Context. Go find it.
All I did was provide actual numbers to those who seem to have either forgotten, or wanted to avoid the truth.
What people don't want to talk about:
1) 7970 925mhz overclock to 1150-1175 mhz on air on either default voltage or with a minor voltage bump to 1.225V. That resulted in 23-27% performance boost, scaling 580 could only dream of. Statements like 7970 was only 20% faster than 580 miss the entire point of how freaken fast the 7970 OC was vs. 580 OC. The lead was more like
40-80%. Nearly none of NV users on our boards have ever acknowledged this article and I have a feeling never will own up to the facts.
2) 7970 @ 280X/7970GE speeds now completely destroys the 580 in modern games. Look up 30 most recent titles of 7970Ghz/R9 280X at any major site and the difference is far and beyond 20% because games became way more advanced and not only the drivers improved. Most graphical workload allows the 7970 = 680 and 7970Ghz/280X = 770 in the last 24 months. NV users will continue to deny this until they are blue in the face always spouting the same myth that 680 = 7970Ghz and 770 > 7970Ghz. This hasn't been true since
June 2012. NV users will continue to deny that 680
only had the lead over the original stock 7970 until June 2012 when
7970Ghz took the performance crown.
3) 680 OC vs. 7970 OC - 680 could not convincingly beat 7970 OC since launch even and over time 7970 OC pulled away from 680 OC to the point where now the difference is about 10-12% in favour of the 7970 OC which is why 7970Ghz / R9 280X compete with 770, not the 680.
4) 7970 had a trump card no NV card in history can ever claim -- it could have cost $1000 really because a 7970 made thousands of dollars in bitcoin mining over the hottest period in mining, easily paying for itself 10x over if you knew what you were doing. Each of my 7970s made 15x its price. What's the point of even bringing up the 7970's $549 price? If you know any other $550 videocard which made $7-8K in profits over its lifetime in mining, please link it. Even if you ignore it, today a stock 7970Ghz is
46% faster on average over the 580! 980 is barely 7-10% faster than 780Ti and maybe 15% when accounting 1.25Ghz 780 vs. 980 @ 1.5Ghz. 980 has no hope of ever beat 780Ti by 46% on average in 2 or 3 years and 970 has no hope of achieving this over 290.
5) The lead 7970 brought over 580 and amazing overclocking+scaling for only $100 more is far far more impressive than what 970/980 did to 290/290X or the minor $50 price drop 680 brought. Referencing point #2 above, 7970Ghz actually sold for nearly $70-80 less than 680 4GB and still undercut $499 680 2GB by $20-30 at launch because there were several after-market 7970Ghz cards that cost $469-479 at launch.
6) While 680 undercut the 7970 by $50, this only lasted for 2 months. After that 7970 and 7970Ghz cost less than 680 2GB and especially 4GB. 2.5 years after 680's launch, the 2GB versions are approaching "worthless status" while 7970 3GB OC has another year of life left in it. Of course NV users will deny and continue denying that for most of 680's life and 770's life, Tahiti provided far superior performance/$ and undercut 680 for most of 680's life.
But what does any of this have to do with AMD's next move? Nothing at all really other than derailing the topic, which seems to be the usual practice here. Fact is R9 290 brought Titan performance at $400 8 months later and made 780 $650 look like an overpriced turd. In comparison 970 only brought minor price drop over 290 nearly 1 year later, a far less impressive feat, but overhyped like the next thing since sliced bread by constant comparisons of noise and temperatures of a reference 290 -- essentially a repeat of current situation how most NV users constantly linked
reference 7970Ghz noise and temperature levels when no one sane enough bought those cards when
after-market 7970Ghz completely solved temperature and noise levels.
And nearly 3 years since 7970 launched,
in the 1.05Ghz form (R9 280X) it sits right there with the much more expensive for most of its life 770, while 680 2GB and 770 2GB are basically paperweights with a wave of recent games asking for 3-4GB VRAM for High/Ultra textures. I guess 680/770 owners have already upgraded to 970/980 so the gimped 680/770 2GB versions that we warned about not to buy 2.5 years ago is 'irrelevant'. Convenient.
But you know, if it makes you feel better talking about how 680 undercut the 7970 by $50 for all but 2 months while getting owned hard for price/perfomrance for the entire Kepler vs. GCN generation, even after 770 came out, then go ahead and ignore everything I posted above. It won't change the facts that 7970 was a far more impressive piece of kit vs. 580 than 980 is over 290X or 970 is over 290. Similarly, 290 at $400 was a revolution ignored by NV users since well they only buy NV so even if AMD priced it at $299 at launch, it would have been skipped. :sneaky:
The 7970 had broken CF on launch and for months afterwards!, it actually didn't get to todays performance for months either, regardless of the price!
OK but a generation doesn't last 3-4 months but more like 2-2.5 years nowadays. Also, why talk about CF and ignore single GPU comparisons where 7970 OC was right there with 680 OC from launch and
from June 22, 2012 had the lead until today unless you bought the the MSI Lightning 680 2GB for $580 and get a magical 1.35Ghz+ overclock on the 680
because a 1.293Ghz 680 still couldn't beat an overclocked 7970. But then you'd still be stuck with the now crippled 2GB $580 card while 7970 will keep going long enough until R9 390X/GM200 and price wars of next year.
Ask yourself this, in 3 years from now will 980's performance level be as impressive as R9 280x/7970Ghz today? Nope, not happening.
980 is not even 50% faster than 7970Ghz at 1600P, but in 3 years from now the fastest flagship card from NV/AMD will trounce 980 by more than 50%. The 7970Ghz lasting power will be more impressive in hindsight than 980's. Also, unlike 980, 7970Ghz came with 3GB of VRAM which was optimal for at least 2.5 years but 980 is borderline at 4GB when it should have been 6-8GB really with the idea that it is to be used for 3 years like the 7970Ghz.
-- Back to topic --
I think AMD needs to carefully assess where to focus its financial resources. I think they need to dedicate more efforts towards getting mobile GPU design wins, even if it means low- to mid-range sectors. Rumoured AMD GPUs in the next iMac are a step in the right direction if the rumour holds true. On the desktop, I think they can overcome the perf/watt advantages of Maxwell if they wait for 20nm and coupled with the LC reference card, they can push performance beyond 20-21% that 980 has over 290X. If AMD can't win on efficiency, they need to bring 980's performance at lower price levels ($399) or offer performance that's clearly ahead of 980 (15-20%) at $549. That will shift the market once more.
Facebook
Twitter