ALMOST the same. Indeed its very close, so close in fact you can't tell unless you run benchmarks and watch for the few % difference. It's identical the 5850 vs 5870, 6950 vs 6970 scenario we had.
chimaxi83
Diamond Member
- May 18, 2003
- 5,457
- 63
- 101
Brand new member trying to troll? Looks legit.
I've never heard the CPU/GPU sentiment. If I did, I'd dismiss that person as not knowing what the hell they're talking about. As for drivers, that horse is beyond beaten and dead. NV and AMD each have driver issues. It's really only fanboys and people who believe everything they read that keep repeating the "AMD drivers are teh suck" mantra.
chimaxi83
Diamond Member
- May 18, 2003
- 5,457
- 63
- 101
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Comment of the month, right here. :wub: Respect. :thumbsup:
AMD did overprice their cards at launch, no doubt, but now?
Let us know which AMD card is currently overpriced. I'll get you started:
HD7750 $90-100 > GTX450
HD7770 Ghz $110-120 > GTX550Ti
HD6870 $150 > GTX560
HD6950 2GB $190 > $180 GTX560Ti 1GB
HD7850 $210-240 > GTX560 Ti 448
HD7870 $250-280 > GTX570
HD7950 $320-340 = no NV competitor
HD7970 after market $420-430 ~ GTX670 after market (depends if you value overclocking or power consumption)
HD7970 GE $450-460 > GTX680
NV charges almost $460-490 for GTX670 4GB and $580+ for GTX680 4GB.
You said AMD doesn't have any features:
- Eyefinity / ability to play games with mixed resolutions with multiple monitors
- 3GB/6GB VRAM options on 7970 + huge overclocking headroom on 7950/7970
- 2GB on 7850/7870 + massive overclocking vs. 560Ti 448/570 1.28GB
- Very strong performance in some GPU heavy titles (Metro 2033, Crysis 1/Warhead)
- Overall performance lead with HD7970 GE
Actually for 5 months now HD7850/7870 had no competition from NV at all. What kind of special features do GTX560Ti/570 cards have? PhysX? AO?
The budget brand comment is funny, because I can see how the average person on "gaming forums" might believe it. No wonder NV had no problems launching GTX280 for $650, and then charging $150 extra for the GTX480 over the 5870. You remember GTX260 for $399 vs. $299 HD4870? 4870 was faster for $100 less, prompting NV to scramble to get GTX260 216 core out and dropping prices by $100. So much for AMD's budget brand label.
Last edited:
The Steam survey shows that gamers pefer NVIDIA. It's common knowledge. Go read the forums there or Blizzard. I game a lot and it is what I read.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
I'd like to add one for AMD here over nVidia -- Lod adjustments for DirectX 10+ with SSAA.
I'll grant you the first part, in red. A lot of people just think AMD isn't as good as nVidia. That's marketing in all of it's forms. Until AMD decides they are going to actually market competitively, this will be very hard to overcome.
The second part, in blue, is pure ignorance though. What AMD tried to do was charge the market price for their product that was established by nVidia. They weren't trying to change the perception of their product by raising prices.
They might have been able to pull it off if they had released Tahiti at the same level of performance it has now. Rory needs to realize you can't bring a half baked effort to market against nVidia. You might race off to an early lead until nVidia starts firing back. You'd best be prepared and have a plan.
AMD, this gen, seems to be reacting instead of having a plan. Many on these forums have said what AMD needs to do, and been right. AMD just does it too late. I think it was RussianSensation (if it was someone else, please correct me) that said earlier that AMD needs to get the 7950GE out to ruin the release of the 660ti. That's the obvious response to the 660ti, and it's likely what AMD will do... a few weeks after it's launched and nVidia has sold a couple million of them.
In the end, AMD certainly has issues. It's not the fault of the product though, in any way shape or form. The product is fine and competes no problem. Especially this round. They actually have the faster products, and way more of them at all market levels. nVidia shouldn't be selling anything, relatively speaking, right now. They have one video card that's a compelling product, the 670, and that's a $400+ card.
What about the other 95% of the market? Why haven't AMD already sold everyone who needs one a midrange card by now? How can nVidia release a competing product 6mos. late to market and still have it be a player in the market. At best it should only stop the bleeding. There's a good chance though it will end up a market leader. And it's not because Pitcairn isn't an excellent product in that market already.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
One may make that point but it was 28nm product vs 40nm product, but what AMD did was set 28nm price/performance very similar to 40nm price/performance.
Competitive advantages, maximize revenue and margins, supply and demand but really think AMD may of speculated having more time to enjoy the enthusiast price-points to themselves, with potentially thinking that nVidia may of needed the monolith to compete with them.
What it may of done was open the door for improved margins for the GK-104 and AMD reacting to this surprising competition from nVidia by reducing prices, offering bundles, trying to improve upon the core. When nVidia did see the performance and price-points of the HD 7970, may of been dancing in the halls in Santa Clara.
Competitive advantages, maximize revenue and margins, supply and demand but really think AMD may of speculated having more time to enjoy the enthusiast price-points to themselves, with potentially thinking that nVidia may of needed the monolith to compete with them.
What it may of done was open the door for improved margins for the GK-104 and AMD reacting to this surprising competition from nVidia by reducing prices, offering bundles, trying to improve upon the core. When nVidia did see the performance and price-points of the HD 7970, may of been dancing in the halls in Santa Clara.
Your general theory here is that the GTX 670 performance out of the box should be ignored, and that the 7970 "louder than a GTX 480" edition should even count.
A GTX 670 available for the MSRP of $400 produces results barely slower than a stock GTX 680. There is really no reason to even mention "stock" GTX 670 performance since "turbo boost" automatically overclocks the card based upon the temperature of the card. Therefore, models priced with a $0 price premium have performance marginally slower than stock GTX 680 performance since the cooling system can keep the card cool enough for turbo boost to automatically overclock the card.
Therefore, the proper comparison is cheaper GTX 670 versus 7970 that sounds like a vacuum cleaner. I will pick the GTX 670. Also, where is this mythical "7970 GHz Edition"? I don't see one available for sale here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=20 . Maybe AMD couldn't even convince AIB partners to sell a card that sounds like a vacuum cleaner for a 1% performance victory.
Here is how I see it
HD7750 $90-100 > GTS 450
HD7770 $110 < GTX 560 Se / GTX 460 V2
HD6870 $150 = GTX560 (really, these cards are equal and prices fluctuate)
HD6950 $190 > $180 GTX560Ti
HD7850 $220 > GTX560 Ti 448
HD7870 $260 > GTX 570
HD7950 $300 > GTX 660 Ti (this is just a clear AMD victory here)
HD7970 $420 < GTX 670 $400
HD7970 $500 < GTX 670 4GB $460
No Competition < GTX 680 2GB / 4GB
GTX 670 4GB SLI > GTX 690
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,330
- 126
From your link :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125413
1000Mhz core with a remarkably quiet cooler. $439.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814131471
1100Mhz core with a quiet custom cooler. $449.99
Things have changed with these ultra fast, quiet and new price point 7970s now on the market. If I were buying today it would be 7970s, not 680s. The 680 is overpriced and not worth it due to both the 670s pricing and the 7970 being faster for less.
Also why not spend $40 more for one of these new 7970s considering it has a sizable performance lead over the 670 ?
The BP1 numbers are the performance of a 1.1Ghz $449.99 7970 :
These new custom high clocked 7970s at their current pricing are really good buys imo.
Can we be realistic?
Many of you are operating under the assumption that the prospective buyers of this card will be rocking 1440p/1600p displays or triple monitor setups with 16x AA. That just doesn't make sense. This is a mid-range card and for better or worse, it is suited for a mid-range audience. These are the folks that will be using 1080p or smaller displays, and using 4x AA at the most.
It seems that this card will be a hit for its target niche, and that's probably all that Nvidia is hoping for. Besides, they wouldn't want GTX670 sales cannibalized now would they?
Many of you are operating under the assumption that the prospective buyers of this card will be rocking 1440p/1600p displays or triple monitor setups with 16x AA. That just doesn't make sense. This is a mid-range card and for better or worse, it is suited for a mid-range audience. These are the folks that will be using 1080p or smaller displays, and using 4x AA at the most.
It seems that this card will be a hit for its target niche, and that's probably all that Nvidia is hoping for. Besides, they wouldn't want GTX670 sales cannibalized now would they?
Last edited:
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
I was thinking more along the lines of someone with a nice IPS display and is a casual gamer. They would have a terrible experience.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
What about HD7970 cards like the Gigabyte Windforce 3x, Sapphire Dual-X, etc.? There have been plenty of sales for HD7970 Direct CUII, Giga Windforce for $420-430. This Asus DirectCUII for $430 didn't take long to find.
This is why I listed $420-430 HD7970 and didn't say $370-390 reference HD7970. Also, both of those overclock to 1150mhz+. Your prices for "loud" reference HD7970 at $420 are way too high, while $500 for quiet HD7970 vs. GTX670 4GB is way off. So really it's very difficult to claim that GTX670 is better than those after market 7970 cards with Cats 12.7Beta and 7970's overclocking headroom. Sure, some of those prices have crept up lately but for at least 2 weeks I've seen after-market quiet HD7970's hovering at the $420-430 level. Not reason to believe HD7970 after-market won't dip to $410-420 once again on Newegg.
Superbiiz has the Vapor-X GE for $450 after $10 off coupon. It's super quiet and I bet an overclocking beast:
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-7970GHZ
Also, the 1100mhz Vortex II Grooveriding linked.
So you think GTX680 2GB/4GB have no competition against 1050mhz/1100mhz HD7970?
Why is the 7970 1050mhz beating a GTX680 in most reviews then?
Computerbase
TechReport
TechSpot 1080mhz version beats 680 (so you get an idea of how 1100mhz Vortex II would do
TechPowerUp - GTX680 lost in 14 out of 17 games to 7970 1050mhz at 1600P
Xbitlabs and Xbitlabs Review #2 - GTX680 @ 1290 GPU Boosted couldn't beat an HD7970 @ 1165mhz
KitGuru - 1267mhz GTX670 KFA2 lost in 7 out of 11 tests against an overclocked HD7970
BitTech
Sounds to me like AMD is offering a faster card for $450 (of which there are at least 2 quiet versions - Vapor-X and Vortex II) vs. GTX680 2GB that costs $500. And NV has the audicity to charge $580 for GTX680 4GB that still loses. Even with overclocking, the 680 still can't really beat an overclocked 7970.
How is NV charging $130 more over a 3GB HD7970 Vapor-X GE for their vanilla reference design GTX680 4GB? That's very overpriced imo.
GTX560 SE is neutered. GTX460 V2 has 192-bit memory bus. I am not going to look for reviews on those 2 cards but there is a guy that collects reviews online and puts it in a chart. 560SE loses to HD7770:
http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewtopic.php?p=41174
The 460 V2 is way better with overclocking, but that card is going EOL soon. So really, that's only a placeholder. NV has nothing to counter 7750/7770 and their Ghz editions. In fact, all the 460s are sold out on Newegg and the 460 V2/192-bit are going for $139-149 on Auto-Notify. So I think that card is disqualified.
OK, I'll probably agree on that but I gave the win to the 6870 because while the performance would be similar, the 6870 would probably consume less power.
I suppose it can go either way since GTX560 has PhysX, AO and Adaptive Vsync. But since power consumption is so important this generation, I figured I'd throw that one in favour of the AMD card to be consistent
. Still, I don't see how any of the AMD cards are overpriced which was the whole point of my reply to Siberian.
Last edited:
I still can't get over people arguing for or against cards that cost $450-500 when they should cost $200-250.
It's unbelievable to me that either of these two companies are not being met with more skepticism and criticism. No matter which way you go you're getting pwned by corporate america.
Just because one may be slight better or worse than the other does not make the slightly better offering "good", please wake up.
This new "mid-ranged" card is a downgrade from the 460 in almost every aspect, the only redeeming quality for it is a full node shrink and a new more energy efficient design, it still get destroyed by AA because it's a low end card masquerading as a mid-range card.
It's unbelievable to me that either of these two companies are not being met with more skepticism and criticism. No matter which way you go you're getting pwned by corporate america.
Just because one may be slight better or worse than the other does not make the slightly better offering "good", please wake up.
This new "mid-ranged" card is a downgrade from the 460 in almost every aspect, the only redeeming quality for it is a full node shrink and a new more energy efficient design, it still get destroyed by AA because it's a low end card masquerading as a mid-range card.
Did you read the review? You don't need to go hires. With AA @ 1920*1200 the 670 is ~20% faster overall and ~25% faster in the Dx11 titles. Because of the limited number of titles it's hard to come to a definitive conclusion, but it's not looking so great. If that trend continued overall it would put it in 7870 performance territory. Depending on price, power consumption, etc. that might not be a bad thing. It doesn't look like the 7950 is going to be threatened by it, though.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Speak to JHH why he didn't crush HD7970 with GK110. AMD added compute which put them in a tough spot die size and power consumption wise. The CPU division is struggling with cash-flow. Not much room for price wars on their end. They really can't afford to sell HD7950 for $299 on launch date and let us unlock it to a 7970. AMD cards are very cheap for those willing to take 10 min to set up a BTC mining operation. Today's price hit $9.50 and 7970 OCed makes that in 3 days. I am not saying everyone should do it, but it's an option. Costs nothing to set up the application.
See above. I know you like to tweak all your stuff and overclock it hard. You'd love the 7950/7970 cards. Watercooled and overclocked to 1.2ghz, they'll pay themselves off fast. You can even game on your $40 GTX470 while they mine in the background on an open test bench. A 1.2ghz 7970 makes ~ $90-95 Less ~ $25 for electricity = $65-70. Then in 6 months you got yourself 3 almost paid for 7970s (depending on your electricity rate). I mean there are ways to afford these $400 GPUs if you really wanted to without spending a lot. Bitcoin mining is the answer.
Balla, you know you want to.
Really in the context of console ported games unless you absolutely need max settings are or using 2560x1440/1600 monitor, even $150 HD6870 or dirt-cheap used GTX470s OCed are perfectly fine for gaming on a 1080P monitor. In some games like Crysis 2 or Dirt Showdown, it's very hard to tell the difference between High and Ultra. GTX470 @ 750mhz is still fast ~ GTX480. That's still great for 90% of gamers on Steam. HD7850 for $220 is good enough for most people as well. Steam game sales add up in savings fast vs. console games. So the alternative for $200 Xbox 360 or $300+ WiiU isn't that appealing right now tbh. You really don't need $400+ GPU to get better graphics than $200 7-year old consoles.
Last edited:
First, the 7970 was quiet with auto fan to my ears, when I had my 7970s. Secondly, the 670 isn't exactly known for the best reference fan design, and many 670s have issues with coil whine and weird sounds. I certainly wouldn't say the reference shroud on the 670 is a triumph in engineering (and I wouldn't say the same for the 7970 either), but I do think you should choose a better argument. Secondly, the 7970 definitely overtakes the 670 in performance at clock speeds in excess of 1050, and the gap widens at high resolution / surround. I chose the 680 SLI for other reasons but if it came down to 670 or 7970OC / GE I think I would take the latter. Thats me though.
GHz edition is also available, but seeing as many vendors have boards clocked past 1050mhz anyway some have opted not to. Really whats the point, there were scores of boards already out there with 1050-1100mhz clockspeeds so they're already technically ghz editions.
Last edited:
Speak to JHH why he didn't crush HD7970 with GK110. AMD added compute which put them in a tough spot and the company itself is struggling with cash-flow. They really can't afford to sell HD7950 for $299 on launch date and let us unlock it to a 7970. AMD cards are very cheap for those willing to take 10 min to set up a BTC mining operation. Today's price hit $9.50 and 7970 OCed makes that in 3 days.
See above. I know you like to tweak all your stuff and overclock it hard. You'd love the 7950/7970 cards. Watercooled and overclocked to 1.2ghz, they'll pay themselves off fast. You can even game on your $40 GTX470 while they mine in the background on an open test bench. A 1.2ghz 7970 makes ~ $90-95 Less ~ $25 for electricity = $65-70. Then in 6 months you got yourself 3 almost paid for 7970s (depending on your electricity rate).
Balla, you know you want to.
Really in the context of console ported games unless you absolutely need max settings are or using 2560x1440/1600 monitor, even $150 HD6870 or dirt-cheap used GTX470s OCed are perfectly fine for gaming on a 1080P monitor. GTX470 @ 750mhz is still fast ~ GTX480. That's still great for 90% of gamers on Steam. HD7850 for $220 is good enough for most people as well. Steam game sales add up in savings fast vs. console games. So the alternative for $200 Xbox 360 or $300+ WiiU isn't that appealing right now tbh. You really don't need $400+ GPU to get better graphics than $200 consoles today.
I would love to overclock a 7970 on water, when the price is within reason.
I didn't pay $350 for a 470, that would have just made me sad. The most I ever paid for a 470 was $185 in 2010, after that I paid $110, $150, $100, $90, $40.
These prices are a joke and a slap in the face to anyone whose been following gpu tech for the last 10 years.
I can understand the $400+ user market, I can't understanding anyone accepting these cards at their current prices.
Can you imagine if the 280 was 30% faster than the 8800?
Can you imagine if the 480 was just 30% faster than that 280?
Can you imagine if the 680 was just 30% faster than the 580?
It just seems silly to me, granted they're both fast cards, they just aren't $500 cards.
Last edited:
BlockheadBrown
Senior member
- Dec 17, 2004
- 307
- 0
- 0
No offence, but I'm reading this post as if it was in a Dr. Suess book.
/twisted mind
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
So what do we do then? Go without a video card for our new PC build?
You can take your tech following and shove it. I'm not content with last years tech for a brand new build.
A lot of you act like we've all had our 3570k systems for a year already... When starting from nothing you need to buy something and for most of us last year's stuff is not going to satisfy.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter