[VC] AMD Radeon HD 9000 Series Launching in October?

[Silverforce11]

Imho,

I doubt that based on the efficiency, balance, performance, competitive MSRP, and bringing welcomed features like EyeFinity and SGSSAA to potential gamers.

The 5xxx series was so impressive it did take discrete marketshare away from nVidia; to such levels that AMD did take discrete share leadership.

The 7xxx series has lost share -- and needs price dropping and impressive bundles to compete.

IF one uses cherry picking -- can potentially spin anything, imho!

The 5xxx series was impressive for 2 reasons: 1) incredible perf/$ and perf/w vs its competitors and 2) its a bitmining monster.

That's not the only reasons why it stole marketshare from NV, because NV had ridiculous pricing on their cards and the original Fermi did not impress and was very late, these reasons combined enable the 5xxx series to shine. 7xxx series came out the gate leaving a bad taste with everyone, $549 is not a price they should have charged for a relatively small die product (its smaller than 6970).

 

[bystander36]

The point is that you could have gotten a $550 card at launch well over a year ago that with overclocking can perform similar to a $650 GPU that was released last month. It doesn't matter that the $650 card can outperform said $550 card over a year later.

So $350 bucks from AMD can get you $650 of nvidia's performance. Even if Nvidia's $650 of performance can net you their $1000 of performance it's still only around 15-25% more performance that you can get for $350.

What does one have to do with the other? You compare the cards with how you use them, then compare the prices. You can actually make an informed choice.

The only reason you compare OC to stock is to give yourself an ego boost, or to fool yourself into not considering the faster card. You can still compare the price to performance differences when you look at them fairly. Nothing stops you from considering the 780 too expensive.

 

[Black Octagon]

Has anyone actually SEEN this original 'source'??? Videocardz.com refers to this site: http://www.chinadiy.com.cn/html/92/n-10092.html

But when I click it, I see an article about a new Antec PSU. No record of any other news about AMD from the pat few days that mentions a 9000 series either...

Sorry, but bump (yes already)

I've seen far too many threads about 'upcoming' cards turn into massively long wastes of time because of 'rumours' that turned out to be garbage. So again, has anyone actually READ the original source?

 

[Silverforce11]

What does one have to do with the other? You compare the cards with how you use them, then compare the prices. You can actually make an informed choice.

The only reason you compare OC to stock is to give yourself an ego boost, or to fool yourself into not considering the faster card.

I don't think you "GET IT".

Time is a factor. It's been a LONG time into this gen.

Even if you OC the 780 by 15%, its still $650 NOW, when you could have 7970s running at 1.2ghz a LONG time ago. Heck, you could have had 7950 for $330 near launch running at 1.2ghz and be within single digit % of a stock 780. Pricing is completely wacked.. yet you don't seem to notice.

Seriously, in what world do you think its good that this long after 28nm, you get a product that's 15-20% faster for $650, when you can get a 7970ghz for $310? You have to be beyond the typical fan to fail to see the ridiculous rip off.

 

[SirPauly]

The 5xxx series was impressive for 2 reasons: 1) incredible perf/$ and perf/w vs its competitors and 2) its a bitmining monster.

That's not the only reasons why it stole marketshare from NV, because NV had ridiculous pricing on their cards and the original Fermi did not impress and was very late, these reasons combined enable the 5xxx series to shine. 7xxx series came out the gate leaving a bad taste with everyone, $549 is not a price they should have charged for a relatively small die product (its smaller than 6970).

Imho,

Pricing was consistent as well with the GTX 4XX, GTX 5XX and GTX 6XX series and garnered clear market share leadership.

GF-100 and derivatives, while a good chip, may of lacked the balance the market desired, with performance per watt being some-what lackluster.

 

[RussianSensation]

Imho,

IF one uses cherry picking -- can potentially spin anything, imho!

You talk about cherry picking and bring about market share and pricing, etc. when the discussion was squarely on 5870 and 7970 as hardware tech/performance leap vs. their predecessors because many posters keep mentioning how they are not impressed by this gen's leap. 7970 is way more impressive than 5870 in nearly every way except power consumption and launch price.

- 7970 outperforms 6970 by more than 5870 outperformed 4890 in stock and overclocked states, but people forget 4890 and compare 5870 to 4870.
- 2 years after launch, 7970 has sufficient VRAM, HD5870 started to run out of 1GB
- 7970 was a huge leap in compute performance, while 5870 was nothing special over 4890
- 7970 has no huge weakness while 5870 was worthless in DX11 games with tessellation
- For nearly 2 years, excepting $650-$999 GPUs, HD7970 OC remains one the fastest single card and even now at 1200mhz it trades blows with 1300mhz $400 770. The same cannot be said of HD5870 OC as it was superseded by GTX560Ti 448 OC, 570 OC, 6950 OC, 6970 OC, 580 OC, etc.

The reason people remember the 5870 so favourably is because NV was late by 6 months with hot/power hungry cards, AMD priced it low and 5870's drivers were pretty good from the beginning since it was VLIW like 2900-4800 series. If we look back to 7970 from the time it launched, it is more impressive than 5870 was on AMD's generational leap. In the context of 7970 vs. 6970, a hypothetical 20-30% faster 9970 for $549 nearly 2 years later after 7970 launched is good since we are still talking 28nm, but nothing ground-breaking. Although it's hard to blame AMD/NV for this since 20nm is not ready, but even based on the paper specs of 20nm, it seems less impressive than the leap to 28nm was. That means a real successor to HD7970 OC from AMD for many 7970 owners won't come until Q2 or later in 2014, which is a long time since 7970 came out.

 

[spat55]

I hope that most of these are real products, and not just more rebranded 7xxx and 6xxx series hardware.

Both NVidia and AMD's "new" product naming conventions are starting to piss me off.

I'm not to sure, but if the HD 9850 can beat a HD 7970 then I will be one happy man 🙂

 

[Nintendesert]

You talk about cherry picking and bring about market share and pricing, etc. when the discussion was squarely on 5870 and 7970 as hardware tech/performance leap vs. their predecessors because many posters keep mentioning how they are not impressed by this gen's leap. 7970 is way more impressive than 5870 in nearly every way except power consumption and launch price.

- 7970 outperforms 6970 by more than 5870 outperformed 4890 in stock and overclocked states, but people forget 4890 and compare 5870 to 4870.
- 2 years after launch, 7970 has sufficient VRAM, HD5870 started to run out of 1GB
- 7970 was a huge leap in compute performance, while 5870 was nothing special over 4890
- 7970 has no huge weakness while 5870 was worthless in DX11 games with tessellation
- For nearly 2 years, excepting $650-$999 GPUs, HD7970 OC remains one the fastest single card and even now at 1200mhz it trades blows with 1300mhz $400 770. The same cannot be said of HD5870 OC as it was superseded by GTX560Ti 448 OC, 570 OC, 6950 OC, 6970 OC, 580 OC, etc.

The reason people remember the 5870 so favourably is because NV was late by 6 months with hot/power hungry cards, AMD priced it low and 5870's drivers were pretty good from the beginning since it was VLIW like 2900-4800 series. If we look back to 7970 from the time it launched, it is more impressive than 5870 was on AMD's generational leap. In the context of 7970 vs. 6970, a hypothetical 20-30% faster 9970 for $549 nearly 2 years later after 7970 launched is good since we are still talking 28nm, but nothing ground-breaking. Although it's hard to blame AMD/NV for this since 20nm is not ready, but even based on the paper specs of 20nm, it seems less impressive than the leap to 28nm was. That means a real successor to HD7970 OC from AMD for many 7970 owners won't come until Q2 or later in 2014, which is a long time since 7970 came out.

You're right, AMD gave us great value with the 5870. I bought one due to it. The 7xxx isn't looked at as favorably because AMD didn't give us a great value at launch with it, instead they allowed Nvidia to provide a better value with the 680 at launch. It sours opinions of it all.

 

[SirPauly]

You talk about cherry picking and bring about market share and pricing, etc. when the discussion was squarely on 5870 and 7970 as hardware tech/performance leap vs. their predecessors because many posters keep mentioning how they are not impressed by this gen's leap. 7970 is way more impressive than 5870 in nearly every way except power consumption and launch price.

5XXX was a much more dominant family based on its balance, efficiency, pricing and welcomed new features from DirectX 11, EyeFinity and SGSSAA -- the market reacted favorably as proof.

nVidia's much bigger cores had trouble competing with them.

The 7970 is so impressive based on your vocal claims -- the GK-104 easily competes with them.

 

[sushiwarrior]

Mate, you sure are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims. I hope you're right, because if you're not it turns into an arguing point for the nVidia supporters. Just like you are seeing now with people comparing you to another poster who your style closely emulates. 😉

Only substance I can offer is that I let you guys know about BTS launch target and what I know about Hawaii will be proven right when it's announced, up to you whether you want to believe me or not.

 

[RussianSensation]

5XXX was a much more dominant family based on its balance, efficiency, pricing and welcomed new features from DirectX 11, EyeFinity and SGSSAA -- the market reacted favorably as proof.

nVidia's much bigger cores had trouble competing with them.

The 7970 is so impressive based on your vocal claims -- the GK-104 easily competes with them.

You are still ignoring facts. HD7970 is more impressive than 5870 was over 4890 or 6970 was over 5870. The fact that you also missed the part of me comparing 780 to 580 shows you are missing the point of what's being discussed. Both the 780 OC and 7970GE OC are major leaps in performance over 580 OC and 6970 OC. There is no way a 28nm HD9970 can surpass how impressive 7970 was vs. 6970. It would need to be 40% faster than 7970GE and have 30% extra overclocking headroom. Ya, good luck with that.....

You are also not accounting that NV made a bigger leap with Kepler than it had done with Fermi.

GTX480 was 49% faster than GTX280 or just 35-40% faster over GTX285. In contrast, after-market 780s/Titan are 77-80% faster than GTX580 is at 1080P/1600P.

Not sure if people on our forums are looking at different benchmarks than me or cannot separate price as a separate issue from a technical leap. On the technicalogical front, both AMD and NV made a major leap forward with 28nm generation. The biggest disappointment is the price, but anyone who claims this generation is not impressive from a performance leap must be living in dreamland if they think GTX480 beat GTX285 by 77-80% or if HD5870 was smashing 4890 by 64%. Not even close.

Once again, you talk about all factors not related to the performance leap made on this node. How well HD5870 sold has 0 to do with how impressive it was vs. 4890 vs. how impressive 7970GE is against 6970. In fact, NV made one of the largest leaps since 8800GTX with the 780 which suddenly makes 7970GE's 64% performance advantage over 6970 seem "underwhelming".

And as I said, people continue to ignore how in latest games like GRID 2, COH2, 28nm 780/7970GE are destroying 6970/580. Cards like FX5200 and GTX550Ti sold well but they were trash. People can be upset about the price increase for this generation, but the performance increase NV/AMD delivered over their respective flagships has been nothing short of impressive, especially from team NV.

On the feature front, I can't believe you brought up all those things 5xxx series had and didn't say a word about the most killer feature ever on a videocard - ability to make $. If you started mining with 7970 right away, you are probably sitting on $2-3K generated per card net. No matter what HD9970 brings to the table, it will never beat HD7970. HD7970 will go down in history as the best card ever made simply because of Bitcoin mining. Eyefinity? Really now? A set of 7-10x 7970s generated enough $ for a 20-30 years of GPU upgrades. No GPU ever made from this point will be able to claim this feat. If you want to talk about impressive, the benefits of 7970 will be felt long term by miners. Even if HD9970 is 1 billion times faster than HD7970, because HD7970's mining paid for that upgrade, it forever makes 7970 more impressive because X # of upgrades thereafter are absolutely free.

 

[Imouto]

Nvidia outwit AMD big time this gen. They stripped all compute capabilities from the GK104 variants and made a pure gaming chip. This made the power hungry and compute capable 7970 look awful.

Meanwhile Pitcairn is a really balanced chip. Keeping its gaming performance per square mm and scaling it to GK104 size would have turned the tables.

AMD got everything wrong this gen, just face it. When your flagship looks so beta your entire lineup looks the same way even having superb values as the HD 7950 and HD 7850.

 

[sontin]

Superb after price cuts. The whole lineup was awful from the start with no price/perf increase over the previous gen.

 

[RussianSensation]

Nvidia outwit AMD big time this gen. They stripped all compute capabilities from the GK104 variants and made a pure gaming chip. This made the power hungry and compute capable 7970 look awful. AMD got everything wrong this gen, just face it.

Wrong. For enthusiast consumers who didn't mind btc mining, HD7950/7970 are the 2 best gaming + btc mining cards ever made. At the peak of bitcoin mining, a single 7970 overclocked was clearing $250 a month in profits, and 2 years later a 1300mhz 770 still cannot beat a 1200mhz 7970. Please let me know how you view that as a failure. If you want to talk about awful, let's talk about $649 GTX280. 9 months after that card launched, HD4890 delivered that performance for $259. Less than 1.5 years after $499 GTX480 launched, it was on sale on for $200-225. Now NV is asking $640 for a card that's what 30% faster overclocked against a $310 7970 overclocked. 🙄

And the power consumption discussion is way overblown. GTX770 is ~2-5% faster than 7970GE and has similar power consumption compared to after-market 7970GEs. Of course for the last 12 months, NV fans insist on linking graphs of non-existent reference 7970 cards flashed with 7970GE bioses to skew the power consumption data because no such cards have ever been sold in retail.

HD7970 1Ghz is the only card in its class at the $310-350 level that can come extremely close to a stock performance of a $650 GTX780. The next level up is a $400-450 GTX770. :sneaky: HD9970 would need to be priced at $499-549 and be 30-40% faster than $310 HD7970 1Ghz to make the same slash 7970 did when it debuted, oh and have 30% more overclocking headroom too. Not going to happen....

 

[zlejedi]

Not sure if people on our forums are looking at different benchmarks than me or cannot separate price as a separate issue from a technical leap. On the technicalogical front, both AMD and NV made a major leap forward with 28nm generation. The biggest disappointment is the price, but anyone who claims this generation is not impressive from a performance leap must be living in dreamland if they think GTX480 beat GTX285 by 77-80% or if HD5870 was smashing 4890 by 64%. Not even close.

Definitly - i've swapped 470->770 and there's around 100% of performance difference.
But 470 costed me 210 euro and 770 was 350.

 

[Imouto]

@RS

Yeah, sure. While AMD was making money with overengineered PCBs, bigger dies and 50% more GDDR5 Nvidia surfed its way to profits with way cheaper hardware.

As for consumers, all the mid and high end are within single digits in perf/$. It's pretty obvious that ppl prefer earlier game support for their cards, proper multi-GPU and the Nvidia halo. AMD forced to drop prices speak for itself, they're doing it wrong and won't change the long term perception of Nvidia being better this way.

And I'm not trying to burst your bubble with BTC mining but you were able to make those big bucks for barely 2 months 14 months after release not to talk about needing free or low priced electricity.

Superb after price cuts. The whole lineup was awful from the start with no price/perf increase over the previous gen.

While AMD 7950/70 chips had a decrease in that metric Nvidia brought 0% perf/$ increase with the 670/80.

 

[nemesismk2]

9700 PRO please 😀

I had the radeon 9000 pro, 9600 xt and 9700 pro.

 

[nemesismk2]

Nvidia outwit AMD big time this gen. They stripped all compute capabilities from the GK104 variants and made a pure gaming chip. This made the power hungry and compute capable 7970 look awful.

Meanwhile Pitcairn is a really balanced chip. Keeping its gaming performance per square mm and scaling it to GK104 size would have turned the tables.

AMD got everything wrong this gen, just face it. When your flagship looks so beta your entire lineup looks the same way even having superb values as the HD 7950 and HD 7850.

I call a flagship video card from AMD the hd 7990 😉

 

[thilanliyan]

Nvidia outwit AMD big time this gen. They stripped all compute capabilities from the GK104 variants and made a pure gaming chip.

I'm so glad AMD didn't strip compute abilities...crypto mining is something that is possible on AMD's cards, but isn't really feasible on nV cards. My personal preference to be able to do that though...I'm sure lots of other people don't care about it.

 

[videogames101]

@RS

Yeah, sure. While AMD was making money with overengineered PCBs, bigger dies and 50% more GDDR5 Nvidia surfed its way to profits with way cheaper hardware.

As for consumers, all the mid and high end are within single digits in perf/$. It's pretty obvious that ppl prefer earlier game support for their cards, proper multi-GPU and the Nvidia halo. AMD forced to drop prices speak for itself, they're doing it wrong and won't change the long term perception of Nvidia being better this way.

And I'm not trying to burst your bubble with BTC mining but you were able to make those big bucks for barely 2 months 14 months after release not to talk about needing free or low priced electricity.



While AMD 7950/70 chips had a decrease in that metric Nvidia brought 0% perf/$ increase with the 670/80.

You're moving the goal posts every time you post, please stop it.

 

[x3sphere]

The way I see it, considering this card is due for release supposedly in 3 months, AMD should be shooting for at least Titan performance. If it's only slightly faster than a 780 that entices no one that picked up a 780 to upgrade.

Besides - I'm sure NV is already making good margin off the 7xx parts, 3 months out they might even able to undercut AMD.

The biggest issue is that within AMD's own lineup, the 9970 will end up what around 25% faster than a 7970 and cost almost double the price! I can't see this happening.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'm so glad AMD didn't strip compute abilities...crypto mining is something that is possible on AMD's cards, but isn't really feasible on nV cards. My personal preference to be able to do that though...I'm sure lots of other people don't care about it.

It uses SP, even nVidia doesn't strip SP.

Even Titan does poorly in crypto because it takes 3 cycles to do what AMD hardware can do in 1.

 

[Carfax83]

At the peak of bitcoin mining, a single 7970 overclocked was clearing $250 a month in profits, and 2 years later a 1300mhz 770 still cannot beat a 1200mhz 7970.

I just have to say, nice benchmark cherry picking 😀

Of course, HardOCP did some overclocking comparisons as well using much more sober settings that didn't include vastly inflated levels of AA intended to make the Radeon look better than it really is, and found that even at 1240 MHz, the 770 could easily compete with the overclocked 7970 at 1275 and beat it in Metro Last Light, Crysis 3 and tie it in Far Cry 3.

 

[bystander36]

I don't think you "GET IT".

Time is a factor. It's been a LONG time into this gen.

Even if you OC the 780 by 15%, its still $650 NOW, when you could have 7970s running at 1.2ghz a LONG time ago. Heck, you could have had 7950 for $330 near launch running at 1.2ghz and be within single digit % of a stock 780. Pricing is completely wacked.. yet you don't seem to notice.

Seriously, in what world do you think its good that this long after 28nm, you get a product that's 15-20% faster for $650, when you can get a 7970ghz for $310? You have to be beyond the typical fan to fail to see the ridiculous rip off.

I understand the prices. I understand that it may not be a good value. What does that have to do with comparing them OC vs OC or stock vs stock? You still can come to the same conclusion when you compare them the way you'd use them.

I'm not sure where on earth you keep getting the idea I'm calling them a good value. I'm telling you that it is stupid to compare an OC'ed card to a stock card.

 

[blackened23]

Not sure what all the fuss is about?