Nvidia GTX 690 = 2 x Nvidia GTX 680!!

[toutbeau]

For one thing when they reduce price its gonna sound great.

"This £1000 graphics card is now a massive £200 knocked off. Yes thats almost half price. Micro-stuttering comes for free too. FTW!"

 

[chimaxi83]

Sure, GTX690 is just as bad for those users who used to buy GTX590/6990 cards. The difference is the market for dual-GPU cards $700+ is very small. Those people are probably a lot more price inelastic than us single-GPU users are.

Also, you aren't seeing the entire picture. It wasn't just about HD7970 releasing at $550, it meant all the other cards in the line-up starting from HD7850 would increase in price too, resulting in awful price/performance from a previous 2-3 generations:

6850 $179 --> HD7850 $249
6870 $239 --> HD7870 $349
6950 $299 --> HD7950 $449
6970 $369 --> HD7970 $549

The fact that HD7950 launched 15 months after 580 and barely beat it despite 28nm shrink and a new architecture is just sad. It's a moot point now since those cards can be had for $380.

If single GPU prices rise, it makes it worse value for single-GPU users to upgrade. If GTX690 launched at $700, $900, $1,500, $5,000, the single GPU guys don't really care to make a fuss about it since they weren't in the market for it. Also, there aren't lower level dual-GPU cards for which prices would also rise (however, because of the initially high price of 7950/7970, prices of the entire mid-range lineup went up too). You should ask guys who buy dual-GPUs how they feel about $1000 dual-GPU card replacing a $700 dual-GPU card. That would be more appropriate. Obviously, the trend of GPUs going up in price isn't favourable, and NV offering just 30-35% more performance over 580 is the worst performance increase from one generation to the next I've seen in a while, if not ever.

I suspect that guys in the market for these cards won't really care about the pricing lol. Ah well. At least the 7900's are drifting more towards the pricing they should've been released with.

Because the 699 dollar GTX 590 card offered GTX 570 Sli performance over-all -- not GTX 580 Sli performance.

That's only because it was purposely gimped with its slow clock speeds. It was still a board with two 580 chips, like the 690 is.

Either way, maybe it'll get a price reduction before release. I mean, it has to... right? D:

 

[SolMiester]

He's not talking about GTX 680 though, the GTX 690 is replacing a $699 card with a $999 card.

I hardly think NV would release a dual 680 at only 75% of what it would get for 2 x 680....Thats just nonsense....The 590 wasnt 2 x fastest chip was it, this is, or near enough too!
However, that said, most people I would think, if going to spend $1k, would get 2 x680, not one of these.....I would of thought perhaps $899 would of been a better price.

 

[destrekor]

I suspect that guys in the market for these cards won't really care about the pricing lol. Ah well. At least the 7900's are drifting more towards the pricing they should've been released with.



That's only because it was purposely gimped with its slow clock speeds. It was still a board with two 580 chips, like the 690 is.

Either way, maybe it'll get a price reduction before release. I mean, it has to... right? D:

Well, considering at least a few of us were quite interested, and then laughed and said, errr.. *bleep*, I'd say at least a few individuals cared about the price. It's a pricing mistake that will hopefully force Nvidia to drop the price earlier than they expected.
Though what terrifies me is the price will shoot up! That's what happened with the 590's.

 

[SickBeast]

Could someone please explain to me why this card would be better than a pair of GTX 680s in SLI?

I suppose if you only have one PCI-E X16 slot it might be ok. *shrug*

 

[chimaxi83]

I hardly think NV would release a dual 680 at only 75% of what it would get for 2 x 680....Thats just nonsense....The 590 wasnt 2 x fastest chip was it, this is, or near enough too!
However, that said, most people I would think, if going to spend $1k, would get 2 x680, not one of these.....I would of thought perhaps $899 would of been a better price.

links to benches? or are you just assuming this based purely off clock speed?

 

[Ferzerp]

Could someone please explain to me why this card would be better than a pair of GTX 680s in SLI?

I suppose if you only have one PCI-E X16 slot it might be ok. *shrug*

Quad SLI in half the slots, or if you have cooling issues due to space with two cards in SLI i guess?

 

[ViRGE]

links to benches? or are you just assuming this based purely off clock speed?

I had thought this was common knowledge? The 590 had only 78% of the clockspeed of the 580; there's no way it can hit 580 SLI performance unless you're CPU limited.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4239/nvidias-geforce-gtx-590-duking-it-out-for-the-single-card-king/5

 

[Ferzerp]

I had thought this was common knowledge? The 590 had only 78% of the clockspeed of the 580; there's no way it can hit 580 SLI performance unless you're CPU limited.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4239/nvidias-geforce-gtx-590-duking-it-out-for-the-single-card-king/5

Yeah, typically the 2 gpu monster cards are less capable than the top end cards in multi-card. I think the 690 is as close as we've ever seen two truly using 2x of the top end?

 

[ViRGE]

Yeah, typically the 2 gpu monster cards are less capable than the top end cards in multi-card. I think the 690 is as close as we've ever seen two truly using 2x of the top end?

Well the closest would be the Radeon HD 4870 X2, which really was 2 4870s in one card. Otherwise as far as NV cards are concerned, yes, this would be the closest. Even the 9800GX2 had a wider gap than this.

 

[Subyman]

Comparing the price to the 590 is not completely fair. As others have said, the 590 != 2x580 performance, in fact, it didn't even come close. The 690 will be 90-95% as fast as 2x680 and will have a 300WTDP, which is insane. I can't wait to see some real benches.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well, as a company - you tend not to have any desire to keep low margins if the other guy's price/performance ratio allows you to price competitively, basically match performance, and provide insane profit margins.

I cannot imagine Nvidia is doing anything but raking in record profits (as well as the vendors) thanks to AMD's inability to produce a card that actually challenged Nvidia.
That's the whole reason we aren't seeing BigK (which, to put into the market, would most likely require a return to "normal" margins because BigK is all but guaranteed to be a costly chip at this point in time), and instead, Nvidia has competitively matched AMD's offering with a chip that is hardly stressing Nvidia's engineering prowess at the moment.

Honestly, if I was Nvidia (a publicly traded company, and the only major "independent" GPU firm in the desktop space - one that is desperately trying to reach into more markets), I'd do the exact same thing.
AMD launches something underwhelming compared to what you can offer? Well, use what parts you have that can effectively match it, price it around the same, and try to ride the wave of higher margins than usual until the competition forces your hand and makes you pull out the ace.
Once AMD does this, if they do, I expect Nvidia will launch BigK - if it's during this generation (for AMD), they'll probably cut down BigK a little and launch it with some funky model numbering scheme like usual. Shave off a little from BigK, drop it at the 685, blow away the 680 but come a little shy of the 690. It would be strange if they released a 695 as a single-GPU following this, but I think an "all you can eek out of that bad boy" BigK could give an under-clocked dual GK104 card a run for it's money. But this would have to be very, VERY late and honestly, this would be very unexpected now that I've typed it out - a sort of "the swine have taken flight" scenario.

And if it's that late, Nvidia might, just might, launch a tweaked Kepler as the GTX 700 series (akin to the 400/500 series). I wouldn't expect the next step in a major architectural change to arrive until Kepler has been worn out - and with the top-end models already slotted with smaller GPU designs, I think Nvidia has some time to wring Kepler for all it's worth across two "generations".

I'm really sorry but, except for the 1st sentence, this just isn't how it works. It's all just rationalization with absolutely no evidence for any of your claims.

[example] I could just as easily rationalize that AMD's prices are high because nVidia isn't able to yet compete at 28nm. nVidia has managed to produce one model of chip in extremely small amounts. They are now desperately trying to produce a line up from a combination of this one new chip on 28nm and a rag tag line up of obsolete 40nm chips. They've been forced to drastically cut pricing on the 40nm products and are likely not making any money at all because the only profitable model is at the top end of the market and not available in any kind of volume. [/example]

This is the only part we know for certain, "There is no BigGK". It doesn't exist. At this point in time it's a fantasy in JHH's dreams. GK104 is basically MIA. Just checked again and none in stock at Newegg. Last I checked we did have stock in New Zealand still. A 680 will cost you a cool $150 more here than a 7970, though. I suppose this is AMD's fault as well? This is the same story I've heard repeated around, "Where there is stock on 680's they are dearer than the 7970". 7970's on Newegg are available for $460 ($450AR) while 8 out of 10 of the 680's listed on Newegg are for above retail price. This is because demand is higher than supply. Are we supposed to think this is AMD's fault, too?

nVidia's pricing and supply is their own doing. It's not AMD's fault for price/perf. It's not TSMC's fault there aren't any. nVidia is an independent company responsible themselves for the way they conduct their business. Market factors of course effect their decisions, but that's not a get out of jail free card. There is nothing different about the way nVidia is currently conducting and what they have done previously.

 

[SirPauly]

That's only because it was purposely gimped with its slow clock speeds. It was still a board with two 580 chips, like the 690 is.

The GTX 690 seems to have more power efficiency, which may allow for GTX 680 SLi performance.

 

[Qbah]

Well the closest would be the Radeon HD 4870 X2, which really was 2 4870s in one card. Otherwise as far as NV cards are concerned, yes, this would be the closest. Even the 9800GX2 had a wider gap than this.

There was also the HD3870x2 which had its two GPUs clocked higher (850 vs 775)

 

[toyota]

I'm really sorry but, except for the 1st sentence, this just isn't how it works. It's all just rationalization with absolutely no evidence for any of your claims.

[example] I could just as easily rationalize that AMD's prices are high because nVidia isn't able to yet compete at 28nm. nVidia has managed to produce one model of chip in extremely small amounts. They are now desperately trying to produce a line up from a combination of this one new chip on 28nm and a rag tag line up of obsolete 40nm chips. They've been forced to drastically cut pricing on the 40nm products and are likely not making any money at all because the only profitable model is at the top end of the market and not available in any kind of volume. [/example]

This is the only part we know for certain, "There is no BigGK". It doesn't exist. At this point in time it's a fantasy in JHH's dreams. GK104 is basically MIA. Just checked again and none in stock at Newegg. Last I checked we did have stock in New Zealand still. A 680 will cost you a cool $150 more here than a 7970, though. I suppose this is AMD's fault as well? This is the same story I've heard repeated around, "Where there is stock on 680's they are dearer than the 7970". 7970's on Newegg are available for $460 ($450AR) while 8 out of 10 of the 680's listed on Newegg are for above retail price. This is because demand is higher than supply. Are we supposed to think this is AMD's fault, too?

nVidia's pricing and supply is their own doing. It's not AMD's fault for price/perf. It's not TSMC's fault there aren't any. nVidia is an independent company responsible themselves for the way they conduct their business. Market factors of course effect their decisions, but that's not a get out of jail free card. There is nothing different about the way nVidia is currently conducting and what they have done previously.

since when is a gtx680 150 bucks more than a 7970?

 

[SirPauly]

I'm really sorry but, except for the 1st sentence, this just isn't how it works. It's all just rationalization with absolutely no evidence for any of your claims.

[example] I could just as easily rationalize that AMD's prices are high because nVidia isn't able to yet compete at 28nm. nVidia has managed to produce one model of chip in extremely small amounts. They are now desperately trying to produce a line up from a combination of this one new chip on 28nm and a rag tag line up of obsolete 40nm chips. They've been forced to drastically cut pricing on the 40nm products and are likely not making any money at all because the only profitable model is at the top end of the market and not available in any kind of volume. [/example]

This is the only part we know for certain, "There is no BigGK". It doesn't exist. At this point in time it's a fantasy in JHH's dreams. GK104 is basically MIA. Just checked again and none in stock at Newegg. Last I checked we did have stock in New Zealand still. A 680 will cost you a cool $150 more here than a 7970, though. I suppose this is AMD's fault as well? This is the same story I've heard repeated around, "Where there is stock on 680's they are dearer than the 7970". 7970's on Newegg are available for $460 ($450AR) while 8 out of 10 of the 680's listed on Newegg are for above retail price. This is because demand is higher than supply. Are we supposed to think this is AMD's fault, too?

nVidia's pricing and supply is their own doing. It's not AMD's fault for price/perf. It's not TSMC's fault there aren't any. nVidia is an independent company responsible themselves for the way they conduct their business. Market factors of course effect their decisions, but that's not a get out of jail free card. There is nothing different about the way nVidia is currently conducting and what they have done previously.

It's pretty easy to find out what nVidia's margins are -- basically with the next conference call and had guidance around 49.2 percent margins this up-coming quarter -- not bad considering their rag-tag obsolete line up.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Could someone please explain to me why this card would be better than a pair of GTX 680s in SLI?

I suppose if you only have one PCI-E X16 slot it might be ok. *shrug*

It wont be better. Actually alittle slower due to clocks.

There are 2 benefits tho as well. 1 Card solution. And 300W vs 2x195W.

 

[Qbah]

since when is a gtx680 150 bucks more than a 7970?

Not everyone lives in the US He did mention New Zealand...

Here in Denmark I can get a HD7970 for around $590 (3300DKK). An eVGA GTX680 is $650, the rest are $710+

 

[chimaxi83]

since when is a gtx680 150 bucks more than a 7970?

Not everybody lives in the United States, fyi.

Edit: ah well someone else already said it.

Anyway, yea based on power efficiency and usage, this card may actually come close to SLI performance. We shall see. Regardless, $999 is still an insane price.

 

[3DVagabond]

All i got: 2 gpu strapped on a card with a fancy cooler..

and going to be priced at $$CRAZY.

It's a bit more than that. It's a really sweet card. We've had $1000 dual GPU cards for at least 3 generations now (Mars, Ares, XFX Black Editions, Toxics). They're just skipping the "built as cheaply as possible" version this time.

I don't have a problem with this product. nVidia knew it was going to be a limited production (due to availability of chips) expensive card and at least built it to "$1000 standards". I would say they were asses if they had built something on the quality level of the 590 and charged a grand for it.

 

[Nintendesert]

This card should be at least $100 cheaper. I was going to say $200 and it would make the card a pretty good value with it's performance so close to 680 SLI and realized this is why Nvidia didn't do it and why AMD didn't initially price lower. The costs of these cards is all on TSMC and their low volumes. These 28nm GPUs are in short supply and each one demands a high value to it. Intel needs to open their fabs to GPU production.

 

[3DVagabond]

since when is a gtx680 150 bucks more than a 7970?

Just checked pricespy.co.nz and the cheapest 680 in stock was $900. The cheapest 7970, again in stock, was $750. This has been pretty consistent here.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's pretty easy to find out what nVidia's margins are -- basically with the next conference call and had guidance around 49.2 percent margins this up-coming quarter -- not bad considering their rag-tag obsolete line up.

Did you not get the part where I said I was just rationalizing. I was never stating it as any kind of fact. I have no idea what nVidia's profits are, nor do I really care. I was merely debunking the armchair market analysis we constantly get around here from people who are fact less, and unfortunately, often clueless.

 

[SolMiester]

links to benches? or are you just assuming this based purely off clock speed?

What? the 590 was 2 x 580 at reduced speeds doesnt = 2 x GTX580 performance. There is no assuming required!

 

[SirPauly]

Did you not get the part where I said I was just rationalizing. I was never stating it as any kind of fact. I have no idea what nVidia's profits are, nor do I really care. I was merely debunking the armchair market analysis we constantly get around here from people who are fact less, and unfortunately, often clueless.

Rationalizing may be the wrong word to use.