POST A COMMENT

147 Comments

Back to Article

  • TemjinGold - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    "For today’s launch we were able to get a reference clocked card, but in order to do so we had to agree not to show the card or name the partner who supplied the card."

    "Breaking open a GTX 660 (specifically, our EVGA 660 SC using the NV reference PCB),"

    So... didn't you just break your promise as soon as you made it AND show a pic of the card right underneath?
    Reply
  • Sufo - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Haha, shhhh! Reply
  • Homeles - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Reading comprehension is such an endangered resource...

    If it's the super clocked edition, it's obviously not a reference clocked card.
    Reply
  • jonup - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Exactly my thoughts. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Homeles is correct. That's one of the cards from the launch roundup we're publishing later today.. The reference-clocked GTX 660 we tested is not in any way pictured (I'm not quite that daft). Reply
  • knutjb - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    No matter what you try to say it still reads poorly. It should be blatantly obvious about which card was which up front, which the article wasn't. I should have to dig when scanning through.

    Also, your picking it as the better choice over a card that has been out how long, over slight differences... If nvivda really wanted to me to say wow I'll buy it now, the card would have been no more than 199 at launch. 10 bucks under is the best they can do for being late to the party? And you bought the strategy. I have been equally disappointed with AMD when they have done the same thing.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    When reading Anadtech articles it's almost always safe to assume "he actually means what he's saying". Helps a lot with understanding. Reply
  • thomp237 - Sunday, September 23, 2012 - link

    So where is this roundup? We are now 10 days on from your comment and still no signs of a roundup. Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    I have been wondering where all the eyefinity amd fragglers have gone to, and now I know what has occurred.

    Eyefinity is Dead.

    These Kepler GPU's from nVidia all can do 4 monitors out of the box. Sure you might find a cheap version with 3 ports, whatever - that's the minority.

    So all the amd fanboys have shut their fat traps about eyefinity, since nVidia surpassed them with A+ 4 easy monitors out of the box on all the Kelpers.

    Thank you nVidia dearly for shutting the idiot pieholes of the amd fanboys.

    It took me this long to comment on this matter because nVidia fanboys don't all go yelling in unison sheep fashion about stuff like the little angry losing amd fans do.

    I have also noticed all the reviewers who are so used to being amd fan rave boys themselves almost never bring up multimonitor and abhor pointing out nVidia does 4 while amd only does 3 except in very expensive special cases.

    Yeah that's notable too. As soon as amd got utterly and totally crushed, it was no longer a central topic and central theme for all the review sites like this place.

    That 2 week Island vacation every year amd puts hundreds of these reporters on must be absolutely wonderful.
    I do hope they are treated very well and have a great time.
    Reply
  • EchoOne - Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - link

    LOL dude,the 660ti vs the 7950 in eyefinity would get destroyed.I know this because my friend has a comp build with a phenom 965be 4.2ghz and 660ti with 16gb of ram (i built this for him) and i have a fx 6100 4.7ghz,16gb ram and a 7950 i run a triple monitor setup

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRXGveviruw&fe...

    And his 660ti DIED trying to play the games at that res and at the same settings as i do.He had to take down his graphics settings from say gta4 from max settings down to about medium and high (i run very high)

    So yeah sure it can run a couple monitors out of the box but same with eyefinity.And trust me their nvidia surround is not as polished as eyefinity..But they get props for trying.
    Reply
  • Zds - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    "Reference clock" is very different from "reference PCB". The operative words are "clock" and "PCB", not "reference". Reply
  • Redshift_91 - Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - link

    a superclocked card is not reference clocked, thus the keyword is "reference". Unless you're going to argue that a superclocked card is reference clocked and thus the very idea of overclocking is thrown out the window. Reply
  • guidryp - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    "NVIDIA has spent a lot of time in the past couple of years worrying about the 8800GT/9800GT in particular"

    I am still using a 8800GT without much need to upgrade. I don't play any new games so I really can't justify an upgrade. Though of course you get that upgrade itch. So the first thing I wondered was, how much power/noise compared to my 8800GT (I have giant slow fan on mine).
    Reply
  • Anonymous Blowhard - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Now that the 600-series has gotten a firm foothold, older cards like the GTX460 have been available for around $100 if you're patient enough to wait for sales and rebates.

    Pick one based on the NV reference design if you're concerned about noise; I've had models from MSI and EVGA that both performed admirably in terms of noise and temperature. Blower-style fans can be extremely loud if you buy the wrong model (ZOTAC) so do your homework.

    I came from an 8800GT myself and didn't feel the need to upgrade, but there's a definite benefit even in "low end" games based on Source/UE3. The ability to crank up the details/AA and still hold a solid 60fps is wonderful. Well worth the money.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    buying a 2+ generation old high end card is almost never a good idea. What you save upfront over an equivalent lower mid range card is quickly lost due to the significantly higher power draw. Reply
  • rarson - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Huh? How expensive is electricity where you live? I can't imagine the power difference making up the cost difference in less than 2 years of constant use.

    I replaced my 3870 with a 6850 a few months ago, and it actually uses a bit less power at idle, which is where my GPU spends the bulk of its time, so I'm actually saving a tiny bit. Sure, the 460 uses more power under load, but the 880GT uses significantly more power than the 460 during idle (about 20W!).
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    If you're worried about 20 watts at idle, you're definitely an amd fanboy.
    Probably something else too I won't mention since humiliating yourself is already a public past time.
    Reply
  • gamara - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    20W x 2 days is 1 KW hr. 15 KW hr a month, 180 KW hrs a year. At $.10 a KW hr, that's $18. In California, some places it runs almost triple that, so if you use So Cal Ed, and are in Tier 3 or 4, you pay almost $50 a year extra for those 20 watts. Reply
  • guidryp - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I am patient enough to wait for the gtx 660 to get down to $150.

    If I do upgrade, one thing that is a must, is getting 3+ monitor capability.

    I currently drive my TV and desktop monitor, and would like a second desktop monitor.

    Here the power usage looks line line with the 8800GT and NVidia finally allows 3+ monitors.
    Reply
  • raghu78 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    GTX 660 is actually weak competition. Nvidia's pricing sucks . USD 200 would have really made it an amazing card. Performance wise its stuck between the HD 7850 and HD 7870 but pricing wise its nearer to HD 7870. the GTX 660 is up against a faster chip in the HD 7870. and needs a price correction . GTX 660 OC matches a HD 7870

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT...

    Also anandtech's gaming suite is quite out of date. They are testing Portal 2 which is useless and don't have a single game released in 2012 like Alan Wake, Max Payne 3, Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite V2, Diablo III, Sleeping Dogs. most sites have started including newer games . hardocp has included sleeping dogs. techpowerup has included alan wake, sniper elite v2, max payne 3, diablo III. techreport has max payne 3 and dirt showdown. And to state that GTX 660 is faster than HD 7870 or the better card with such an obsolete suite is ridiculous
    Reply
  • Jumangi - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    LOL way to try and spin AMD fanboy. The 660 is the equal of a 7870. It beats it in several tests and loses by a little in others. The $229 price is correct.

    Go qq somewhere else AMD dude.
    Reply
  • Jamahl - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Actually if you read anywhere else you'll find that the 7870 wins by 5-10% in the vast majority of cases. Reply
  • Samus - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I'll take Anandtech reviews over any other reviews. This site has a 15 year reputation for truth. Reply
  • Jamahl - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    You do that. Most other people would take the average of all the reviews, and when they did that they'd realise that once again Anandtech is an outlier for Nvidia. Reply
  • rarson - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Anandtech lost that reputation years ago when everything started sounding pro-Intel/Nvidia/Apple. Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Raghu78 is actually right.

    "Overall the new ASUS GeForce GTX 660 DirectCU II seems to compete well with a price comparative factory overclocked Radeon HD 7870. While the gameplay experience is mostly the same between the two video cards, for the most part the factory overclocked Radeon HD 7870 seems to take the performance lead. If you look back at every game, the overclocked Radeon HD 7870 is on top in terms of raw performance,"
    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/13/asus_gef...

    Given that NV is 7 months late, all they did here was just barely match the price/performance of a 7 months old part. Hard to get excited about that when it's mid-September 2012 and HD8000 series isn't far off now.
    Reply
  • HisDivineOrder - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Geforce 660 MSRP is $230. Radeon 7870 MSRP is $250. And if you're saying that the Geforce launch is unimpressive then you're probably ignoring the fact that AMD ignored price drops for the 78xx series cards for many, many months and only just when the info about the 660 and 660 Ti began to show up did they start aggressively lowering their pricing.

    So... what's impressive about nVidia's parts is that they brought competition which drove AMD to lower pricing so much you could today say there's nothing impressive about nVidia's pricing.

    And that's what's impressive about it. You should be thanking nVidia for finally showing up to the competition.

    Also, saying the "HD8000 series isn't far off now" is disingenuous if that line follows the same model as the 7000 series and staggers the launch so the low end comes midway through or at the end of 1Q 2013. We're not talking about the high end. We're talking about the mainstream variants.

    And, if you truly believe your rhetoric, then AMD will price those parts as high or higher than the 78xx series showed up with in order to milk the market while nVidia's not able to keep up. So those cards again won't matter much since they won't be anywhere near the same price as these mid-$200 cards.

    We don't even know if AMD won't milk this gen a while longer than they did prior generations because their strategy seems very different than the one they've used for quite a while. And with nVidia coming so late in this gen, AMD might see advantage in riding it out with parity and lower prices (while building up inventory of HD8k) to clean out their old stock.

    Then one day after first quarter 2013, WHAM! HD8000 arrives in force. nVidia employees throughout the world look up from typing biased forum posts in every forum you visit and almost weep as cards in every bracket suddenly appear in the marketplace, but then a ray of hope shines through the darkness...

    AMD priced everything high again. Angels sing and as Chuck Norris descends upon the clouds of awesomeness and badassness... GK110 arrives in his wake.

    Ahhhh... I like this guessing game about what will happen with next gen thing.
    Reply
  • raghu78 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    buzz off . the majority of the reviews on the web show the HD 7870 to be faster.

    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/20...

    http://ht4u.net/reviews/2012/nvidia_geforce_gtx_66...

    http://www.hardware.fr/articles/876-21/recapitulat...

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT...

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-66...

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/13/asus_gef...

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/...
    Reply
  • Margalus - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I selected one random choice from your links, techpowerup. Guess what, the page you linked shows the 660 has higher performance per dollar than the 7870 at all resolutions except 2560x1600 Reply
  • Galidou - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Fun stuff, he said the ''majority'' and you look at only one of the links he sends. Replying the way you did is a little disrespectful. Next time just write: ''too long didn't read, this card ownz''. Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - link

    Hey Gilligan, stop ragging. Reply
  • Gastec - Thursday, November 15, 2012 - link

    Nvidia cards are for rich people. ATI/AMD cards are for poor people. Just like rich people drive Mercedes and poor people drive american cars. Is that enough for you want more? I was poor and I had to buy a ATI card. Now I'm not poor anymore so I'm going to buy a Nvidia card in December. Quod erat demonstrandum. Now fuck off! Reply
  • Model192 - Friday, December 07, 2012 - link

    I have a Corvette and I buy AMD. Guess I'm double retarded? Or does the Corvette not quite fit into your theory about being poor and buying AMD/ATI. Reply
  • nerrrd - Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - link

    corvettes are american cars... Reply
  • stm1185 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Techpowerup includes more games where AMD has a slight edge, but does that edge make a difference in those games? I'd argue no because frame rate in a console port adventure game like Alan Wake is not a big deal.

    Also face it most of those 2012 games are mediocre. Who is spending 60 hours a week playing Sniper Elite or Max Payne? No one, but for SC2, BF3, Skyrim, they do, hell some guys have to by contract!

    7870 is not a better card, it's about equal, or worse depending on what you play. For a competitive gamer, the GTX660 is the better card, because it's better for BF3, and it's better for SC2 (Amazingly so, best SC2 card!).
    Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Data does not back up your claims

    BF3 - factory overclocked 660 trades blows with a factory overclocked 7870
    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/13/asus_gef...

    BF3 - barely any difference (but comparing a reference 660 it doesn't win either)
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT...

    Skyrim - 7870 wins
    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/13/asus_gef...

    Skyrim - 7870 wins
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT...

    Add mods to Skyrim and 7870 wins by 20-40%
    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/20...

    Also, you are discounting performance in 12-15 games and just focusing on the games you think are most important. That's your opinion. Starcraft 2 for example is playable on a GTX560/HD6870 without any problems. Plus in a strategy game you only need 30-45 fps for it to feel smooth and modern cards get 70-100 fps! So really your point about SC2 is hardly relevant.

    The reason we look at more games is because not everyone spends 200 hours a month playing BF3 only.

    Overall, 660 is not any better (actually a slower card unless you consider factory overclocked versions)
    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/20...
    Reply
  • stm1185 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    So Anandtech is lying then? Those numbers I see right above this post are false? Reply
  • Margalus - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    sorry, but you lost all credibility by linking hardocp. That is the worst hardware site on the internet. They gave up all premises of being unbiased and fair years ago. Reply
  • ninjaquick - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    ? They compare OC parts with OC parts, rather than average out the OC parts results and place them against stock parts.

    Different systems have different results, Anandtech didn't lie, AFAICT. nobody has fudged results (esp. not w1zzard)
    Reply
  • formulav8 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    No cred lost. Your opinion only. Hardocp simply uses different methods of comparison. Some like it, some don't. Reply
  • chrnochime - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    You mean that they spun the results in NV's favor when the 670 came out, and then again in AMD's favor when comparing OC results from 7950 against 660TI OC and 670 OC? Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Is AMD going to issue rebates for the 7870? $150 price drop in 4 months is pretty sad beans for all the AMD early adopters. Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    No, because if you want the latest tech on latest 28nm, you understand you are paying a premium for it. If not, you sit out for 6-7 months and wait for more price drops. This is how it always worked. I am sure early AMD adopters don't care since their cards already paid for most of their cost with bitcoin mining on the side and they have enjoyed a cool and efficient card for 7 months. How are your 680s doing that you dropped $1k on?

    Care to remind everyone that GTX280 launched at $649 on June 16, 2008, dropped $150 1 month immediately when 4870 launched and then 9.5 months later AMD delivered a $269 HD4890 that offered similar performance.

    I guess in that generation the early adopter lost $380 by going with the 280 in just 9.5 months but you failed to mention that's how it works in the GPU industry.
    Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Except we already knew the 7870 wasn't worth the asking price when it was released, so the natural response would've been to wait by those who already knew price drops were imminent on grossly inflated 28nm parts.

    And I guess you already forgot, Nvidia did right by its early adopting customers by issuing $100-$150 rebates to those who bought a GTX 260 or 280 before the price drops, which is why I asked. Same reason I asked if AMD was going to do the same if and when Nvidia adjusted the pricing landscape with Kepler to force cuts across the board for AMD's ridiculous pricing structure. So again, where are AMD's rebates given every 28nm part they released is worth roughly 30-40% less than original MSRP? That's more than even your referenced drops on the GTX 260/280.

    4890 was nothing special, Nvidia released an equivalent GTX 275 for similar price and those prices were due largely to price wars in the midst of a massive global recession.

    As for my $1K GTX 680s, they don't exist because I wouldn't pay that much for such a small increase in generational performance on a midrange ASIC, I paid $660 for 2x GTX 670 on 680 PCBs instead which is probably still a bit more than I think they are worth, but I figure after the 2x Borderlands promos they are much closer to the $300 price point a 2nd tier GK104 SKU should have been sold at anyways. :D
    Reply
  • rarson - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    "Except we already knew the 7870 wasn't worth the asking price when it was released"

    So the people who "knew" this weren't buying it anyway, and hence do not need a rebate. You really should read what you write before posting your comment.

    Here's how technology works, dude: new technology is expensive. As time goes on, it becomes cheaper as more people start adopting it. The 7870 really was worth the price when it came out (no shit, it really was). You can figure this out by seeing that people actually went and bought them. Supply was constrained and the process was very expensive (more so than previous process shrinks) so even just getting the wafers allocated was tougher than before. On top of that, AMD had to adjust their pricing to deal with the constrained supply. Price it too low, and whatever stock that you have sells out too quickly and you sit for months with no stock on the shelf, selling nothing (just ask Nvidia).

    I know, I know, you can't grasp basic economics. I'm wasting my breath. Maybe once you move out of the basement you'll figure out how the real world works.
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Yeah it was a rhetorical question, I know AMD isn't issuing rebates, they don't have the money to return they'd just be borrowing more from Abu Dhabi to cut that check that might very well bounce.

    As for how technology works, you once again demonstrate how little you know about the industry. Prices drop, like the GTX 580/570 and 6970/6950 that held their prices for a good full 20 months before the launch of 28nm parts? And even after the launch of 28nm, they still held their prices because there was no incentive or need to drop in price based on relative price and performance?

    You have no idea what you're talking about, stop typing. Parts lose their value and drop in price when a new part forces that change. Usually this happens when a new generation of product or a new process/fabrication node forces the change by introducing a dramatic increase in price:performance. In this case, the prices drops are being forced by products that are the *SAME* process and relative generation (from Nvidia).

    What this *SHOULD* tell you is that the 28nm offerings from AMD were grossly overpriced and offered FAR less improvement for the asking price, but these simple concepts obviously escape you.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    660$ for 2 gtx 670 on 680 pcbs, you got engineer samples? I've been looking on ebay for USED 670 and the best price one ended was 355$ with shipping and that was without the borderlands 2 coupon. I've seen some reference cards going down to 344$ before taxes and after 20$ mail in rebate(around 380$ shipped) but they were FAR from 680 PCBs.

    I'd really like to see those 670's at 330$ with 680 PCB's, would really like.....

    One comment about the rebate on the gtx 280, it's quite different from now. The 549$ radeon 7970 lost to a 499$ gtx 680 3 months after it's launch.

    The 650$ gtx 280 was on average 10% better and sometimes 10% worse than the 300$ radeon 4870 one month after it's launch...
    Reply
  • chizow - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Hi Galidou, you're not here to defend AMD's launch prices again too are you?

    670 on 680 PCBs are quite commonplace, maybe you've heard of the EVGA FTW versions? Galaxy has a similar one with their GC parts, no engineering samples needed:
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=22660...
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

    Please feel free to check the reviews on Newegg link, you will see I'm a verified owner. ;)

    As for the GTX 280, once again more revisionist history from the usual suspects. GTX 280 was closer to 15-20% faster especially at high resolutions with AA due to the 1GB VRAM compared to the 4870's 512MB. The gap widens even further if you look at later reviews.

    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/20...

    Only after the 1GB 4870 and 4890 releases months later did this change so the price difference even after the $150 price cut to $500 was still justifiable. I still have a GTX 280 as a backup card and it still runs modern games great, a 512MB 4870 would barely be able to handle the default frame buffer....

    Secondly, GTX 280's asking price was reasonable compared to last-gen parts, unlike AMD's 28nm parts, as it offered 2x the performance of the 8800/9800GTX, more performance than the 9800GX2 or 3870X2, and almost tripled the performance of AMD's fastest single GPU, the 3870. What Nvidia did not account for was both AMD's return to competitiveness with the RV770 *AND* their massive undercut on pricing simultaneously.

    Lastly, of course, is Nvidia actually did right by their customers by issuing those rebates, which is just good business to ensure they took care of their most enthusiastic customers. Certainly more than we can say for AMD though. AMD may have made some short-term profit, but at what cost? They certainly have more than a few fans who are going to be outraged by the massive cuts so soon after launch.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    I just removed the 4870 512mb I had and it still runs perfectly but my wife used it on a 1680*1050 monitor. The 280 took advantage at 2560*1600, but you can imagine it was mainly for benchmark purposes. Not a lot of people do use this resolution NOW so imagine 4 years ago... let's say >0,05% back in 2008(most of them being artists and not gamers), considering the cost of one of those monitors... yep you guessed it, about the price of 2 gtx 280 at launch, for ONE monitor.... The price of my whole computer with the 4870 back in 2008...

    ''Secondly, GTX 280's asking price was reasonable compared to last-gen parts, unlike AMD's 28nm parts, as it offered 2x the performance of the 8800/9800GTX''

    When AMD fanboys said the 7970 was priced rightly compared to last gen parts(which it was, there was no bargain for sure but it was 40% higher price for 70% more perf) Nvidia fanboys said: You gotta be freaking kidding me, are you blind, ffs remove your red glasses and wake up''.

    ''Hi Galidou, you're not here to defend AMD's launch prices again too are you?''

    Not necessarily but it seems you are here to attack them again. A 550$ card loses in 65% of the games to a 500$ card 3 months after it's launch(radeon 7970 vs gtx 680)....a 650$ card is 10% faster than a 300$ card in 60% of the games one month after it's launch(gtx 280 vs 4870). My reflections above seemed logical to me, I guess life is a question of perception.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    I think there's one thing we should say about pricing mistakes and rebate. A gamer buying an i7 980x 1 week prior to the sandy bridge launch, and I know it happened... poor them...

    Nice link on the German website, you must of looked a lot of websites to find a 20% advantage on average for a gtx 280 because tom hardware, techpowerup and anandtech shows it average 10% faster but nice finding you got there. If only I could read German. And we both know the websites I named above are certainly more highly regarded than computerbase.de..........

    And good job, because I'm really looking forward to change the gtx 660 ti I got for my wife for a gtx 670 but the best I could get to is either 355$ USED(an auction, not a buy it now) on ebay or 344$ before taxes and after mail in rebate(hate those I'm usually not even using them because they use your information to harass your life). But I guess it's possible to find them at 330$ after mail in rebate and before taxes but in the end it's closer to the 400$ mark than the 300$ mark.
    Reply
  • chizow - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    But SB had no impact on 980X pricing, Intel is very deliberate in their pricing and EOL schedules so these parts do not lose much value before they gracefully go EOL. Otherwise, 980X still offered benefit over SB with 6 cores, something that was not replaced until SB-E over 1 year later. Even then, there was plenty of indication before Intel launched their SB-E platform to mitigate any sense of buyer's remorse.

    As for the German site you're critical of, you need to read German to be able to understand numbers and bar graphs? Not to mention Computerbase is internationally acclaimed as one of the best resources for PC related topics. I linked their sites because they were one of the first to use such easy to read performance summaries and even break them down by resolution and settings.

    If you prefer since you listed it, TechPowerUp has similar listings, they only copied the performance summaries of course after ground-breaking sites like Computerbase were using them for some years.

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_...

    As you can see, even at your lower 1680x1050 resolution, the GTX 280 still handily outclasses the 4870 512MB by ~21%, so I guess there goes your theory? I've seen more recent benchmarks in games like Skyrim or any title with 4xAA or high-res textures where the gap widens as the 4870 chokes on the size of the requisite framebuffer.

    As for your own situation and you're wife's graphics card, TigerDirect has the same GTX 670 GC card I bought for $350 after rebate. Not as good as the deal I got but again, there are certainly new ones out there to be had for cheap. I'm personally going to wait another week or two to see if the GTX 660 price and its impact on AMD prices (another round of cuts expected next week, LOL) forces Nvidia to drop their prices as I also need to buy another GPU for the gf.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    And then once again you're off the subject, you send me relative performance of the gtx 280 to the 4870 2 years after their launch...... We were speaking of the rebate issued in 2008 for the performance it had back then. All the links I sent you were from 4 years ago and there's a reason to it and they're showing the 280 on average 10% difference in performance, and sometimes loosing big time.

    Sure the 1gb ram of the gtx 280 in the long run paid off. But we're speaking of 2008 situation that forced them to issue rebates..... which is 1 month after it's launch there's a part that performs ''similarly'' that costs less than HALF of it's price. computerbase is a good website, not the first time I see it, but it's the only one(and I never use only one website to base on the REAL average) that shows 20% difference in performance for a part that did still cost 115% more than the radeon 4870... 115 FREAKING % within one month!! nothing else to say.

    From a % point of view the 7970 and gtx 680 was a REALLY different fight.... and it was 3 month separating them which is something we commonly see in video card industry. while 115% more pricey parts that performs let's say 15% for your pleasure average from all websites than another part.....

    ''980X still offered benefit over SB with 6 cores''

    Never said it didn't, that's why I precised: ''A gamer buying an i7 980x 1 week prior to the sandy bridge launch''. For the gamer there was NO benefit at ALL, it even lost to the sandy bridge in games.

    But that's true, the 980x was out for a while unlike the gtx 280 who didn't have almost any time to keep it's amazing lead from last gen parts. The reason why they HAD to issue rebates, and the reason why I switched back to ATI from my 7800gt that died.

    The gtx 660 ti is a fine card, I'm just worried about the ROPs for future proofing, she'll keep the card a VERY long time so I regret not buying the 670 in the first place.
    Reply
  • chizow - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    No I'm not off the subject, you're obviously basing your performance differences based on a specific low-resolution setting that was important to you at launch while I'm showing performance numbers of all resolutions that have only increased over time. The TPU link I provided was from a later review because as I already stated, Computerbase was one of the first sites to use these aggregate performance numbers, only later did other sites like TPU follow suit. The GTX 280 was always the best choice for enthusiasts running higher resolutions and more demanding AA and those differences only increased over time, just as I stated.

    Nvidia didn't feel they needed to drop the price any more than the initial cut on the 280 because after the cut they had a "similar" part to compete with the 4870 with their own GTX 260. Once again, AMD charged too little for their effort, but that has no bearing on the fact that the 280's launch price was *JUSTIFIED* based on relative performance to last-gen parts, unlike the situation with AMD's 28nm launch prices.

    As for the 680 and 7970? It just started driving home the fact the 7970 was grossly overpriced, as it offered 10-15% *more* performance than the 7970 at *10%* less price which began the tumble on AMD prices we see today. I've also been critical of the GTX 680 though, as it only offers ~35-40% increase in performance over GTX 580 at 100% of the price, which is still the worst increase in the last 10 years for Nvidia, but still obviously better than the joke AMD launched with Tahiti. 115% performance for 110% of the price compared to last-gen after 18 months is an absolute debacle.

    As for the 980X and SB, again the whole tangent is irrelevant. What would make it applicable would be if AMD launched a bulldozer variant that offered 90% of 980X performance at $400 price point and forced Intel to drop prices and issue rebates, but that obviously didn't happen. You're comparing factors that Intel has complete control over where in the case of the GTX 280, Nvidia obviously had no control over what AMD decided to do with the 4870.
    Reply
  • chizow - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    There were numerous other important resolutions that took advantage of the 280's larger frame buffer, 1600x1200, 1920x1080 and 1920x1200. While they were obviously not as prevalent as they are now, they were certainly not uncommon for anyone shopping for a $300+ or $500 video card.

    As for the 7970 asking price, are you kidding? I had 10x as many AMD fanboys saying the 7970 price was justified at launch (not just Rarson), and where do you get 70% more perf? Its 50% being generous.

    So you got 150% performance for 150% of last-gen AMD price compared to 6970, how is that a good deal? Or similarly, you got 120% more performance for 110% the price compared to GTX 580, both last-gen parts.

    What you *SHOULD* expect is 150-200% performance for 100% of last-gen price, which is what the GTX 280 offered relative to 8800GTX, which is why I stated its pricing was justified.

    We've already covered the RV770, AMD could've easily priced it higher, even matched the GTX 260 price at $400 and still won, but they admittedly chose to go after market/mindshare instead after being beaten so badly by Nvidia since R600. Ever since then, they have clearly admitted their pricing mistake and have done everything in their power to slowly creep those prices upwards, culminating in the HUGE price increase we saw with Tahiti (see 150% price increase from 6970).
    Reply
  • Galidou - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    They went for price related to the size of the Die. The radeon 4870 was more than half the size of the gtx 280 thus costing less than half to produce then justifying the value of the chip by the size and not the perdformance.

    We all know why this is happening now, AMD was battling to get back for competition against the top because they left this idea by building smaller die with the HD 3xxx, leaving the higher end to double chip boards, end parts below 400$ prices. So I knew it had to happen one day or another.

    So if you're really into making a wikipedia about pricing scheme for video cards and developping about it, go on. But in my opinion, as long as they do not sell us something worse than last gen for a higher price, I'll leave it for people to discern what they need. With all the competition in the market, it's hard to settle for anything that's a real winner, it's mostly based on personnal usage and money someone is willing to spend.

    If someone want to upgrade his video card for xxx$, only thing he have to do is look at the benchmark for the game(s) he plays. Not looking at the price of the last generation of video cards to see if the price is relevant to the price he pays now. Usually a good 30 minutes looking at 3-4 different web sites looking at the graphs reading a little will give you good indication without sending you in the dust by speaking and arguing about last gen stuff compared to what's out now...

    You speak like you're trying to justify what people should buy now because of how things were priced in the past..... Not working. You take your X bucks check out benchies, go out there and buy the card you want end of the freaking line. No video card is interesting you now, wait until something does. Stop living in the past and get to another chapter ffs...
    Reply
  • chizow - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    Heh Wikipedia page? Obviously its necessary to set the record straight as revisionists like yourself are only going to emphasize the lowlights rather than the highlights.

    What you don't seem to understand is that transactions in a free market are not conducted in a vacuum, so the purchases of others do directly impact you if you are in the same market for these goods.

    Its important for reviewers to emphasize such important factors like historical prices and changes in performance, otherwise it reinforces and encourages poor pricing practices like we've seen from AMD. It just sets a bad precedent.

    Obviously the market has reacted by rejecting AMD's pricing scheme, and as a result we see the huge price drops we've seen over the last few months on their 28nm parts. All that's left is all the ill will from the AMD early adopters. You think all those people who got burned are OK with all the price drops, and that AMD won't have to deal with those repercussions later?

    You want to get dismissive and condescending, if all it took was a good 30 minutes looking at 3-4 different websites to get it, why haven't people like you and rarson gotten it yet?
    Reply
  • rarson - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    Yeah, it was rhetorical. It was also pointless and off-topic.

    "And even after the launch of 28nm, they still held their prices because there was no incentive or need to drop in price based on relative price and performance?"

    Your problem is that you just don't pay any goddamn attention. You have the attention span of a fruit fly. Let me refresh your memory. Kepler "launched" way back in March. All throughout April, the approximate availability of Kepler was zero. AMD didn't drop prices immediately because Kepler only existed in a few thousand parts. They dropped prices sometime around early May, when Kepler finally started appearing in decent quantities, because by then, the cards had already been on the market for FOUR MONTHS. See, even simple math escapes you.

    "You have no idea what you're talking about, stop typing."

    You're projecting and need to take your own advice.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    AMD's 7970/7950 series supply finally became "available" on average a few days before Kepler launched.
    LOL
    You said something about amnesia ?
    You rarson, are a sad joke.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    I love it when the penny pinching amd fanboy whose been whining about 5 bucks in amd "big win!" pricing loses their mind and their cool and starts yapping about new technology is expensive, achieving the highest amd price apologist marks one could hope for.
    LOL
    It's awesome seeing amd fanboys with zero cred and zero morality.
    The GTX570 made the 7850 and 7870 the morons choice from the very first date of release.
    You cannot expect the truth from the amd fans. It never happens. If there's any exception to that hard and fast rule, it's a mistake, soon to be corrected, with a vengeance, as the brainwashing and emotional baggage is all powerful.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    While speaking about all that, pricing of the 4870 and 7970 do you really know everything around that, because it seems not when you are arguing, you just seem to put everything on the shoulder of a company not knowing any of the background.

    Do you know the price of the 4870 was already decided and it was in correlation with Nvidia's 9000 series performance. That the 4870 was supposed to compete against 400$ cards and not win and the 4850 supposed to compete against 300$ series card and not win. You heard right, the 9k series, not the GTX 2xx.

    The results even just before the coming out of the cards were already ''known''. The real things were quite different with the final product and last drivers enhancements. The performance of the card was actually a surprise, AMD never thought it was supposed to compete against the gtx 280, because they already knew the performance of the latter and that it was ''unnaittanable'' considering the size of the thing. Life is full of surprise you know.

    Do you know that after that, Nvidia sued AMD/ATI for price fixing asking for more communications between launch and less ''surprises''. Yes, they SUED them because they had a nice surprise... AMD couldn't play with prices too much because they were already published by the media and it was not supposed to compete against gtx2xx series. They had hoped that at 300$ it would ''compete'' against the gtx260 and not win against i thus justifying the price of the things at launch. And here you are saying it's a mistake launching insults at me, telling me I have a low intelligence and showing you're a know it all....

    Do you know that this price fixing obligation is the result of the pricing of the 7970, I bet AMD would of loved to price the latter at 400$ and could do it but it would of resulted in another war and more suing from Nvidia that wanted to price it's gtx 680 500$ 3 month after so to not break their consumers joy, they communicate A LOT more than before so everyone is happy, except now it hurts AMD because you compare to last gen and it makes things seems less of a deal. But with things back to normal we will be able to compare last gen after the refreshed radeon 7xxx parts and new gen after that.

    Nvidia the ''giant'' suing companies on the limit of ''extinction'', nice image indeed. Imagine the rich bankers starting to sue people in the streets, and they are the one you defend so vigorously. If they are that rich, do you rightly think the gtx 280 was well priced even considering it was double the last generation..

    It just means one thing, they could sell their card for less money but instead they sue the other company to take more money from our pockets, nice image.... very nice..... But that doesn't mean I won't buy an Nvidia card, I just won't defend them as vigorously as you do.... For every Goliath, we need a David, and I prefer David over Goliath.... even if I admire the strenght of the latter....
    Reply
  • rarson - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    chizow doesn't understand the concept of early adoption. He only mentioned rebates because that Nvidia rebate debacle has been beaten over his head time and time again. Reply
  • chizow - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Ah just a matter of time before the only idiot on the internet willing to defend AMD's laughable 28nm launch prices arrives to defend their honor.

    How do you feel now about those $550, $450, and $350 pricepoints you so vigorously defended when the 7970/7950/7870 launched?

    And yes its important to mention the rebates because revisionists like yourself are so quick to forget the actual rebates, they only mention the price drops.

    So just as I asked then, where's AMD's rebates given the floor has completely dropped from under their entire pricing structure just a few months after release, just as I predicted?
    Reply
  • Galidou - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    We did not vigorously defend the pricing scheme, we're just not seeing it as worse as you can see it, hence why we answer to you. Everytime I see people like you speak about AMD the way they do, I just see so much hate, when you start to say things like idiot and trying to say we're defending our ''honor'' you're past the point where your arguments are worth even a penny to me.

    If you have to disrespect people when speaking about video cards, there's one thing I have to say, you have a choosen side and it hinders your judgement. Stay respectful and I'll give you credit but now it's too late you just proved ourselves that you're not fit to judge well in this discussion.

    Anyone know that a judge couldn't work on an affair of murder if the murdered one is in his own family because it... would severely hinder his judgement by putting emotions in the way. Disrespect to me is the worse form of acting when arguing. You lost it all there to me, I'm just sad I did reply to your previous messages without reading this one first, I would of just realized that it's too late for you.

    AMD and Nvidia are both company trying to make money, trying to put one on a pedestal like if everything they do is related to god and thus is perfect... AMD's 4870 was a mistake, 7970 was a mistake, gtx 280 is related to god and it's AMD's pricing scheme that is at fault.

    Everything AMD does is wrong, everything Nvidia does wrong is AMD's fault.... Like my 6800 gt that never worked properly with that Nforce 3 chipset, AMD's fault, that driver release that fried tons of Nvidia's video cards, AMD's fault, GTX 670's performance so close to GTX 680's performance, AMD's fault, 660 ti 192 bit bus and 24 ROPs, AMD's fault(I heard they stole them during the night and are not willing to give em back unless Nvidia pays a heavy ransom), Why isn't Nvidia making more money than Intel and Microsoft, AMD's fault, my grandfather's cancer, AMD's fault, wow, life is a bag full of surprise. Chozow's lack of respect calling us stupid, AMD's fault, we lost our honor because of... AMD's fault.....
    Reply
  • chizow - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    Uh disrespect? You mean like you questioning very easily referenced facts like price and performance at every turn, or questioning how much I paid for a 2xGTX 670 or even that they existed with 680 PCB? Or questioning numbers only to be rebuked by a link from a widely respected website, only to question that website, then get provided with more benchmarks from one of the site you linked and question that one too?

    There comes a point you can't reason with people like you, so if you want to argue about emotional attachment leading to irrational behavior, you should really look in the mirror.

    But what should I care, as you said everyone must look themselves in the mirror and be at peace with their own decisions in life, I can for a fact say I'm good with my buying decision this round, do you think one can say the same about buying AMD 28nm parts under their ridiculous asking prices, especially given all of the recent price drops?

    Also, I have been critical of Nvidia as well with 28nm, so to say I think they can do no wrong, downright dishonest on your part. There's a reason I waited to buy my 670s instead of snatching them up at launch for $400, but then again, I've been at this long enough to make an informed decision.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    ''Uh disrespect? You mean like you questioning very easily referenced facts like price and performance at every turn, or questioning how much I paid for a 2xGTX 670 or even that they existed with 680 PCB''

    Nope, I mean calling other idiots: ''Ah just a matter of time before the only idiot on the internet willing to defend AMD's laughable 28nm launch prices arrives to defend their honor.''

    End of the discussion, you're a disrespectful Nvidia fanboy, I doubted for the gtx 670 price you said because I was vigorously looking for a 670 but not a reference fan design, something with an aftermarket fan that will stay cool for a nice and quiet overclock.

    For what you call facts, life turn around perception and interpreted by the brain. Women tend to dislike when their boyfriend cheat on them while in some country it's normal to have many wifes, know what I mean? Perception is something personnal, something might be bad and abnormal and seem like a fact from someone's standpoint but for another human being, it might be just normal dependnig on their choosen side, past experiences and emotions. If someone totally beleives 2+2 makes 5 and no one can convince him of anything else, then to him it's the truth. If the only truth to you is your truth, you will disagree all of your life with other peoples because they have a different point of view.

    All I was discussing with you isn't that AMD is perfect and that their pricing is perfect, I was just defending my point of view, the way I saw things while saying ''TO ME IT SEEMS LOGICAL'' while all you had to say was ''REFERENCED FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS'' not caring about how I perceived things, I just hoped you could understand why I see things this way, I understand the way you see things because I can tell it seems logical to me but that isn't the way I see IT.
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    "End of the discussion, you're a disrespectful Nvidia fanboy."

    Please don't talk about respect when you can't even adhere to your own standards.

    If you claim "TO ME SEEMS LOGICAL" while questioning my conclusions but ignoring facts and historical data that are relevant to the industry in general and graphics cards in particular, that suggests to me that your thought processes are not logical at all, but born of ignorance or subnormal intelligence.

    After all, a simpleton can believe Unicorns and Fairies exist, but that does not make it so.

    You brought up the GTX 280 again, yet once again you can't seem to understand the very key differences with the GTX 280 vs. 7970 launch prices. I've already outlined them, do I need to do so again?

    Simple question, do you think Nvidia's pricing was worst at launch with the 280 than AMD's pricing with the 7970?
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    ''You brought up the GTX 280 again, yet once again you can't seem to understand the very key differences with the GTX 280 vs. 7970 launch prices. I've already outlined them, do I need to do so again?''

    I brought that up?? You have to read back to realize you started it all again speaking of rebates and such which was the only reason why I answered to you to show that not everyone sees the way you do.

    Maybe we could just state that Nvidia made a mistake by pricing the gtx 680 at 500$ because it was stronger than a 600$ card and then they are the faulty one as you usually see things.

    ''I've already outlined them, do I need to do so again?''

    Well if you outlined them, if it was so different, why did you bring up the apst of the gtx 280 to compare to this different story in the first place?

    Calling you an Nvidia fanboy isn'T disrespectful to me like calling other idiots defending their honor. It means you have a choosen side, maybe it might seem like it's an attack but it'S not, sorry if the hat fits your head.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Oh and I was wondering, for someone so informed about your purchases and everything, did you say you owned a gtx 280? For someone buying 330$ gtx 670 that's quite a fun ''fact'' considering you whined about the TOO LOW price of the radeon 4870, but no, you didn't get to buy one of those for 250$ on special, you got the gtx 280.... Fun stuff when the 4850/4870 were at the TOP of Performance/dollar charts, which was something we don't see often.....(fanboyism?)

    I'm an informed buyer which is why the only video cards I bought brand new at launch for me, my wife or friends are: Geforce ti 4200, radeon hd 9500 flashed to 9700 pro, 8800 gt, radeon 4850/4870, gtx 460 ti, radeon 6850/6870, gtx 660 ti and the radeon 7950 I super overclocked for my 3 monitors and skyrim :)

    And yes there are ATI cards included in my buying decision which doesn't make me a Fanboy and helps my OPINION being undistorted by emotions thus the reason I'm not calling others idiots when speaking in forums related to VIDEO CARDS.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    ''And yes there are ATI cards included in my buying decision''

    I meant Nvidia cards :)
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Since you love to make this about me, when it really isn't....

    Yes I bought a GTX 280 at launch but I waited a few days and got lucky on a Bing cash back promotion on Ebay. 35% Bing Cash Back, quite a few others got it as well (feel free to google it), brought the total to $420ish. Then Nvidia issued their big rebate after the 4870 launch, so I had the option of $120 check or $150 EVGA bucks, I took the cash.

    So $300, minus the $220 I got for my 8800GTX on Ebay and I paid a whopping total of $80 out of pocket for the fastest single GPU. Early 2009 I got a 2nd 280 for $230 in a Dell deal after the economic crash that dropped prices on all GPUs....

    Obviously not everyone would have been so fortunate, but if I didn't get 280s, I might very well have gotten 260s or waited for 285s.
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Yes you chose to interject in this discussion and made a reference to the rebate in particular, continuing on as if the GTX 280 price was unwarranted. I think corrected you by showing the GTX 280's price *WAS* warranted relative to last-gen unlike the 7970, but even still, Nvidia cut prices and did right by their customer by issuing rebates. So, win-win for GTX 260/280 buyers, unlike this case of lose-lose for 7970/7950/7870 buyers.

    "One comment about the rebate on the gtx 280, it's quite different from now. The 549$ radeon 7970 lost to a 499$ gtx 680 3 months after it's launch.

    The 650$ gtx 280 was on average 10% better and sometimes 10% worse than the 300$ radeon 4870 one month after it's launch..."

    And there you go again saying Nvidia was wrong to price the GTX 680 at $500, so you think it should be priced at $600 since it outperformed the $550 7970? And I guess the GTX 780 should be priced at $750 ad infinitum? This is what happens when you lack the perspective or understanding for a reasonable valuation or basis...I've already laid it out for you, this is why we use historical price and performance expectations....

    Calling someone an idiot isn't disrespectful when they continually demonstrate a low level of intelligence and continually argue from a position of ignorance.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    I never said they were wrong in their price, did I? you take words I never used, do you see in the sentence: ''Nvidia was wrong to price it so high at launch''. I was just using this to show the situation is different thus interjecting you about the fact AMD should issue rebate for the 7970 buyers and this discussion went so far that I lost the beginning of it. The only reason I mentioned those 2 facts was to show the % relavite to THIS gen comparing performance and price that's IT. So to give a short answer, the price of the 7970 wasn't so bad even after the launch of the gtx 280 as to the opposite of the gtx 280 price when the radeon 4870 launched 1 month after for less than half the price of it from a % of price difference and % of performance difference....

    Sorry if I'm not making myself clear at all time but this discussion is becoming so long and my english isn't as perfect as yours, french is my main language so I tried to stay as clear as possible even if I know I made mistakes when explaining my OPINION. Not the facts, I won'T say these are facts even if I took them from reliabe websites because to be a FACT I'd have to be sure a 100% of the EARTH beleives it the VERY SAME way I do thanks.

    And to this day you never told me you bought an AMD/ATI card and never refuted you're not an nvidia fanboy thus proving you are. We all know when you have a choosen side, facts can be interpreted like you are doing, because the words you use are not the ones I hear from EVERYONE on earth and you can't prove everyone THINKS the way you do. It's not as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. If someone thought that every card above 500$ whatever the last gen was is wrong the the pricing of the reason of the gtx 280 pricing might not be as FACTUALLY good to everyone as you might think even before the 4870..... as for the 7970.....
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    ''7970 wasn't so bad even after the launch of the gtx 280 ''

    I meant even after the launch of the gtx 680.
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    You did say Nvidia was wrong to price at $500, which again is not accurate because if anything Nvidia's pricing was still too high relative to its softer than expected increase in performance relative to GTX 580.

    The only reason Nvidia was able to get away with this tiny increase was due to the lackluster performance of Tahiti along with its ridiculous pricing, allowing Nvidia to beat AMD this round in both price and performance with only their 2nd tier midrange ASIC GK104.

    You don't seem to think this or people's buying decisions has an impact on you, but it does, and it already has. It just means you pay more for performance today or you have to wait longer for that level of performance to trickle down to your pricepoint. I've already seen it, as has every single person who bought an AMD GPU since launch. The prices today are what they should've been at launch now that the market has corrected itself (due to Kepler's launches).

    As for my buying decisions again...I have owned AMD in the past a 9700pro and a 5850 for my gf. There's some integral features Nvidia offers that I know AMD is deficient in and that gap has only grown over the years to the point AMD products no longer satisfy my base expectations for graphics card purchases.

    So while the two may technically compete in the same market, the products differ so much at this point for me that AMD is really no longer an option.

    Some examples, since I'm sure you will ask, are features as basic as game-specific profiles and custom SLI and AA bit control. And no, AMD doesn't offer this, they just do what RadeonPro did for years by adding additional profiles without exposing the AA/SLI bits. Then there is 3D Vision support among many other less important features (PhysX, driver FXAA/AO, Vsync, better game bundles, better game support etc).

    Btw, I had to end up selling the 5850 because it lacked support for something as simple as SM2.0 fur and native MSAA in Sims 3 Pets, bugs with AMD cards which my gf picked up on. That's when I threw the GTX 280 in that machine and she didn't even notice a difference (other than the new pet fur and AA). She's run GW2, Diablo3, Skyrim, and a bunch of newer games without AA at 1080p and they run great, think I could say the same for a 4870 4 years later?
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    "End of the discussion, you're a disrespectful Nvidia fanboy."

    Sorry but saying you're a fanboy wasn'T meant to disrespect you even if it was said in a harsh way and for that I'm sorry but you calling others idiots defending their honor... Nvidia fanboy in my language mean you have a choosen side and for that, you have I know you can't say you're not an Nvidia fanboy and you haven't refuted it either. Now that I did I guess it will be easier for you to say in your answer: ''Well I'm not an nvidia fanboy because of X reasons''. but if you can't say it, it will mean I was right about choosen side and interpretation of the things yuo call ''facts'' because they're interpreted by the same eyes that favor this side.

    I can't read what you're saying on any website in the same exact words you're use so it has been in fact interpreted by your brain like my opinions are.

    Your question is irrelevant, we were speaking of the pricing scheme at launch of their competitive parts to see if the asking price would have to force the company to issue rebates.

    I'll answer you the way I remember I judged the card from my buyer perspective because I can't judge for everyone else not knowing what was in their head(I'll stop speaking like you do and say THIS IS A FACT while I don't know what OTHERS people thought in the whole world). Many of my friends back then had 8800gt because they got them dirt cheap(180$ CAD) and some of them had sli 8800gt running perfectly.

    Seeing the gtx 280 at 650$ performance I was really shocked. We were in an era where Sli was becoming real popular as well as double gpu cards. And knowing you could already get easily the performance of a ''new and amazing card'' equalled on many levels by other CHEAPER solutions, I wasn't impressed but the price was totally out of what I pay for a card anyway.

    Same for the 7970 I really think of both as not very good solutions. When I saw the benchmarks, I wasn't impressed at all, the only reason. I understand your point of view, the pricing of the new gen 28nm would normally drive the price back of all the generations before it while the 7xxx series instead just placed itself around to the price points corresponding at it's performance. There was NO deal but there was no CROOK either, 650$ video cards and 800$ video cards(thinking about geforce 2 and 3 series) just never made any sens to me, 550$ for a radeon 7970 don't make sense but I KNEW it had to go up someday because of AMD driving the price down WAY too much. It's just unbearable to see people whine when AMD drives the prices down too much telling they made a mistake and then whine when they drive the prices up back to normal putting all the fault on their shoulder again.....

    You have to see the whole story sometimes and stop focusing on only one side of the medal IT HAD TO HAPPEN, while the 7970 wasn't priced right, 550$ to me, at launch WHATEVER the performance relative to the last gen is more acceptable than anything priced 600$ and above for gaming usage end of the line, per dollar performance was always and still remain TO ME in the 150-300$ range.

    BTW you keep comparing the gtx 280 to it's last gen counter part ''8800gtx'' which it was(considering the 9xxx series was a refresh). But you keep comparing performance and price to the REFRESH of the last gen fron ATI because instead of just remaking the video cards and giving them new names, they made new more powerful parts(6950 and 6970).

    If you compare the REAL last gen not refreshed parts, the 7970 would have to compare to the 5870 which it almost doubled the performance from. 300$ 4870, 380$ 5870, 550$ 7970 a return to ''normal things'' sorry if it did harm your eyes to the point you couldn'T stop remembering everyone about the 4870 SO bad PRICING and hoping they kepp it for the radeon 7970 BECAUSE when you make a mistake you cannot go back to normal after HEY? Without having some fanboys freaking out, HEY?
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    I don't need to refute anything, I'm a fan of "whatever is better" and Nvidia products are consistently better at meeting my needs and expectations.

    As much as I'd love to go over all of that with you, I'm sure its just a huge waste of time, but needless to say some people don't just look at FPS charts and sticker prices for buying guidance. Luckily for me however, Nvidia is still bound by this guidance in pricing their products, otherwise I might really be paying dearly for their parts. :)

    In any case, if you can't even admit 7970 pricing was far worst than GTX 280 pricing at launch, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. I won't even bother calling you a fanboy because honestly, it has nothing do with fanboyism and everything to do with intellect, or lack thereof. These really are very simple metrics that everyone should use to make an informed buying decision.

    Finally, you are right about the generational comparisons, but you can just as easily plug in the 5870 and see the 7970 is only 50% faster, ~40% faster than the 6970. Either way you can see the 7970 offers the worst increase in performance for the biggest increase in price of any new AMD or Nvidia generation or process in the last 10 years, and you really don't need to be a fanboy of either company to understand this. ;)
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    ''Calling someone an idiot isn't disrespectful when they continually demonstrate a low level of intelligence and continually argue from a position of ignorance. ''

    You're not even knowing me personally, english is not my main language and you tell me I have a low level of intelligence. Who got a choosen side, who's fit to speak of both side of the medal for having PERSONALLY experimenting with BOTH companies. I even apologized for calling you a fanboy in a harsh way and you have to push the insult farther.

    ''7970 offers the worst increase in performance for the biggest increase in price''

    That's right but that doesn't justify, compared to the competition OUT NOW, the reason to issue rebates like for the 4870 case that's all I meant from the freaking beginning... gosh it's hard. We just spoke why this is happening, AMD back in the 4870 days had to regain populatiry for being many years behind, WAY behind the pack. Right they could of priced it higher but THEY DIDN'T and good thing it put them back on the track, bad thing for now because they have to spike the prices back to normal, gosh...
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    ''5870 and see the 7970 is only 50% faster''

    Well that's a little more than that, I see from 40% to 110% faster but I'll go with your 50%, not bad considering that gtx 680 is 20-25% faster than gtx580....

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_...

    But we all know these comparisons are useless because people mostly upgrades jumping 2-3 generations, cept for heavy gamers but no need to speak or discuss for them, they already know what they want.
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    I guess it depends on what review you prefer but yes, even your own preferred review shows ~50% just as I stated. So 150% performance for 150% pricing, terrible I know.

    Also curious as to why you single out 680 performance over GTX 580, certainly 120-125% performance for 100% of the price is better than what AMD was asking....112% of the performance for 110% of the price.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link

    Wait wait, AMD's 7970 price at launch was bad, but the gtx 680 will keep it's price for a while. This was a TOCK in intel's language, usually giving a huge increase in performance over last gen. The 7970 was the worst increase of performance for the worst, but Nvidia's 20-25% improve over last gen is the worst ever in history improve in performance for a TOCK in history, not speaking about price wise, just increase in performance. They went TOCK gtx 480, tick gtx 580, tick gtx 680, and we can guess next one will be a TOCK with big improve in performance or another tick with a refresh of the 600 series. And add to that the series with an automatic overclock on all their cards, still it gave out 20-25% more than last gen.... Nothing amazing there either, sure the price seems better because it's the same than last gen. Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    Where did I call you an idiot? You took issue with my response to rarson, who fits my profile as someone who continuously ignores or is unable to understand some very simple concepts backed by mounds of evidence and historical data.

    Then he has the gall to question my ability to understand certain concepts? Of course I have trouble understanding opinions founded on stupidity. Unless you have the same problems, why would you take offense?
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    Here, I'll call him an idiot and a liar.
    He's an idiot and a liar.
    He's been one forever.
    It will never change.
    As least David's butt is smakc full of his lipstick, and poor Goliath is rich as can be and the one still standing and alive.
    I guess Galidou sucked too hard now David (amd) is almost dead.
    Poor Galidou, supporting the underdog under it's jockstrap just hasn't worked out at all.
    I have a feeling David's paramour might be a bit "upset" again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
    Did the idiot get anything correct ?
    Were his correction to his incorrect comments that he corrected not needed anyway since even after the corrections he issued to himself he was still wrong?
    I'll answer that.
    YES.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_...

    20% more performance than last gen for the same price one year and a half later isn't a big deal either. Sure you win on thermal and consumption constraints.

    You don't even know me personally and still you have to insult my intelligence, that's what fanboys do... and that's far worse than lacking of judgement in my opinion.

    I admit that AT LAUNCH the 7970 was worse than the gtx 280 compared to last gen parts but you have to consider what's coming out too. And we all know they have this kind of information, and estimation of the performance of the part for the price.

    So right, they should of priced 7970 400$ but that would of made another war with Nvidia(which already sued AMD for price fixing between them) so this price might just reflect the return to normal for both companies. No more 4870 BIG DEAL, back to normal, not because AMD want to price it BADLY because they have been sued to do so....
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    You get the first shot on new technology, you price it higher, you lower the price when the new stuff comes out. Same laws for both companies. 4870 was an unknown mistake, the chip wasn't out and the preliminary tests showed it performing way less than when it launched.

    It was a precipitated launch. Prices had been fixed WAY before the final product. With drivers enhancements and such the 4870 performed WAY above what AMD was hoping for, it was a surprise to them. They couldn't play too much with the price because it was already out in the medias for a while. Shit happens, they have been sued for being lucky with their final products for price fixin and next gen cards AHD to go up in prices breaking the amazing deal they sold for.
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    "I admit that AT LAUNCH the 7970 was worse than the gtx 280 compared to last gen parts but you have to consider what's coming out too."

    Finally, now was that so hard?
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Worst increase in performance, not, gtx 680 is 20-25% average faster than gtx 580. Biggest increase in price, sure but do you know anything about price fixing between AMD and Nvidia, yep, the prices are fixed by both companies.

    Even if they were sued just before the days of radeon 4870 and gtx 280(thus explaining in part why the price of the 4870 wasn't adjusted to Nvidia because they were forbid to and were being checked) they continue to do that.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    While speaking about all that, pricing of the 4870 and 7970 do you really know everything around that, because it seems not when you are arguing, you just seem to put everything on the shoulder of a company not knowing any of the background.

    Do you know the price of the 4870 was already decided and it was in correlation with Nvidia's 9000 series performance. That the 4870 was supposed to compete against 400$ cards and not win and the 4850 supposed to compete against 300$ series card and not win. You heard right, the 9k series, not the GTX 2xx.

    The results even just before the coming out of the cards were already ''known''. The real things were quite different with the final product and last drivers enhancements. The performance of the card was actually a surprise, AMD never thought it was supposed to compete against the gtx 280, because they already knew the performance of the latter and that it was ''unnaittanable'' considering the size of the thing. Life is full of surprise you know.

    Do you know that after that, Nvidia sued AMD/ATI for price fixing asking for more communications between launch and less ''surprises''. Yes, they SUED them because they had a nice surprise... AMD couldn't play with prices too much because they were already published by the media and it was not supposed to compete against gtx2xx series. They had hoped that at 300$ it would ''compete'' against the gtx260 and not win against i thus justifying the price of the things at launch. And here you are saying it's a mistake launching insults at me, telling me I have a low intelligence and showing you're a know it all....

    Do you know that this price fixing obligation is the result of the pricing of the 7970, I bet AMD would of loved to price the latter at 400$ and could do it but it would of resulted in another war and more suing from Nvidia that wanted to price it's gtx 680 500$ 3 month after so to not break their consumers joy, they communicate A LOT more than before so everyone is happy, except now it hurts AMD because you compare to last gen and it makes things seems less of a deal. But with things back to normal we will be able to compare last gen after the refreshed radeon 7xxx parts and new gen after that.

    Nvidia the ''giant'' suing companies on the limit of ''extinction'', nice image indeed. Imagine the rich bankers starting to sue people in the streets, and they are the one you defend so vigorously. If they are that rich, do you rightly think the gtx 280 was well priced even considering it was double the last generation... It just means one thing, they could sell their card for less money but instead they sue the other company to take more money from our pockets, nice image.... very nice..... But that doesn't mean I won't buy an Nvidia card, I just won't defend them as vigorously as you do.... For every Goliath, we need a David, and I prefer David over Goliath.... even if I admire the strenght of the latter....
    Reply
  • Galidou - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    I was wrong, Nvidia didn't sue over AMD, both companies were sued for price fixing but things are back now, anyway all this stuff is taking way too much of my time, you have your way of seeing things as facts, I have my way of seeing things as my opinion, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're so much more intelligent than me and I don't care about the ultimate truth as I don't beleive in such a thing.

    Being sued back in 2008 in the times they were working on gtx2xx and 4870 series might explain the lack of information on each others and the reason why they couldn'T play with the price once they knew the surprise. They were probably forbid to adjust price based on each other performance for the benefit of the consumer. But the surprise of that SO small chip performing sometimes better than a gpu 110% bigger was a real shock for the small company.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - link

    You truly are an estrogen doused total licker bleeding red that no tamp can ever stop.
    Thanks for the pathetic entertainment.
    Now you may whine some more in your sensitive little girl voice.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link

    Wow, chizow's acolyte is back. I guess it's his troll name and when he can'T stand it anymore he logs with CeriseCogburn to insult people so he Chizow's name remain clean.

    Who's whining, when I read you, it seems that's all you can do whine whine whine.... read everything you ever wrote in the last 6 months and that's ALL you do insulting people and whining.... look in the mirror dude.
    Reply
  • Galidou - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link

    Whenever I see CeriseCogburn commenting, Chizow is not, and vice versa....

    If you never heard about price fixing, sorry for you but it's a fact, THAT is a fact, people don't have to beleive in that, it's happening right now and always has been and beleive me it will continue, because almost every company in the world is greedy even if it means communicating with the competition to maximize profit....
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    Gal, you silly gal, Chizow knows a lot more than I do, but I'll say this, you're an insane and incorrect amd fanboy of the worst kind.
    I hope david's butt remains a delicacy to you, even after the corpse is buried, which is, by the way, to happen, very soon.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    Galidou, you win NOTHING for being a lying sack, then whining when someone is so sick of your complete bs, they offend your idiot retarded estrogen doused amd licking being because they aren't a sick lying gasbag biased amd pig.
    Glad that religious Bible story has you kissing david amd's tokus furiously though, as that surely commands respect.
    LOL
    NOT !
    Oh, were you insulted ?
    Let's hope so, because of course, you tell so many lies, it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to not be insulted.
    Reply
  • rarson - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    AMD's pricing doesn't need to be defended because anyone with a grasp of basic economics can easily understand why they priced them the way they did. That's why most people are ignoring your inane and mind-bogglingly stupid comments.

    "How do you feel now about those $550, $450, and $350 pricepoints you so vigorously defended when the 7970/7950/7870 launched?"

    Absolutely fine, dumbass, because it's September now. Duh.

    "So just as I asked then"

    Nobody cares, dude. Go fanboy somewhere else.
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    Yes anyone with a basic grasp of economics would never have defended the worst increase in price and performance in the last decade and then be OK with the biggest price drop in the least amount of time within the same generation. AMD now holds the notorious distinction for both and their fanboys (like you) get to suffer the consequences.

    How much did the GTX 580 cost 15 months after release? $500 still dumbass, duh, now go fanboy somewhere else? Parts like this don't lose their value unless they suck, or their pricing sucks, or both, but obviously you're too oblivious or stupid to realize this, or maybe you're just accustomed to it as an AMD fan.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    You're an idiot.
    AMD cost me plenty, and I will NEVER fall for your stupid amd lies, ever again.
    Reply
  • Klimax - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    A thing: Dirt Showdown is AMD game using DC codepath optimised ONLY for Radeons severly penalising nVidia's cards. It is not valid for any comparsions.
    (At least not with that option enabled)
    Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Just wondered if there was any news about price drops for higher-end SKUs. It becomes more obvious with every newly released SKU that the original asking prices from both AMD and Nvidia on 28nm parts were far too high. $350 for a 7870 looks like a complete debacle at this point given a $229 part outperforms it just a few months later.

    Also it looks like the Summer 2012 GPU pricing chart needs to be adjusted for the GTX 660 (it shows $239).

    Thanks for the commentary on page 3 about Nvidia's Competition. Much like Intel, they still need to compete with themselves to entice owners of their previous products to upgrade. I'm glad someone else gets it, its pretty obvious Nvidia does as well. I guess they heard the complaints of all their enthusiasts when asking $500 flagship dollars for a part based on a midrange ASIC.
    Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    A couple months?

    HD7850 - $249 March 3, 2012
    HD7870 - $349 March 3, 2012

    GTX660 - $229 September 13, 2012

    It's been 7 months.

    Someone who bought an HD7850 and OCed it enjoyed ~ GTX580 / HD7950 level of performance for 7 months now. Using the same exact logic you have just outlined, then we should recommend people to wait 7 more months for HD8000 series and skip GTX660 because for them the 660 would be an "early adopter" premium vs. HD8870. See how illogical your comment is?

    GPUs often drop in price over time as the generation goes on.

    Interesting how GTX280 for $649 and GTX260 $399 weren't a problem for you.
    Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Except we've already covered this pricing debacle months ago, pretty sure you were onboard then, what happened since then?

    The 7870 was already vastly overpriced because it offered 6970/GTX 570 at.....6970 and GTX 570 prices. Parts that were already widely available for at least 20 months prior to the 7870's launch at the exact same prices. Anyone who already had that performance level would have no incentive to sidegrade to a 7870 at that pricepoint.

    What is obvious now as it was then is that there was no movement in terms of price:performance that you would expect from a new generation, the metric didn't shift at all for 28nm until Kepler launched. Now that Kepler has finally trickled down to this performance level, its that much more clear. Bringing your 8870 argument into the fold, I wouldn't agree with that view either as I would expect the 8870 to offer more performance at a lower pricepoint, not the same performance at the same price as is the case with the 7870 at launch.

    I don't know why you're trying to defend AMD's horrid 28nm pricing but the fact of the matter is, the current pricing structure is really what 28nm should have been from the outset, anyone who bought in March and didn't actually need a new GPU is undoubtedly feeling the burn of all the recent price drops, but hey, at least its not as bad as Facebook's IPO?

    And no, GTX 260/280 weren't a problem for me because the difference is with those parts, the performance justified the premium relative to the last generation of cards (8800GT/GTX). This generation clearly does not adhere to those same expectations, which again, is a view I'm pretty sure you were onboard with months ago. What Nvidia didn't expect was for AMD to lowball them so much on a certain performance level, something AMD has clearly worked to remedy with each successive generation with their increases in asking prices for their 1st and 2nd tier single-GPU SKUs.
    Reply
  • raghu78 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Without competition there is no reason for lower pricing. Do you think Nvidia would have cut prices on the GTX 280 if the HD 4870 was not a fantastic performer at less than half the launch price of GTX 280. AMD made Nvidia look silly with their price / performance. Without competition you can see Intel dictate pricing in the CPU market. are you so naive that you believe any company will willingly give away profits and margins when there is no competition.You only need to look back when Nvidia milked the market with its Geforce 8800 Ultra because AMD flopped with R600 aka HD 2900XT. 850 bucks for a single GPU card.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Sorry I can't fully agree with that statement. As the article mentions, industry leaders must still compete with themselves in order to continue moving product. For years Intel has continued to excel and innovate without any real competition from AMD but now they are starting to feel the hit to their sales as their pace of innovation has slowed in recent years.

    AMD made a mistake with their 4870 pricing, they went for market share rather than margins and admitted as much in the RV770 Story here on Anandtech. But all they have to show for that effort is quarter after quarter and year after year of unprofitability. They've since done their best to reverse their fortunes by continuously increasing the asking prices on their top tier SKUs, they chose an incredibly poor time to step into "Nvidia Flagship" pricing territory with Tahiti.

    If anything, Tahiti's lackluster performance and high price tag relative to 40nm parts enabled Nvidia to offer their midrange ASIC (GK104) as a flagship part. Only now has the market begun to correct itself as it became clear the asking price on 28nm could not justify the asking prices as the differences in performance between 28nm and 40nm parts became indistinguishable. And who led that charge? Nvidia with Kepler. AMD simply piggy-backed price and performance of 40nm which is why you see the huge drops in MSRP since launch for AMD parts.

    Bringing the discussion full circle, Nvidia knows full well they are competing with themselves even if you take AMD out of the picture, which is why they compare the GTX 660 to the GTX 460 and 8800GT. They fully understand they need to offer compelling increases in performance at the same price points, or the same performance at much cheaper prices (GTX 660 compared to GTX 570) or there is no incentive for their users to upgrade.
    Reply
  • Ananke - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Today's AMD prices are so-so OK, especially considering the street prices and bundles.
    This GTX660 is priced a little too high, this should've been the GTX670 launch price. The 660 is worth to me around $189 today. I don't understand why people pay premium fro the name. I understand that you may want better driver support under Linux, but for the Windows gamer there is no reason.

    The AMD 7870 is still better buy for the money today.

    While many people with very old hardware may jump in at this price level, I will pass and wait for the AMD8xxx series. We are almost there :).

    The last two years have been very disappointing in the hardware arena. :(
    Reply
  • rarson - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Yeah, "we've been over this before." Back then you didn't get it, and you still don't because you're not examining the situation critically and making a rational argument, you're just posting fanboy nonsense. AMD's 28nm parts were expensive because:

    1. They were the first 28nm parts available.
    2. 28nm process was expensive (even Nvidia admits that the cost to shrink has been higher and slower-ramping than previous shrinks).
    3. Wafers were constrained (SoC manufacturers were starting to compete for wafers; this is additional demand that AMD and Nvidia didn't usually have to compete for).
    4. When you have limited supply and you want to make money, which is the entire point of running a business, then you have to price higher to avoid running out of stock too quickly and sitting around with your thumb up your ass waiting for supply to return before you can sell anything. That's exactly what happened when Nvidia launched the 680. Stock was nonexistent for months.

    The fact of the matter is that pricing is determined by a lot more things than just performance and you refuse to accept this. That is why you do not run a business.
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    And once again, you're ignoring historical facts and pricing metrics from the exact same IHVs and fab (TSMC):

    1) 28nm offered the lowest increase in price and performance of any previous generation in the last 10 years. To break this down for you, if what you said was actually true about new processes (its not), then 28nm increase in performance would've been the expected 50-100% increase you would expect from 100% of the asking price relative to previous generation. Except it wasn't, it was only 30-40% for 100% of the price relative to Nvidia's parts, and in AMD's case, it was more like +50% for 150% of the asking price compared to last-gen AMD parts. That is clearly asking more for less relative to last-gen parts.

    2) Getting into the economics of each wafer, Nvidia would've been able to offset any wafer constraints due to the fact GK104's midrange ASIC size was *MUCH* smaller at ~300mm^2 compared to the usual 500mm^2 from their typical flagship ASICs. This clearly manifested itself in Nvidia's last 2 quarters since GK104 launched where they've enjoyed much higher than usual profit margins. So once again, even if they had the same number of wafer's allocated at 28nm launch as they did at 40nm or 55nm or 65nm, they would still have more chips per wafer. So yes, while the 680 was supply constrained (artificial, imo), the subsequent 670, 660Ti and 660 launches clearly did not.

    3) Its obvious you're not much of an economist, financier, hell, even good with simple arithmetic, so stop trying to play armchair CEO. Here are the facts: AMD cards have lost 30-40% of their value in the last 3-4 months, all because Kepler has rebalanced the market to where it should've been from the outset. If that sounds reasonable to you then you probably consider Facebook's IPO a resounding success.

    4) Tahiti parts were a terrible purchase at launch and only now are they even palatable after 3 significant price drops forced by the launch of their Kepler counterparts. The answer to why they were a terribl purchase is obvious. They offered too little improvement for similar asking prices relative to 40nm parts. Who in their right mind would defend a 7870 offering GTX 570 performance at GTX 570 prices some 20 months after the 570 launched? Oh right, Rarson would....
    Reply
  • rarson - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    1. There's no such thing as "pricing metrics." Prices are NOT determined by past prices! You are a such a moron. THESE ARE NEW PARTS! They use a NEW PROCESS! They cost more! GET OVER IT!

    2. "Getting into the economics of each wafer"

    You are not allowed to talk about economics. You have already aptly demonstrated that you don't have a clue when it comes to economics. So any time you use the word, I'm automatically ignoring everything that comes after it.

    3. Everything you said next to the number 3 has absolutely nothing to do with my comment and isn't even factually correct.

    4. Everything you said next to the number 4 has absolutely nothing to do with my comment and isn't even factually correct.
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    1. Nonsense, you obviously have no background in business or economics, EVERYTHING has pricing metrics for valuation or basis purposes. What do you think the stock markets, cost and financial accounting fundamentals are based upon? Valuation that predominantly uses historical data and performance numbers for forward looking performance EXPECTATIONS. Seriously, just stop typing, every line you type just demonstrates the stupidity behind your thought processes.

    2. Sounds like deflection, you brought fab process pricing into the mix, the fact remains Nvidia can crank out almost 4x as many GK104 for each GF100/110 chip from a single TSMC 300mm wafer (this is just simple arithmetic, which I know you suck at) and their margins have clearly demonstrated this (this is on their financial statements, which I know you don't understand). Whatever increase in cost from 28nm is surely offset by this fact in my favor (once again demonstrated by Nvidia's increased margins from Kepler).

    3 and 4 are factually correct even though they have nothing to do with your inane remarks, just run the numbers. Or maybe that's part of the problem, since you still seem to think GTX 570/6970 performance at GTX 570/6970 prices some 18 months later is some phenomenal deal that everyone should sidegrade to.

    Fact: AMD tried to sell their new 28nm cards at 100% of the performance and 100% of the price of existing 40nm parts that had been on the market for 15-18 months. These parts lost ~30% of their value in the subsequent 6 months since Kepler launched. Anyone who could not see this happening deserved everything they got, congratulations Rarson. :)
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    Only he didn't get anything. He was looking to scrape together a 6850 a few weeks back. Reply
  • MySchizoBuddy - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    So nvidia choose not to compare the 660 with 560 but with 460. Why is that? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I would have to assume because the 660 would be so close to the 560 in performance, and because very few mainstream gamers are on a 1-year upgrade cycle. If you picked up a 560 in 2011 you've very unlikely to grab a 660 in 2012. Reply
  • MySchizoBuddy - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    If i'm a new buyer buying the older 560 at a reduced cost both be a better buy correct? Reply
  • Fiercé - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    While I may be in the minority, I actually check the "The Test" page of every GPU review in order to see which driver version is being used to test the hardware, as well as to get a quick mental list of 2 or 3 GPUs to watch out for in the FPS comparisons.

    Due to this I've noticed for this GPU review many cards are listed that don't appear anywhere in the benchmarks:
    -AMD Radeon HD 6970
    -AMD Radeon HD 7950B (explicitly stated over a non-B)
    -AMD Radeon HD 7970
    -NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570
    -NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

    (Excepting all the GTX 660 Ti that of course can't be re-tested in time for a launch review, but might be useful as a "factory overclocked options" list for a reader looking at base 660 Ti performance.)
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the heads up. I had copied that out of the GTX 660 Ti article and had not yet edited it. It has been fixed. Reply
  • Fiercé - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Cheers. Reply
  • Jamahl - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    That has the 660 faster than the 7870. Most reputable sites have the card squarely in-between the Pitcairns. Reply
  • Rick83 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    It appears to me, that we should be glad, that the jump in performance is that low, as finally it seems the power wars of the last generation, when cards were dumping 200 Watts and more into your case, even when they were just higher mid-end cards, are over.
    Now of course that means we get slightly less of a performance boost, but at least power consumption of this card is below the level of a GTX260. That is important, as the 560Ti was relatively quite power hungry, especially once the wick on them was turned up a bit, which was being done quite liberally.
    While the Performance/Dollar metric isn't that great, the performance/(dollar*power) is probably much better than last gen.
    Reply
  • n9ntje - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    As everyone said it, nVidia is again late to the party. However, both (amd and nV) haven't done anything to improve the price/performance. First the $100 price range, now the 200?

    I'm sorry but since I bought my HD5750 almost 3 years(!) ago for 100 bucks. I dont get much more performance with a similair priced card. Now they are doing it the same to the 200 dollar cards..
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    Welcome to the new socialist economy and 4 more years of it.
    Computer prices rise in the new socialist economy.
    LOL
    It's great, maybe AMD will get a bailout soon.
    Reply
  • thorr2 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I saw the big image on the main page and thought it was a projector at first. Reply
  • cmdrdredd - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Performance is not bad but the pricing is still too high. Start overclocking a 7870 and the 660 looks bad imo. Reply
  • Margalus - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    you say the stock 660 looks bad when compared to an overclocked 7870? what a shock that is!

    I guess it's always fair to say an nvidia card is bad when comparing the stock reference nv card to overclocked versions of it's nearest amd competitor..
    Reply
  • Patflute - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Be fair and over clock both... Reply
  • poohbear - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    well after reading this im still have with my Gigabyte OC gtx 670 i got 2 months ago for $388. I will NOT be upgrading for 3 years & im confident my GTX 670 will still be in the upper segment in 3 years (like my 5870 that i upgraded from), so @ $130/yr its a great deal. Reply
  • poohbear - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    erm, i meant i'm still happy*. sucks that u can't edit on these comments.:p Reply
  • KineticHummus - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    i had no idea what you meant with your "im still happy" edit until I went back to read your original statement again. somehow I mentally replaced the "have" with "happy" lol. reading fail for me... Reply
  • distinctively - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Looks like the 660 is getting a nasty little spanking from the 7870 when you look around at all the reviews. The GK 106 appears to loose in just about every metric compared to Pitcairn. Reply
  • Locateneil - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I just built a PC with 3770K and Asus Z77-v Pro, I was think to buy GTX 670 for my system but now I am now confused if it is better to go with 2 GTX 660 in SLI? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Our advice has always been to prefer a single more powerful card over a pair of weaker cards in SLI. SLI is a great mechanism to extend performance beyond what a single card can provide, but its inconsistent performance and inherent drawbacks (need for SLI profiles and microstuttering) means that it's not a good solution for when you can have a single, more powerful GPU. Reply
  • knghtwhosaysni - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Do you guys think you could show frametimes like techreport does in your reviews? It can show some deficiencies in rendering that average FPS doesn't, like with Crysis 2 http://techreport.com/review/23527/nvidia-geforce-...

    It's nice that techreport does it, but I think Anandtech is the first stop for a lot of people who are looking for benchmarks, and I think if you guys showed this data in your own reviews then it would really push AMD and Nvidia to iron out their latency spike problems.
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    We get asked this a lot. I really like Scott's methodology there, so if we were to do this I'd want to do more than just copy him by finding some way to do better than him (which is no easy task).

    To that end I find FRAPS to be at a higher level than I'd like. It's measuring when frames are handed off to the GPU rather than when the GPU actually finishes the frame. These times are strongly correlated, but I'd rather have more definitive low-level data from the GPU itself. If we could pull that off then frametimes are definitely something we'd look in to.
    Reply
  • Amgal - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    A little off topic, but does anandtech have an article explaining TU's, SMXes, ROPs, shader clock, etc- basically explaining the new age graphics card architectures? I really enjoy their informative articles, and am having some trouble finding one on that area that isn't littered with incomprehensible computer science macroes. Thanks. Reply
  • pattycake0147 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    If the majority of cards available for sale have custom coolers, why are noise measurements taken for only the reference card? Especially when you've stated that you have custom cards in the lab. Reply
  • Jad77 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    but shouldn't AMD be releasing their next generation sometime soon? Reply
  • Patflute - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Months from now. Reply
  • rarson - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Can we please stop pretending that Nvidia's supply issues are anybody's fault but their own? Is it just a coincidence that Fermi and Kepler both were huge, horrible misfires or is it possible that Nvidia has struggled to design things that actually yield decently? Can we stop ignoring the fact that AMD has had an entire lineup of 28nm parts since March (you know, like 2 months before Kepler ever appeared in reasonable quantities)? Yeah, 28nm IS constrained, but other companies are still putting out parts. Nvidia can't put out parts because they have to throw them away. They're eating the wafers (they must be eating a lot of them if it took them this long to bring out a $300 part).

    I hope Nvidia can pull it together because at this rate, AMD's going to start launching a generation ahead of them (they already have all of the console business).
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    nVidia dropped it production purchased spots, so you amd fanboys could blow giant dollars on nearly unavailable amd crap overpriced crashing non pci-e3 gen compliant video card trash
    you did so
    Well not you, but you know what I mean
    Then nVidia released and 2 days before amd "magically" had supply in the channels.
    If you're too stupid to know that - well - sorry since it's obvious
    Then amd crashed it's prices 4 times, and amd fanboys were left raped
    Then amd fired 10% more and now 15% more
    I hope the amd golden parachutes for the criminal executives pleased you
    What's your guess on the amd buyout rumors ?
    My guess is that 3G of ram you fools tried to lie about having an advantage with the totaled and incapable gpu choking on dirt below it at frame rates no Skyrim player could possibly stand, won't be recieving "driver updates" for that "glorious future" when "new games" that "can make use of it" "become available" !
    right fan boy ?
    RIGHT
    LOL
    Have a nice cry, err I meant day.
    Reply
  • Lepton87 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    This card is obviously slower than 7870.

    http://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Twin_Frozr_I...

    Just look at performance summaries from other sites. But the most glaring flaw of this review is NOT comparing it to OC'ed AMD cards. After OC even 7850 is going to obliterate this overpriced card with almost no clock headroom.
    Reply
  • Lepton87 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Unfortunately Anandtech is playing favourites. It's the only site that I know that has somewhat decent reputation that just couldn't admit that 7970GE is simply a faster card than GTX680 and now this.... Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    Oh come on quarky, Crysis Warhead and Metro first on every review doesn't do it for you ?
    The alphabet here goes A for amd first, then C, the jumps to M, for amd , again and again.
    Why so sour, because amd is almost toast ?
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    100%, vs 103%, at a single resolution, the 1920x1200, when 1920x1080 shows another story, and the 7850 is down low at 85%.

    LOL - yeah amd fanboy, you sure are telling this amd fanboy site..

    Can we count how CRAPPY amd drivers are ? Can we count no adaptive v-sync on amd crap cards, can we count no 4 monitors out of the box on amd cards, can we count no auto overclocking, can we count amd slashing it's staff and driver writers aka catalusy maker issues ?
    Can we count any of that, or should we just count 3% ? LOL
    Oh wait fair and above it all amd fanboy, I know the answer...
    We will just count 3 more frames per 100 frame rate, at a single resolution, at your single link, and ignore everything else.
    LOL
    Thank you for your support.
    Reply
  • yeeeeman - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Really, G80 was a revolution on its own. Spectacular jump in performance compared to the previous generation, and combined with 65nm process technology gave birth to some of the finest video cards.
    The real setback here, is the fact that the gaming industry is driven by the lowest common denominator, and we all know that consoles are the most important. They are sold in the largest quantities, and most games are designed for their power, not higher.
    For PCs, games receive a DX11 treatment, with some fancy features, than enhance the quality a little bit, but it can never make up for the fact that the textures and the game is designed for a much slower platform.
    So given these facts, why change my 9600GT, when it can handle pretty much everything?
    Reply
  • steelnewfie - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    "For the 2GB GTX 660, NVIDIA has outfit the card with 8 2Gb memory modules"

    Should read outfitted.

    Also 8 2Gb memory modules? Did you mean 2GB? Either is incorrect by my math.

    If there are 8 banks should not each module be 256 MB?

    Otherwise, great articles, keep up the good work!
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Individual memory modules are labeled by their capacity in bits, not bytes. So each module is 2 gigabits (Gb), which is 256MB. 8x2Gb is how the card ends up with 2 gigabytes (GB) of RAM. Reply
  • MrBubbles - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Cool, I have a GTX 260 and since NVidia is deliberately breaking their driver support for games like Civ 5 I guess this is the card to get. Reply
  • saturn85 - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    nice folding@home benchmark. Reply
  • JWill97 - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link

    For me, I really think it's the best card you can buy at this price. Not a fan (neutral) of both NVidia or AMD, but really, at $200+ segment nvidia takes it. But I still wondering, why all reviewers aren't using Maxpayne3 as one of the game benchmark? A lot of cards would be struggle playing it. Reply
  • Grawbad - Friday, March 01, 2013 - link

    "NVIDIA has spent a lot of time in the past couple of years worrying about the 8800GT/9800GT in particular. “The only card that matters” was a massive hit for the company straight up through 2010, which has made it difficult to get users to upgrade even 4 years later."

    I am one of those. I purchased a 9800 GTX and that sucker runs everything. Mind you, all my other components were quality too so I didn't bottleneck myself. But this card has run everything I have ever thrown at it.. Only recently have I had to start watching the AA a bit. Which is why I am now, 5 years later in the market for a new card. 5 Years.

    Indeed, those cards were astounding.

    Mine was an EVGA 9800 GTX with a lifetime warranty. Thank goodness for that as it finally went out on me this year and I had to RMA it. And now that I am looking into getting a new card it seems EVGA has dropped their lifetime warranty. That makes me sad.

    Anyways, yeah, those were are are still great cards. I mean, if you picked up a 9800 GTX today, you will be able to run even the newest games. Albeit youll need to turn down aa and such, but you can still get GREAT graphics out of most anything even today.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now