[SA] GK110 aka GTX 680 release date: Late Q3 '12

[Silverforce11]

I've made this point a lot, but there's always a few ignorant people who never seem to get it: In a lot of countries, electricity is a good three times more than the price in USA or even much higher. Unless you feel the USA is the only market for GPUs, then perf/w is a major factor.

Secondly, as the process shrinks continue, things do not get cheaper as one expects but costs go up as it gets harder and more expensive to produce at lower nms. This is a recent phenomenon as we approach the lower barrier of lithography.

 

[railven]

What excuses? Do I have a 580? No, it was an awful performance/price card the day it came out, still is today. AMD didn't change that. For $550 the 7970 offers better performance/$ but it's still a bad choice in that respect.

Beating then 580 with a next gen gpu doesn't take away from the flaws the 7970 carries with it. Not talking about them because I'm some fanboy, I'm talking about them because they're huge flaws in my eyes, the same flaws the 580 had. Which, omg!!! I never bought a 580 because of the same reasons I won't buy a 7970! Imagine that, someone sticking to values across both sides!

I don't care whose name is on the card, what the does that matter? What I care about made the 580 a bad card, just as it makes the 7970 a bad card. While AMD did bring more performance, better performance per dollar, they did so with a node shrink, no reason to praise them for something that should always happen. What they didn't do was improve the market for 98% of the consumer base.

Like it or not the $450-600 market AMD is "winning" doesn't mean jack, and consumers prove that everyday when value/mid range cards outsell high end cards by stupid margins. A hollow victory may be a victory, but it's still a meaningless one.

And still you further prove my point. Regardless what anyone says, or their position, someone will twist it and then change it completely arguing some metric that is arbitrary only to their position and thus relegating anything the other person said out of context or invalid.

Keep going, you're doing great. Introduce another factor that has nothing to do with what was being discussed at the start, hey try reading the posts backwards - maybe you'll remember what was being discussed.

 

[L33tMasta]

All this arguing over performance per watt or dollar is stupid. Real PC gamers and enthusiasts will buy the high end nvidia cards, casual gamers will buy the low end AMD cards. Its the same thing with Intel and AMD. Intel is high end and AMD is low end. All this arguing is pointless.

 

[NIGELG]

All this arguing over performance per watt or dollar is stupid. Real PC gamers and enthusiasts will buy the high end nvidia cards, casual gamers will buy the low end AMD cards. Its the same thing with Intel and AMD. Intel is high end and AMD is low end. All this arguing is pointless.

Posts like these about who are 'real PC gamers and enthusiasts' are pointless crap.

 

[L33tMasta]

Posts like these about who are 'real PC gamers and enthusiasts' are pointless crap.

If you think so man. But everyone knows what I said was the truth. That's why you don't see "designed for amd" before a game starts. You see an nvidia/Intel logo 96% of the time.

 

[MrK6]

Places like this forum are totally unrepresentative of the market. There are a lot of people who have a firm ceiling on how much they will pay for a graphics card. Even if price/perf scaled perfectly linearly, they STILL would not pay more.

$250 can get you a 69xx or 560 Ti. It will not get you a 79xx or 580. That is what I meant by catering to different pools.

I'll concede, though, that to some extent there may be overlap esp. if you throw in SLI/CF vs. single-GPU, but many people don't want to deal with SLI/CF or CAN'T deal with it due to mobo and/or PSU restrictions. And of course there may be overlap for those people who have a flexible budget who want a card in the $300-400 range and could go either way.

I agree with most of what you're saying, my only disagreement was that the 7900 series aren't a value, which they are. To me, value denotes performance/price, which these cards clearly offer in spades. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a value.

And still you further prove my point. Regardless what anyone says, or their position, someone will twist it and then change it completely arguing some metric that is arbitrary only to their position and thus relegating anything the other person said out of context or invalid.

Keep going, you're doing great. Introduce another factor that has nothing to do with what was being discussed at the start, hey try reading the posts backwards - maybe you'll remember what was being discussed.

It's been this way since that "GTX 470 SLI is 50% faster than a 7970!" garbage was irrevocably disproven.

All this arguing over performance per watt or dollar is stupid. Real PC gamers and enthusiasts will buy the high end nvidia cards, casual gamers will buy the low end AMD cards. Its the same thing with Intel and AMD. Intel is high end and AMD is low end. All this arguing is pointless.

You mean real NVIDIA fanboys buy slower high end NVIDIA parts (or wait months and months for them to finally catch up to AMD), right? Otherwise would you like to step up to the plate and explain why the 7900 series isn't the best the high end has seen in almost two years, since none of the other naysayers in this thread can back it up?

 

[Eugene86]

 

[thilanliyan]

All this arguing over performance per watt or dollar is stupid. Real PC gamers and enthusiasts will buy the high end nvidia cards, casual gamers will buy the low end AMD cards. Its the same thing with Intel and AMD. Intel is high end and AMD is low end. All this arguing is pointless.

Rollo? Is that you?

 

[L33tMasta]

I agree with most of what you're saying, my only disagreement was that the 7900 series aren't a value, which they are. To me, value denotes performance/price, which these cards clearly offer in spades. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a value.
It's been this way since that "GTX 470 SLI is 50% faster than a 7970!" garbage was irrevocably disproven.
You mean real NVIDIA fanboys buy slower high end NVIDIA parts (or wait months and months for them to finally catch up to AMD), right? Otherwise would you like to step up to the plate and explain why the 7900 series isn't the best the high end has seen in almost two years, since none of the other naysayers in this thread can back it up?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/5

Because you can buy older cards that are still much faster than AMD's fastest card. If this is what AMD calls performance then I would hate to see their bargain cards.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/5

Because you can buy older cards that are still much faster than AMD's fastest card. If this is what AMD calls performance then I would hate to see their bargain cards.

Go away.


"Go away" is not the correct response to people you are having an argument with.

You know better than this, and I see that you have been warned about this multiple times by different mods.

Please don't do this. Whenever you make the argument devolve into a personal level instead of letting it stay in a somewhat factual level, it helps mess up the thread for everybody, and does not help solve the thing you are probably mad about.

This is the technical forums, not OT, so everybody is expected to behave a little bit better.

Moderator jvroig

 

[L33tMasta]

Go away.

I'm alright thanks.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/5

Because you can buy older cards that are still much faster than AMD's fastest card. If this is what AMD calls performance then I would hate to see their bargain cards.

Not sure if troll or not, since one of these "top cards" is also from AMD, and it comes out on top quite often, though its pretty much a tie

This thread is entertaining thats for sure... It seems there are always new people wanting to bring back memories of war heroes like Rollo, Gstanfor and Wreckage

 

[rgallant]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/5

Because you can buy older cards that are still much faster than AMD's fastest card. If this is what AMD calls performance then I would hate to see their bargain cards.

-yes I see your point and those 590's and 6990's cost ?[+psu]

a lot of people got great deals on 560's to and are laughing all the way to the bank , playing bf3 @1600 with 10 fps. per your chart ,oh make that 5 fps if that's MP.
-the rest of us are just suckers.

 

[L33tMasta]

Not sure if troll or not, since one of these "top cards" is also from AMD, and it comes out on top quite often, though its pretty much a tie

This thread is entertaining thats for sure... It seems there are always new people wanting to bring back memories of war heroes like Rollo, Gstanfor and Wreckage

Look again. The top card is nvidia.

 

[tviceman]

As it stands, the 7900 series brought tremendous value to the high-end segment

Just look at that tremendous value!

 

[Silverforce11]

LM: Cherries you can have it.

You do realize there are plenty of other review sites? Guess not.

TV: To above, note he said "to the high-end".

High-end is never about value.

 

[badb0y]

Just look at that tremendous value!

Not a tremendous value but definitely more value then the previous fastest GPU, GTX 580.

 

[L33tMasta]

-yes I see your point and those 590's and 6990's cost ?[+psu]

a lot of people got great deals on 560's to and are laughing all the way to the bank , playing bf3 @1600 with 10 fps. per your chart ,oh make that 5 fps if that's MP.
-the rest of us are just suckers.

I'm not arguing performance per dollar or watt. Just straight performance. Nvidia is high end, amd is low.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm not arguing performance per dollar or watt. Just straight performance. Nvidia is high end, amd is low.

What makes you come to that conclusion? Surely not based on one or two review sites... Again, cherries, you really love them don't you?

 

[Arkadrel]

I'm not arguing performance per dollar or watt. Just straight performance. Nvidia is high end, amd is low.

Except that right now nvidia doesnt have anything faster than a 580.
And both the 7970 and 7950 are faster than the 580.

 

[tviceman]

Thank you, was that hard?

Here is something you're ignoring - I'm a consumer. I don't own stock, I don't personally care what each companies profit margins are, the die size, I care a bit about heat only because it could translate to more noise, and in the end when I have x-amount of money at y-time, I'm going to buy Z-product that fits my needs as within reason of x-amount of money.

You're arguements are at most useless to someone like, a consumer, outside of some fanfare for product loyalty. How does it affect me that I'm buying a product today if a similar product was on the shelves twelve months ago? I wasn't trying to buy twelve months ago, and if I were I'd actually be looking at the GTX 580.

I like, again, how I'm pro-company because I'm buying a product that fits my budget offers a better return, and covers my need. No, I'd be pro-company if I disregarded my criterias, budget, and bought a slower, older card, without thinking twice.

Funny how you keep changing things. Now, I'm waiting? You told me to wait for Kepler, but oh I was wrong for waiting for Tahiti? Actually, I didn't even know I was waiting for anything. Oh yeah, I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge, since unlike these other consumers you use in your scenarios - I can only buy once every two years. Funny how that restriction affects my pro-company mentality. What a joke.

Wow your post is all over the place.... Lets see... I never told you to wait for anything, I never said you were waiting for anything, Ivy Bridge has nothing to do with this, I don't care how often and how many times you've upgraded, I never said anything about disregarding criteria and purchasing a slower older product, you spelled "arguments" wrong, you're getting really wound up over the simple fact that the hd7950 isn't a very good buy (PROOF), and I really can't see how just about everything you said has to do with that one simple fact.

And when, exactly, did I tell you to wait for Kepler? I just looked over all my posts and I don't seem to see anything that said "you should wait for Kepler." The closest I came was that "I" - as in me and not you - "will wait patiently until the performance range of that both of these products are in trickle down to lower price points." So, is the joke is still on me because you are making up things that I said now?

 

[L33tMasta]

Except that right now nvidia doesnt have anything faster than a 580.
And both the 7970 and 7950 are faster than the 580.

Yes they do. Its called the GTX 590.

What makes you come to that conclusion? Surely not based on one or two review sites... Again, cherries, you really love them don't you?

The conclusion is simply supported by legitimate and proven review sites. And what are you going on about cherries for? Guess you don't have anything relevant to contribute to counter my argument and proof.

 

[tviceman]

Except that right now nvidia doesnt have anything faster than a 580.
And both the 7970 and 7950 are faster than the 580.

What makes you come to that conclusion? Surely not based on one or two review sites... Again, cherries, you really love them don't you?

Just ignore him. When he spouts ridiculously false info that is in no way conceivably true, he is not worth responding to.

 

[NIGELG]

If you think so man. But everyone knows what I said was the truth. That's why you don't see "designed for amd" before a game starts. You see an nvidia/Intel logo 96% of the time.

I say you are trolling.

 

[L33tMasta]

Just ignore him and he will stop saying retarded stuff.

I love it. No one can show any evidence to counter what I've said and posted proof of. You're going to ignore it like it doesn't exist.

Tell me what I've said that's false so far.