a while before they saw a favourable upgrade path in the upper mid-range segment. I have a feeling HD6950/6970/GTX570 owners will be waiting another 12 months. HD7870 isn't exactly setting the world on fire for $330.

It is pretty messed up. I don't think the 680 would have ever been a 660 mid-range, it's too fast for that. It's really hard to gauge what the deal was. It's slower over the 7970 than the 480 was to the 5870. It's really not that impressive a card apart from the efficiency standpoint, which is not really something I think people buying the $500 halo card give a crap about to begin with - and the fact that it is the fastest card available which allows it to command a premium price. The efficiency bullet point is the 'uber nvidia marketing' this time out. Used to pass off a dismal flagship performance increase as something special

I don't think a large 500mm2 Kepler die with real dp and compute power will actually give 66% more gaming performance over 680, more like 30-35%. There is a real possibility the 680 was intended to be their fastest card this time out. As well as a possibility that it was supposed to be a 670 with a larger kepler with the compute overhead as the 680. I don't think we'll ever really know.

It's a given GPU boost and locked down voltage are going to be in the 670 and 660, possibly lower models as well. So whenever GTX780/GK110 rolls around I want to know if it will be the same deal on that card, which will suck just as bad as it does on the 680. What I do see is the 660 being a pretty crap card performance wise, slower than a 580 - again just with amazing power consumption for where it slots in. I'd be willing to bet cards like the 7850 with voltage control and huge OC potential, as well as the 7870 with a price cut are going to crush the 660ti hard.

Mid-range cards have always been popular to volt and/or OC to get closer to flaghsip performance. GPU boost/lack of voltage control is going to take that out of the equation for end users and AIBs. The flexibility and potential in Pitcairn could give AMD the midrange easily if they price their cards right.

The only way I see out of having a crappy mid-range lineup this time out for nvidia, is imo, releasing GK110 as GTX 685 and pushing the whole lineup down a notch. Making the 680 a 670 priced card and the 670 a 660 priced card and the 660 a 650 etc.

I really don't see that happening though. GK110 as GTX780/refresh to 680 makes too much sense with the easy 30% perf increase it should deliver and possibly more. Plus 28nm supply availability/process quality is probably in a state where it is too much of a PITA to try cranking out GK110 in any sustainable quantity as yet

 

[RussianSensation]

“Globalfoundries is an AMD fab, right? Globalfoundries is AMD's fab. Our strategy is TSMC,” said Jen-Hsun Huang, chief exec of Nvidia, in an interview with Cnet News web-site.

Earlier this year Mr. Huang said that Globalfoundries was a leading silicon foundry with “advanced and outstanding process technology” and Nvidia was “seriously evaluating and discussing” the possibilities of working with them.[/I]

Looks like NV was working closely with TSMC when they were developing Kepler. Instead of applying Kepler architecture to a "standard 28nm chip", Nvidia worked with TSMC on 28nm chip prototypes specifically for Kepler.

THE IMPACT OF PROCESS TECHNOLOGY ON KEPLER’S EFFICIENCY ~ Joe Greco, senior vice president of the advanced technology group at NVIDIA

If you look at the comments section, when a poster suggested that GloFo's HKMG technology appears to have more advantages over TSMC, Greco's response:

"I wouldn’t want to delve into the waters of competing foundry technologies here."

TSMC and NV are buddy-buddies.

 

[RussianSensation]

Love all the bias, especially "lack of competition from AMD". Seems rather hilarious.

Really? I guess I should have praised HD7950 for launching 15 months after GTX580 and beating it by 5%. Do we need to ruin another thread with AMD vs. NV? Let's not even go there. 3 months later and AMD slashed prices nearly $100 on HD7950 and HD7970. AMD knew exactly what it was doing. It profited from early adopters. I have no problem with early adopters paying a premium to have the faster card. However, it soon became evident that HD7900 didn't live up to expectations, not even close. It was beaten in the most important key metrics to most games, in fact by a puny 294 mm^2, 256-bit GPGPU neutered Kepler. So why should I be expected to be impressed by AMD's "competitive GCN line-up?" HD7750/7770? Those cards are a joke. The only thing that keeps HD7800/7900 series from a total failure is their amazing overclocking potential. Without 30-40% overclocking on those cards, the entire generation would have been a failure of 2900XT proportions. Overclocking is their saving grace.

Also like how conveniently it's forgotten that it's not your place to decide which card should carry which model number.

I never decided, obviously NVidia did. However, there is plenty of evidence that GTX680 was likely a GTX670 Ti, even a month before launch.

Of course, you just use this as an opportunity to attack AMD and make a connection between the GTX 680 being GK104 and NVIDIA pricing it as they are to say "NVIDIA has no competition" when the reality is that GF110 doesn't even exist because there are no samples of it.

You have your view, I have mine. Even before GTX680 was on the horizon and HD7950/7970 launched, I was dissatisfied with HD7900 series. Then after NV beat HD7970 with a smaller, cooler, less power consuming, 256-bit chip, I would call that a pretty big blow to AMD since they have led on price/performance and performance/watt for 3 generations. Right now, the only thing keeping HD7850/7870 and HD7950 attractive is lack of NV 28nm alternatives. It was only a matter of time before NV delivered them.

 

[chimaxi83]

nvm

 

[Alaa]

Really? I guess I should have praised HD7950 for launching 15 months after GTX580 and beating it by 5%.

GTX 570 failed to beat GTX 480 after 8 months. So, yeah that seems normal.

 

[Tempered81]

"lack of competition from AMD" hehe!

AMD busy selling 900 million con$oles, bro. They left the 417 PC enthusiasts on AT Vc&g for Nvidia to gobble up.

 

[RussianSensation]

GTX 570 failed to beat GTX 480 after 8 months. So, yeah that seems normal.

GTX570 was a replacement for $350 GTX470. Not sure why you are comparing it against a $499 GTX480. Also, GTX570 is a refresh of Fermi, not based on a new manufacturing node, and is not a new architecture like HD7950 is. HD7950 needed a new architecture and a 28nm shrink to barely beating a 15 months old 40nm GTX580 -- that's rather underwhelming in this industry.

"lack of competition from AMD" hehe!
AMD busy selling 900 million con$oles, bro. They left the 417 PC enthusiasts on AT Vc&g for Nvidia to gobble up.

Not sure how consoles are related to this. Winning console contracts may mean making very little $ from those contracts (i.e., undercutting NV severely). Maybe NV wasn't interested in lowering its profit margins from what are generally not very lucrative console contracts.

Ok, please tell me how NV is able to sell GTX660 Ti based on GK104 for $249, and yet it sells GTX680 for $499 based on the exact same chip? When was the last time NV sold a $500 flagship chip as a $250 chip?

Thanks to AMD's average 7900 series, NV got the green flag to sell what likely would have been a $400 chip tops for $500. If you believe GTX680 is the best Kepler has to offer, then I suppose my view is irrelevant for you.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Really? I guess I should have praised HD7950 for launching 15 months after GTX580 and beating it by 5%. Do we need to ruin another thread with AMD vs. NV? Let's not even go there. 3 months later and AMD slashed prices nearly $100 on HD7950 and HD7970. AMD knew exactly what it was doing. It profited from early adopters. I have no problem with early adopters paying a premium to have the faster card. However, it soon became evident that HD7900 didn't live up to expectations, not even close. It was beaten in the most important key metrics to most games, in fact by a puny 294 mm^2, 256-bit GPGPU neutered Kepler. So why should I be expected to be impressed by AMD's "competitive GCN line-up?" HD7750/7770? Those cards are a joke. The only thing that keeps HD7800/7900 series from a total failure is their amazing overclocking potential. Without 30-40% overclocking on those cards, the entire generation would have been a failure of 2900XT proportions. Overclocking is their saving grace.



I never decided, obviously NVidia did. However, there is plenty of evidence that GTX680 was likely a GTX670 Ti, even a month before launch.



You have your view, I have mine. Even before GTX680 was on the horizon and HD7950/7970 launched, I was dissatisfied with HD7900 series. Then after NV beat HD7970 with a smaller, cooler, less power consuming, 256-bit chip, I would call that a pretty big blow to AMD since they have led on price/performance and performance/watt for 3 generations. Right now, the only thing keeping HD7850/7870 and HD7950 attractive is lack of NV 28nm alternatives. It was only a matter of time before NV delivered them.

That's what you just did. Let me quote your initial comment again:

I expect GTX670 at $399 if it comes in 5-10% faster than a stock 7950/580. Expensive 28nm wafers, capacity contraints at TSMC, and lack of competition from AMD suggests that NV is unlikely to deliver 6600GT, 7950GT, 8800GT/9800GT, GTX460 calibre card this round for $200-250. HD7000 series is the best thing to happen to NV in a long time and JHH knows it.

Everything else you wrote makes no sense, so I won't bother refuting it. Let's just say that it was NVIDIA that decided to price the GTX 580 at $500 one-and-a-half years ago because that particular card had 1) no competition from AMD and 2) points of diminishing returns. Yet you never complained about that. Then AMD decides to make a card that's faster and they price it even higher because of the two aforementioned points and now AMD is suddenly the worst company in the world.

Yeah, seems very objective.

 

[RussianSensation]

Everything else you wrote makes no sense, so I won't bother refuting it. Let's just say that it was NVIDIA that decided to price the GTX 580 at $500 one-and-a-half years ago because that particular card had 1) no competition from AMD and 2) points of diminishing returns. Yet you never complained about that.

Of course I did. You must not have been here. I always stated that HD6950/ HD6970 and GTX570 were far better values. But maybe if you didn't have preconceived notions that I am biased against AMD, you might have noticed those posts where I hardly recommended the 580. Despite $500 price of the 580, it didn't need a 28nm shrink, a new architecture and a 15 months launch window to come out to beat HD6970. HD7950 did. If NV had launched GTX670 on 28nm that was also 5% faster than GTX580 for $450, I would have criticized that card just as much. In case you haven't noticed, I think both AMD and NV equally dropped the ball this generation. At least NV replaced GTX580 at the same price and offered 30% more performance. AMD replaced HD6970 for $200 more for 40% more performance. D: Frankly, we should have seen the light when Rory Read decided to be a "predator" and price FX-8150 Faildozer at $249 and it showed up in retail for $269.

AMD is far more in trouble here than NV is. They lost most of the key performance and power metrics with GCN. Last quarter their graphics division again barely made any $. NV is the winner here selling 294mm^2 chips in the $400-500 price segment.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

"lack of competition from AMD" hehe!

AMD busy selling 900 million con$oles, bro. They left the 417 PC enthusiasts on AT Vc&g for Nvidia to gobble up.

So busy they lost $500 million in Q1 2012. :thumbsup:

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Of course I did. You must not have been here. I always stated that HD6950/ HD6970 and GTX570 were far better values. But maybe if you didn't have preconceived notions that I am biased against AMD, you might have noticed those posts where I hardly recommended the 580. Despite $500 price of the 580, it didn't need a 28nm shrink, a new architecture and a 15 months to come out to beat HD5870. HD7950 did.

Yet here I get confirmation again that you didn't.

It took 6 months for the GTX 480 to come out and beat the HD 5870 by a measly 15% while consuming 50%+ more power. Oh, NVIDIA also priced it 25% higher at $500 vs. $400 despite all this.

The GTX 580 came out, and it was also only 15% faster than the HD 6970. They both were launched within 1 month of each other. Now the GTX 680 came out, and it's only 10% faster than the HD 7970, even though it launched 3 months afterwards. So much for "AMD not being competitive and unfair".

 

[RussianSensation]

So busy they lost $500 million in Q1 2012. :thumbsup:

The graphics division only made $34 million; that's even after significant price increases in each respective segment:

HD6850 $179 --> HD7850 $249
HD6870 $239 --> HD7870 $349
HD6950 $299 --> HD7950 $449
HD6970 $369 --> HD7970 $549

That's awesome. They managed to win by getting the consumer to pay more, while losing the performance crown, performance/watt and price/performance all in 1 generation, while still barely making any $. It's no wonder all the key AMD Graphics division executives jumped ship.

 

[blastingcap]

Competition is good. If you are a consumer and not a stockholder, you want both companies to be healthy and to keep a lid on prices.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yet here I get confirmation again that you didn't.

It took 6 months for the GTX 480 to come out and beat the HD 5870 by a measly 15% while consuming 50%+ more power. Oh, NVIDIA also priced it 25% higher at $500 vs. $400 despite all this.

I somehow missed the part where I didn't think HD5870 was a great card - I thought it was excellent. Who said anything about GTX480? In hindsight, GTX480 outlived HD5870 since it can actually play modern games with tessellation, while 5870 cannot. Still, HD5850 OC was an amazing bang-for-the-buck card. Again, what great bang for the buck card does AMD have this generation? HD7850? I guess for GTX460 users. Otherwise, not much. They don't have the fastest performance either and are about to lose it in $249 and $399 price segments. Before they either had very fast cards (9700Pro/9800Pro/XT, X800XT/PE, X850XT, X1900XT/1950XT, or led in price performance HD4870/4890/5850/5870/6950/6970). This generation they may lose in just about everything other than GPGPU dual precision for us distributed computing guys (but 99% of gamers don't care for this feature).

The GTX 580 came out, and it was also only 15% faster than the HD 6970. They both were launched within 1 month of each other. Now the GTX 680 came out, and it's only 10% faster than the HD 7970, even though it launched 3 months afterwards. So much for "AMD not being competitive and unfair".

Again, not sure how this is related to HD7950 vs. GTX580 since HD6970 was significantly less expensive and was from the same generation. HD7950 is from a new generation, is on a new node and yet it barely beat the 580. It was overpriced from day 1. People kept justfying its price by using GTX580's $500 price tag (which in itself was ridiculous when GTX480s were going for $200-250). HD7970 @ $450 seems pretty good now. Before at $550 it was only viable because NV had nothing to offer. That's capitalism - fair enough. Let's see how GTX670 @ $399 does. I have a feeling it will beat HD7950 without trouble.

No one said AMD is unfair. But if they want to play ball, they better bring something that's better than the competition or have to resort to their old price/performance strategy. After AMD cut prices on 7950/7970, they were back in the game in this segment, but we'll see if they can maintain it once GTX660/670 launch. HD7870 for $330 seems way too expensive with 7950s already dropping to $380.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I somehow missed the part where I didn't think HD5870 was a great card. Who said anything about GTX480? Also, HD5850 OC was an amazing bang for the buck card. Again, what great bang for the buck card AMD has this generation? Not much. They don't have the fastest performance either and are about to lose it in $249 and $399 price segments. Before they either had very fast cards (9700Pro/9800Pro/XT, X800XT/PE, X850XT, X1900XT/1950XT, or led in price performance HD4870/4890/5850/5870/6950/6970). This generation they are about to lose in just about everything.



No one said AMD is unfair. But if they want to play ball, they better bring a faster card or better price/performance. After they cut prices, they are back in the game, but we'll see if they can maintain it once GTX660/670 launch.

Again, not sure how this is related to HD7950 vs. GTX580 we were discussing because HD7950's pricing was a question right away. It was overpriced from day 1. HD7970 @ $450 seems pretty good. Before at $550 it was only viable because NV was late. That's capitalism - fair enough.

LOL, yep.

Then how is the HD 7950 at $380 a bad deal when it's only 5% slower clock-for-clock than the 7970?

Let's forget the HD 7850, a card that is highly overclockable and consumes a minute amount of power, even when overvolted? It costs $240 and overclocked it's a very similar speed to an overclocked GTX 570 and a slightly overclocked GTX 580... all for $240.

 

[GroktheCube]

Hopefully nVidia can actually get some of these to market. I'm shopping for a new card, and at the moment I'm leaning towards an OC edition 7950. Seems the performance of that card is within spitting distance of both the GTX680 and 7970 OC vs OC, and it costs a good hundred bucks less than the (unavailable :-() former and 50 less than the later.

I'd seriously consider a GTX670 if they could produce enough stock, and if the OC performance was comparable. I've generally had better luck with nVidia's drivers than ATI's in the past, and it's my understanding that SLI is still a bit smoother than CrossFire if I ever want to go the dual card route. I'm somewhat concerned that like the GTX680 there just won't be any on the market.

On the upside, AMD adjusted their pricing WAY down in response to the GTX680 despite the lack of practical competition due to poor availability, so hopefully the GTX670 has the same effect.