$479 is actually $70 off the original MSRP of $549 (yes it does seem absurdly overpriced now when you actually type it out doesn't it?) and really closer to $100 off MSRP for many of the non-reference models that were the only parts available for quite awhile.
I think it helped to clearly define what enthusiasts will and will not spend on a high-end component when they were buying the cheaper reference versions but unwilling to spend the 5-10% premium on the non-ref/factory OC'd models.
Still needs to drop $80-$100 imo, then that would force some pressure on Nvidia to drop the GTX 680 to the price it should've launched at for a mid-range ASIC, but that's obviously not going to happen. Expect GTX 660/670Ti to slot in right around that $400-$450 range to mirror the 7970/7950, respectively.
I meant to say $20 of the 680, for similar reasoning. nVidia doesn't have any reason to sweat over $20.
I can't decide whether or not waiting to grab a 7950 would have been worth it. It was a factory overclocked model, so $450 would most likely have been what i would have paid for it anyway.
Had it not been for the fact that i've had particularly good luck with AMD GPUs from XFX's products, i wold have absolutely waited for the 680. Either way, a price drop in the 28nm space in general will be welcome within a couple weeks, but there's no telling when it's actually going to happen.
It just blows my mind you consider $450 for a 7950 an acceptable thought when the 680 is only $50 more - i mean the 3 free games has to be part of that consideration for a 7950 because that's what the 7970 should cost max in comparison to the 680. The gaming experience on 680 is far superior.
Also with all that great investigative fury we usually see in these articles, how come none of these review sites ever tell us what amd or nvidia pay for these added games bundles - certainly they hear the prices in all their channels... I'd bet a grand it's another NDA big fat no-no to tell the public. I just love all the secret agents we have everywhere. Well I'm all for someone spilling the beans, and it's far past time someone did. The 'internet" isn't really working as well as it should be for all of us. It should be a bleeding sieve with information like that, but it appears people are all but brain dead still. Anyway good luck with whatever you do in any card changes or future upgrades.
680 is definitely superior in games, no question about that. I was sort of caught up between the fact that my desktop is mostly used as a four monitor workstation for day to day, with the occasional gaming on the weekends. Always capped at 60fps due to Vsync (Screen tearing drives me nuts), and occasionally with multiple monitors.
From that aspect, i felt like a higher frame buffer and memory bandwidth would help out, in comparison to the quicker GPU in Kepler. Still, the enthusiast graphics market is well beyond what i've delved into, and i'm sure some of my purchasing decisions were less than informed. I would be lying to say i didn't go with brands i've already had good luck with for the most part.
"It just blows my mind you consider $450 for a 7950 an acceptable thought when the 680 is only $50 more "
Actually, you can get: an HD 7950 for $399 right now vs Looking all over for an unavailable $499 (or any) GTX 680
For me, I'd love to get a GTX 680 but for a $100 premium plus other factors like power, noise (which is important in my build) I am going w/ a Sapphire HD 7950 OC'ed Edition for $399 (Just look @ the review that was done here).
At one point it was $479 and though it was a non ref card I was thinking along the same lines you are but for $399 considering the features and reviews it's a sweet spot.....
That said, .. if Nvidia plays the price game...you never know... :)
Better late than never means exactly that. With that kind of purchase few weeks wait seems the right thing to do. I don't see 20% in price a deal maker at the level of purchasing one item. With your disagreeable reasoning you might as well get the $450 7970 at the egg and take the 3 free games and make $50 bucks back, no waiting to game. Good luck navigating the bad driver patch.
I don't feel like the 7970 $20 cheaper will cut it either. The 3 games they are adding though helps, that is if the (3 million Dirt3) game code keys aren't stolen off the 3rd party provider site, resulting in end users having to scan in a photocopy or a picture of their promo code cards, or search endlessly for a chance to redeem them, or run into things like the amd4u.com website being down like it is now... Worse than all that 2 of the games aren't even out yet, so AMD is selling some future promise with a really bad prior track record on downloadable content game promos by them. I guess they aren't going to say if Steam and microsoft Live ID are gaming requirements, and I suppose they care very little for the thousands of dirt3 users who had their Steam accouhnts banned because they were given or purchased one of the STOLEN dirt3 promo code numbers, losing in the "ban" from Steam their THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH of years of accumulated games... I certainly hope someone takes them to court and sues the ever loving snot out of them.- meaning AMD, amd4u, and steam, plus the jerks banning entire accounts, and the DRM or whatever one calls their MASTER CONTROL of purchased software, which they are implementing bit by bit with the help of the emotional wild eyed gyrations of young gamers drooling to "play", and therefore getting hooked in.
I expect a 670 to perform about as well as the 7970 while costing less. So if AMD really wants to attract people to the 7970 they need to go a lot lower. Don't forget the 4870 launched at $299, it seems to be the sweet spot for AMD.
AMD wasn't really going after the high end at the time. Plus, this is a brand new manufacturing node. You aren't going to see cheap prices for high-end 28nm products for a long time.
The 7970 has 3GB RAM. The 680 dont. And i very much doubt the 670 will, infact it could have even less than 2GB.
Yet these cards are for the high-end. Even 1080p is a waste for these cards, many people will be using higher res and multiple displays. I use 2560x1600 with lots of AA and i can see 2GB or less struggling in the not too distant future. I already use up to 1.8GB GPU RAM with Skyrim + mods.
1080p eats these cards for lunch. Turn down the eye candy and expect delays and stutters. Add in 3D and 120htz and it's slowvillle. At 1080p one often has to "live with" the lack in performance.
$380-400 would've been about right for the 7970, in-line with AMD's historical pricing and the relatively small increase over last-gen 40nm parts.
Overpricing the 7970 at $550 allowed Nvidia the freedom to price their mid-range ASIC, GK104, at premium prices while *STILL* undercutting AMD because GTX 680 beat the 7970 in virtually every metric, game and benchmark.
In the end both AMD and Nvidia have won in the early rounds of 28nm, the only losers are going to be early adopters who are paying the worst premiums on high-end components for the smallest increase in performance over last-gen parts since the DX10 era began with G80.
Enough with the GTX680=midrange nonsense, please. If Nvidia had or was capable of producing a higher end card, it would. As it stands now, this is the very best, top end, card they have and they can barely produce even that. If AMD were to say they have a design for a chip twice as big as 7970, but, alas, doesn't really exist nor will for some time to come, would that make the 7970 a midrange card? Or, by the time GK110/112 launches, AMD will probably launch their next card. It does not make current ones lower end right now.
I'm much more in line with your view, thank you for saying it. People seem to have an enormous blank mind when it comes to understanding these card companies are spitting out the paper releases before they even have the 10k or 20k cards made it now seems (or barely that for amd and the former 50k for nvidia appears to have collapsed)... So we all can read about TSMC and it's stoked to the gills incapability of producing the cards in quantity on time. We just experienced the prior round of endless fab issues spewed for the entire 400 series and 500 series nvidia as well, but suddenly all that information is evaporated into the wind with Charlie D's $299 rumor and the endless spinning of a single "nvidia slide" of a 670Ti, not to mention the 14 different prediction website downloaded html saves I have on just this system, which are 90% incorrect overall. So, the ability to blame amd and blame nvidia is all important and "everyone is being ripped off" is top priority, as let's face it with enough complaining the hope is the greedy end user's upgrade dollar will be stretched further... "They're holding back !" is now a standing conspiracy tinfoil hat and all in the discreet card space. I will point out however how Asia is rising, as the USD is being bloat printed by the loons in charge of the world monetary system (not to mention the EU currency bailouts), hence when the unthinkable in computer electronics occurs and the price rises or remains about the same for 2.5 years, no one should be that surprised.
Its not nonsense. GTX 680 is either an exceptionally overperforming midrange part or an underperforming high-end part, which do you think is the case?
The fact that GK104 exceeded even Nvidia's expectations and outperformed AMD's highest end part actually works counter to your claim that "If Nvidia had or was capable of producing a higher end card, it would."
The fact of the matter is, they DON'T have to put their best foot forward due to a combination of factors:
1) 7970 being underwhelming and priced as a high-end SKU. 2) GK104/GTX 680 performing better than expected for a mid-range ASIC, well enough to jump a SKU notch or two and masquerade as a high-end part.
End result is we have the smallest increase in generational performance for any part since G80. I fully expect GK110 will bring us the increases we are more accustomed to once it releases.
Yeah, right. They could release a high margin >$600 card that would sell as fast as they could make it, but they chose not to because they have something "good enough" that's about equal to their competitors product performance and price wise. I guess they also chose not to release any other desktop Kepler part, completely surrendering the low and mid range market to their competitor. GTX680 is that good all by itself that no other card is really needed.
No, there's significant decreases in demand as price increases, both Nvidia and AMD understand these brackets quite well (they release them in press slide decks all the time breaking down their sales %/product mix for each bracket).
In order to maximize overall profit and not just profit per ASIC sold, they need to balance volume with margins which doesn't happen by outpricing their target markets at $600+ per card. GPUs aren't gasoline, milk, shelter, or clothing, people won't pay any price for them especially when they generally don't die or expire on their own.
What you see with GK104 is a part that outperformed expectations as a target mid-range ASIC, beating AMD's overpriced flagship part, which allowed Nvidia to position their mid-range part as a high-end SKU. By doing so its going to fetch Intel-esque margins for every part sold.
This also allows Nvidia a grace period and an entirely new revenue cycle once they actually decide to finally launch GK110, because the fact of the matter is, they DON'T need to launch it now because there's no need to. Their #2 ASIC beats AMD's #1 ASIC, which again, is counter to your assumption Nvidia would launch their best part if they could.
What's next? The next two cards to be played in the deck. A dual-GPU from AMD followed by a dual-GPU from Nvidia. See hints at Nvidia's facebook page....
Then maybe sometime after that we see GK110 whenever Nvidia feels like they need to kickstart the revenue machine again....
yeah I don't know why people are saying the 680 is a midrange card. Traditionally the x80 series has been reserved for the high-end, no? If so, why would anyone expect that there is a more powerful single card version hidden somewhere?
If there exists a more powerful version I think they would have released it and take advantage of a lack of competition and make bank with the high margins.
The GK104 was productized as a high-end part, but it has all the characteristics of a historical mid-range part. You can find all of the relevant specs in the various data sheets out there:
We also know Nvidia has historically produced a high-end ASIC in the 500+mm^2 range to serve dual-purpose functionality as both their compute/professional part (Tesla/Quadro) as well as their flagship desktop GPU SKUs.
We know for a fact GK104 is not it. Nvidia specifically stated they had to cut much of the compute/GPGPU aspects of GK104 to make it such a strong gaming performer within its physical limitations.
As for why Nvidia didn't release it, should be obvious, it probably wasn't ready, and they simply didn't need it after seeing Tahiti's lackluster price/performance. Their choice was obviously to launch their mid-range ASIC as high-end because it was good enough to beat AMD's best offering at 28nm this time around.
So with the 6990 and 590 at $700 which amd's and nvidia's new cards just about match, they should have released at what price ? The 580 was a solid $500 before the releases. So just how far down should a $700 performance card be released at ? Whatever - as usual Charlie D semi- mind control artist has done his work well.
Except the 7970/680 don't match the 6990/590, which are generally ~50% faster than their generation's fastest single-GPU parts.
That's the problem. In the past, new flagships have been able to match and usurp these X2 GPU monsters and effectively render them obsolete. That is not the case with the GTX 680 or the 7970 because their performance and pricing are underwhelming using historical metrics.
Do your homework, then come back and argue please. If you did, we wouldn't be having this argument...
You do realize that versions of 7970 sold for close to $600 as fast as they could make them? If Nvidia made a $700 card as fast as GK110 is rumored to be, they wouldn't be able to satisfy demand. And by waiting to release an already ready top end card they would be giving their competition time to come out with their next top product, making it far less interesting and relevant. You just don't do that.
Codename does not a card position make. Its position is determined by its performance, price and your ability to actualy make it. If rumours came out about a planned GKxxx that was supposed to be huge and have three times the units of the GTX680, but nowhere to be found and existed only on paper, would 680 suddenly become a low end card that performs astonishing?
The custom 7970s were readily available as soon as they released after the initial product launch, it was only the reference launch products that were hard to find. There was one XFX that sold out for ~$20 more at launch but once the rest hit the market, demand had cooled and people were unwilling to pay the premium on an already overpriced part.
As for "codename does not a card position make", you do realize 28nm, both GTX 680 and 7970 offered the least increase in price/performance of any generation/process node leap in recent history right?
You do realize, that unless you've never bought a GPU before in your life, Nvidia and AMD are competing with themselves to provide enough of a performance increase to justify or entice a customer to upgrade.
Do you think paying 100-110% for 15-35% additional performance after 1.5-2 years is a good enough leap in progress to justify an upgrade?
Beyond that, look at the current prices of last-gen GPUs. You can get GTX 480s for $209, GTX 560Ti 448s for $220, GTX 570s for $250, GTX 580s for $300. AMD/Nvidia have to compete with that as well while stock is still available, and at current price points, they're not doing a very good job of it.
Don't see how any of that makes GK104 a midrange chip/card. If it's the higest range card you can produce, has high end price and high end performance...it's a duck.
Sorry, no. 15-25% after 18-24 months for 110% of the price just isn't good enough, its not a duck, its a turd.
30-35% at 100% of the price for GK104 is certainly better, but still falls far short of *HISTORICAL* expectations for price:performance in this segment.
Like I said, these companies need to entice users to upgrade with significantly more performance, otherwise there's no incentive to upgrade at the same asking prices.
You keep claiming a low performance increase but you never state the former increases, so people keep disbelieving you. It appears the former performance increases are insufficient for your point so you leave them up to the imagination. The 680 is still virtually unavailable in the USA on the 22nd of April.
No, I didn't feel the need to list them because they are easily referenced in myriad launch reviews.
If you need a training-wheel cliff notes summaries, check the performance rating summaries at a site like computerbase.de or techpowerup.com.
But anyone who paid attention or experienced those launches (like myself) wouldn't bother arguing this well known fact. Past generational increases offered AT LEAST +50% perf improvement over the previous gen and generally matched or eclipsed the previous X2 version as well.
Unavailable in the month after launch means little given every other launch of this type of high-end product was similar, including the 7970 which was a terrible valuable even when it launched.
We'll see how availability changes in its 2nd month, especially now that the 7970/7950 has dropped in price with news of Nvidia planning to release cheaper Kepler parts (660/670Ti) soon.
$300? The hell? By Anand's own reviews, the 7970 flat out wins against the 680 in games like Crysis and in GPGPU compute applications (and yes, the latter does matter to many of us), is very competitive in others (like Metro), and at least competitive in most of the rest. It also over clocks very, very impressively, in both memory and core, while the 680 can over clock core but has effectively no memory headroom at all.
The 680 is impressive and definitely has the crown for gaming overall, but unlike in the past it was not a clean sweep, 100% domination by any means. Where it mattered it's just reasonably solid, and it undercut AMD on price. The 7970 did need a price drop, but I honestly don't get the amount of hyperbole and hate around the 7970. It doesn't seem justified by the benchmarks, and now that the price is down both look great for different purposes.
If anything, it's really exciting just how close they both are this time around. Competition seems alive and well in the GPU market at least, and that's awesome for us all.
"By Anand's own reviews, the 7970 flat out wins against the 680 in games like Crysis and in GPGPU compute applications (and yes, the latter does matter to many of us),"
Flat out winning in an old game, with an engine that isn't going to be used in any new game.
"is very competitive in others (like Metro)"
Metro is the only AAA game that 7970 wins handily, and that rubbish alien vs. predator game.
"and at least competitive in most of the rest."
Losing in almost all the rest isn't exactly competitive, considering that it was more expensive. Now, with the new price, it is.
"It also over clocks very, very impressively, in both memory and core, while the 680 can over clock core but has effectively no memory headroom at all."
That's very true but how many buyers over-clock their cards. Most won't go there, knowing that it'd void their warranty.
Losing in almost all the rest isn't exactly competitive, considering that it was more expensive. Now, with the new price, it is.
I did say it needed a price cut, but it's competitive in that it's within the 10% range or so on a lot of the stuff that actually matters, ie., where stuff isn't already plenty fast. To give an example of what I mean, it lost in Portal 2 by a fair amount (17%), but that "loss" still meant over 130 fps at 2560, which means it doesn't matter at all as far as I'm concerned because that's uselessly high already. I'm only really interested in games, even if they're older engines, that are actually still constrained.
Again, not that the 680 isn't generally faster in gaming, and it's what I plan to get right now, but I don't think it was by nearly enough to justify the level of antipathy towards the 7970 I've been seeing. Stuff like "oh it's clearly a $300 midrange card" is completely ludicrous.
That's very true but how many buyers over-clock their cards. Most won't go there, knowing that it'd void their warranty.
I'm positive you're right in the general market, but $400+ cards are definitely not the general market. It's probably still not the majority by any means, but I suspect there is a LOT higher percentage of people who tweak their cards and systems at this sort of performance/price range, so in turn I think it's fair to give it at least some consideration.
"Losing in almost all the rest isn't exactly competitive, considering that it was more expensive. Now, with the new price, it is."
Have you even read the HD 7970 OC articles at all these websites. The OC on stock voltage is simple. Max out your core clock , memory and power sliders in CCC. People who spend USD 500 are going to play around with OC and settle at max stable settings. Have you checked a wide range of games before telling GTX 680 is better. Crysis , Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Alan Wake, Deus Ex, Civilization V, Witcher 2, Stalker Call of Pripyat, Serious Sam 3 BFE all run better on HD 7970 when both cards are OC'd. Elder Scrolls skyrim, Dirt 3 at max settings is pretty close with both cards OC'd. Battlefield 3 also runs slightly faster on HD 7970 esp at 2560 x 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA when both cards are OC'd. Look at hardocp sapphire radeon HD 7970 Dual X review. The games which run faster on GTX 680 are Batman Arkham city, Just cause 2, Lost Planet 2, Shogun 2 Total War. So stick to facts . And don't post lies.
I was comparing the two at their base clocks, which is what most buyers are interested in, and there 680 wins handily. OCing might be simple, in theory, but still normal buyers don't do it.
People who spend USD 500 are not normal buyers. They are enthusiast gamers. The majority of the add-in board market sales happen below USD 300. The USD 500+ price point is for flagship cards which mean a lot for branding and performance leadership. When you compare flagship cards your logic of stock speeds is not going to hold. People look at OC headroom, perf scaling , thermals and acoustics when OC'd. At stock voltage HD 7970 does well to hit 1.1 Ghz+ speeds with not much increase in heat/noise. So your comparisons don't have any meaning. Now with the price cuts on HD 7970 the deal is even better.
Keep dreaming. I expect a HD 7970 respin (7980 maybe) at higher stock speeds in Q2. Dave Baumann at AMD hints at such a card
Also people who think GTX 680 wins over HD 7970 are forgetting that OC'd at stock voltage HD 7970 does 1.1 to 1.15 Ghz. At those speeds the HD 7970 wins more games and loses only a few. With extra voltage HD 7970 does 1.25+ Ghz . Custom designs like Sapphire HD 7970 DUAL X have been reviewed and have hit such speeds. The situation gets even more favourable at 2560 X 1600 and 5760 X 1080. Also people are forgetting the HD 7970's superior compute performance and memory bandwidth ( eg : better performance in demanding compute shaders like Metro 2033 with DOF which are bandwidth hungry) will prove useful when u look at games in 2012 and 2013 .
So Baumann thinks that at some point in the future, they will have something maybe that will compete with what is essentially NVIDIA's latest mid-range card?
Baumann meant a mid gen tweak not a next gen HD 8000 series product. Don't delude yourself that GTX 680 is Nvidia's mid range graphics card. Mid range graphics cards are priced at USD 250 - 300. When GTX 680 becomes Nvidia's mid range graphics card GTX 760 it will face off against AMD's next gen Sea Islands HD 8000 products in Q4 2012. And for people who think Big Kepler GK110 did not require to be released because GTX 680 was competitive with HD 7970, they don't have a clue about the semiconductor industry. Nobody sits on a product and delays its release if its ready. Your release it and price it according to performance. Remember when ATI failed with HD 2900XT Nvidia maximized its profits with the Geforce 8800 Ultra at USD 850. These product families like Kepler take billions of dollards R&D to develop. And they have short life cycles like 12 - 18 months . Look at GTX 580 which is EOL. It had a 17 month life cycle. Nvidia did not release GK110 because its not ready. As simple as that. The rumours are GK110 taped out in Q1 2012 and is scheduled for a release in late Q3 or early Q4. AMD Sea Islands is scheduled for Q4 2012 release. So come this Christmas we have a face off between GTX 780 and HD 8970.
No at those speeds (1.1,250, etc) amd's 7970 still loses more, it loses at high resolutions and in triple monitor gaming, it loses in driver releases, it loses in stability, and it loses badly in smoothness and loses significantly in IQ. I certainly would not really mind claiming a 3 game bundle made the choice for anyone, but this other goofy stuff is very irritating to see so many repeating as if anyone should believe it, because no one reliably can or should. The 680 is superior across the board, in game especially. Expecting the amd driver bundle to be stable at edgy overclocks is a fools game well over 50% of the time. Half the reviewers had amd driver issues, especially in CF, a point at which arguments are made that the 3G of ram actually becomes useful beyond the cores' already reached limits, which has shown to be also a fools errand. Anyone is welcome to buy amd all they like, god knows amd has burned me plenty, and certainly will in the future, but this ridiculous spin is a bit too much for me to bear. BTW the HD2900 is/was a great card. A GREAT CARD. That's another red herring spin that just drives me over the edge.
I payed 610$ each for 2 gigabyte windforce edition videocards like 2 months ago. They have literally lost a 1000$ a year customer for life. My cards are essentially worth about 3-400$ less now 2 months after i purchased them. Total scumbags.
At one point i had sold a 5970 for 625$ almost 2 years after buying it. I payed 700$ for it brand new. This is absurd.
lol, you hating on a company that drops the price after you buy it? if so, you should never buy any electronics then, because you'll hate every company. All you can blame is yourself.
How about this? I'll sell you a 7970 for 650 bucks, and I'll raise the prices by 10 bucks per month after that for anyone that wants to buy one. I bet you'll love it.
GPU pricing has been creeping higher and higher with each successive generation for quite some time now. What I find most perplexing is how this trend seems to happen in relation to game console release cycles, shortly after a new batch of consoles are released the prices seem to drop off and the cycle starts again. I wonder if there's a direct relationship here (fab space?) or if it's just coincidence.
Prices have (imo) actually come donw. I remember paying 750 for a Geforce3 and 450 for a geforce 2. When the 8800GTX came out it was in the 5-600 range to..
When Ati hit a bit of a win with their 8500 That's when we saw price around 399 for top end cards but Nvidia had been charging an arm and a leg for awhile before that.
Also (here in canada) I think the most I've ever seen a amd/ati card sell for is 6 bills.. but Nvidia when they don't have competition?? hell i've paid $700+ for some of their cards dating back to the Geforce3 days. Even the top end Geforce2 was $600ish
I don't like the N/A for the 7870 and 7850, as if there is no old price available - yes the old price is the same as the new price so NO CHANGE, or not lowered, or the like should be present. Instead we're treated to the corporate media PR love of Not Available...N/A...
It's another dirty little secret in plain sight, and the article never once complains the 7870 and 7850 are not lowered in price. I have no opinion formed on the 7850's price, but the 7870 is too high. The GTX570 is nearly equal, and is $50 less.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
52 Comments
Back to Article
N4g4rok - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
A little better. Late, but better.I don't really feel like $20 off the 7970 will cut it, but i guess it's better than nothing.
chizow - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
$479 is actually $70 off the original MSRP of $549 (yes it does seem absurdly overpriced now when you actually type it out doesn't it?) and really closer to $100 off MSRP for many of the non-reference models that were the only parts available for quite awhile.I think it helped to clearly define what enthusiasts will and will not spend on a high-end component when they were buying the cheaper reference versions but unwilling to spend the 5-10% premium on the non-ref/factory OC'd models.
Still needs to drop $80-$100 imo, then that would force some pressure on Nvidia to drop the GTX 680 to the price it should've launched at for a mid-range ASIC, but that's obviously not going to happen. Expect GTX 660/670Ti to slot in right around that $400-$450 range to mirror the 7970/7950, respectively.
N4g4rok - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I meant to say $20 of the 680, for similar reasoning. nVidia doesn't have any reason to sweat over $20.I can't decide whether or not waiting to grab a 7950 would have been worth it. It was a factory overclocked model, so $450 would most likely have been what i would have paid for it anyway.
Had it not been for the fact that i've had particularly good luck with AMD GPUs from XFX's products, i wold have absolutely waited for the 680. Either way, a price drop in the 28nm space in general will be welcome within a couple weeks, but there's no telling when it's actually going to happen.
CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
It just blows my mind you consider $450 for a 7950 an acceptable thought when the 680 is only $50 more - i mean the 3 free games has to be part of that consideration for a 7950 because that's what the 7970 should cost max in comparison to the 680.The gaming experience on 680 is far superior.
Also with all that great investigative fury we usually see in these articles, how come none of these review sites ever tell us what amd or nvidia pay for these added games bundles - certainly they hear the prices in all their channels... I'd bet a grand it's another NDA big fat no-no to tell the public.
I just love all the secret agents we have everywhere.
Well I'm all for someone spilling the beans, and it's far past time someone did.
The 'internet" isn't really working as well as it should be for all of us. It should be a bleeding sieve with information like that, but it appears people are all but brain dead still.
Anyway good luck with whatever you do in any card changes or future upgrades.
N4g4rok - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
680 is definitely superior in games, no question about that. I was sort of caught up between the fact that my desktop is mostly used as a four monitor workstation for day to day, with the occasional gaming on the weekends. Always capped at 60fps due to Vsync (Screen tearing drives me nuts), and occasionally with multiple monitors.From that aspect, i felt like a higher frame buffer and memory bandwidth would help out, in comparison to the quicker GPU in Kepler. Still, the enthusiast graphics market is well beyond what i've delved into, and i'm sure some of my purchasing decisions were less than informed. I would be lying to say i didn't go with brands i've already had good luck with for the most part.
Royal Tee - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
"It just blows my mind you consider $450 for a 7950 an acceptable thought when the 680 is only $50 more "Actually, you can get:
an HD 7950 for $399 right now
vs
Looking all over for an unavailable $499 (or any) GTX 680
For me, I'd love to get a GTX 680 but for a $100 premium plus other factors like power, noise (which is important in my build) I am going w/ a Sapphire HD 7950 OC'ed Edition for $399 (Just look @ the review that was done here).
At one point it was $479 and though it was a non ref card I was thinking along the same lines you are but for $399 considering the features and reviews it's a sweet spot.....
That said, .. if Nvidia plays the price game...you never know... :)
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, April 22, 2012 - link
Better late than never means exactly that. With that kind of purchase few weeks wait seems the right thing to do.I don't see 20% in price a deal maker at the level of purchasing one item.
With your disagreeable reasoning you might as well get the $450 7970 at the egg and take the 3 free games and make $50 bucks back, no waiting to game.
Good luck navigating the bad driver patch.
CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I don't feel like the 7970 $20 cheaper will cut it either. The 3 games they are adding though helps, that is if the (3 million Dirt3) game code keys aren't stolen off the 3rd party provider site, resulting in end users having to scan in a photocopy or a picture of their promo code cards, or search endlessly for a chance to redeem them, or run into things like the amd4u.com website being down like it is now...Worse than all that 2 of the games aren't even out yet, so AMD is selling some future promise with a really bad prior track record on downloadable content game promos by them.
I guess they aren't going to say if Steam and microsoft Live ID are gaming requirements, and I suppose they care very little for the thousands of dirt3 users who had their Steam accouhnts banned because they were given or purchased one of the STOLEN dirt3 promo code numbers, losing in the "ban" from Steam their THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH of years of accumulated games...
I certainly hope someone takes them to court and sues the ever loving snot out of them.- meaning AMD, amd4u, and steam, plus the jerks banning entire accounts, and the DRM or whatever one calls their MASTER CONTROL of purchased software, which they are implementing bit by bit with the help of the emotional wild eyed gyrations of young gamers drooling to "play", and therefore getting hooked in.
Wreckage - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
Anything more than $299 for the 7970 is overpriced.A5 - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
I was thinking $450. You're going to have to explain $299.Wreckage - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
I expect a 670 to perform about as well as the 7970 while costing less. So if AMD really wants to attract people to the 7970 they need to go a lot lower. Don't forget the 4870 launched at $299, it seems to be the sweet spot for AMD.dagamer34 - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
AMD wasn't really going after the high end at the time. Plus, this is a brand new manufacturing node. You aren't going to see cheap prices for high-end 28nm products for a long time.B3an - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
The 7970 has 3GB RAM. The 680 dont. And i very much doubt the 670 will, infact it could have even less than 2GB.Yet these cards are for the high-end. Even 1080p is a waste for these cards, many people will be using higher res and multiple displays. I use 2560x1600 with lots of AA and i can see 2GB or less struggling in the not too distant future. I already use up to 1.8GB GPU RAM with Skyrim + mods.
Mordecai Walfish - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
You can go 4GB with the 680 if you want:http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4665/palit_jetstr...
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, April 22, 2012 - link
1080p eats these cards for lunch. Turn down the eye candy and expect delays and stutters.Add in 3D and 120htz and it's slowvillle.
At 1080p one often has to "live with" the lack in performance.
chizow - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
$380-400 would've been about right for the 7970, in-line with AMD's historical pricing and the relatively small increase over last-gen 40nm parts.Overpricing the 7970 at $550 allowed Nvidia the freedom to price their mid-range ASIC, GK104, at premium prices while *STILL* undercutting AMD because GTX 680 beat the 7970 in virtually every metric, game and benchmark.
In the end both AMD and Nvidia have won in the early rounds of 28nm, the only losers are going to be early adopters who are paying the worst premiums on high-end components for the smallest increase in performance over last-gen parts since the DX10 era began with G80.
Touche - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Enough with the GTX680=midrange nonsense, please. If Nvidia had or was capable of producing a higher end card, it would. As it stands now, this is the very best, top end, card they have and they can barely produce even that. If AMD were to say they have a design for a chip twice as big as 7970, but, alas, doesn't really exist nor will for some time to come, would that make the 7970 a midrange card? Or, by the time GK110/112 launches, AMD will probably launch their next card. It does not make current ones lower end right now.CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I'm much more in line with your view, thank you for saying it.People seem to have an enormous blank mind when it comes to understanding these card companies are spitting out the paper releases before they even have the 10k or 20k cards made it now seems (or barely that for amd and the former 50k for nvidia appears to have collapsed)...
So we all can read about TSMC and it's stoked to the gills incapability of producing the cards in quantity on time. We just experienced the prior round of endless fab issues spewed for the entire 400 series and 500 series nvidia as well, but suddenly all that information is evaporated into the wind with Charlie D's $299 rumor and the endless spinning of a single "nvidia slide" of a 670Ti, not to mention the 14 different prediction website downloaded html saves I have on just this system, which are 90% incorrect overall.
So, the ability to blame amd and blame nvidia is all important and "everyone is being ripped off" is top priority, as let's face it with enough complaining the hope is the greedy end user's upgrade dollar will be stretched further...
"They're holding back !" is now a standing conspiracy tinfoil hat and all in the discreet card space.
I will point out however how Asia is rising, as the USD is being bloat printed by the loons in charge of the world monetary system (not to mention the EU currency bailouts), hence when the unthinkable in computer electronics occurs and the price rises or remains about the same for 2.5 years, no one should be that surprised.
chizow - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Its not nonsense. GTX 680 is either an exceptionally overperforming midrange part or an underperforming high-end part, which do you think is the case?The fact that GK104 exceeded even Nvidia's expectations and outperformed AMD's highest end part actually works counter to your claim that "If Nvidia had or was capable of producing a higher end card, it would."
The fact of the matter is, they DON'T have to put their best foot forward due to a combination of factors:
1) 7970 being underwhelming and priced as a high-end SKU.
2) GK104/GTX 680 performing better than expected for a mid-range ASIC, well enough to jump a SKU notch or two and masquerade as a high-end part.
End result is we have the smallest increase in generational performance for any part since G80. I fully expect GK110 will bring us the increases we are more accustomed to once it releases.
Touche - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Yeah, right. They could release a high margin >$600 card that would sell as fast as they could make it, but they chose not to because they have something "good enough" that's about equal to their competitors product performance and price wise. I guess they also chose not to release any other desktop Kepler part, completely surrendering the low and mid range market to their competitor. GTX680 is that good all by itself that no other card is really needed.chizow - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
No, there's significant decreases in demand as price increases, both Nvidia and AMD understand these brackets quite well (they release them in press slide decks all the time breaking down their sales %/product mix for each bracket).In order to maximize overall profit and not just profit per ASIC sold, they need to balance volume with margins which doesn't happen by outpricing their target markets at $600+ per card. GPUs aren't gasoline, milk, shelter, or clothing, people won't pay any price for them especially when they generally don't die or expire on their own.
What you see with GK104 is a part that outperformed expectations as a target mid-range ASIC, beating AMD's overpriced flagship part, which allowed Nvidia to position their mid-range part as a high-end SKU. By doing so its going to fetch Intel-esque margins for every part sold.
This also allows Nvidia a grace period and an entirely new revenue cycle once they actually decide to finally launch GK110, because the fact of the matter is, they DON'T need to launch it now because there's no need to. Their #2 ASIC beats AMD's #1 ASIC, which again, is counter to your assumption Nvidia would launch their best part if they could.
What's next? The next two cards to be played in the deck. A dual-GPU from AMD followed by a dual-GPU from Nvidia. See hints at Nvidia's facebook page....
Then maybe sometime after that we see GK110 whenever Nvidia feels like they need to kickstart the revenue machine again....
poached - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
yeah I don't know why people are saying the 680 is a midrange card. Traditionally the x80 series has been reserved for the high-end, no? If so, why would anyone expect that there is a more powerful single card version hidden somewhere?If there exists a more powerful version I think they would have released it and take advantage of a lack of competition and make bank with the high margins.
chizow - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
The GK104 was productized as a high-end part, but it has all the characteristics of a historical mid-range part. You can find all of the relevant specs in the various data sheets out there:1) size
2) transistor count (relative to last-gen)
3) memory bus/bandwidth
4) memory capacity
5) ROPs, TMUs, overall rendering pipeline
6) power consumption
7) PCB/board design
We also know Nvidia has historically produced a high-end ASIC in the 500+mm^2 range to serve dual-purpose functionality as both their compute/professional part (Tesla/Quadro) as well as their flagship desktop GPU SKUs.
We know for a fact GK104 is not it. Nvidia specifically stated they had to cut much of the compute/GPGPU aspects of GK104 to make it such a strong gaming performer within its physical limitations.
As for why Nvidia didn't release it, should be obvious, it probably wasn't ready, and they simply didn't need it after seeing Tahiti's lackluster price/performance. Their choice was obviously to launch their mid-range ASIC as high-end because it was good enough to beat AMD's best offering at 28nm this time around.
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, April 22, 2012 - link
So with the 6990 and 590 at $700 which amd's and nvidia's new cards just about match, they should have released at what price ?The 580 was a solid $500 before the releases.
So just how far down should a $700 performance card be released at ?
Whatever - as usual Charlie D semi- mind control artist has done his work well.
chizow - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Except the 7970/680 don't match the 6990/590, which are generally ~50% faster than their generation's fastest single-GPU parts.That's the problem. In the past, new flagships have been able to match and usurp these X2 GPU monsters and effectively render them obsolete. That is not the case with the GTX 680 or the 7970 because their performance and pricing are underwhelming using historical metrics.
Do your homework, then come back and argue please. If you did, we wouldn't be having this argument...
Touche - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
You do realize that versions of 7970 sold for close to $600 as fast as they could make them? If Nvidia made a $700 card as fast as GK110 is rumored to be, they wouldn't be able to satisfy demand. And by waiting to release an already ready top end card they would be giving their competition time to come out with their next top product, making it far less interesting and relevant. You just don't do that.Codename does not a card position make. Its position is determined by its performance, price and your ability to actualy make it. If rumours came out about a planned GKxxx that was supposed to be huge and have three times the units of the GTX680, but nowhere to be found and existed only on paper, would 680 suddenly become a low end card that performs astonishing?
chizow - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
The custom 7970s were readily available as soon as they released after the initial product launch, it was only the reference launch products that were hard to find. There was one XFX that sold out for ~$20 more at launch but once the rest hit the market, demand had cooled and people were unwilling to pay the premium on an already overpriced part.As for "codename does not a card position make", you do realize 28nm, both GTX 680 and 7970 offered the least increase in price/performance of any generation/process node leap in recent history right?
You do realize, that unless you've never bought a GPU before in your life, Nvidia and AMD are competing with themselves to provide enough of a performance increase to justify or entice a customer to upgrade.
Do you think paying 100-110% for 15-35% additional performance after 1.5-2 years is a good enough leap in progress to justify an upgrade?
Beyond that, look at the current prices of last-gen GPUs. You can get GTX 480s for $209, GTX 560Ti 448s for $220, GTX 570s for $250, GTX 580s for $300. AMD/Nvidia have to compete with that as well while stock is still available, and at current price points, they're not doing a very good job of it.
Touche - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
Don't see how any of that makes GK104 a midrange chip/card. If it's the higest range card you can produce, has high end price and high end performance...it's a duck.chizow - Friday, April 20, 2012 - link
Just like the 7970 was a duck?Sorry, no. 15-25% after 18-24 months for 110% of the price just isn't good enough, its not a duck, its a turd.
30-35% at 100% of the price for GK104 is certainly better, but still falls far short of *HISTORICAL* expectations for price:performance in this segment.
Like I said, these companies need to entice users to upgrade with significantly more performance, otherwise there's no incentive to upgrade at the same asking prices.
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, April 22, 2012 - link
You keep claiming a low performance increase but you never state the former increases, so people keep disbelieving you.It appears the former performance increases are insufficient for your point so you leave them up to the imagination.
The 680 is still virtually unavailable in the USA on the 22nd of April.
chizow - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
No, I didn't feel the need to list them because they are easily referenced in myriad launch reviews.If you need a training-wheel cliff notes summaries, check the performance rating summaries at a site like computerbase.de or techpowerup.com.
But anyone who paid attention or experienced those launches (like myself) wouldn't bother arguing this well known fact. Past generational increases offered AT LEAST +50% perf improvement over the previous gen and generally matched or eclipsed the previous X2 version as well.
Unavailable in the month after launch means little given every other launch of this type of high-end product was similar, including the 7970 which was a terrible valuable even when it launched.
We'll see how availability changes in its 2nd month, especially now that the 7970/7950 has dropped in price with news of Nvidia planning to release cheaper Kepler parts (660/670Ti) soon.
zanon - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
$300? The hell? By Anand's own reviews, the 7970 flat out wins against the 680 in games like Crysis and in GPGPU compute applications (and yes, the latter does matter to many of us), is very competitive in others (like Metro), and at least competitive in most of the rest. It also over clocks very, very impressively, in both memory and core, while the 680 can over clock core but has effectively no memory headroom at all.The 680 is impressive and definitely has the crown for gaming overall, but unlike in the past it was not a clean sweep, 100% domination by any means. Where it mattered it's just reasonably solid, and it undercut AMD on price. The 7970 did need a price drop, but I honestly don't get the amount of hyperbole and hate around the 7970. It doesn't seem justified by the benchmarks, and now that the price is down both look great for different purposes.
If anything, it's really exciting just how close they both are this time around. Competition seems alive and well in the GPU market at least, and that's awesome for us all.
eddman - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
"By Anand's own reviews, the 7970 flat out wins against the 680 in games like Crysis and in GPGPU compute applications (and yes, the latter does matter to many of us),"Flat out winning in an old game, with an engine that isn't going to be used in any new game.
"is very competitive in others (like Metro)"
Metro is the only AAA game that 7970 wins handily, and that rubbish alien vs. predator game.
"and at least competitive in most of the rest."
Losing in almost all the rest isn't exactly competitive, considering that it was more expensive. Now, with the new price, it is.
"It also over clocks very, very impressively, in both memory and core, while the 680 can over clock core but has effectively no memory headroom at all."
That's very true but how many buyers over-clock their cards. Most won't go there, knowing that it'd void their warranty.
eddman - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
Just to add that I'm not agreeing with Wreckage about the 300$ price point. 480$ is a fair price.zanon - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
I did say it needed a price cut, but it's competitive in that it's within the 10% range or so on a lot of the stuff that actually matters, ie., where stuff isn't already plenty fast. To give an example of what I mean, it lost in Portal 2 by a fair amount (17%), but that "loss" still meant over 130 fps at 2560, which means it doesn't matter at all as far as I'm concerned because that's uselessly high already. I'm only really interested in games, even if they're older engines, that are actually still constrained.
Again, not that the 680 isn't generally faster in gaming, and it's what I plan to get right now, but I don't think it was by nearly enough to justify the level of antipathy towards the 7970 I've been seeing. Stuff like "oh it's clearly a $300 midrange card" is completely ludicrous.
I'm positive you're right in the general market, but $400+ cards are definitely not the general market. It's probably still not the majority by any means, but I suspect there is a LOT higher percentage of people who tweak their cards and systems at this sort of performance/price range, so in turn I think it's fair to give it at least some consideration.
raghu78 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
"Losing in almost all the rest isn't exactly competitive, considering that it was more expensive. Now, with the new price, it is."Have you even read the HD 7970 OC articles at all these websites. The OC on stock voltage is simple. Max out your core clock , memory and power sliders in CCC. People who spend USD 500 are going to play around with OC and settle at max stable settings. Have you checked a wide range of games before telling GTX 680 is better. Crysis , Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Alan Wake, Deus Ex, Civilization V, Witcher 2, Stalker Call of Pripyat, Serious Sam 3 BFE all run better on HD 7970 when both cards are OC'd. Elder Scrolls skyrim, Dirt 3 at max settings is pretty close with both cards OC'd. Battlefield 3 also runs slightly faster on HD 7970 esp at 2560 x 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA when both cards are OC'd. Look at hardocp sapphire radeon HD 7970 Dual X review. The games which run faster on GTX 680 are Batman Arkham city, Just cause 2, Lost Planet 2, Shogun 2 Total War. So stick to facts . And don't post lies.
eddman - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I was comparing the two at their base clocks, which is what most buyers are interested in, and there 680 wins handily.OCing might be simple, in theory, but still normal buyers don't do it.
raghu78 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
People who spend USD 500 are not normal buyers. They are enthusiast gamers. The majority of the add-in board market sales happen below USD 300. The USD 500+ price point is for flagship cards which mean a lot for branding and performance leadership. When you compare flagship cards your logic of stock speeds is not going to hold. People look at OC headroom, perf scaling , thermals and acoustics when OC'd. At stock voltage HD 7970 does well to hit 1.1 Ghz+ speeds with not much increase in heat/noise. So your comparisons don't have any meaning. Now with the price cuts on HD 7970 the deal is even better.CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Oh what hogwash. Nothing runs better on the 7970.raghu78 - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
Keep dreaming. I expect a HD 7970 respin (7980 maybe) at higher stock speeds in Q2. Dave Baumann at AMD hints at such a cardAlso people who think GTX 680 wins over HD 7970 are forgetting that OC'd at stock voltage HD 7970 does 1.1 to 1.15 Ghz. At those speeds the HD 7970 wins more games and loses only a few. With extra voltage HD 7970 does 1.25+ Ghz . Custom designs like Sapphire HD 7970 DUAL X have been reviewed and have hit such speeds. The situation gets even more favourable at 2560 X 1600 and 5760 X 1080. Also people are forgetting the HD 7970's superior compute performance and memory bandwidth ( eg : better performance in demanding compute shaders like Metro 2033 with DOF which are bandwidth hungry) will prove useful when u look at games in 2012 and 2013 .
Wreckage - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
So Baumann thinks that at some point in the future, they will have something maybe that will compete with what is essentially NVIDIA's latest mid-range card?raghu78 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Baumann meant a mid gen tweak not a next gen HD 8000 series product. Don't delude yourself that GTX 680 is Nvidia's mid range graphics card. Mid range graphics cards are priced at USD 250 - 300. When GTX 680 becomes Nvidia's mid range graphics card GTX 760 it will face off against AMD's next gen Sea Islands HD 8000 products in Q4 2012. And for people who think Big Kepler GK110 did not require to be released because GTX 680 was competitive with HD 7970, they don't have a clue about the semiconductor industry. Nobody sits on a product and delays its release if its ready. Your release it and price it according to performance. Remember when ATI failed with HD 2900XT Nvidia maximized its profits with the Geforce 8800 Ultra at USD 850. These product families like Kepler take billions of dollards R&D to develop. And they have short life cycles like 12 - 18 months . Look at GTX 580 which is EOL. It had a 17 month life cycle. Nvidia did not release GK110 because its not ready. As simple as that. The rumours are GK110 taped out in Q1 2012 and is scheduled for a release in late Q3 or early Q4. AMD Sea Islands is scheduled for Q4 2012 release. So come this Christmas we have a face off between GTX 780 and HD 8970.CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
No at those speeds (1.1,250, etc) amd's 7970 still loses more, it loses at high resolutions and in triple monitor gaming, it loses in driver releases, it loses in stability, and it loses badly in smoothness and loses significantly in IQ.I certainly would not really mind claiming a 3 game bundle made the choice for anyone, but this other goofy stuff is very irritating to see so many repeating as if anyone should believe it, because no one reliably can or should.
The 680 is superior across the board, in game especially.
Expecting the amd driver bundle to be stable at edgy overclocks is a fools game well over 50% of the time.
Half the reviewers had amd driver issues, especially in CF, a point at which arguments are made that the 3G of ram actually becomes useful beyond the cores' already reached limits, which has shown to be also a fools errand.
Anyone is welcome to buy amd all they like, god knows amd has burned me plenty, and certainly will in the future, but this ridiculous spin is a bit too much for me to bear.
BTW the HD2900 is/was a great card. A GREAT CARD. That's another red herring spin that just drives me over the edge.
cooldadd - Monday, April 16, 2012 - link
I see no mention of the 7750 except its appearance in the chart, going from n/a to $109...Crazyeyeskillah - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I payed 610$ each for 2 gigabyte windforce edition videocards like 2 months ago. They have literally lost a 1000$ a year customer for life. My cards are essentially worth about 3-400$ less now 2 months after i purchased them. Total scumbags.At one point i had sold a 5970 for 625$ almost 2 years after buying it. I payed 700$ for it brand new. This is absurd.
menting - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
lol, you hating on a company that drops the price after you buy it?if so, you should never buy any electronics then, because you'll hate every company.
All you can blame is yourself.
How about this? I'll sell you a 7970 for 650 bucks, and I'll raise the prices by 10 bucks per month after that for anyone that wants to buy one. I bet you'll love it.
Dracusis - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
GPU pricing has been creeping higher and higher with each successive generation for quite some time now. What I find most perplexing is how this trend seems to happen in relation to game console release cycles, shortly after a new batch of consoles are released the prices seem to drop off and the cycle starts again. I wonder if there's a direct relationship here (fab space?) or if it's just coincidence.just4U - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Prices have (imo) actually come donw. I remember paying 750 for a Geforce3 and 450 for a geforce 2. When the 8800GTX came out it was in the 5-600 range to..When Ati hit a bit of a win with their 8500 That's when we saw price around 399 for top end cards but Nvidia had been charging an arm and a leg for awhile before that.
just4U - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Also (here in canada) I think the most I've ever seen a amd/ati card sell for is 6 bills.. but Nvidia when they don't have competition?? hell i've paid $700+ for some of their cards dating back to the Geforce3 days. Even the top end Geforce2 was $600ishsotoa - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
And I just got the 7950 for my bro. Patience is a virtue.TechSlinger - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Heh. My 6970 just died same day as the price drop. Thank god it waited. Its almost Karmic.CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I don't like the N/A for the 7870 and 7850, as if there is no old price available - yes the old price is the same as the new price so NO CHANGE, or not lowered, or the like should be present.Instead we're treated to the corporate media PR love of Not Available...N/A...
It's another dirty little secret in plain sight, and the article never once complains the 7870 and 7850 are not lowered in price. I have no opinion formed on the 7850's price, but the 7870 is too high.
The GTX570 is nearly equal, and is $50 less.
The 7870 is still too high.