"Too Little, Too Late....Too Expensive" Did you agree?

[OCGuy]

Depending on power and performance metrics, this card might be more comparable to a GTX 680 than GTX 480:
Late (3.5 months vs 4.5 months)
Cheaper (R9 290X is most likely going to be cheaper than GTX 780/Titan)
Faster (possibly I guess, marginally faster ala 680 versus 7970.)
Power (if it uses less power than 780/Titan, well that's another notch more towards a GTX 680 comparative)

EDIT: And everyone seems to have loved the GTX 680.

I'll stay consistent and say I don't care about power....although 280SLI cooked my room during the summer! I lived with my brother at the time who had 4870XF in the next room, and we tripped a breaker more than once while gaming at the same time.

You expect a later card on the same node to have less leakage, etc anyway.

The thing is.. 480 was terrible. Maybe the worst GPU ever made :B

I don't know, when you have to send out "coffins" because of so many failures, that has to be at the near the top of the list. (Early Xbox 360s)

 

[parvadomus]

The thing is.. 480 was terrible. Maybe the worst GPU ever made :B

 

[lavaheadache]

The thing is.. 480 was terrible. Maybe the worst GPU ever made :B

Terrible? :thumbsdown:

It was by no means a perfect card but saying that it was terrible is far from the truth

 

[railven]

You expect a later card on the same node to have less leakage, etc anyway.

But Fermi 6 months down the road didn't. And that was one of the biggest flaws cited by many. "It's marginally faster but roasts your chestnuts at a steeper pricer point."

I don't know, when you have to send out "coffins" because of so many failures, that has to be at the near the top of the list. (Early Xbox 360s)

But that wasn't the GPU's fault. But if we're going to include solder points, I guess that would have to be Nvidia again with their fiasco.

 

[Gikaseixas]

480 was terrible

Don't agree because Fermi was one hell of arch. 470 was perhaps a more elegant approach by Nvidia, not taking things to the extreme and such but the 480 performed well across the board. It was a high end card so i don't care how much it consumed or how hot it was

 

[dguy6789]

Fermi and R290 are two completely different situations. The Geforce GTX 480 came out some six months after the Radeon HD 5870 came out and was minutely faster at best and slower in some benchmarks. The 5870 was $379 and if I recall the 480 was like $500. The 5970 also came out before the 480 came out so the 480 at no point even had the performance crown, the 5970 wasn't a lot more expensive than the 480, and the 5970 used less power than the 480.

Completely different from scenario from comparing the new Radeon to the Titan and 780. If the Titan was $600 and used less power than the new Radeon then maybe we'd be approaching the Fermi fiasco.

 

[OCGuy]

Completely different from scenario from comparing the new Radeon to the Titan and 780. If the Titan was $600 and used less power than the new Radeon then maybe we'd be approaching the Fermi fiasco.

I am by no means calling the 290 a fiasco...maybe the rest of the "launch" products, but not the actual new tech.

Earlier in the year on a conference call AMD left us with the impression that they would not be releasing any new desktop cards, so this is a win for everyone.

If you like NVidia products, you get price drop. If you want to upgrade your 7XXX by adding another, you get a price drop. If you want a new bleeding-edge toy, you get that with 290.

I am more comparing the "little and late" aspects of it, which seem to be lost in shuffle.

We don't know where either company will land with their pricing schemes in the next 4 weeks, but you can bet AMD isn't going to give away the farm like they did with the 4870...they have investors to please, and people to employ.

On a side note, I believe that this card even being released means AMD had very little confidence in TSMC's timing for 20nm.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No new node=no advance really for GPUs. And as transistor cost goes up, so does price. Not to mention IGP eroding the value segment completely and starting to touch the mainstream segment of dGPUs.

3 year nodes instead of 2.
Lower profitability due to volume.
Higher production costs.
Higher design cost.

Its a dinosaur slowly dying.

 

[wand3r3r]

Depending on power and performance metrics, this card might be more comparable to a GTX 680 than GTX 480:
Late (3.5 months vs 4.5 months)
Cheaper (R9 290X is most likely going to be cheaper than GTX 780/Titan)
Faster (possibly I guess, marginally faster ala 680 versus 7970.)
Power (if it uses less power than 780/Titan, well that's another notch more towards a GTX 680 comparative)

EDIT: And everyone seems to have loved the GTX 680.

:thumbsup:
This emphasizes the annoying way people line up behind brands. Goalposts shift with every release.

 

[Vesku]

Depending on power and performance metrics, this card might be more comparable to a GTX 680 than GTX 480:
Late (3.5 months vs 4.5 months)
Cheaper (R9 290X is most likely going to be cheaper than GTX 780/Titan)
Faster (possibly I guess, marginally faster ala 680 versus 7970.)
Power (if it uses less power than 780/Titan, well that's another notch more towards a GTX 680 comparative)

EDIT: And everyone seems to have loved the GTX 680.

Will have to see at launch, but it does look to be lining up similar to the 680 vs 7970 but with brands reversed. One difference already, compute doesn't seem to be sacrificed given the GPU2014 statement that compute is higher.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Terrible? :thumbsdown:

It was by no means a perfect card but saying that it was terrible is far from the truth

It was a question of timing.

Had NVIDIA been able to launch with the GTX460 a lot earlier and follow later with maybe an improved GTX480, the story could have been different.

Although the GTX460/GTX480 are worse compared to the GTX680/Titan.

Also, had AMD launched with 7970 1GHz the GTX 680 wouldn't have gained as much traction.

But it is all ifs.

 

[SolMiester]

All depends how fast the 290X is. nVidia and AMD both have to wait nearly a year for 20nm releases. There is a chance nVidia could release a Titan Ultra, that is basically a full blown GK110, as opposed to a cut down one.

But if 290X is faster, it most likely will be until mid next year.

And in the case of Fermi, it was what, just over 6 months behind AMD? For the 290X, it is a few months behind the 780, but not 6 months behind. I personally consider the Titan to be outside of the main release cards. Its an ultra expensive singular model. So i feel the 780 is more in line with what AMD is competing with.

Ummm, the 780 was released in May, so that means it is 6 mths behind NV, however like you I believe the Titan is out of the picture, it doesnt follow naming conventions of the gaming game, it really is a dual purpose card.
If NV release a full blown GK110, there is little point leaving it until next year, I think they will release within weeks of 290 if at all....


As for the title, i think the only statement relevant will be the last bit, too expensive.

 

[railven]

Ummm, the 780 was released in May, so that means it is 6 mths behind NV, however like you I believe the Titan is out of the picture, it doesnt follow naming conventions of the gaming game, it really is a dual purpose card.
If NV release a full blown GK110, there is little point leaving it until next year, I think they will release within weeks of 290 if at all....


As for the title, i think the only statement relevant will be the last bit, too expensive.

Why do people like to round up/down?

May 23rd, last week of the month. So 1 week left to even count May, and 290X will hit a hair over 2nd week of Oct.

That's not even 5 months.
1 week of May
June/July/August/Sept
2 weeks of Oct

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Titan released in February, so nine months, highly overqualified GK110 (K20X) started shipping in November of 2012.

This generation if nothing else has been anti consumer.

 

[SolMiester]

LOL, it will be 5 months okay..its not yet released...

 

[seitur]

All depends how fast the 290X is. nVidia and AMD both have to wait nearly a year for 20nm releases. There is a chance nVidia could release a Titan Ultra, that is basically a full blown GK110, as opposed to a cut down one.

Wasn't Nvidia blabbling not so long ago, about first Maxwells in Q1-Q2 2014? That would mean first batch of Maxwells would be in 28nm.
20nm cost and expected small volume and world focus on mobile mean that there won't be 20nm dGPUs till 2015.

I doubt Nvidia will sit doing nothing for for next 1,5 year. They need to fight for market share and revenue - as they need funds in order to finance their R&D and then upcoming product launces which atm is propably bigger then ever and under heavy pressure, when you take into account that Tegra 4 failed, they put alot of expectations on Tegra 5 so they need a lot of money for it's launch. Additioanally thye fight for server market and are under pressure atm on every single market segment they have their foot in.

Nah. Nvidia cannot just wait doing nothing (meaning releasing Titan Ultra and maybe one other Kepler variant and nothing else). dGPU is still their money maker and they need revenue.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It makes no sense to release Maxwell on 28nm. There would essentially be no performance benefit.

And Maxwell is 20nm and a good year away. Just like other 20nm GPUs.

 

[toyota]

Don't agree because Fermi was one hell of arch. 470 was perhaps a more elegant approach by Nvidia, not taking things to the extreme and such but the 480 performed well across the board. It was a high end card so i don't care how much it consumed or how hot it was

480 and 470 were a freaking joke that should have never been released in their current form. it was laughable that despite all the reviews complaining about power, heat and noise there were still plenty of idiots plunking down 500 bucks. if AMD released a card like that they would be torn to shreds and ridiculed.

 

[seitur]

If it is 20nm only then it's more than a year away. Unless they make pure paper launch or very limited 1500$+ top Maxwell Titan 2-like in very limited number. Then maybe 12 months, but I would still doubt it.

 

[boxleitnerb]

It makes no sense to release Maxwell on 28nm. There would essentially be no performance benefit.

And Maxwell is 20nm and a good year away. Just like other 20nm GPUs.

On what do you base that claim? In the future, architecture will play an ever more important role. According to my info, first Maxwell will be released in Q1 2014 (still 28nm). I heard something about February, but I wouldn't expect NV being able to keep that schedule.

 

[Vesku]

If they launch a Maxwell 28nm it will probably be a more efficient big die for HPC use. Might find its way into top end gaming SKUs if yields are good, which is likely given 28nm maturity.

That's IF they do have a 28nm update planned. Intel is planning an early 2014 22nm Phi update so Nvidia might be under some pressure to have an update ready before they could possibly push out a 20nm chip. Perhaps it will be the similar to what AMD has done with the R9-290 series, incorporate some features planned for 20nm into their 28nm design. They'll definitely need a 20nm to counter Intel's late 2014 - early 2015 Phi products, though.

 

[blackened23]

Cool, so the OP knows the pricing on 290/290X. I'm itching to know because some have dropped hints about 550$-590$ (this is by those with channel info) whereas other rumors state anything from 550-750$.

So, what's the price since it's too expensive? The live or die for nvidia fan will say: it's too expensive even if it's 500$. Whatever. If it's 550$-600$ and trades blows with Titan, I think it will be a great card. At 600$ and trading blows, I think it will be an awesome card assuming AMD has the software in order. IMO, the pricing situation is like this: AMD can't price at NV price premium levels due to the software situation (eyefinity CF) and recent bad PR related to that - I think that's obvious. (to me it is, anyway, maybe not to AMD). AMD basically needs to get their software quality on par with Nvidia, that should be the top of their priority list - and until they do so, they will never be able to command NV Price premiums.

I don't believe there's anything to not like if the 290X is 550-600$. That's a lot of performance for the buck and may prompt nvidia to lower prices - NV is probably playing the wait and see game like everyone else is now. I just wish there were a little objectivity now and then, instead of extreme brand loyalism (and this applies to both sides). But if the card is indeed 700$+, that would just show that AMD has no clue as to the state of the market and *why* so many folks like nvidia products. 700$+ is definitely too much. That said, I think this thread is pretty ridiculous and not meant to be objective. There are just too many still unknown variables at this point to even suggest "too little too late and too expensive". We don't even know the price.

 

[Gikaseixas]

480 and 470 were a freaking joke that should have never been released in their current form. it was laughable that despite all the reviews complaining about power, heat and noise there were still plenty of idiots plunking down 500 bucks. if AMD released a card like that they would be torn to shreds and ridiculed.

Nvidia got the GTX 580 out of the same arch, that says a lot.
I agree that the first try was badly executed but still, while not being done right from the beginning they were beating AMD. Even Cayman couldn't beat a GTX 480 overall, i think it was not so bad. Anyway we agree to disagree there.

 

[Carfax83]

480 and 470 were a freaking joke that should have never been released in their current form. it was laughable that despite all the reviews complaining about power, heat and noise there were still plenty of idiots plunking down 500 bucks. if AMD released a card like that they would be torn to shreds and ridiculed.

I had GTX 470 SLI, then stepped up to GTX 480 SLI, and then I sold those and bought GTX 580 SLI, so I guess that makes me a colossal idiot

Yeah, the 400 series ran really hot there's no mistaking. The 470 was the hottest GPU I've ever had in my system. Max load when overclocked peaked at 102c on one of my cards. The 480s ran much cooler due to those massive heat pipes..

At any rate, Fermi was the first class of GPGPUs with advanced compute capabilities so I guess there was plenty of room to screw up.. Eventually the problems were ironed out, and the GTX 580 was a truly awesome GPU..

 

[toyota]

Nvidia got the GTX 580 out of the same arch, that says a lot.
I agree that the first try was badly executed but still, while not being done right from the beginning they were beating AMD. Even Cayman couldn't beat a GTX 480 overall, i think it was not so bad. Anyway we agree to disagree there.

570 and 580 were just fine. again if AMD released a card like the 480, it would not go over well at all.